normanchateau

Thank you for acknowledging that Trudeau spent a greater percentage of Canada's GDP and a greater percentage of federal expenditures on military spending than either Mulroney or Harper. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=141640

It would be difficult to argue against the notion that major federal parties are determined to court the immigrant vote.

Agreed

I'm not claiming his opponents have stellar leadership skills. However, Harper's leadership skills are not of much help to his party given that most Canadians are centrists. Harper got elected because Canadians were angry with the Liberals, not because Canadians suddenly embraced social conservatism. Harper remains lower in most polls today than when he won the election in January, 2006. That he can't rise much higher than Dion, despite the advantages of incumbency and the greatest increase in federal spending in the history of Canada, does not bode well for Harper as leader.

Let's put this in perspective. Under Chretien, Canada spent 1.0% of GDP on military spending versus 1.2% under Harper. Under Trudeau, it was 2.0%. Even as a function of % federal government expenditures on military spending, Trudeau far outspent Harper, Mulroney and Chretien: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=141640

Harper introduced legislation a few months ago requiring judges to impose six month mandatory jail sentences for one marijuana plant: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...5ed&k=72082 However, a majority of Canadians support the legalization of marijuana (Angus-Reid, 2007): http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300

Harper seems unable to decide how to deal with homophobic comments and to what extent they're inappropriate. When he himself made them, he viewed a subsequent apology as sufficient. When Larry Spencer made homophobic comments and then apologized for them, Harper asked for Spencer's resignation. So now Harper needs to decide if Lukiwksi will be treated like Spencer or if he'll just accept that if he could get away with it, so can Lukiwski. Harper knows that racist and sexist comments are totally unacceptable but homophobic comments are merely politically incorrect.

It will be difficult for Harper to do anything other than protect him. When Harper himself made homophobic comments in the House of Commons, he subsequently apologized and considered the case closed: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/10/23/...act_021023.html

These are arguments against any hate crime legislation. However, Harper does not oppose hate crime legislation when it's based on religion, race or ethnicity. If he opposed all hate crime legislation, he'd merely be taking the libertarian position. But he specifically opposed hate crime legislation in reference to lesbians and gays.

Tommy Douglas advocated these views in 1933. After a trip to Nazi Germany in 1938, he rejected his former views on eugenics. If Harper now favours C-250 and lesbians marrying, he's been very quiet about it. Then again, he's been very quiet about the religious motives on which some of his actions are based: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...96-76f3db32808e

http://www.trendlines.ca/electcanada.htm

Dictators do tend to create such jobs.

The opposition might be wiser to focus on actual actions and not mere words. I'd rather they reminded Canadians that a mere four years ago Opposition Leader Harper and every single MP in his party voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of gays and lesbians. The legislation passed thanks to the Bloc, NDP and Liberals. Subsequently, Opposition Leader Harper attempted to prevent lesbians from obtaining Canadian legal rights to marry and as Prime Minister, he attempted, in December 2006, to take away their legal right to marry. Because he doesn't yet have a majority, he was on the losing side in each of these actions. Actions speak louder than words.

Apparently you don't think that a mandatory jail sentence of six months for one marijuana plant falls into that category. Some would argue that it's dictatorial to remove a judge's ability to decide that one marijuana plant deserves only five months in jail, or horrors, even less. Does the authoritarian so-con Harper really want to model Canada after the US which has a higher percentage of it's citizens in jail than any other country in the world? More than 1% of all Americans are now behind bars, primarily for drug offenses. There is not enough jail space to incarcerate those people who will now have to serve time under Harper's dictatorial new legislation: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...5ed&k=72082

Harper is responsible for choosing to give a vastly disproportionate amount of money to Quebec. That's why Duceppe voted for the budget. Other provinces got shortchanged, e.g., http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/2007/03/b...ote-buying.html And Charest used the billions from the free-spending Harper to reduce Quebec provincial income taxes in 2007. The reduction of provincial income taxes in Quebec, a province which richly subsidizes day care, was entirely at the expense of the rest of Canada. Rather than squandering a multibillion surplus on gifts to Quebec, why not lower marginal income tax rates? That would have been the prudent and fiscally conservative course of action.

"Canadians also overwhelming want Prime Minister Stephen Harper to push harder for Martin's release. The Angus Reid survey found 71 per cent of Canadians want Harper to get personally involved in Martin's case and press for her release on humanitarian grounds. Harper's office has still refused to confirm or deny whether he has called Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Martin's behalf. Mario Canseco, director of global studies for pollster Angus Reid, said the secrecy is undermining the public's faith in the prime minister. "This is typical of the way this government has been behaving," Canseco said. "They have this idea that the less they talk to reporters, the better they will appear in the media." Source: http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/s...c1127&k=285 The other 29% of Canadians seem to be disproportionately represented on this website.

I've still not heard any Conservative apologist rationalize the utter lack of financial conservatism in their previous budgets. Here's one rationalization you probably won't hear acknowledged: Buying votes in Quebec (what Duceppe called addressing the fiscal imbalance) costs the rest of Canada billions.

Monte Solberg. The 2007 immigration target was a 5.2% increase over the 2006 target according to Finley's predecessor: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...464&k=65299

Immigration Minister Diane Finley: "We have to make it easier to get more people here faster."

TD Bank's latest economic projections see the government suffering a $1.1-billion shortfall in the 2009-10 fiscal year, rather than the $1.3-billion surplus projected in the recent budget. That would also be down from what the government projects will be a $2.3-billion surplus in the 2008-09 fiscal year, which begins Tuesday. Dale Orr, chief economist at Global Insight, called the growth in spending "grossly excessive." The continuing strong growth in government spending was criticized by Adam Taylor, national research director with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who noted "Canadians won't tolerate being told to tighten their belts when the government won't tighten its belt." However, Flaherty's communications director, Dan Miles, defended the surge in spending. Full story: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...70-e7213069bd54 Had Harper and Flaherty not shovelled annually recurring billions off the back of the truck in handouts to Quebec in 2007 and squandered the surplus by increased government spending in 2006 and 2007, we might not be facing a deficit in 2009. How do Harper apologists rationalize the utter lack of fiscal conservatism?

Sounds like you're a fiscal conservative and are therefore opposed to the fact that socon Harper's free-spending government has increased spending by more than any government in the history of Canada: http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php

"So we continue to protest this at every level, up to and including my own (recent) meeting with the president (of China). We will continue to vocalize these concerns." Stephen Harper in February, 2007 on the apprehension of an alleged Muslim terrorist who is a dual citizen of both China and Canada. March, 2008: "The prime minister's office has refused to confirm or deny whether Mr. Harper raised Ms. Martin's detention with the Mexican leader." Harper devotees apparently see no inconsistency in Harper's vocal support for the terrorist who retains Chinese citizenship versus a refusal to even comment on Brenda Martin. And if they do see an inconsistency, they can rationalize it away. No doubt they will also rationalize his latest blatant lack of transparency.

Hmmmm...seems like Harper has no problem interfering when a Canadian citizen who is apparently a Muslim terrorist is held by the Chinese: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories Why is an alleged Muslim terrorist more worthy than an alleged financial scammer?

Rational and therefore totally inconsistent with the policies of a socially conservative government.

Some Harper actions are Bush-like, some aren't. For example, Bush increased government spending more than any President in the history of the US. Similarly, Harper increased government spending more than any Prime Minister in the history of Canada: http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/03/fla...ig-spenders.php Bush has imprisoned a higher percentage of Americans for drug crimes than any President in the history of the US. Harper introduced legislation a few months ago that will require mandatory six month sentences for as little as one marijuana plant: http://mostlywater.org/six_months_jail_one...owing_marijuana