Nocrap

A reflection of Harper's distrust of the judicial system. Comments he himself made about judges lost him a few points in the last election and contributed to his loss of majority status. Expect to see more of these remarks from the CPC caucus. Just look at them. Great ammo for the pundits but sadly they now almost run our country.

When I said it was a campaign promise, I didn't mean that it was on his infamous list of priorities. It was only made in Quebec. Of course, he also promised Quebec voters that any elected CPC MP's in the province would be guaranteed a cabinet post. Hmmm....let's count them shall we? When I think of Harper's relationship with Quebec I'm reminded of an article in the National Citizens' Coalition's Bulldog magazine, when Mr. Harper was president. I'm going to try to find a link if it is on the web anywhere, but the words have stuck with me for sometime. The jest of the article was that we should not worry about distinct culture for Quebec since eventually 'ethnic cleansing' would sort the whole thing out. I had not heard the term 'ethnic cleansing' since the Nazi era, so it was a real wakeup call. Hope I can find it. As for the UNESCO thing, it's only throwing a bone to grab votes, and really does not mean much on the world stage. And who's to say the UN will even approve it?

Spot on but after the Martinizers bribed some of the public (those with day care fetishes) with the taxpayers money the Harperites couldn't just take it away - they had to come up with another way of dishing out goodies. The whole thing makes me sick. :angry: You know what? I actually agree in part, though I would never advocate cutting social programs, because we all benefit regardless of income. Hunger begets crime, and I don't need any in depth studies or statistics to show me this. I also believe that public health, education, crime and defense are vital needs, and should remain on the federal agenda. But perhaps a major tax cut ithat would result in more money in our pockets (and not just cleverly disguised cuts that give us only a couple of bucks) would not be such a bad thing. The baby bonus when it was first initiated, was to allow all children to be able to go to school. Many were unable to due to lack of clothing or a need to help out at home. We were right to scrap it and wrong to bring it back. Social programs should only be for those who need them and any tax credits SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCOME BASED!!!!. The rich don't need more money. And for those who don't believe that the rich should support the poor....remember...for the most part the poor support them. Working stiffs buy the goods that keep the economy moving and keep their companies going.

it was that only those who chose to hand their kids off to a third-party should get a government subsidy. This is exactly the problem. Harper and his gang of misfits are very clever at pitting Canadians against each other. The Bush administration does the exact same thing with the American public. Working parents against stay at home parents. Evangelists against Christians with both feet on the ground. Christians against non-Christians. Gays against Homo Phobes. I guess they believe that so long as we're fighting each other, we won't take a close look at what they're up to. The Liberals did offer a 'reward' as you like to call it, for stay at home parents (an extra $249.00 per year if you did not claim a childcare expense). However, it was added to the Child Tax Credit, which is income based. Therefore, high wage earners did not receive it. The CPC have rolled this into their 1200.00 'gimme gimme plan', which is not income based and can be claimed by a parent with no income at all. Therefore, right off the bat, lower income families lose $ 249.00 of 'real money' if one parent is home, in exchange for a taxable handout, and the 1200.00 will be added to net family income when calculating other credits like GST rebates. The Child Tax Credit was not. However, in most low income families, both parents have to work to get by, so they will not gain as much under the plan as the high single income family. Again, I resent that the CPC believe that only families with stay at home moms have family values. This perfect little family is no more or less perfect than any other. Working families do NOT PASS THEIR CHILDREN OFF TO A THIRD PARTY. MOST TAKE GREAT CARE IN CHOOSING WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF THEIR CHILDREN WHEN THEY ARE WORKING and hot dang, if they can't still raise children who grow upto be valuable members of society.

And what did the Softwood Deal cost us? We have now provided soldiers for American aggression or as I like to call it "poking sticks at the terrorists'. Harper is revisiting Missile Defense and scrapping Kyoto. He has become Bush's American Dream. As for the budget...like Jeffrey Simpson from the Globe said 'The Budget is All Show'. And what will that cost us? Despite their obvious lack of math skills, the CPC cannot cut taxes without slashing vital programs. Bank of Nova Scotia Analysis Aboriginals Weigh In Education Big Loser We already know that Healthcare got squat and children were forced to pay for corporate tax cuts, but did you also know that he is tapping into the surplus to make himself look good. Also from the Globe: Government to tap surplus for $3.3-billion By STEVEN CHASE AND BRIAN LAGHI Tuesday, April 25, 2006, Page A4 OTTAWA -- The Conservative government is dipping into last year's budget surplus for $3.3-billion, the bulk of which is going to the provinces under a controversial measure the Tories fervently fought while in opposition. The only real winners in this budget are corporations and the wealthy. And by the way....the cheerleading section is becoming a bit over the top; whooping it up with every word that came out of Flaherty's mouth when reading this vote grab budget. Besides, it's very easy to deliver what on the surface looks like a good news budget, when you inherited a government with scads of extra cash. I wonder how good they would look if they took over right after Mulroney's mess, when they would have to tighten their belts? Not much to cheer about then. Sorry the Aboriginal link didn't work but this is what one group thought of Harper's backstabbing: MAY 2, 2006 - 16:58 ET The Union of BC Indian Chiefs Responds to Harper's Budget Attention: Assignment Editor, Business/Financial Editor, News Editor, Government/Political Affairs Editor VANCOUVER, BC, PRESS RELEASE--(CCNMatthews - May 2, 2006) - The Union of BC Indian Chiefs responded to today's Budget Speech of the Government of Canada, stating that the fear of many First Nations leaders, that the Harper government would not honour the commitments made by the Government of Canada at the First Ministers Meeting in Kelowna, has now been realized. "Our fear, suspicion and mistrust of Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government to support the historic Kelowna Accord were well placed. I had hoped, however, that the Harper government would have the integrity and political will to fully implement the historic Kelowna Accord representing a $5.1 billion dollar investment in Aboriginal communities." stated Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs. "Today, Aboriginal People across Canada learned that Prime Minister Harper has a wooden heart to match his wooden smile." "In addition, First Nations leaders in British Columbia now understand Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice speaks with a forked tongue. On March 9, 2006 Minister Prentice publicly committed to assembled Chiefs that he would work hard to put 'wheels on Kelowna'. Rather, the Harper government has chosen to junk the whole Accord and relegate it to the proverbial scrap heap" said Chief Phillip. Chief Phillip concluded "Like many First Nations leaders, we waited for the Budget Speech to get a true sense of this government's commitment to collaborative approaches with First Nations. It is now beyond question; Prime Minister Harper has set an adversarial, if not outright hostile tone regarding Federal - First Nations relationships in Canada."

And what did the Softwood Deal cost us? We have now provided soldiers for American aggression or as I like to call it "poking sticks at the terrorists'. Harper is revisiting Missile Defense and scrapping Kyoto. He has become Bush's American Dream. As for the budget...like Jeffrey Simpson from the Globe said 'The Budget is All Show'. And what will that cost us? Despite their obvious lack of math skills, the CPC cannot cut taxes without slashing vital programs. Bank of Nova Scotia Analysis Aboriginals Weigh In Education Big Loser We already know that Healthcare got squat and children were forced to pay for corporate tax cuts, but did you also know that he is tapping into the surplus to make himself look good. Also from the Globe: Government to tap surplus for $3.3-billion By STEVEN CHASE AND BRIAN LAGHI Tuesday, April 25, 2006, Page A4 OTTAWA -- The Conservative government is dipping into last year's budget surplus for $3.3-billion, the bulk of which is going to the provinces under a controversial measure the Tories fervently fought while in opposition. The only real winners in this budget are corporations and the wealthy. And by the way....the cheerleading section is becoming a bit over the top; whooping it up with every word that came out of Flaherty's mouth when reading this vote grab budget. Besides, it's very easy to deliver what on the surface looks like a good news budget, when you inherited a government with scads of extra cash. I wonder how good they would look if they took over right after Mulroney's mess, when they would have to tighten their belts? Not much to cheer about then.

Nocrap: While I'd say it's a stretch to say there's no deterrent value in punishment, I think it's probably less than most people think. But there are some other benefits: 1) It will keep dangerous criminals off the streets a little longer. 2) It might ... might ... make people feel better about the justice system. That benefit comes with the caveat I stated above: that in doing so, it's feeding myths about violent crime in Canada. 3) Voters should remember this campaign promise, and should also be pleased with the turnaround time for introducing legislation. The Liberals, on the other hand, were probably still planning to roll out some of the red book promises in Martin's second term. I guess I'm a cynical old bird myself, but have been around long enough to know that these measures will result in only slighlty more resounding slaps on the wrist. I've heard the jargon so many times that it is now just that. If the CPC intention was to somehow lull Canadians into thinking they will now be safer, than I guess it's a sucess. If it will somehow (mis?)lead us into thinking that our justice system will work a little better, than I guess it's a success. However, I think that Harper is trying so hard to have quick turnarounds on his campaign promises that he is not taking the time to think any of them through; including an Accountability Act that is a bureaucratic nightmare. He proposed this new a 'wee bit tougher on the bad guys' legislation without providing Canadians with credible data on what the plan would cost, how he will manage to achieve his not so lofty goals, or whether he has done one shred of research to determine where the money would best be spent. This was more about being quick than being prudent.

I assume you are referring to Harper's promise to Quebec tht they would get a voice at the Unitied Nations. Actually, though he has taken the credit, the promise to try to obtain an associate membership for Quebec has been kicking around for sometime. Paul Martin suggested the same thing: Link And Stephen Harper made it a campaign promise: Link However, neither Paul Martin nor Stephen Harper really have the authority to do this. All they can do is make the proposal to UNESCO, and it is put up to a vote. Just posturing on both the Liberals and CPC to get Quebec on their side.

If showing an ounce of compassion is 'stepping out of line' than the CPC are even more hard-hearted than I imagined. In her position, she needs to let the military families know that she is on their side and is interested in how they feel. If it evoked emotion, than so be it. It is an emotional experience and as families of soldiers in Afghanistan, they live with fear and sorrow everyday. I would rather they express to the rest of us, how they feel, not how O'Connor and Harper tells us they should feel. Devoted to mission....won't cut and run...upward and onward. That's just military crap. This is real for them.

I doubt that it will get voted down. I mean, what is it really? A bit more Harper grandstanding with 1950's rhetoric, like 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime', or some other such silly notion. After years of study have proven that punishment does not deter crime, Stevie has proven that he has obviously read more comic books than any in depth humanitarian studies; so he and Sticky Stocky' will don their capes and become the masked crusaders who will clean up the mean streets of Canada. "Look. It's a bird...it's a plane...no, it's two old crows in a timemachine, set at 1954.' Get a grip.

We've been down this road before. The CPC may have promised 1200.00 per year but since it's taxable only the wealthy 'breadwinner' with a stay at home spouse will realize 1200.00. The average working family will get about half that amount and the low income families will lose other benefits that are rolled into this plan. Therefore, their promise was not kept. The ONLY WAY THAT IT COULD BE KEPT IS IF THEY MADE THE BABY BONUS NON-TAXABLE FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST THOSE WITH BIG FAT PAY CHEQUES. BUT THEN IT IS THOSE WITH BIG FAT PAY CHEQUES WHO CONTRIBUTE TO THE CPC, SO OF COURSE THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO WILL TRULY BENEFIT!!! And this is choice?? Again, how much choice does the average working couple have with $54.00 per month or $ 2.45 per day?? The choice whether to stop at Timmy's for a cup of joe and a donut after you drop your kids off at daycare?? This illusive 1200 was a bold face lie and should have read 'somewhere between $650.00 and 1200.00' depending on income. Working stiffs half - Top execs with stay at home spouse, extra money for designer togs and ballet classes. Working poor - very little.

Very funny video. The first few lines I was tempted to turn it off, but am glad I listened to the entire message. Sometimes I think that religous zealots do more to turn Christians into athiests than any temptations to sin. I'm reminded of a quote I read when an American politician was being forced to testify on something. The interviewer made it clear that his line of defense would not work...."Sir. You placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the constitution...you did not place your hand on the constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." 'Thou shalt not kill' means 'thou shalt not kill', it does not mean 'Thou shalt not kill an unborn fetus', but 'Thou are allowed to killeth the children of your government's enemies' or anyone else you deem to be dispensable. ' I am also a big fan of Colbert, Mercer and Daley. They tell it like it is.

Toronto StarI realize the Toronto Star is giving this a negative twist, but Day has the right perspective on this issue. We must weigh the costs of prisons and so on against the benefits of reduced crime and fewer victims. I found the whole thing a little odd. I know they are trying to stick to their five priorities so that they don't have to do anything else, but raising minimum sentences will not deter criminals. Do they really believe that an offender is going to pause and say 'wait a minute now...under the Liberal plan I was going to get a mandatory 4 year sentence, but that mean old Stockwell Day is going to give me five. I'm putting this weapon right in the trash' Violent criminals don't care about the potential punishment before they offend. Their eyes are on the prize. It's an absolute joke, but typical of backward thinking CPC dogma.

I CANNOT SAY THIS ENOUGH. WE ARE NOT COMPARING CHILDREN WHO ARE LOOKED AFTER BY A PARENT DURING THE DAY, TO CHILDREN WHO MUST BE LOOKED AFTER BY A NON-PARENT FOR THE PORTION OF THE DAY THAT THE PARENT OR PARENTS MUST WORK. The CPC in their infinite wisdom believe in the nice June Cleaver approach to family life. However, we are not living in the 1950's and the reality is that there are many single parents who must work to provide for their family and many two-parent families who need both incomes. There are also many parents, both male and female who enjoy working and provide valuable services (doctors, nurses, etc.) to the community, and others who just prefer to work or are career driven moms and dads. However, for whatever reason, WE HAVE WORKING PARENTS IN CANADA!!!! That being said, I take offense to the CPC pitting working and stay at home parents against each other. Finley called on 'Family Values' groups to help her cause. Good Lord. Is she suggesting that a parent who wants to work does not value their family or does not have values? And what's this crap about parents raising their own children? Just because you work does not mean that you are not 'raising your own children'. Providing the optimum care for your child while you are at work is a grave concern, and since it allows you to share the tax burden, it should be a priority of any government. Providing a $653.00 (after taxes unless you're rich) yearly handout and calling it a childcare plan is ridiculous and will neither allow a parent to work or encourage them to stay home. It's a vote grab pure and simple and something that we will be stuck with for years. Thank God we can't say the same for the CPC.

Yet again, another example of the CBC's bias. The *neo-con* story, clearly an anti-CPC/Stephen Harper story, gets more prominence on the CBC Website than on CTV.ca, The Toronto Star Web site, Canada.com or The Globe and Mail Web site. tsk, tsk, tsk... The Liberals and the NDP will be very wise to oppose this budget. With the Bloc giving support it will be passed and that will be a good thing. A budget that is all smoke and mirrors, eventually shows itself when the smoke clears and the dust covers the mirrors; and come next tax time Canadians will realize that they've been dooped. The Liberals and NDP can say, 'well don't blame us'; while the CPC and Bloc will be put on the defensive. The only ones who will benefit from this are the wealthy, who will get to keep the Gov't handouts, and George W. Bush; who with Harper's plan for mass recruitment, will be hand delivered our young men and women as target practice for his enemies. Good Lord: Excise Tax off jewelry. Why? Tax Credit on books, which will only benefit those few students who actually earn a high enough income to pay tax. Why? Tax credit for children's sports that will only benefit those who have the five hundred extra dollars to put their children in these programs, and even then since it is not a benefit but a credit, the maximum realized value is $ 6.50 per month. That won't get them into a game of hopscotch. Why? Arming border guards. Why? 'Unspecified' military equipment! What? Mass Military Recruitment when we are supposed to be keeping the peace. Why? Promising 1200.00 per year to children under six, then clerverly engineering it so that few will ever see even half that amount, unless you earn more than $100,000 per year and your spouse stays home. Why? Raising personal income tax when we have lots of money. Why? Nothing for Seniors. Why? 80% reduction in promised payments to First Nations. Why? This budget is an absolute mess, and will provide a lot of ammunition for Harper's opponents next election. I can hardly wait.

Oh for Heaven's sake. She did not say that stay at home parents raised criminals. Her point was that for most Canadians who can't afford to stay home; their children did better in properly run facilities, geared to stimulating young minds, rather than at $1.00 per hour babysitters. Her answer to Finley was "Research shows that for every dollar we spend on early learning and childcare, we will save $ 7.00 later on special education and corrections, and you know that!" She challenged Ms Finley to think for herself and not waste her education and experience, spouting the party line. Anyone can read.....C'mon Diane. Use your head.

The value of the budget (with its many specific measures) almost has to be examined on a case-by case basis. My daughter (a stay at home with twin 2-yr olds and no source of income) is very happy. With the Liberals she was offered a day care plan of no use to her. Being interesting to see how the Liberal leadership candidates react. I suspect it will be typical. Not enough money for the environment, for aboriginals, for day care etc, etc. In other words, same-old, same-old. Does your daughter realize that the CPC have rolled the 249.00 per year per child, provided to parents who did not claim childcare expenses, into the cash hand out? This had previously been added to the income based child tax credit, so depending on how much your son-in-law earns, this will further reduce her benefit. Add to that the fact that the 249.00 was non-taxable, while the 1200.00 must be claimed as 'income'this will hurt many stay at home parents. Also, the 2400.00 per year will be added to her families' total income when calculating things like GST rebates and child tax credits (both non-taxable benefits)....for most this will aslo take another little piece of the pie. And of course, her husband will be bringing home a little less in his paycheque now, so she'll have to factor that in as well.

I didn't need this particular article to know that Harper's so called 'Accountability Act' is a bureaucrat's dream and bureaucratical nightmare. We know that he already tries to "control the flow of information to Canadians" and I'm sorry, but again, John Baird is not the best example of an accountable and credible politician, after conning Ontarians out of 500 million dollars. When asked how much this act would cost, he said that it didn't matter because 'accountablility is priceless.' Tell that to our provincial auditor. (Google Baird and Boondoggle) However, I agree that Harper supporters will rarely try to justify his actions, but instead when challenged immediately bring up Liberal misdeeds, or claim that the media is pro-Left wing. And why not? That's what Harper himself does. I think that Stevie's problems are not that he is naive, but just that he does far better as an antogonist. His longtime involvement with the Nationals Citizens' Coalition, that was created to oppose government policy (mostly healthcare), gave him a vast experience as a thorn in the side of ruling politicians. As leader of the opposition, he again got to criticize, and he handled it admirably. However, now that he is put on the defense, and is trying to promote the ideals of the always controversial and often racist NCC; his task has become enormous. Announcing policies and then running away to hide, just won't cut it, and this abysmal Accountalility Act simply won't work.

Well, descent is allowed on most small bills. When Belinda crossed the floor, she did so because she wanted the budget to pass (or so she says, I haven't seen damning evidence to the contrary, so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt). Emerson crossed so he could complete a very successful softwood agreement with the US. All of these are ethical decisions. The Softwood agreement had nothing to do with it. He couldn't even get involved in the discussions due to conflict of interest. Ironically, he will now get the credit, after the ground work has already been laid by others. As far as helping his constituents. They voted Liberal. How can he serve their needs when he will now be voting from a CPC perspective? Spin it anyway you like, but this was a very undemocratic move and more about Harper settling a score, than looking out for the needs of Vancouver voters.

Going to war with a country that both owes money to your allies and has energy contracts that are essential to their supply is never easy. I support the war as you do, but fail to see why Bush couldn't negotiate a compromise with them to garner their support and have them should a littel of the financial burden. Right war, right time, wrong way to go about it. A trillion dollar war that could have been half that, out of control spending, tax cuts all at a time that cannot support all three. This guy is a neo-con if I ever saw one. Not because he went to war, but for his policies. He's wrong on immigration, he's wrong on the Dubai ports deal, he's wrong on more government handouts. He's wrong on a lot more than he's right. Fortunately for Republicans, the Democrats have nothing better to offer. I'll take that bet. Living near Trenton, the anti-Harper mumblings are very high, which is hurting the MP of the riding (CPC). He spoke publicly against his party's decision not to let the flag draped coffins be photographed, which I'm sure will not win him any favours with the man on top. However, we are talking about Harper wanting to be like Bush. Most, if not all, are blaming the Liberals for the comparisons, which is not exactly true. The one responsible for the GW comparisons is none other than Stephen Harper himself. If you don't want people to compare you with George Bush, QUIT ACTING LIKE HIM. Harper copies his speeches, his photo-ops, his anti-media attitudes and feelings toward war. This unheard of ban of the coffins had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH RESPECT FOR THE FAMILES. If he thought that way, he would not be so quick to get Hill & Knowlton in there to talk about how the dead soldier felt about the mission. The first soldier's dad spoke hours after in favour of the war. The next time, the immediate family wouldn't bite, so they interviewed a cousin or sister-in-law or something who spoke of his feelings about the important mission. Then they showed two female recruits, in perfect battle gear, talking about how 'excited' they were to be going to Afghanistan. Harper should know that Canadians do not get 'excited' about war. They know they have a duty but don't look at it as a thrill seeking mission. He went too far and knowing Hill & Knowlton tactics, I'm sure the two young ladies were actresses and their gear just show for the cameras. Trust me, I live in a military town and we are not that well equipped. Let's face it. It really doesn't matter how the soldiers feel about the war. They have a job to do and do it. Asking their families to validate their role in Afghanistan so soon after their death is unforgivable and an American tactic. Harper should now by now that that won't fly here. Also it is interesting to note that Geoffrey pointed to the fact that Paul Desmarais is on the Board of the Carlysle Group (Bush's cash cow) and is a freind of Paul Martin's. That may be, but the Desmarais family also contributed $20,000.00 to the CPC and Paul Desmarais' daughter is dating Peter MacKay!!! Only the NDP was left out of the loop.

I think we are missing the point. Dinning is a good example because he wrote a letter to the Prime Minister just weeks before the death of his son, asking Harper to reconsider lowering the flag. Two weeks later, his son is killed in the line of duty and once again Harper spit in his face. Allowing cameras to photograph the return of our fallen soldiers, in flag draped coffins, reminds the rest of us of the enormity of what we are asking them to do. This is not the same as sticking mikes in the families' faces. Comrades mourn the loss with the ceremonies in Afghanistan and Canadians mourn the loss as we see our sons and daughters returned, with proper and well earned ceremony. From there they are given over to their families for private burial. Harper is trying to follow Bush's lead, but look where it got him.

I believe most Canadians would like to see a better relationship with the US, but not at the expense of our own identity. George Bush is whole different story. Most of the Western world despise him and only 32% of the American people have confidence in his abilities. He will always be seen as a war mongering, self serving egotist, and the fact that Harper wants to emulate this poor excuse excuse for a human being, speaks volumes. I've read Harper's biography and researched his political career and have come to the conclusion that he is a Republican at heart. Many of his followers like that about him. Just don't expect that to win favours with mainstream Canadians. Shutting the media out of Trenton may have been the last straw. I live not far from there and the fallout with veterans here, who believe that all of Canada has a right to mourn these soldiers, will not make him popular. All those interviewed by the local media are outraged and for the first time, question our involvement with a mission that requires such secrecy. Harper obviously acts on impulse and does not think these things through.

Army Guy spoke of the pomp and ceremony that will take place when the four dead soldiers are flown into Trenton - only problem is - Harper has forbidden media access and once again shut out Canadians from the reality of this war.

Geoffrey I agree with your statement that a 'party cannot have ethics', except that Mr. Harper throughout the last campaign, told us that his party would be one that would bring ethics and accountability back to the Canadian government. It is one of his infamous 'five priorities'. Since the election he has flip-flopped on all initiatives that were going to make the CPC a model for future governments. The Liberals have already proven that they can be unethical - we were reminded of that throughout the last election. The CPC have simply followed in their footsteps, but rather than try to justify his actions, and be 'accountable' to Canadians for his unethical decisions, Mr. Harper chooses to hide in his office; put bark collars on all his MP's and hope that it will all go away. So far, the NDP have had no such scandals. Mind you, they have not yet led the country, but they are in a perfect position to come out smelling like a rose. They can hammer away at the Liberals for past scandals, and Harper for his growing list of 'flip-flops'; known as "that was then, this is now'. When he was in opposition, Harper would never have allowed the Liberals to get away with the things he's doing, but has proven that it is much easier to 'complain for a living' than have to justify your actions now that he's at the healm. The NDP are certainly LOOKING like the only party with ethics.