normanchateau

I wonder why Elizabeth May would invite a slimy politician with Blair Wilson's legal and financial problems into her party. It could result in a decline in the Green vote Canada-wide. I expect Wilson's seat will go to the Conservatives but nation-wide, the Liberals may pick up votes from the Greens.

I think it's safe to assume that Harper is not responsible for THIS slime.

Along with most Canadians, I must have been either unconscious or in an altered state of consciousness. Paul Martin was Prime Minister then. Good thing that we got rid of the Yankee-loving cad. :angry:

Except of course when Harper was in opposition. Then whistle blowing by a government employee was honourable and noble.

Good news for Dion as well. MP Blair Wilson was told by the Liberals that he could not run for the Liberal nomination because of his personal, legal and financial troubles. Dion must be relieved that he's rid of Blair Wilson. Dion needed Blair Wilson like Harper needed Garth Turner.

So let me understand the logic. You agree that Harper is a social conservative with anti-libertarian policies which you oppose but you see no choice but to vote for him because of the sponsorship scandal. The sponsorship scandal arose out of the 1995 Quebec referendum and resulted in millions of federal funds being wasted and/or stolen in Quebec between 1997 and 2001 to boost support for federalism. Which of Canada's current MPs have been implicated in the sponsorship scandal? My current MP was in the cabinet of the provincial government before she ran successfully for the Liberals in the last federal election. Should I not vote for her because of what happened in the 1990's before she joined the federal party? Do you think that if Stephane Dion or any current Liberal MP was implicated in the sponsorship scandal that the Conservatives would withhold this information from the Canadian public? I'm not at all surprised that people with Harper-like views support Harper. But I am surprised that anyone who has a problem with Harper's social conservatism and anti-libertarianism and out-of-control spending spree would feel that they have no choice but to vote for him because of what happened in the 90's. How socially regressive and financially irresponsible would potential leaders of the Conservatives have to be before you felt that they did not deserve your vote?

Ironically, Harper's government is dramatically increasing their spending and has done so in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Saving money does not appear to be high on their agenda. Their cuts tend to be symbolic rather than substantial. The increases are substantial. For example, last year's budget promised another four billion to Quebec in 2008 in transfer payments. The rest of Canada is paying dearly for Harper's futile attempt to move to second place in the polls in Quebec.

Let's face it. Stephane Dion is leader because the two front runners, Rae and Ignatieff split the vote. Similarly, Canada is stuck with Harper because the 65% of Canadians who oppose right wing social conservatives split their vote between four different political parties. I'm looking forward to this election as it can ultimately only lead to improvement for Canada one way or another. Even Harper acknowledges that the best he can hope for is a minority government with an increase in CPC MPs. Should that happen, I don't anticipate Dion will remain long as opposition leader. Whoever replaces him will certainly defeat Harper in the subsequent election. The alternative most likely outcome is a minority government lead by Dion. Should that happen, I don't expect that CPC support for Harper will be long-lasting except among the religious right. Harper will slither back to the National Citizens' Coalition or the like. CPC will pick a fiscally conservative social moderate who will defeat Dion in the subsequent election.

They certainly are more deserving than Sikh-Canadians for reasons which I stated previously. Why do you suppose Harper publicly apologized to Sikhs but not Jews? On what noble principle was he operating?

I agree that all parties do this as an election approaches but Harper was a big spender from day one. Look at his 2006 budget. Look at his 2007 budget. Surely every act of reckless spending can't be attributed to a minority government. Each of the Stephen Harper budgets have far exceeded the budget of the minority Paul Martin government.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ritz is facing criticism from a former star Conservative candidate. Allan Cutler, who was praised by Conservatives for blowing the whistle on the sponsorship scandal, says he is shocked and offended by the Harper government's decision to fire a CFIA biologist last month. Mr. Cutler...received a hero's welcome when he joined the Tory ranks in November, 2005. Mr. Cutler is criticizing Mr. Ritz for praising an employee who identified biologist Luc Pomerleau as the source of a politically embarrassing leak. Mr. Pomerleau sent his union a document outlining CFIA plans to transfer some meat-inspection duties to industry. "We at Canadians for Accountability, a group founded to promote accountability and support whistleblowers, were shocked and offended. Many of us are whistleblowers ourselves," wrote Mr. Cutler. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...TOCK26/TPStory/ Apparently the flipflopping Harper has forgotten that he once promoted accountability and supported whistleblowers.

Laying off meat inspectors is old news. Last spring, a Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) scientist released a confidential document that the government would lay off certain meat inspectors and leave it to producers to inspect their own meat. Harper responded to this by having the scientist fired. Harper does not like whistle blowers though as leader of the opposition, he loved them. Remember Allan Cutler? Whether or not you remember him, you'll like what whistle blower and former Conservative candidate Allan Cutler has to say about Harper's firing of the CFIA scientist: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...TOCK26/TPStory/ You can be certain now that Harper won't dare act upon the recommendations of the confidential document. He or one of his lackies will now claim that they never planned to act upon them.

That's right. The PCs were neither fiscal conservatives nor social conservatives. By contrast, CPC under Harper are merely not fiscal conservatives. Here's an excerpt from today's Vancouver Sun: In a news release last Friday, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation accused Flaherty of going on "a spending binge." It noted Ottawa's June expenditures grew by 11.1 per cent. The federation recalled that, in the first three months of the fiscal year, program spending was up by 8.4 per cent. This, when the current budget is calling for annual spending growth of no more than 3.4 per cent. "Many Canadians were encouraged by the Conservatives' apparent new restraint shown in their third budget that limited spending growth," remarked John Williamson, federation director. "Well, so much for that. In the first three months, spending is instead up two-and-a-half times what these so-called fiscally responsible Conservatives in Ottawa budgeted it to be." Williamson says he no longer has confidence in the Harper government's pledge to limit spending growth to 3.4 per cent: "They've proven throughout their term in office that they can't stop themselves from spending." If history is anything to go by, he has a point. The Conservatives' 2006-07 budget pegged federal spending growth at 5.4 per cent. It came in at 7.5 per cent. The 2007-08 budget plan announced a 5.6-per-cent hike. It came in at 6.9 per cent. Source: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/ed...c0-4fffb4e7e842 What a shame that Harper has chosen to follow the discredited economic policies of Brian Mulroney rather than Preston Manning.

Stephen Harper "absolutely wants to call an election" this fall, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said after meeting with the Prime Minister on Friday, August 29th: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/29/...er-duceppe.html

Of all the creative ways in which Harper supporters defend his social conservatism, this is my favourite. Harper's proposed legislation wasn't serious, it was just a negotiating tactic... I suppose Harper's opposition to same sex marriage when he was leader of the Opposition wasn't serious either. And when he opposed Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals, that was just another negotiating tactic. His opposition to stem cell research...yet another negotiating tactic. And how about when Opposition Leader Harper announced in December, 2005 that he would not act on the Liberal's bill to decriminalize possession of small quantities of marijuana? When asked why he would saddle a student who is caught with a small amount of the substance with a permanent criminal record, Mr. Harper said "we believe we have to send a message" that these types of activities are unacceptable. Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/ So Harper merely pretends to be socially conservative as a negotiating tactic? What a great strategy to win a majority government.

Exactly. About 65% of Canadians are more socially progressive than the Conservatives. Ironically, even within the Conservative Party of Canada, Harper represents the social conservative wing of the party judging by how he has voted in the past. Given that the task of Conservatives is to capture some of those 65% of Canadians to win a majority, they might consider a social moderate as leader next time.

I'm certainly not claiming that Harper's actions are motivated by a desire to please McVety. I'm suggesting that since Harper and McVety have common values, Harper is more likely to act upon those values with a majority than a minority government. Astonishingly, Harper has already taken small steps in that direction. While arguably Section 120 of Bill C-10 is not actual censorship but merely denial of tax credits for certain sexually explicit films, it's one small step towards censorship. No wonder anti-pornography crusaders like Charles McVety support Bill C-10. And Harper's introduction of legislation requiring judges to impose a mandatory sentence of six months for a single marijuana plant suggests that he is willing to act, even with a minority government, in a way consistent with those values. I would guess that most intelligent Conservatives oppose this over-the-top if not absurd legislation. It's the sort of legislation one expects to emerge from the social conservative McVety wing of the Conservatives.

I don't even want to be friends with nonviolent, hateful religious fanatics...like this one: . http://www.maxpower.ca/wp-content/uploads/...rper_cowboy.jpg "And Lloyd Mackey, author of "The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper," says he understands why Harper stays quiet, even to sympathetic biographers such as himself. Mackey and other observers say Harper could suffer politically if he were more open in largely secular Canada, or publicly embraced the beliefs of his denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA). "If Harper came out and said those who don't know the Lord are `lost,' (that they) are doomed, he'd be held up to ridicule," said Bruce Foster, head of policy studies at Mount Royal College." Source: http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=14287 "McVety and others on the religious right are convinced that Harper is one of their own. “We’ve got a born-again prime minister,” trumpets David Mainse, the founder of Canada’s premier Christian talk show, 100 Huntley Street. They see him as an image-savvy evangelical who has been careful to keep his signals to them under the media radar, but they have no doubt his convictions run deep—so deep that only after he wins a majority will he dare translate the true colours of his faith into policies that could remake the fabric of the nation." Source: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/200...the-theocons/2/

"The question of whether the Canadian government should apologize for past injustices or alleged injustices committed against minorities has long been contentious. Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau took a firm stand on the issue when he stated that today's society could not be held responsible for all of the misdeeds of the past -- otherwise the list of demands would be endless. The position adopted by Trudeau began to erode, however, during the campaign prior to the 2006 federal election when an increasingly desperate Liberal Party sought to shore up its support in the Chinese community by promising to atone for the imposition of the head tax more than a century earlier. Not to be outdone, the Conservatives then made similar commitments. As Trudeau anticipated, the queue of those seeking redress of one kind or another has now become rather long." Source: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/ed...66-48b4a2928163 Trudeau got it right with his policy of no apologies and no financial compensation.

Harper's action of adding a police officer to each judicial advisory committee shows contempt for our judicial system. What next - adding clergymen, providing they are not of liberal bent, to each committee?

Certainly he is their greatest weakness but I don't see how he is their greatest strength. He won the leadership contest only because he was running against the unimpressive Tony Clement and the unproven Belinda Emerson. Had their actually been some high quality candidates in that leadership race, Canada might today have a CPC majority government. It can still happen but only if there's a new leader at the CPC helm.

I think the Harperites should be called the SC's, the Social Conservatives. Their out-of-control spending since gaining power is not remotely fiscally conservative.

Quite the reversal in position but acknowledgment that the Harper Conservatives are spending like drunken sailors.

In 1939, Canada also declared war on Germany independently of Britain: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/canadian_tourism/47472

So are you advocating Canada's complete disarmament? If you view any reduction in military spending as "good", I assume you'd want to reduce it to zero.