Harper didn't break his own law

[Moonbox]

They have never endorsed the Liberals. David Asper who runs the paper is a card carrying Conservative party member.

Wrong. They endorsed the Liberals in the 2004 election and were highly critical of Harper, but then they endorsed Harper in 2006. Now who knows who they'll endorse? The fact is the National Post is barely even a real newspaper. It loses something like 20 million dollars a year and the only reason it's still being published is so that the Aspers have a political voice in Canada and I don't think it's a great place to go looking for unbiased opinions. It was worse when it was a pro-reform party newspaper under Conrad Black, but it's still pretty bad.

I never said it was against the law. I said it was cyncial and disappointing. The legislation was meaningless and always was.

I also said that Harper would probably win the election but that people would have a cynical view of it and the National Post did.

I guess we can agree on that. What I'm trying to say is that you should probably have a cynical view of the Liberal position as well.

[jdobbin]

Wrong. They endorsed the Liberals in the 2004 election and were highly critical of Harper, but then they endorsed Harper in 2006. Now who knows who they'll endorse? The fact is the National Post is barely even a real newspaper. It loses something like 20 million dollars a year and the only reason it's still being published is so that the Aspers have a political voice in Canada and I don't think it's a great place to go looking for unbiased opinions. It was worse when it was a pro-reform party newspaper under Conrad Black, but it's still pretty bad.

I'm afraid that you are incorrect.

The National Post endorsed Harper twice. The first was on June 23, 2004 and the second was on January 19, 2006.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...1e-b93c55fff276

David Asper is a Conservative and an active supporter of Stephen Harper.

I guess we can agree on that. What I'm trying to say is that you should probably have a cynical view of the Liberal position as well.

I certainly would if they had created such cynical legislation on fixed elections.

[marksman]

Moonbox I'll just respond to a few of your posts at once without quoting them all.

I've said this before but I'll say it again - Harper didn't break any laws by calling an election. That's not my issue with the election call. The problem I've got is that he talked about how he was going to be open accountable and transparent and how he could be trusted to keep his word and play fair - but he hasn't done that. 1 of the things he said was that he was giving up the advantage to call an early election and he passed the fixed date law for that purpose.

This was a really dumb thing to do. We've already got fixed election dates in the constitution so there's no need for this legislation especially when there's nothing that says you can't call an election before the "fixed" date in the new law.

The problem is that he's doing what every PM before him did and calling an election when it suits him. It goes against what he said 2 years ago and many years before that and it goes against the spirit of his law.

He says Parliament wasn't functioning but he can't point to a single instance where a law he wanted passed - made a confidence vote - was blocked. Saying that the opposition parties no longer agree with him isn't true - they never agreed with him it's just that the Liberals never voted against the government when it mattered and simply disagreed with him in the press. Opposition parties that say they disagree with you don't count as a nonfunctioning Parliament. Nonfunctioning means legislation isn't getting passed.

You've pointed out that why should Harper wait for a nonconfidence vote to be determined by the opposition. A few people have answered this - he should wait because he said he would. It might be a double standard to say that the opposition parties can time a nonconfidence vote but the government can't call a snap election but this is a double standard that Harper enforced on himself. You can't claim to be the "trust me guy" and then act surprised when people point out that you aren't doing what you said you would. And blaming the double standard on your opponents makes you look even less trustworthy. He'd get more respect if he'd admit that the fixed date law was misguided and that he needed an election because he thought he needed a new mandate.

It'd still be a cynical snap election call but at least it'd be a traditional cynical snap election call. We wouldn't have "Parliament wasn't functioning because I've been able to pass everything I've wanted" nonsense and the opposition wouldn't be able to criticise him since he'd have admitted that the fixed date law was inadequate.

So it wasn't illegal to call a snap election but for Harper I still think it was wrong unless he repealed the fixed date law or at least admitted his mistake.

[Shakeyhands]

He is basically saying that. He's saying that the opposition won't cooperate with the agenda he's going to set forth. If that's the case, Canada needs to vote.

Well first of all, bollocks. Second... It ain't their job to cooperate with his agenda!!! (you do know how our system of Gov't works right?) This was a very shrewd move by Harpers team to snatch a majority. It has nothing to do with a non-functioning parliament.

[Moonbox]

Marksman to be honest it's very refreshing to get a reasoned explanation from an opposing perspective.

You've at least addressed some of the points I made and in some ways you and a very few others in this thread have served to somewhat damper my image of Stephen Harper. I say somewhat because in the end, I think he is doing mosty the right thing.

Yes, it's quite clear that some of the promises he makes did not entirely hold up. Things like the income trusts, Newfoundland equalization formulas and fixed election dates come to mind. It's impossible to argue that his promises were either broken altogether or he bent the rules on some sort of funny technicality.

With that being said, just like you've already mentioned, some of these promises were completely misguided and stupid to have made in the first place. Should he be chastized for making them? Sure. Should he be also chastized for breaking stupid promises? Well...maybe in so much as they were stupid to make in the first place.

The income trusts for example, were impossible to justify as they stood. Yes, the promise was made, but after seeing how unfair a loophole the trusts offered what decision should you make? Should you uphold your promise even though it would be unfair and to the detriment of most Canadians, or should you do what is ultimately right?

There are also all the things Stephen Harper said he'd do to make elections and politics more fair. The election gag laws, fixed election dates and many other things like Senate appointments that the Liberal government had been abusing before and since Mulroney are all things that Harper campaigned on and really did nothing about. Mostly, he's just kept the status quo.

Does that make him a liar? As much as any other politician I guess. A hypocrit? Sure, but show me a governing politician who isn't. What I'm trying to do in this thread is explain why he would have done what he's done and why it's silly to expect him or think he would do otherwise.

Stephen Harper's broken promises in terms of election laws and campaign laws are really just him giving the Liberals a taste of their very own medecine. Does he hold the high moral ground in this matter? No, but nor does his competition. Does it look good on Dion and the Liberals? Most assuredly yes.

Liberal policy has been disastrous over the last 35 years in terms of finance and international relations and I would love to see someone argue otherwise. We can pin both our current debt load AND the lack of social and health care services squarely on the Liberal government's (and to a lesser extent Mulroney's) feet.

Given what they've done to the country and how blatently the Liberals abused the political system (particularly Chretien and Trudeau) to their own advantage, I think it's very suspect for them in particular to be complaining about what the Harper conservatives are doing. Again, yes, I'll agree it's hypocritical for Harper to be using their own games against them, but I think they are past due for some severe humbling and that this is almost poetic justice.

[jdobbin]

Liberal policy has been disastrous over the last 35 years in terms of finance and international relations and I would love to see someone argue otherwise. We can pin both our current debt load AND the lack of social and health care services squarely on the Liberal government's (and to a lesser extent Mulroney's) feet.

It has been Liberal policy that pulled the country out of deficit, started paying back the debt and allowed for the restoration of stable healthcare funding are Martin.

The Harper Tories are way over budget each and every year and with a downturn in the economy are flirting with a deficit.

[Bryan]

I wonder if those who are complaining about this election call would have supported the other side of the equation with regards to fixed elections:

Should the opposition not be able to bring down a minority gov't either?

[Ontario Loyalist]

Well first of all, bollocks. Second... It ain't their job to cooperate with his agenda!!! (you do know how our system of Gov't works right?) This was a very shrewd move by Harpers team to snatch a majority. It has nothing to do with a non-functioning parliament.

I don't know if I would call it "shrewed"... It may turn out to be a bungled attempt at 'snatch[ing] a majority" at best...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It has been Liberal policy that pulled the country out of deficit, started paying back the debt and allowed for the restoration of stable healthcare funding are Martin.

The Harper Tories are way over budget each and every year and with a downturn in the economy are flirting with a deficit.

The facts notwithstanding, the average citizen still does not trust the Liberal party nor the newest leader of that party. The question of trust is indeed relevant and yet Dion does not seem to understand that Harper is a walking target for criticism in this respect. Considering this, Dion has issues of his own.

[jdobbin]

The facts notwithstanding, the average citizen still does not trust the Liberal party nor the newest leader of that party. The question of trust is indeed relevant and yet Dion does not seem to understand that Harper is a walking target for criticism in this respect. Considering this, Dion has issues of his own.

I have acknowledged that it doesn't matter in the least. The Liberals are headed for one of the worst defeats in its history and will collapse as a party thereafter.

There will be a new dynamic of left versus right in Canada thereafter.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I wonder if those who are complaining about this election call would have supported the other side of the equation with regards to fixed elections:

Should the opposition not be able to bring down a minority gov't either?

We have a responsible government system that gave the government and the opposition mechanisms to end the mandate and seek an election.

The fixed election date was dishonest from the start. Confidence, as I said way back when this law was first enacted, is anything the government wants to say it is.

So far I have not heard any mea culpas from people who dismissed my argument that Harper would not wait for a confidence vote and would call an election himself.

[Topaz]

The facts notwithstanding, the average citizen still does not trust the Liberal party nor the newest leader of that party. The question of trust is indeed relevant and yet Dion does not seem to understand that Harper is a walking target for criticism in this respect. Considering this, Dion has issues of his own.

I bet more people trust Dion than Harper. I don't think we will get a majority gov't and from what I'm hearing on C-Pac and my area, Harper will be lucky to form a minority.

[Bryan]

The Liberals are headed for one of the worst defeats in its history and will collapse as a party thereafter.

You should be their new campaign manager!!

[Moonbox]

It has been Liberal policy that pulled the country out of deficit, started paying back the debt and allowed for the restoration of stable healthcare funding are Martin.

This is just silly. Liberal Policy paid back the debt that was Liberal Policy to accumulate in the first place? Liberal tax and spend was what got us into debt in the first place. Mulroney didn't help things, granted, but at the same time his government was dealing with Bank of Canada interest rates up in the high teens along with recession at the end of the Trudea/Turner Liberals and also another recession in 1991.

With that said, saying the Liberals balanced Canada's finances after putting them into shambles is about as remarkable as cleaning your own vomit off the floor. All they did to balance the budget which they ruined in the first place was drastically cut transfer payments to the provinces and accumulate massive EI surpluses by being cheap with it. Effectively, they just cut social and health care services and left us with less than we even started. What's funny, however, is that these are the very thing that they campaign on in an election.

I'm not saying that I disagree with balancing the budget, but I AM disagreeing with any assertion that Trudeau-esque Liberals have demonstrated themselves to be sound financial managers.

Anyone saying that right now needs to look at the carbon tax. The green shift will by no means in any way possible be revenue neutral for the average Canadian.

The Harper Tories are way over budget each and every year and with a downturn in the economy are flirting with a deficit.

over budget yet posting surpluses and paying down the debt....

Also, in an economic downturn, a small deficit isn't even really a bad thing. BASIC economic theory suggests that the last thing you want to do in a recession/semi-recession is cut back spending and slow down the flow of capital/spending in the economy. That only makes the recession worse. You spend more in a downturn so as to minimize its impact on the average Canadian so thousands more Canadians don't lose their job and the economy recovers more quickly.

Because of how the average Canadian perceives a deficit now (thanks to Trudeau), the CPC has to do everything it can to keep the books in the black. The word 'deficit' is unthinkable in Canada these days.

[thermo]

You should be their new campaign manager!!

HI DERE BRYAN!

[jdobbin]

You should be their new campaign manager!!

At this point nothing can save them from losing the election. Only a continued series of Conservative missteps and a generally competent campaign will keep them from losing the bulk of their seats.

[jdobbin]

I'm not saying that I disagree with balancing the budget, but I AM disagreeing with any assertion that Trudeau-esque Liberals have demonstrated themselves to be sound financial managers.

The Tories did not cut spending under Mulroney and raised a few dozen times. They may have inherited a problem but after eight years, they didn't solve it. In fact, after two failed constitutional talks, they made it worse in a lot of ways.

Anyone saying that right now needs to look at the carbon tax. The green shift will by no means in any way possible be revenue neutral for the average Canadian.

We certainly know that the cap and trade will pass along costs that are not fixed.

over budget yet posting surpluses and paying down the debt....

Diminishing surpluses.

Also, in an economic downturn, a small deficit isn't even really a bad thing. BASIC economic theory suggests that the last thing you want to do in a recession/semi-recession is cut back spending and slow down the flow of capital/spending in the economy. That only makes the recession worse. You spend more in a downturn so as to minimize its impact on the average Canadian so thousands more Canadians don't lose their job and the economy recovers more quickly.

Because of how the average Canadian perceives a deficit now (thanks to Trudeau), the CPC has to do everything it can to keep the books in the black. The word 'deficit' is unthinkable in Canada these days.

It is unthinkable. There was no reason for Tory spending like drunken sailors starting in 2006. They can't even point to a downturn in the economy. Now, they can't get out of the habit. Many of the spending announcements they have made in the last months have been derided by them as irresponsible prior to attaining government.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jdobbin

[Bryan]

There was no reason for Tory spending like drunken sailors starting in 2006. They can't even point to a downturn in the economy. Now, they can't get out of the habit.

Fiscal management is one of the few places where I definitely do fundamentally disagree with the CPC. If there was one thing I wanted to remain from the Reform platform it was their insistence on fiscal restraint.

That having been said, we do still need to parse our economy in the context of the American one. For over two years, while the US economy was in the toilet and only getting worse, ours was white hot. We lost 30-35% of our advantage thanks to the crashing US dollar, and yet our situation was practically a polar opposite to theirs. Throughout all of that, they (the CPC) still managed to run a surplus, reduce taxes, and reduce the national debt. Considering how much of our economy is intrinsically tied to theirs, especially with regards to exports, this is nothing short of remarkable.

It's only just in recent months that we are starting to see things slowing down. And what is slowing down? Primarily manufacturing that's either American owned and/or making product to export back to the US market. I've seen several economists on CTV and CBC recently saying that outside of the manufactured-for-the-Americans-exports, our economy is actually still doing very well by most other metrics.

As much as I wretch at the spending, I have to at least admit the possibility that just maybe they DID know what they were doing. I might not like it, but it really worked well anyway. Even so, I still want to see someone from the Alberta school in as finance minister for the next session.

(edited to clarify that one of my "theys" referred to the CPC, not the US.)

Edited September 12, 2008 by Bryan

[jdobbin]

As much as I wretch at the spending, I have to at least admit the possibility that just maybe they DID know what they were doing. I might not like it, but it really worked well anyway. Even so, I still want to see someone from the Alberta school in as finance minister for the next session.

You should ask the Alberta Taxpayers Federation how they feel about Alberta spending. Their last report left them sputtering in exasperation.

[Moonbox]

The Tories did not cut spending under Mulroney and raised a few dozen times. They may have inherited a problem but after eight years, they didn't solve it. In fact, after two failed constitutional talks, they made it worse in a lot of ways.

Oh you bet nobody is arguing that Mulroney did a good job either. Like I said before though, interest rates in the high teens, economic recessions and inherited debt from Trudeau DID make things harder for him. I'm not saying he wasn't an idiot and some of the debt shouldn't be blamed on him, but it was Trudeau's tax and spend that set us on that path.

Besides, the comparison between the PC and the CPC is a lot less easy to make than today's Liberals compared to Trudeau/Chretien Liberals.

Diminishing surpluses.

yeah harper has diminishing surpluses in an economic downturn. The Liberals didn't really face a serious one from 1993-2006 other than the dot com crash which left Canada largely unaffected. Like I said before, it's good economics to run a balanced budget or slight deficit in a slowing economy. I won't bother explaining it to you because you probably don't care.

It is unthinkable. There was no reason for Tory spending like drunken sailors starting in 2006. They can't even point to a downturn in the economy. Now, they can't get out of the habit. Many of the spending announcements they have made in the last months have been derided by them as irresponsible prior to attaining government.

Your 'spending like drunken sailors' is just colorful language again. Way to exaggerate wildly. We go back to Trudeau for drunken sailor spending. Flaherty indicated he would be increasing transfer payments to the provinces a long time ago. He said the federal surplus was too high. I can't remember who said it but it was aptly stated awhile back that "The money is in Ottawa but the need is in the provinces." What does that mean? It means it's not fair or responsible to reap huge surpluses federally while provinces run deficits from supporting an overwhelmed health care system. Besides, the budget is balanced so you're not really scoring any points there either.

[g_bambino]

We can all see that in almost every thread on this board right now, there are people whining and carrying on about how Harper apparently broke his own law.

In this thread I'm just going to very simply break down how his law wasn't broken and how it was perfectly reasonable for an election to be called.

I'll go ahead and make the assumption first that everyone knows what the escape clause is for the legislation he passed, namely if parliament isn't 'functioning' it can dissolved without infringing on this law.

Now that we know that parliament not functioning is a pre-requisite to dissolving parliament, let's take that one step further:

Dion and the rest of the opposition have been threatening to vote non-confidence in the Harper government for many months now. Duceppe and Layton have at least been voting against Haper, while Dion has been abstaining with most of the liberal MP's from voting at all.

The abstension can really only be taken one way. The liberals are making a show of things with a sort of silent protest. It's their way of saying, "We don't like what you're doing and disagree with it but we are afraid of losing another election right now."

So now here we are, with over half the House of Commons either voting against or abstaining from every piece of legislature passed. How is this a functioning parliament?? It's simply not. Over half the elected representatives are openly opposed to the current Prime Minister and the only reason an election HASN'T been called yet is because the Liberal opposition is guilty of the exact same thing they're accusing the Harper government of: Opportunism.

The only reason the Liberals HAVEN'T voted against Harper yet is because they see where they are in the polls and they're waiting for a good time for THEM to pick and choose the time of the election. If that time didn't come (probably because of Dion bumbling) before the fixed election date, that's only because they didn't improve in the polls and NOT because they had confidence in the government or were happy letting it carry out its mandate.

For the simpleton, what Liberal cry babies are really saying is:

"Although the majority of parliament is openly opposed to the CPC (which really means it's not functioning), Stephen Harper should make sure that the House of Commons remains muddied under the shadow of a possible election until the fixed election date. Stephen Harper should, because it would be PERFECTLY reasonable, make sure that the next election is held at a time specific to Dion's choosing and at Dion's advantage. Stephen Harper should ignore the fact that Dion has made it crystal clear he does not intend to cooperate or compromise (the very definition of 'functioning' in a minority government), and he should ignore the advantage he has over the Liberals right now. Obviously that would be 'fair' and that's what the Liberals would do right???"

Why all the postulating? Harper didn't break the election law because of the way the law is written. Harper does not call elections, the Governor General does, and the very first clause of the amendment to the Canada Elections Act states: "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion." As the Governor General is normally bound to follow her prime minister's advice, when Harper recommends that she prorogue parliament and issue writs for an election, chances are that she will. All Bill C-16 did was lessen the maximum length of parliament's life from five years (as stipulated in the Constitution Act 1867) to four.

[DrGreenthumb]

yeah harper has diminishing surpluses in an economic downturn. The Liberals didn't really face a serious one from 1993-2006 other than the dot com crash which left Canada largely unaffected. Like I said before, it's good economics to run a balanced budget or slight deficit in a slowing economy. I won't bother explaining it to you because you probably don't care.

I love how economic downturns and conservative governments seem to go hand in hand. You would have us believe this is a coincidence but it is no coincidence. Conservative governments cause economic downturns. You can blame the states all you want for the economy's downturn but they are run by the right wing that Harper aspires to be. The US was far better off when Clinton was in charge. The conservatives bakrupt our governments until they have to sell off the people's assets to balance the books. We saw it with Gary Filmon in Manitoba when he sold off our telephone system, we see Harper's people using the spectrum selloff to balance theirs.

[jdobbin]

Oh you bet nobody is arguing that Mulroney did a good job either. Like I said before though, interest rates in the high teens, economic recessions and inherited debt from Trudeau DID make things harder for him. I'm not saying he wasn't an idiot and some of the debt shouldn't be blamed on him, but it was Trudeau's tax and spend that set us on that path.

And Liberal spending cuts and tax cuts that got the country out.

yeah harper has diminishing surpluses in an economic downturn.

From 2006 to 2008, it has been Tory tax cuts and spending in relatively good economic times that reduced the surplus and sent monthly accounts into deficit a few times.

The Liberals didn't really face a serious one from 1993-2006 other than the dot com crash which left Canada largely unaffected. Like I said before, it's good economics to run a balanced budget or slight deficit in a slowing economy. I won't bother explaining it to you because you probably don't care.

Just as some Conservatives don't care that drastic spending cuts happened in good times under the Liberals.

Your 'spending like drunken sailors' is just colorful language again. Way to exaggerate wildly. We go back to Trudeau for drunken sailor spending. Flaherty indicated he would be increasing transfer payments to the provinces a long time ago. He said the federal surplus was too high. I can't remember who said it but it was aptly stated awhile back that "The money is in Ottawa but the need is in the provinces." What does that mean? It means it's not fair or responsible to reap huge surpluses federally while provinces run deficits from supporting an overwhelmed health care system. Besides, the budget is balanced so you're not really scoring any points there either.

That expression has been used by the CTF about present Conservative spending. They have never hit their target.

[Moonbox]

I love how economic downturns and conservative governments seem to go hand in hand. You would have us believe this is a coincidence but it is no coincidence. Conservative governments cause economic downturns. You can blame the states all you want for the economy's downturn but they are run by the right wing that Harper aspires to be. The US was far better off when Clinton was in charge. The conservatives bakrupt our governments until they have to sell off the people's assets to balance the books. We saw it with Gary Filmon in Manitoba when he sold off our telephone system, we see Harper's people using the spectrum selloff to balance theirs.

Dr Greenthumb after replying to this quote I'm more or less going to just ignore everything you have to say. There is a lot of partisanship in this forum but at least most of the posters with differing opinions from my own have something solid to offer in their arguments. Your posts in particular make me cringe at how ignorant and biased a partisan opinion can become. I've seen no exception when reading your posts and this is another example of pure and unadultered garbage. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't even TRY to support your opinions. Your lack knowledge and understanding of basically anything related to politics makes your posts nothing but a waste of time.

For the sake of at least supporting what i just said, i'll break down your post.

You have DIRECTLY linked the slowing economy to Harper politics but you clearly have no understanding of financial or international markets or anything to do with economies in general. Canada's economy has slowed down for a good number of reasons and pretty much none of them have ANYTHING to do with what Harper did in Canada.

Here's why our economy is slowing:

1. The world credit crisis

2. The depreciation of the US dollar and the appreciation of the Canadian dollar in value

3. Rising worldwide oil prices.

Now strangely enough, all of these factors are screwing with the economy and at the same time they are making each other worse as well.

I'll give you a high five if you could explain any of it but I'm not going to hold my breath because I'm almost certain you can't and doubt you'll even try.

The economy is slowing worldwide. As foreign economies slow, so will our own. If you're going to put the blame squarely on Harper's feet then you're going to have to explain how he made oil prices higher, made the Canadian dollar more valuable, crashed the US housing market and then brought the rest of the world's economy down with him.

The only thing I'll agree with you on is that 8 years of Bush most certainly HAS made things worse but you can't even really place the bulk of the blame at his feet either.

Telling us what you think Harper aspires to be is a waste of everyone's time. You don't like him. We get it. We don't care. We DO want to hear about things he does wrong but we couldn't care less what your clueless imagination can come up with in regards to his dicatorial Darth Vader agenda.

Edited September 13, 2008 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

And Liberal spending cuts and tax cuts that got the country out.

but that's the thing. This was no real accomplishment. I already said it many times. Cutting transfer payments to the provinces, accumulating unjustifiable surpluses in EI and crippling our military to balance the books that largely the same Liberals ruined is like puking on someone else's carpet, cleaning it up and then saying, "HEY! LOOK I CLEANED YOUR CARPET! I DID GOOD!"

From 2006 to 2008, it has been Tory tax cuts and spending in relatively good economic times that reduced the surplus and sent monthly accounts into deficit a few times.

You act like the monthly accounts matter. They don't. It's the average that counts. Tax cuts are good. Tax and spend is bad. Tax and spend hurts the economy and consumers and the theory has been disproven by economies all over the world.

Just as some Conservatives don't care that drastic spending cuts happened in good times under the Liberals.

That expression has been used by the CTF about present Conservative spending. They have never hit their target.

This is just rehashing the previous point. They drastically cut spending on social and healthcare systems to BELOW pre-Trudeau levels because Trudeau sent our country on its way so far into debt that we were headed for bankruptcy as a nation. At one point 40% of every tax dollar went to paying back debt. Why are we congratulating the Liberals for cleaning up their own mess? Don't even try to bring up Mulroney here either because Harper quit from the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives because he found them to be the same sort of crap that the Trudeau Liberals were.