Harper reloads with crime ultimatum

[maldon_road]

More sabre rattling. I'm sure that Harper doesn't want to be defeated on an issue where the country is split (gun registry, Afghanistan, global warming) but who's opposed to law 'n order? But you can outsmart yourself. The opposition could easily agree to the bill in principle but then try to get amendments in Committee - which could pass because of the Opposition majority. But which could also result in some of the rancor we saw last spring at committee hearings.

If the Tories just look unreasonable in point-blank refusing to entertain amendments and threatening an election it could backfire on them.

Harper reloads with crime ultimatum

Government won't accept amendments to bill, PM says after Liberals attempt to dodge bullet by abstaining on Throne Speech

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper brushed past the Liberals' decision yesterday to abstain from voting on the Throne Speech, staking the government's survival on a new uncompromising stand on crime legislation.

While Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's move means the government will survive early confidence votes on its broad agenda - avoiding an immediate election campaign - Mr. Harper quickly said he would set a potential new obstacle in Mr. Dion's path.

The Prime Minister insisted his government will not accept any amendments to an omnibus crime bill that will revive a series of bills killed when he prorogued Parliament.

And Conservative sources said the new omnibus legislation will strip out some amendments that had been passed in the last session - forcing the opposition to accept at least some measures they deemed unacceptable last term.

"They have to agree to it, or we'll have an election," said Jay Hill, the Conservative government's chief whip....(more)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...8/TPStory/Front

Edited October 18, 2007 by maldon_road

[old_bold&cold]

If Harper can not get the crime bill thru all the hoops, then he can call an election himself. Saying the government can not work and using the crime bill that almost everyone wants pass as the reason. There would be very little flack back at him for doing this and it would catch the liberals with their collective pants down. It will also be a good time to include a referendum on triple E senate, and that may well be done along with this vote. It could easily be a double play for Harper. So I do nto think that the liberals will play any games in this as they will lose too much. I think the crime bills will go thru fast, just because it is something they all can not be seen being against.

[Moxie]

While I'm not a fan of Harper, this is a good piece of legislation and frankly I don't care what the NDP and Liberal MPs want to change or ammend. By the time they are done getting face time in the media (months perhaps) criminals who use guns to commit crimes are getting bail. That is the only issue to me, lock these thugs up and keep them in custody until their trial so they can't harm more innocents. That is what this piece of legislation is about, are the liberals more concerned with the supposed gun toting criminals than their innocent victims?

[CLRV]

Who could be against a Law'n'Order bill? Plenty of thinking Canadians will oppose bad ideas like mandatory sentencing (which the American experience has shown only ties judge's hands and overcrowds prisons) and any attack on "gun crime" that doesn't address the guns themselves.

Hey Tories! You are doing it again.

They get a few polls in and they think they're bound for glory. Again and again, they've gone into election situations just as cocksure as they are now, only to get their asses handed to them at the actual ballotbox. Witness the recent trouncing in Ontario. Hot damn, boys! We're majority-bound. Whoops! Where'd it go?

Yeah, yeah. I know. John Tory built the whole defeat in his basement. Faith-based schools. That and that alone was the problem. Otherwise everybody loved the Conservatives. Right? That's the offical line and nothing's going to change it now. I accept that.

But here's the problem, kids. Even if it were possible for such an electoral defeat to arise from ONE single issue (it's not, but never mind), doesn't anybody think such a thing could just as easily arise from such unpopular American-imported Tory policies as perpetual war in Afghanistan, a Reagan-style war on drugs, or an environmental alternative to Kyoto that follows the lead of George W. Bush?

For the most part, the recent past has been filled with Tory defeats snatched from the jaws of opinion poll victory. Reform. Alliance. Tory Lite. Canadians said yes on opinion polls but hell no on electoral polls. Each time, as in Ontario, the response was to blame the leader, fire his ass and get a new one for the next try. The only time in decades this has even come close to working was the last federal election, where they squeaked their present minority stance out of YEARS of perpetual bombardment of the public mind with overblown Liberal "boondoggles" and cries that they were drunk with power.

Well I don't think that particular tactic will work this time, do you? So it's back to the old tried and failed strategies. I shall look forward to Harper's newfound "bring it on" bluster to eventually blow up in his face at some point in the future.

Edited October 19, 2007 by CLRV

[bush_cheney2004]

Who could be against a Law'n'Order bill? Plenty of thinking Canadians will oppose bad ideas like mandatory sentencing (which the American experience has shown only ties judge's hands and overcrowds prisons) and any attack on "gun crime" that doesn't address the guns themselves.

That's what it was designed to do. Incarceration is a growth industry....crime rates are at 30 year lows.

But here's the problem, kids. Even if it were possible for such an electoral defeat to arise from ONE single issue (it's not, but never mind), doesn't anybody think such a thing could just as easily arise from such unpopular American-imported Tory policies as perpetual war in Afghanistan, a Reagan-style war on drugs, or an environmental alternative to Kyoto that follows the lead of George W. Bush?

If they are so unpopular, why do you keep importing them?

P.S.: War on Drugs is an LBJ/Nixon joint, and Kyoto was DOA in the US Senate in 1998.

[CLRV]

That's what it was designed to do. Incarceration is a growth industry....crime rates are at 30 year lows.

Well that depends on who you are listening to, USA TODAY (Violent crime on the rise) or USA TODAY (Violent crime rate in America continues steep decline)

With a media that sucks and blows at the same time like that, it would be unfair to expect you or other Americans to really have too much of a clue about the subject. However, most people would be ashamed of having the world's largest per capita prison population; particularly when they are trying to believe they live in the Land of the Free.

But as you spend more and more tax dollars on housing a larger and larger segment of your population, rest assured more sane nations are shaking their heads in wonder.

If they are so unpopular, why do you keep importing them?

But we keep rejecting them. That's what I was saying. Conservatives keep trying to import them, but they keep losing. Get it?

P.S.: War on Drugs is an LBJ/Nixon joint, and Kyoto was DOA in the US Senate in 1998.

I think you just smoked an LBJ/Nixon joint.

[bush_cheney2004]

With a media that sucks and blows at the same time like that, it would be unfair to expect you or other Americans to really have too much of a clue about the subject. However, most people would be ashamed of having the world's largest per capita prison population; particularly when they are trying to believe they live in the Land of the Free.

Speak for yourself....most people are delighted!

But as you spend more and more tax dollars on housing a larger and larger segment of your population, rest assured more sane nations are shaking their heads in wonder.

But that is exactly what the socialist/commies want us to do...prisoners even get health care same as in Canada!

But we keep rejecting them. That's what I was saying. Conservatives keep trying to import them, but they keep losing. Get it?

Nope...Canada is still in Afghanistan taming the locals (Liberals sent them there), RCMP is rounding up more WOT perps, and Kyoto is finally acknowledged as the joke it has always been.

I think you just smoked an LBJ/Nixon joint.

I can't blame you....importing so many American references is bound to lead to screw ups....in your case..quite often.

[sharkman]

While I'm not a fan of Harper, this is a good piece of legislation and frankly I don't care what the NDP and Liberal MPs want to change or ammend. By the time they are done getting face time in the media (months perhaps) criminals who use guns to commit crimes are getting bail. That is the only issue to me, lock these thugs up and keep them in custody until their trial so they can't harm more innocents. That is what this piece of legislation is about, are the liberals more concerned with the supposed gun toting criminals than their innocent victims?

Good points, we have been too soft on these criminals for a long time. Canada is slowly waking up to the fact that crime pays quite well here and even with super lenient punishments our prisons are pretty much full. Next up, we need to add capacity to our prison system, something we haven't done in Canada for decades so we can throw the idiot criminals in the big house and actually provide a deterent to such present career options as drug dealing and the accompanying gun use that goes with it.

[Wilber]

Who could be against a Law'n'Order bill? Plenty of thinking Canadians will oppose bad ideas like mandatory sentencing (which the American experience has shown only ties judge's hands and overcrowds prisons) and any attack on "gun crime" that doesn't address the guns themselves.

Article on the evening news today. The majority of property crime in Vancouver is committed by just over 300 individuals, some with over a hundred convictions. None of them has ever served time in a Federal prison, in fact their sentences have been getting shorter. The Feds have the best rehab facilities in the country but our judges won't send them there.

They interviewed one guy who has a 200 per day meth and a 100 per day heroin habit. He says he gets 30 cents on the dollar for what he steals so he only has to steal 328,000 a year to feed his habits. The norm is 10 cents on the dollar for these guys so some are having to steal over a million per year. He says he breaks into well over 50 cars a day. He said he has a daughter now and would take treatment tomorrow if he could get it, even in prison. You think some judge would figure out that a federal sentence would be a good idea for this guy. Not in our moronic system. Yet there are still idiots who still say it is too expensive to put people in jail.

Among other things it's this kind of crap that people are sick of and why they want changes to the system.

[CLRV]

But that is exactly what the socialist/commies want us to do...prisoners even get health care same as in Canada!

You forget tv sets, weight rooms, high school diploma courses, etc. So you can imagine my amusement when I see someone attempting to define themself as a conservative by espousing such an obvious, institutionalized welfare system.

[CLRV]

Among other things it's this kind of crap that people are sick of and why they want changes to the system.

So you figure taxpayers providing tens of thousands of dollars a year to house, feed and clothe the meth addict is the change we need?

Talk about crap...

[bush_cheney2004]

You forget tv sets, weight rooms, high school diploma courses, etc. So you can imagine my amusement when I see someone attempting to define themself as a conservative by espousing such an obvious, institutionalized welfare system.

I didn't forget anything, least not your failed comparisons to such "imports" not being embraced.

How's about a new prison just for WOT perps?

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n20ma06a.htm

[Wilber]

So you figure taxpayers providing tens of thousands of dollars a year to house, feed and clothe the meth addict is the change we need?

Talk about crap...

Federal prisons have the best rehab facilities in the country. Many ex addicts have said that being sent to one was the best thing that ever happened to them. So you think a individual doing a million a year in theft and property damage is less expensive to society.

[August1991]

More sabre rattling. I'm sure that Harper doesn't want to be defeated on an issue where the country is split (gun registry, Afghanistan, global warming) but who's opposed to law 'n order?

On the contrary, polls show that this is the most popular part of the Tory programme.

Harper has deliberately rolled this into an omnibus bill and wants it passed as a piece. He won't let this get stalled in committee. BTW, all three opposition parties are opposed to sections of it.

Hey Tories! You are doing it again.

They get a few polls in and they think they're bound for glory. Again and again, they've gone into election situations just as cocksure as they are now, only to get their asses handed to them at the actual ballotbox. Witness the recent trouncing in Ontario. Hot damn, boys! We're majority-bound. Whoops! Where'd it go?

Yeah, yeah. I know. John Tory built the whole defeat in his basement. Faith-based schools. That and that alone was the problem. Otherwise everybody loved the Conservatives. Right? That's the offical line and nothing's going to change it now. I accept that.

But here's the problem, kids. Even if it were possible for such an electoral defeat to arise from ONE single issue (it's not, but never mind), doesn't anybody think such a thing could just as easily arise from such unpopular American-imported Tory policies as perpetual war in Afghanistan, a Reagan-style war on drugs, or an environmental alternative to Kyoto that follows the lead of George W. Bush?

You are taking a very American view of Canadian politics.

The key factor to win federal elections in Canada is to unite disparate regions and in particular to cross the linguistic divide. Only the Conservatives do that successfully now and hence Harper will in all likelihood gain a majority government. CLVR, I suggest that you remove your American (or Ontarian) glasses and learn a little bit more about Canada.

Edited October 19, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

More sabre rattling. I'm sure that Harper doesn't want to be defeated on an issue where the country is split (gun registry, Afghanistan, global warming) but who's opposed to law 'n order? But you can outsmart yourself. The opposition could easily agree to the bill in principle but then try to get amendments in Committee - which could pass because of the Opposition majority. But which could also result in some of the rancor we saw last spring at committee hearings.

If the Tories just look unreasonable in point-blank refusing to entertain amendments and threatening an election it could backfire on them.

There are often things found in committee and in the Senate that are actually brought up by Tories themselves to improve bills.

It must be nice to have perfection right off the start.

At any rate, many of these bills were getting to final reading anyway so most will be voted on and sent off and will be back for final approval soon. One bill probably doesn't pass the sniff test for the Charter. The Liberals will probably vote for it knowing it will be struck down.

Edited October 19, 2007 by jdobbin

[maldon_road]

More sabre rattling. I'm sure that Harper doesn't want to be defeated on an issue where the country is split (gun registry, Afghanistan, global warming) but who's opposed to law 'n order?

On the contrary, polls show that this is the most popular part of the Tory programme.

That's the point I was making. The Dionites will reject it at their peril.

[Argus]

So you figure taxpayers providing tens of thousands of dollars a year to house, feed and clothe the meth addict is the change we need?

Talk about crap...

Agreed. A bullet would be a lot cheaper.

[myata]

What Harper seem to be ignoring with this bill (and some here seem to be forgetting) is the fact that his party is in a deep minority position and therefore is supposed to consult with the opposition to work out a compromise, not throw around ultimatums. I'm sure this doesn't come unnoticed with the public. The guy is too itchy to lay his hands on the power, perhaps a less jealous even if less harismatic individual would be a better (in the sense, safer) choice.

[Wilber]

What Harper seem to be ignoring with this bill (and some here seem to be forgetting) is the fact that his party is in a deep minority position and therefore is supposed to consult with the opposition to work out a compromise, not throw around ultimatums. I'm sure this doesn't come unnoticed with the public. The guy is too itchy to lay his hands on the power, perhaps a less jealous even if less harismatic individual would be a better (in the sense, safer) choice.

All parties campaigned on getting tough on crime. The public will also notice that this hasn't happened and why. Defeating Harper's government on this issue may be his best chance of turning that minority into a majority.

[old_bold&cold]

People keep bringing up the fact that this is a minority government and there fore should consult with all the other parties and get their input. But if we let that happen nothing would ever be done. harper has the right approach, and that is to introduce his bills as designed by his government and then see where there would be support ot not. It does seem that he has been able to find support for pretty all he has wanted to do, but then the Senate and committee's took way too long to pass the things.

Harper not being stupid, then decided to get twice the bang for the effort, and perlouged parliament, ending this stalling, and then in the new throne speech said he is reintroducing these same bills as on large bill and he will not allow any changes or stalling their passage. This will again give him the bump for being tough on crime and also, a shot right back at the opposition for not having passed all the hurdles before. He now looks like not only is he tough on crime but he is also saying if you do not do this then we go to the polls. If he has to do this, it will not cost him any political points and will cost all the opposition lots. He has effectively got points twice for the same bills and also political points for having it look like he has to drag the oppositions to pass it. Even though all said they will give it fast track, Harper get all the points. Nice play Harper!!

If the opposition wants to try and out plan Harper, then they better start using their heads. It looks like all these plans started out months ago, and were setup in a way that the opposition just tallked their way into corners, by demanding things that they knew would never have been granted. So now Harper is looking pretty and can call the election at any time and not have to worry about voters holding it against him. He will be passing only things that would be suicide for oppositions to vote against, and so he will make his government work, and deliver budgets with tax breaks and lost of other goodies, and the opposition can not stop him. When Harper feels he has enough support, he will poison pill an issue and an election will be called. Harper id the sheep dog in all of this and the opposition are the sheep. It is funny that they just do not know it yet.

[myata]

All parties campaigned on getting tough on crime. The public will also notice that this hasn't happened and why. Defeating Harper's government on this issue may be his best chance of turning that minority into a majority.

I don't know anybody (except Harpers team drumming it out of all proportions) who's overly concerned with crime. Don't get me wrong, I'll support something specifically and carefully targeted to put away dangerous multiple offenders. But that overall crime agenda would work - I'm less than certain about that. Now, what Harper is behaving as though he's already gotten the prize, cannot go unnoticed. I wonder how many may decide that perhaps it won't be safe to let him have it just yet. Which, given Liberal weakness, could return things to the present status quo.

[Michael Bluth]

Now, what Harper is behaving as though he's already gotten the prize, cannot go unnoticed. I wonder how many may decide that perhaps it won't be safe to let him have it just yet. Which, given Liberal weakness, could return things to the present status quo.

Harper realizes that this Parliament has run it's course.

By the end of last session the opposition did nothing but obstruct and rag the puck. The NDP and the Bloc have said they continue to do so in this Parliament. Harper won't stand for it. If it means an election so be it.

Dion is the only leader in the House who thinks things should continue as they did last session, because saving the Liberal Party of Canada is more important to him than doing what is right for Canadians.

Dion's lack of principles definitely has not gone unnoticed.

[old_bold&cold]

Status Quo is a dream that the Liberals can only dream about and never happen. Their party is in shambles, their leader now has no qualities at all, that would allow him to do anything but tank the party in an election. The public is seeing all this and it is just a moment away from saying it is hopeless for the Liberals. Just think about how a public debate would be with Dion as leader It would not even be fair in any way. Dion just can not compete with the rest. I think even Elizabeth May would be better at debate then Dion, and I do not hold her in much asteam either. Either way the Liberals slice it, their party is going to take huge losses of seats, along with the BLOC. That is a best case scenario. The facts are even worse then that. Hell even now the press is starting to outwardly show their contempt for Dion. They were laughing at his speech about his support of the throne speech, long before the others did. They simply blocked him out like some annoying buzz in the back ground and got on with writing their stories. That has been stated already in the news papers and other postings. So the Status Quo???!!! Not very likely and that would be a huge win for Dion if he could really do that.

Edited October 19, 2007 by old_bold&cold

[guyser]

Dion is the only leader in the House who thinks things should continue as they did last session, because saving the Liberal Party of Canada is more important to him than doing what is right for Canadians.

And you think harper , being the exact same boat, would act differently?

[myata]

I won't deny that Dion doesn't look very attractive (but maybe his soul is?). It's simply a matter of who's the safer option. The Harper guy with his attitudes (and unclear agenda) brings alive some not so long forgotten memories. In my classification, the only time we'd need an activist in government is when country is in a deep trouble (or he/she's is absolutely and entirely brilliant). Neither being the case, it's best to tread softly, so Dion should do.