Nocrap

Hmmm...so let me get this straight....he only promised to bring in the act, not abide by it. That makes much more sense. And I love the $1000.00 reward for whistleblowers. I mean people will be lining up to risk their jobs for such a windfall. This will create an atmosphere akin to schoolyard tattle-taling and do nothing to expose corruption, though I'm catching glimpses of it now.

Guaranteed election loss right there. I hope he wins and runs with it. We don't even need to bring up his Ukrainophobia or stances on torture - his arrogance is all Harper needs to pull off a majority. Sorry Steve, but Mr. Harper already has arrogance in the bag. The reason I like to put Liberal hopefuls out there is for this kind of input though. I liked a lot of what Mr. Ignatieff had to say, but pride myself on at least trying to be an informed voter. I will now research his feelings on torture, since two posters have mentioned that, and if it is as you say, than I would definitely stay clear. I was undecided last election until Mr. Harper's infamous speech was made public. I read it and winced at his remarks, but almost believed his explanation that it was meant to be tongue in cheek. However, it was after researching the National Citizens Coalition that I immediately jumped off the Harper bandwagon. The fact that he ever belonged to such an organization was bad enough...but it's former (and perhaps still current since they haven't replaced him in four years) president??!!! Egads! If Ignatieff does win the Liberal leadership and turns out to be as bad as Harper in his views, than I guess I'll vote NDP.

Maybe they don't want one. Maybe they only want a voice in what affect their province. Why? On a global scale does Canada think it owns a share of Saudia Arabia's oil? So why does Quebec think it would have a claim on some share of Alberta oil? It's not that I'm completely disagreeing with you, but I'd like to understand your reasoning. True, but what happens when one or two provinces don't feel that their interest are adequately addresses or that they are getting a fair shake? You're going to have a tough time convincing many Albertans or Ontarions that the soldiers from the rest of Canada are interveneing in Afganistan mostly for Ontario's or Alberta's benefit. If Albertans don't want a voice in the rest of Canada then Stephen Harper would never be Prime Minister. That was not my point. The federal government expects soldiers from ALL provinces to go where they are ordered. I haven't checked the statistics, but I'm sure that all provinces and territories are represented in Afghanistan. One nation - one military - one country. The resources belong to Canada, not any individual province.

Your correct it is not as simple as people make it out to be. However, what makes you believe that in order to compete internationaly Canada needs to "make sure that all Canadians have an opportunity to prosper". This is simply unproven. There are many nations smaller than Canada who thrive internationally. It is equally valid to say that some provinces, freed of the shackles of having to support unproductive provinces, could compete better on the world stage. Equalization is akin to welfare for poorer provinces, and that woudl be fine if it was a temporary situation which turned a equlization recipient into a equalization contributor. However, history has shown that for the most part this is not true. The reciepients end up being long term financial drains and perpetuates an attitude of entitlement. This has nothing to do with the size of our nation, but the strength of our people. If Alberta, or even Ontario, want to bow out of helping the other provinces, then they have no right to expect an equal voice in decisions that affect all Canadians. The resources belong to ALL OF US. The Prime Minister is SUPPOSED to represent ALL OF US. If non-Albertan or non-Ontarian soldiers are expected to go where he tells them, should he not represent THEIR CANADIAN interests too? What hapened to Confederation?

I always admire Mr. Harper's ability to make hypocritical statements with a straight face. I watched some of his announcement on CBC and then read a Canadian Press Release by Jennifer Ditchburn entitled "Tories Clean House - Conservatives roll out sweeping ethics bill; critics point to loopholes" My own thoughts on some of the measures: "Reduce the influence of lobbyists" - would carry more weight if he hadn't appointed former military lobbyist Gordon O'Connor as Minister of Defense. "Strengthen the Role of of the Ethics' Commissioner"- would carry more wait if he hadn't refused to even speak with him over the whole Emerson mess. "Ensure Government Appointments are Based on Merit" - would carry more weight if he hadn't fast tracked unelected Fortier to the senate and then given him a cabinet post. "Reform Financing of Political Parties to Reduce Big Money Influence" - would carry more weight if he hadn't syphoned thousands of dollars out of the Alberta Pipeline. "Banning Secret Donations" - would carry more weight if he hadn't been so committed to keeping contributions a secret. Harper vs The Attorney General His National Citizens' Coalition has always fought what they consider a 'gag law' because they were forced to divulge their election spending. Recently the NCC vice-president wrote: "My group, the National Citizens Coalition, has long opposed these types of laws because we believe all citizens should have the right to freely participate in the electoral process. Indeed, we battled the Liberal gag law tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where, despite victories at lower-court levels (when Stephen Harper was NCC President) , we ultimately lost. In a controversial (some would say incomprehensible) ruling, the Supreme Court judged the gag law to be constitutional. We battled the gag law not only in court; we also sought to convince politicians to kill this horrible law, on the idea that whatever politicians enact, they can also repeal. And so, back in early 2004, we contacted the three contenders for the Conservative Party leadership and asked them to sign a special pledge form that committed them to scrapping the gag law should they become prime minister. Those contenders were Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and Belinda Stronach, then a Conservative Party star. All three signed our pledge." I guess instead of being called an 'Accountability Act', it should be called 'The Accountability Act for Everyone except Stephen Harper', since he refuses to be accountable for anything.

Ontario is also picking up the slack, and has been longer than Alberta. Personally, I think that the whole thing is a mess and needs to be totally revamped. No province should be allowed to keep any of their income out of the calculations. Perhaps year to year like personal income tax. Candians don't get to say 'well sure, last year I had a windfall, but since it may not last I would like to keep it out of my filing'. Again, Canadians need to look out for Canadians.

Hmmm...don't quite know how to answer that, except that I wonder what kind of companies you represent when you are unable to argue a point without the use of profanity. That being said, I am not a Liberal. I once ranted about the Liberals, but only because anytime I criticized the CPC, I was always accused of being...well, I can't repeat most of the names I was called...but many of them can be found in your posting. I voted Liberal for the first time in the last election because I as yet have no confidence in Stephen Harper's ability to govern, and was not blown away by Jack Layton. I agree with 'Iggy's' statement that most Canadians are not ready to move to the right, including myself; so may have to look to the Liberals in future; but only if they can present a viable alternative to the Chretien era. I never voted for Trudeau though I do have a lot of respect for the man. So..... -Teddy, I do have a modest amount of enthusiasm for this Iggy guy right about now. A Harvard professor still carries a lot of weight in the political and corporate world, and it took watching his country fall apart due to government corruption, that allowed a Reform Party hybrid to become a governing body; to bring him home.

Is this actually what Harper is saying? Everything I have heard indicates that he has bought Quebec's 'fiscal' imbalance myth hook, line and sinker. The fiscal imbalance is real. Just not in the case of Quebec. Add in all the government contracts that should be elsewhere if they were in the public interest and Quebec should be paying out billions in equilisation. -- Hicksey, Your half right with what your saying. However, I think Ottawa needs to be spending much less. Let the provinces deal with their health care, education at all levels and social assistance. None of these belongs in Federal hands, and can be delivered with more focus and accountability at the provincial level. We need to end this sending money to Ottawa to have them send it back. It should never leave to begin with. You're right. Harper has been sucking up to Quebec in a shameless attempt to win seats there. Another example of his saying one thing and doing another. As far as fiscal imbalance is concerned, it is not as simple as people make it out to be. If Canadians really want Canada to be a strong country and compete on an international level, we need to make sure that all Canadians have an opportunity to prosper. 'Have' provinces should help out the 'Have-Nots, and it is the federal government's responsibility to make sure that all Canadians are taken care of. When there is a call to arms, we expect men and women from all provinces to stand up and defend our country. When there is an election, all Canadians are given one vote. Mr. Harper needs to forget his plan to 'build a firewall around Alberta' and 'Stand Up For Canada' in the way that we expect. After the 2000 election he was quoted (MacLean's Magazine) as saying "I'm for Alberta first and Canada a distant second". Well, I don't want to be a 'distant second'. Ralph Klein can make that remark but the Prime Minister of Canada should reverse that and be for Canada first!

Ignatieff might be left leaning on economics and social policies, but he is pro-Iraq war and pro-torture. He's written extensively at the academic level on these topics, and is quite hawkish.

Disagree. They made a hefty profit on their investment. I say we tax it. But seriously, should we annul all elections that didn't include the vote of women, Chinese, Aboriginals & cancel all laws enacted during those illegal regimes? Should we pay off the snakeheads bringing in illegal immigrants now if we grant them refugee status? And you live in a country that was wrongly taken period ... if you listen to our native folks. Ready to get back on the boat & go "home"? How much money is "enough" for that particular wrong? Too many questions & not enough money. What about the Acadians? My ancestors had their lands stolen. When can I expect my cheque in the mail?

Are you talking about surety bonds? I did find their website Guaranty Company of North America However, are you saying that taxpayers are buying these bonds but are unable to collect? Do you have proof? Surety bonds on government contracts I believe are paid for by the person placing the bid and there are many companies that the government accepts as agents: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/Pubs_pol/dcgpubs/...tingpol_l_e.asp" target="_blank">List of Accepted Bonding Companies We no doubt pay for the bonds on government employees. Are we being scammed there? I'm not saying that you are wrong, but would just like a little more information. Perhaps a link?

Oh yeah, or he won't get the keys again. Actually, though at first I was not impressed, I kind of like his prospects as Liberal leader. It could be a drawback that he has lived in the US for the past thrirty years, but never gave up his citizenship. He could be seen as an avenger, returning home to clean up the mess. He is centre left in his policies. Has no sponsorship baggage, and wants to restore the respect, not only of the Liberals, but of government in general. Harper promised this, but got off to a bad start and just gave Canadians more of the same. So far I think that he would have my vote.

What gives people the idea that they are entitled to anything from other taxpayers other than a reasonable safety net? It is insane to suggest that we should have to pay for a National Day Care program, it is insane that we would even consider embarking on another program that would likely result in a major cash drain. This is more from the 'gimmee crowed' , as in gimmee everything you've got, no thanks. If you can't feed em - don't breed em.... It is insane to suggest that we should have to pay for a National Day Care program, it is insane that we would even consider embarking on another program that would likely result in a major cash drain.

I worked for Taima on a 6 month contract 5 or 6 years ago. After that 6 months,I was glad my contract was over. That's what I do, can't understand call centre people because of cheap labour practices, then I'll use someone else's services thank you very much.

I couldn't find the item on the net, but an article by Siri Argell for CanWest News Services, gives a glimpse into how Michael Ignatieff will handle the CPC. "'I'm running against Stephen Harper's idea of Canada' Ignatieff told his supporters. Ignatieff says he believes Canadians voted the Conservative government into power in January out of a desire for change but he added that the election result does not represent an ideological shift to the right amoung the electorate but a conditional approval akin to letting him 'drive the car around the block a couple of times'" I couldn't have said it better myself.

That's right Geoffrey. As a taxpayer I have a right to tell the CPC that this 1200.00 excuse for a childcare plan is insane, even though my grandson is eligible for the handout. Once it is in place, it is going to be very hard to get rid of, so I think we need to tell our MP's now to stop this silly notion and put the money to better use. Sure, I could simply send the money back or donate it to charity, but we are guardians of our grandson and I don't feel that I have a right to decide that for him. The money is his. Besides, what would that prove? Who besides me and my family would know that I did that? I think that very few Canadians would complain if the government said that the $ 1200.00 per year was going to our soldiers to offset their personal expenses, so long as it went DIRECTLY to the soldiers and not to one of Mr. O'Connors former military clients.

The only difference is that I don't believe that this new CPC will be around as long as Diefenbaker. Now mind you, many of their ideas are right out of the 1950's, but Canadians are not willing to take that step back.

That's not true. The federal government does not have insurance because it self-insures and assumes the risk itself.iamcanadian2 is attempting to make an issue out of something that is not an issue. To be honest, I've never heard this complaint before, but thanks August for clearing that up. I have no idea what the poster was referring to, but I guess it's a non-issue.

Thank you Hiti. I knew that I had heard of this program before when I was reading Chuck Strahl's "announcement" and was going to search the net for archived press releases. It's definitely a move in the right direction, and am glad that the CPC recognize the Liberal initiative as a viable environmental stategy. It may be sometime before we see any significant results, but we shouldn't just scrap it until we at least try. I think that the farmers marching on Parliament Hill may have caused a bit of panic for the new government so they had to come up with something fast. However, the FARMERS STILL NEED HELP and we still NEED KYOTO. Nice try Mr. Strahl but unfortunately most Canadians can read and most people connected to the industry know that this is not a "new" idea. Now go back to your office and give farmers something they can take to the bank.

To my knowledge, the federal government does not have any insurance for loss of any of its assets, nor for any potential liability.Municipal governments and the smaller provincial governments OTOH may have insurance. Is this a major issue? Yes it is a very major issue few people are aware of. In the event of Insurance disasters you can bet the Insurance Company will get bailed out by the government at the end. The Insurance company does not loose money AFTER calculating the costs of claims. Government is simply feeding extra profit money to the insurance business and paying for all the losses one way or another regardless. Cutout the middleman and pay the loss when they occur and raise our taxes if a Tsunami hits the Pacific Coast not pay for premiums for 5o years taxing the people to death for the time that will never come that the loss will be greater than all the premiums pay up front. Government buying insurance is STUPID and quasi-criminal by pilferinig from the taxpayers hard work simply to make insurance companies richer and our Bureaucrats able to spend more money on their business friends. Government does NOT need any form of insurance whatsoever. It does not NEED to attempt to make off without consequence or responsibility and accountability for its own actions or the actions of its directors and employees. That priviledge can only properly apply to private individuals and private enterprises that have a free will. It cannot properly extend to the public service because the public sector belongs to everyone and must not have its own free will or even any sense of self. The people in government must remain open to consequences and accountability and responsibility regardless what it costs the government as a whole. PAYING FOR INSURANCE TO COVER THE ARSES OF BUREAUCRATS WHO ARE INCOMPETTENT OR ABUSIVE WITH THE TAX PAYERS MONEY IS NOT A PROPER USE OF THE TAXPAYERS MONEY Do you have any specific examples? It would seem prudent to me that our government would purchase insurance if it meant protecting taxpayers from unforseen disasters. I'm sure all their vehicles are insured and federally owned buildings, furniture, etc.

Book. I think that from your original post we may have gone off topic a bit. However, I believe that you are speaking from some personal pain. I am also fifty-something so can empatize with your plight. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have worked most of your life, perhaps for one company, and now find yourself unemployed at a time in your life when it is more difficult to compete for jobs in a youth-orientated society. You are now in financial trouble and risk losing your home, but still a decade away from being able to collect CPP. From where you sit the recent announcement of the low unemployment rate, would be the last sraw. Governments like to share these statistics because it means that they are doing a good job. However, I see the same thing everyday....long line-ups of people all vying for a handful of vacant positions. University grads driving cab and teachers working at McDonalds. It's got to be scarey. There are no easy answers, but perhaps posting here is a way of venting your frustration.

LinkThen again, maybe he's just going senile: I believe he may resonate the feelings of many Quebecers. The idea of an independant nation was a wonderful dream, but realistically unattainable. Besides, how can you be a country without considering economics or at least whether or not it is economically feasible? And perhaps more importantly, how will separation affect individual wealth? I guess what he's really saying is that as a hardliner, he has taken a reality check.

Of course it is, but so what? What did you expect in a election campaign? In my view the plan actually goes against conservative philosophy, but tactically it was a smart move during the campaign. That and the GST cut were probably what got him his minority government. That's too funny! You mean without these 2 financial incentives people would have voted for the "scandalous" Liberals? Harper needs to do what Canadians actually want, not what he thinks they want (he's wayyy off base when it comes to the average Canadian IMO) Poll on CTV News the other evening said 70% of people don't agree with the $100 payment. Listen to us Mr. Harper, we don't want your lousy hundred bucks! Another poll asked "are you waiting for the gst cut before making large purchases?" Again the result was 70% saying no, not waiting as 1% does not make that big a difference. Why not give the $100 per month (x the number of families with small children) to our military? A much better use of the money IMO. Yes and a poll taken after the election showed that almost half of the people who voted CPC wanted change and 25% voted CPC because they wanted to punish the Liberals. Only a small percentage said they voted CPC because they liked Harper. He didn't give us change by bringing back the old Family Allowance, and will now have to face the music over his unethical cabinet postings; so he'd better listen to Canadians when it comes to key issues. Since we are raising our four year old grandson, we would get the $ 100.00 per month, but will be putting it away in a trust fund for him. I find that ridiculous, since I don't believe that taxpayers should be depositing money into his bank account. A local poll showed that many middle income families will be doing the same, since the pittance will do absolutely nothing in so far as daycare (childcare) is concerned. Lower income families will use it for food and those on social assistance probably won't see a dime. A few higher income families say they will donate it to charity for the needed tax break. I think there are far better ways to spend taxpayers' money, especially since very little will go to those who really need it, and for those anxious for the cheques, they will be singing a different tune come tax time. I live near a military base and there was an article in our local paper that said that many soildiers are forced to buy their own equipment, because the things they are using are so outdated. Give every soldier 1200.00; and quit calling this handout a 'childcare plan'.

I agree with Black Dog "As it is, sending Muslims to just hang out and walk around at a NASCAR event is an interesting way to guage Middle America's feelings towards Muslims." I was pleased that Scriblett posted the article indicating that the test was unsuccessful (or successful depending on how you look at it). There must have been some feeling that sports' fans were bigots, and the NASCAR experiment put some of the rumours to rest. Does anyone know how the football experiment turned out? I rarely watch Dateline.

Tax cuts for everyone cost a lot of more money. Directed programs score political points at a lower cost. Agreed, but I'm not about political points. I'm about the right thing to do. Tax cuts don't 'cost' money if spending is cut back equally. Drea Wrote "I'm mad as hell at over this -- it was nothing but a blatant vote grab. " I agree. This $1200.00 CPC plan is a step back. I lived through the days of the old Family Allowance as it became one of the most blatant abuses of taxpayers' money. (How's that coming from a leftie?) I worked in a bank years ago and can remember one mother coming in to cash her family allowance cheque. While signing it in front of me she complained about the small amount. "Do they really think you can raise 3 children on this?" I was taken aback because this woman came from one of the wealthiest families in the city. When Stephen Harper was VP of the National Citizens' Coalition, he praised the efforts of the Reform Party and NCC in scrapping the family allowance (Hamilton Spectre). This was one of the few statements he made back then, that I actually agreed with. The Child Tax Benefit and GST refunds were a much better alternative. The Ontario Gov't suggesting that they may deduct this from assistance payments, could turn out to be a good thing; (Yes I'm still a Leftie) because it draws attention to the fact that Canada needs affordable childcare, not a handout. If we really want parents to come off the welfare system, we need to present them with viable alternatives. They cannot afford to work for minimum wage if their entire earnings go to childcare. $100.00 a month will cover about 2 days per month, and 2 days wages will not take them out of the system. I believe it will cost taxpayers far less to proceed with a National Childcare Plan, than it would to pay ALL parents $ 1200.00 per year; plus the administration costs. Scrapped daycare will just put more people on the social assistance rolls; and those already on it; no way out.