Let's Talk Hidden Agenda

[Progressive Tory]

Because they are part of Canada. Its as simple as that. We all look out for each other here and we all help each other. That's the spirit of equalization and that's the spirit of Canada. People revently seem to be thinking in terms that are far too regional. We are all Canadians.

I agree. That is the way it should work because at the end of the day we all are Canadians. However, if you peruse online newspapers and read local comments on a variety of topics, you see just how split we are. For instance when a Calgary newspaper reported the Auto bailout, there were 197 comments, and only 3 in favour. In Ontario it was pretty much the exact opposite.

Now we have a Prime Minister who has intentionally divided the country to save his job. We cannot believe that the Province of Quebec being dismissed as 'Separatists' will not leave lingering anger, and we could soon be looking at the Separation issue. Federalism will change even if we don't.

I was interested in getting opinions good or bad, regarding the future of Canadian Federalism. I share your beliefs, but wonder if we're in the majority.

[Progressive Tory]

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is 3000 miles from the Pacific Ocean and they've just about succeeded at mismanaging every fishery that coastal communities here used to depend on into oblivion.

If Canadians had allowed us the opportunity to manage the affairs that matter the most to us ourselves, we wouldn't need Canad'a help. Its as simple as that.

As I see it, the two biggest obstacles to local management are the federal government that are loath to give up any control in the first place and the provincial governments that intercept any they do. Unless of course we're talking about Ottawa walking away from things that might cost the provinces money like, lighthouses, docks and regional airports. Yep the province neatly sidestepped these little bombs and left it to local property tax payers to fund them.

They laughed when we suggested we do something like keep some of the local forest stumpage revenues here to pay for these sorts of things. "How are you going to collect those if you don't get to manage who logs? "

The province probably gets a real hoot out of the idea of us ever managing our regions fish resources.

That's the real spirit of Canada.

That's definitely one on the pro side. If the Federal Fisheries Minister is in Newfoundland or PEI, how can they identify with BC or vice versa. Good point.

[Argus]

I hoped to stress that I find the whole 'hidden agenda' thing nonsense, but do wonder about the future of Federalism. Harper has definitely ignited 'Separist' talks again in Quebec, by dismissing the Bloc as un-Canadian,

Drivel. There's no sign of that whatsoever. And frankly, those Quebecers outraged that Harper insulted Separatists are separatists themselves.

As to getting their hands on the cash. It's unfortunate that the Conservatives were able to get their hands on the 13 Billion dollars in cash left by the Liberals because they magically made it disappear. Poof!

Not quite. They gave it back to its proper owners - namely, taxpayers like me.

I recognize your outrage, however. As a Liberal, you feel that money would be better off in your pocket, and that you deserve it simply for being a Liberal.

Don't worry. Some day your party will come to power again. And if you ingratiate yourself enough maybe they'll toss you a bit of the money they steal then.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

All governments steal citizens dollars through taxation. This one seems to be giving some dollars directly to a failing corporation or two.

[KeyStone]

Well, there were a couple causes for concern:

First, he sent out a fundraising letter to Conservatives telling them that Kyoto was a socialist redistribution scheme.

Second, he apologized to the Americans for not going into Iraq, and suggested most Canadians were for it.

Thirdly, he mocked Canada for being proud of its health care system and called us a Northern welfare state.

However, since he has been in power, we haven't see any of that, so I was starting to think that he finally understood Canada and had smartened up.

That was, until, he tried this last little stunt. Now I'm not so sure.

In the middle of the worst recession since 1982 when the country is in crisis, and in need of strong stable government, rather than addressing the economy he tries to financially cripple the other parties under a thin guise of saving taxpayers 30M, and then attacks union rights, and pay equity all in the same motion. And that's with a minority government.

I can only imagine what sort of agenda we would see if Harper got a majority.

[Progressive Tory]

Well, there were a couple causes for concern:

First, he sent out a fundraising letter to Conservatives telling them that Kyoto was a socialist redistribution scheme.

Second, he apologized to the Americans for not going into Iraq, and suggested most Canadians were for it.

Thirdly, he mocked Canada for being proud of its health care system and called us a Northern welfare state.

However, since he has been in power, we haven't see any of that, so I was starting to think that he finally understood Canada and had smartened up.

That was, until, he tried this last little stunt. Now I'm not so sure.

In the middle of the worst recession since 1982 when the country is in crisis, and in need of strong stable government, rather than addressing the economy he tries to financially cripple the other parties under a thin guise of saving taxpayers 30M, and then attacks union rights, and pay equity all in the same motion. And that's with a minority government.

I can only imagine what sort of agenda we would see if Harper got a majority.

You're absolutely right. We have to question why this man keeps re-inventing himself to appeal to voters, rather than evolve for the good of ALL Canadians. Who is the real Stephen Harper?

You don't have to imagine what sort of agenda we would see if Harper got a majority. It's pretty clear. He once said we won't recognize Canada once he got through with it. A Harper majority would be the end of this country as we know it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Whether or not Harper gets a majority doesn't seem like a valid question anymore. Whether or not he can retain control of the government does seem like a valid question.

[Progressive Tory]

Whether or not Harper gets a majority doesn't seem like a valid question anymore. Whether or not he can retain control of the government does seem like a valid question.

You're absolutely right.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would suggest that Iggy sit in the weeds until about summer time before he makes much noise. I would suggest that the wise move is to let Harper govern as best as he can while he picks him apart at every opportunity.

[Progressive Tory]

I would suggest that Iggy sit in the weeds until about summer time before he makes much noise. I would suggest that the wise move is to let Harper govern as best as he can while he picks him apart at every opportunity.

I think that's the plan. Harper is now a lame duck Prime Minister and his arrogance will only lead to more mistakes. I don't see the budget being defeated, but only Harper can decide whether the coalition will actually govern. He has to do his job.

[Topaz]

I for one want Canada to stay Canada and I don't like some of the changes this PM has done. IF there was a change of government or governments, I still feel it would be the NAU and the world order. One government to rules the world and the sectioning off of countries into groups or unions. As far as the NAU, we already have the blending of the US and Canada miltary. Trying to get rid of the Wheat Board, after all, the US doesn't have one and getting rid of the senate so a majority government would have full power to make any changes it wants to. I think as Canadians we better question every PM elected, better yet question him BEFORE he is elected. As to what will happen to Canada, it will all depends the US because they they DO go down our country will too and then the NAU will arise from the ashes? So the thought of Canada divided up in sections I don't think it will happen because the US will need our natural resources for one.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would like to see Harper weather this political storm for a while, I think it would be good for the nation to have a budget that served as some form of economic stimulus sooner rather than later. Later is what we will get if the government falls. Having said that I think Harper would be wise to convene a First Ministers conference with reckless abandon. This should be a meeting for all Canadians to see. Harper needs to bang an economic war drum with the Premiers. He needs to advocate huge spending between both the federal and provincial governments. He needs to transfer power and authority to the provinces along with the money to manage some of the programs. In short he needs to transfer the program expenses (debt) to the provinces quickly or face the reality of eating it himself. Of course he could be advocating the crown corporation plan we have been discussing, but that would not happen quickly enough to make a difference for him.

He is supposed to be an economist! This stuff should be up his alley, so I think he should use that handle to talk to the Provinces and get them on board with a carrot and stick plan. The carrot being control, the stick being reduced services if they don't tow the line. The fed simply can't afford to play games with this. The provinces will scream blue murder, but that is the price of leadership, making tough calls. This call is to save his political skin. If he does not do this, then he is not showing proactive leadership to the people and only playing politics in the Commons. Harper cannot afford that considering Iggy in his face. A move like this would take a lot of wind out of Iggy sails.

[KeyStone]

I would like to see Harper weather this political storm for a while, I think it would be good for the nation to have a budget that served as some form of economic stimulus sooner rather than later. Later is what we will get if the government falls. Having said that I think Harper would be wise to convene a First Ministers conference with reckless abandon. This should be a meeting for all Canadians to see. Harper needs to bang an economic war drum with the Premiers. He needs to advocate huge spending between both the federal and provincial governments. He needs to transfer power and authority to the provinces along with the money to manage some of the programs. In short he needs to transfer the program expenses (debt) to the provinces quickly or face the reality of eating it himself. Of course he could be advocating the crown corporation plan we have been discussing, but that would not happen quickly enough to make a difference for him.

He is supposed to be an economist! This stuff should be up his alley, so I think he should use that handle to talk to the Provinces and get them on board with a carrot and stick plan. The carrot being control, the stick being reduced services if they don't tow the line. The fed simply can't afford to play games with this. The provinces will scream blue murder, but that is the price of leadership, making tough calls. This call is to save his political skin. If he does not do this, then he is not showing proactive leadership to the people and only playing politics in the Commons. Harper cannot afford that considering Iggy in his face. A move like this would take a lot of wind out of Iggy sails.

Hey, I'm with you. Frankly, when the economic storm was happening, I was hoping that Harper would show more of what he did over the last two years. He didn't pull any outrageous surprises and the only real promise he broke was income trusts - which was necessary - although the Liberals won't admit it.

I was hoping that they could all just get along and Harper could provide a sense of stability to get us through these times. And then out of nowhere, he pulls that b.s. - instead of showing the cooperation that he gave lip service to.

He really blew it. He showed us just a glimpse of what his real agenda is and figured that the leaderless, financially strapped Liberals were in no position to call an election, so he could bludgeon it through. The coalition was really the only way to stop him. Since that we've seen the real Stephen Harper - desperate for power - proroguing parliament, stacking the Senate and spending big money to convince Canadians that a coalition is undemocratic - despite the fact he knows full well it is. He assumes Canadians are stupid (after all, we are proud of our Northern welfare state), and sadly from the polls I have seen, it seems he is right.

[ToadBrother]

He really blew it. He showed us just a glimpse of what his real agenda is and figured that the leaderless, financially strapped Liberals were in no position to call an election, so he could bludgeon it through. The coalition was really the only way to stop him. Since that we've seen the real Stephen Harper - desperate for power - proroguing parliament, stacking the Senate and spending big money to convince Canadians that a coalition is undemocratic - despite the fact he knows full well it is. He assumes Canadians are stupid (after all, we are proud of our Northern welfare state), and sadly from the polls I have seen, it seems he is right.

The Coalition is dead. Ignatieff may keep the bullet in the barrel as a means of keeping Harper in line, but he is not going to want to be beholden to Layton and Duceppe.

I think, frankly, the Coalition has already done whatever job it needed to do. Harper was forced into the humiliating position of running the GG to save his bacon. His caucus has forced him to make overtures to the other parties, because only a complete lunatic would want to actually electioneer in this economic climate (not to mention the actual weather we're having).

The general plan for the Liberals will be to keep Harper in power, because the longer he's in power, the more the economic fallout can be pinned on him. In a year's time, the Conservatives will be so tarred with economic woes that the potential for a Liberal victory (without having to get into bed with the NDP and separatists) will be much greater. Ignatieff is no fool, better to lose the battle and win the war.

[eyeball]

Harper and the Tories are anti-abortion, anti-women's rights, anti gay rights, against bilingualism, health care, and multiculturalism, anti-environment and pro-war.

Harper and the Tories would never say so directly but many of the people he represents certainly do. That's enough for me. I think attributing their shit to Harper himself is fair game. In our FPTP system, there's just too much at stake to risk him getting a majority that's potentially based on a minority. Especially if the sorts of people who harbour no secrets about the agenda they'd like to see are critical to Harper staying in power.

ABC.

Edited January 9, 2009 by eyeball

[capricorn]

I would suggest that Iggy sit in the weeds until about summer time before he makes much noise. I would suggest that the wise move is to let Harper govern as best as he can while he picks him apart at every opportunity.

Iggy is already aligned with Harper on foreign affairs matters, as evidenced in his recent declaration of support for Israeli actions. There are other examples where they see eye to eye on foreign affairs issues. There is also speculation that they agree on the basic formula for economic stimulus. So far, they're playing from the same policy playbook. Some bloggers on political forums are calling Iggy Harper-lite. To date, I don't think he's off to a particularly good start at differentiating himself from Harper.

[capricorn]

The general plan for the Liberals will be to keep Harper in power, because the longer he's in power, the more the economic fallout can be pinned on him. In a year's time, the Conservatives will be so tarred with economic woes that the potential for a Liberal victory (without having to get into bed with the NDP and separatists) will be much greater.

It cuts both ways Toad. If the economy rebounds as a result of stimulus measures or Canada benefits from an improved world economy, Harper can then claim these gains are the result of his governance. I don't think any results, good or bad, will be seen for some 12-16 months down the road following the introduction of economic measures. The question is will the Liberals be patient enough to hold off toppling the Conservatives or will the lust for power prove to be too much to contain them.

[blueblood]

It cuts both ways Toad. If the economy rebounds as a result of stimulus measures or Canada benefits from an improved world economy, Harper can then claim these gains are the result of his governance. I don't think any results, good or bad, will be seen for some 12-16 months down the road following the introduction of economic measures. The question is will the Liberals be patient enough to hold off toppling the Conservatives or will the lust for power prove to be too much to contain them.

So in other words, Harper has nothing to lose by calling an election. I see Harper slipping poison in here and playing the blame game, all while stirring up the coalition to run his election campaign on.

[ToadBrother]

It cuts both ways Toad. If the economy rebounds as a result of stimulus measures or Canada benefits from an improved world economy, Harper can then claim these gains are the result of his governance. I don't think any results, good or bad, will be seen for some 12-16 months down the road following the introduction of economic measures. The question is will the Liberals be patient enough to hold off toppling the Conservatives or will the lust for power prove to be too much to contain them.

Of course no results will be seen in that timeframe. That's why Ignatieff will hold off for now, take the time to rebuild his own house, and then jump on the Conservatives.

[KeyStone]

To date, I don't think he's off to a particularly good start at differentiating himself from Harper.

That's not true at all.

One of the most fundamental differences is how the two men view the future of Canada.

Harper views it being led by Harper, where as Ignatieff views it as being led by Ignatieff.

Other than that...I'm also at a loss.

[normanchateau]

Harper, like anyone who has devoted their lives to politics, has a lot of ideas, most of them unworkable, a lot of philosophical thoughts about what Canada would be like if we did this, or we did that. The reality is that most such thoughts will never come to fruition, or even be attempted given the scale of effort and time needed.

No doubt Layton and Ignatieff have had ideas as well, though the latter is pretty new to this political thing, but if so no one has cared enough to delve into their pasts to figure out what they are.

It is not especially difficult to delve into Ignatieff's past and discover some of his ideas. For example, in his 2005 book The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror, he acknowledges that he accepts limitations on civil rights in the fight against terrorism...a position at odds with some in the Liberal Party. He's written about 20 books, including many award-winning ones, and hundreds of lengthy articles in academic and other journals. He has been very prolific in the New York Review of Books:

http://www.nybooks.com/authors/13

His pro-military writings are numerous and his condemnation of previous Liberal leaders for their cuts to military spending are a matter of public record. His position on Iraq has not been forgotten. While I think Bob Rae as leader would have recaptured some of the NDP vote and Ignatieff will scare off some left-leaning Liberals, ultimately Ignatieff should appeal to the centrist majority including those who parked their votes with CPC until Dion was pushed out.

Harper's ideas are also a matter of public record. For example, it does not take much of a search to discover Harper's article "Now is the time for social conservatives to move forward, not retrench" in a 2002 issue of Alberta Report. His appearance on US television in 2003 condemning the government of Canada for failing to invade Iraq has not been forgotten. At the time, Harper claimed to Fox News that a majority of Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion.

[Progressive Tory]

It is not especially difficult to delve into Ignatieff's past and discover some of his ideas. For example, in his 2005 book The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror, he acknowledges that he accepts limitations on civil rights in the fight against terrorism...a position at odds with some in the Liberal Party. He's written about 20 books, including many award-winning ones, and hundreds of lengthy articles in academic and other journals. He has been very prolific in the New York Review of Books:

http://www.nybooks.com/authors/13

His pro-military writings are numerous and his condemnation of previous Liberal leaders for their cuts to military spending are a matter of public record. His position on Iraq has not been forgotten. While I think Bob Rae as leader would have recaptured some of the NDP vote and Ignatieff will scare off some left-leaning Liberals, ultimately Ignatieff should appeal to the centrist majority including those who parked their votes with CPC until Dion was pushed out.

Harper's ideas are also a matter of public record. For example, it does not take much of a search to discover Harper's article "Now is the time for social conservatives to move forward, not retrench" in a 2002 issue of Alberta Report. His appearance on US television in 2003 condemning the government of Canada for failing to invade Iraq has not been forgotten. At the time, Harper claimed to Fox News that a majority of Canadians outside of Quebec supported the invasion.

There in lies part of the problem for Harper. "His pro-military writings are numerous and his condemnation of previous Liberal leaders for their cuts to military spending are a matter of public record." He can't play the 'we're the only Party concerned with the military', because so is Ignatieff. "His position on Iraq has not been forgotten" Neither has Harper's, though he wasn't smart enough to write a book, so instead stole someone else's speech. And don't try blaming his speechwriter because when the news broke, the Washingston Post had a little blurb in their coverage of the story, that Harper said the exact same thing in a letter he sent to the editor at the time, and they printed it believing it came from him.

The big difference between the two is that Ignatieff does not have a social conservative agenda, which appeals to most Canadians. It's interesting that Harper's supporters are now saying that Ignatieff is...hmmm...as bad as Harper? That's scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The so-called 'Liberal power grab' (which was actually initiated by the NDP), is no different than Harper's attempt at a power grab in 2004 AT THE THRONE SPEECH, so that's not an option for the Cons.

I too think, and can almost bet beyond a doubt, that Ignatieff will not and does not really want to, have the Coalition take power. The notion is far from being dead but considering the change in public opinion, Harper won't want an election right now, so he'll have no other choice but to do his job.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...JQi36UAZwZ1gQDw

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The coalition is the big stick, a threat hanging over Harper's head. He cannot prevail in this regard, he has only two options and neither of them appeal to his own party. Cave in to the whims of the opposition by compromising his own values or stand against them and lose his government. He has been cornered.

On the other hand Iggy should not wave the stick in Harper's face, it is not to the advantage of the Liberal Party to take power now. What is more important in strategic terms is using Harper to do what the party believes needs to be done and waiting to see what actually happens. If something bad happens they can point at Harper and say that the government did it. If something good happens they can say they made him do it. The party needs to stay clean and be perceived as a viable alternative come the next election. Perhaps even more important is to be able to say they were able to manipulate Harper by letting him prove to Canadians the extent to which he will go just to retain power.