Harper Government: Honest

[Smallc]

I could be wrong but I thought it was implied that it was the subversion of the supremacy of parliament.

Yeah but...no one stole any money, so it's not important....

[Handsome Rob]

Yeah but...no one stole any money, so it's not important....

And the alternative is worse. The refusal to reveal information and answer questions implies guilt.

That being said, I don't think the Harper government is anywhere near Chretien level of corruption or arrogance, and as until the current Liberals prove otherwise, I'd probably vote for Harper again, for lack of a decent alternative.

[eyeball]

I don't see much transparency from the most avowedly open and honest Prime Minister we've ever 'seen'. The promise of open honest government was just another transparent promise from a typically transparent Canadian Prime Minister. They're all the same and given the constant stream of apologies uttered on their behalf apparently the people who support being governed this way are too.

I think the real problem is with Canadian followers not it's leaders. I don't trust either myself.

Edited April 18, 2010 by eyeball

[Born Free]

Yeah but...no one stole any money, so it's not important....

perhaps but we dont know that for sure...

[Smallc]

perhaps but we dont know that for sure...

I was being sarcastic...

[Born Free]

I was being sarcastic...

OK. Thanks...

[Argus]

It's no surprise to read that you need to look it up to know what it means....

I'd suggest you look up the word "intelligence" so maybe you'd have a clue as to what that is.

[Argus]

look's the same from where I'm sitting, illegal activities by a cabinet minister...yup same thing..corruption...

Probably looks the same because of the way light rays are being influenced by your tinfoil cap.

[Born Free]

Probably looks the same because of the way light rays are being influenced by your tinfoil cap.

Trolling again eh?

[Argus]

Or perhaps it's your bias that is standing in the way. I don't pin this on the government any more than I pinned the sponsorship scandal on Paul Martin. I do say that these allegations are extremely serious, on the same level as the sponsorship scandal. I'm not sure you realize how dangerous it could become if we let possible influence peddling slip through.

No, she's right. Your bias is deeply in play here. The Sponsorship scandal was not about influence peddling. It was about theft, pure and simple. The stealing of government funds by letting out contracts for unneeded work - much of it not done - to friends of the Liberals who then funneled a percentage back into the Liberal party coffers. This was an organizational wide issue wherin the government placed people in the civil service and protected them against their superiors who questioned the violation of civil service rules. That protection extended down from the PMO. Most Canadians in surveys feel, and I do, that the prime minister and other senior ministers were well aware of everything going on, even if it hasn't been proven in court.

What's here to match? Allegations a junior minister let her husband get rides in her car? That she wrote a letter to a relative on behalf of a company which her husband may or may not have had some involvement with - though she denies he had any.

And you think those are on the same level as the sponsorship scandal? Really?

[Argus]

As a non-Liberal supporter I must advise you that a conservative equivalent has already been uncovered. The scandal went to the top of the heap too.

Listen to him. He has the inside scoop. His toaster knows all and tells all... to him anyway.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Argus

[Smallc]

No, she's right. Your bias is deeply in play here. The Sponsorship scandal was not about influence peddling. It was about theft, pure and simple.

That's right...and according to many, influence peddling, the very idea of it, is a bigger problem.

[Argus]

That's right...and according to many, influence peddling, the very idea of it, is a bigger problem.

Well they're wrong.

Influence peddling is defined as a government official taking money in order in order to influence a decision. It's a technicality, actually, given that governments have been doing this very thing forever. They just call it patronage instead. Patronage has, in the past, been used more often than not by the Liberals - who, after all, received the lions share of corporate money. All sorts of government decisions were based on which companies and corporations gave them money and which did not. All manner of government bills were drafted and redrafted after advice and opinions from "friends" who bought that friendship through political donations. All of this is quite legal, btw, or was, because the money went to the party and not into the personal banks of the politicians involved.

[Born Free]

Listen to him. He has the inside scoop. His toaster knows all and tells all... to him anyway.

The inside scoop was all over the news....you should stay current.

[nicky10013]

No, she's right. Your bias is deeply in play here. The Sponsorship scandal was not about influence peddling. It was about theft, pure and simple. The stealing of government funds by letting out contracts for unneeded work - much of it not done - to friends of the Liberals who then funneled a percentage back into the Liberal party coffers. This was an organizational wide issue wherin the government placed people in the civil service and protected them against their superiors who questioned the violation of civil service rules. That protection extended down from the PMO. Most Canadians in surveys feel, and I do, that the prime minister and other senior ministers were well aware of everything going on, even if it hasn't been proven in court.

What's here to match? Allegations a junior minister let her husband get rides in her car? That she wrote a letter to a relative on behalf of a company which her husband may or may not have had some involvement with - though she denies he had any.

And you think those are on the same level as the sponsorship scandal? Really?

I guess you missed the allegation that she supported a billion dollar application by her husband to the government's green job initiative. Whoops!

[nicky10013]

Well they're wrong.

Influence peddling is defined as a government official taking money in order in order to influence a decision. It's a technicality, actually, given that governments have been doing this very thing forever. They just call it patronage instead. Patronage has, in the past, been used more often than not by the Liberals - who, after all, received the lions share of corporate money. All sorts of government decisions were based on which companies and corporations gave them money and which did not. All manner of government bills were drafted and redrafted after advice and opinions from "friends" who bought that friendship through political donations. All of this is quite legal, btw, or was, because the money went to the party and not into the personal banks of the politicians involved.

"Used more often than not by the Liberlas." Yes, that's true, but only because the Liberals have dominated the electoral landscape for the better part of the decade. If we're going to be honest, the biggest masters of patronage were actually Conservatives. Mulroney famously said, "you dance with the whore that brung ya." John A Macdonald had to resign due to the massive amounts of government corruption for the CPR.

Furthermore, influence peddling is a much bigger problem than just plain theft. If party people are just taking money, that's money the court can recover. A fact which not many Conservatives here like to admit to is the Liberal Party paid back the money which was stolen from the Quebec Wing. Things like influence peddling are much harder to control and far more dangerous. Though taking money is a serious crime, stealing that money doesn't unfairly open up the policy process to larger swaths of control to unelected avenues.

Money isn't the be all and end all of government and crimes government committs. Certainly there are far worse things a government can do. Like undermine the legitimacy of our constitutional order.

[Wild Bill]

Furthermore, influence peddling is a much bigger problem than just plain theft. If party people are just taking money, that's money the court can recover. A fact which not many Conservatives here like to admit to is the Liberal Party paid back the money which was stolen from the Quebec Wing. Things like influence peddling are much harder to control and far more dangerous. Though taking money is a serious crime, stealing that money doesn't unfairly open up the policy process to larger swaths of control to unelected avenues.

Money isn't the be all and end all of government and crimes government committs. Certainly there are far worse things a government can do. Like undermine the legitimacy of our constitutional order.

Well, money may not be the worst thing. I guess we should consider treason. Still, it's a BIG thing! Especially when it's stolen from the taxpayer. It shows a a party's absolute contempt for those taxpayers.

As for having paid back the money, aren't you forgetting something? Perhaps conveniently? The Libs paid back only that small portion of stolen funds that the Gomery Inquiry was able to trace. There was FAR more still under investigation, even if there's little hope of tracking it down through all the shredder machines!

You really let the Liberals off easy, don't you?

[nicky10013]

Well, money may not be the worst thing. I guess we should consider treason. Still, it's a BIG thing! Especially when it's stolen from the taxpayer. It shows a a party's absolute contempt for those taxpayers.

As for having paid back the money, aren't you forgetting something? Perhaps conveniently? The Libs paid back only that small portion of stolen funds that the Gomery Inquiry was able to trace. There was FAR more still under investigation, even if there's little hope of tracking it down through all the shredder machines!

You really let the Liberals off easy, don't you?

I never said it wasn't a serious crime. In fact, I actually said it was a serious crime. Please, continue to put words into my mouth.

[ToadBrother]

Money isn't the be all and end all of government and crimes government committs. Certainly there are far worse things a government can do. Like undermine the legitimacy of our constitutional order.

That's my feeling. There are different orders of a magnitude of crime. While defrauding the taxpayer is pretty bad, violating constitutional guarantees that Parliament holds is much much worse, and a sign of a different kind of corruption, more insidious and much more damaging to the interests of the electorate.

[Born Free]

That's my feeling. There are different orders of a magnitude of crime. While defrauding the taxpayer is pretty bad,

Oh its a lot worse than pretty bad....

[nicky10013]

Oh its a lot worse than pretty bad....

Nobody denies it. What we're saying is there are worse things.

[ToadBrother]

Oh its a lot worse than pretty bad....

I'll tell you what else is dishonest, clipping out a part of statement and placing out of context to try to score some rhetorical point.

Let me be clear. Violating constitutional restraints on the limits of the Executive is many orders of a magnitude worse than steeling money. The current Tory government is worse than the Liberal government of Jean Chretien.

[August1991]

I guess you missed the allegation that she supported a billion dollar application by her husband to the government's green job initiative. Whoops!

Billion dollar?

There is no evidence that Harper's government gave any contract to any Jaffer lobby.

There are different orders of a magnitude of crime. While defrauding the taxpayer is pretty bad, violating constitutional guarantees that Parliament holds is much much worse, and a sign of a different kind of corruption, more insidious and much more damaging to the interests of the electorate.

Ah yes, stealing from taxpayers is less dishonest than betraying the public trust.

ToadBrother, in a democracy, any government is bound to do the opposite of what about half the population wants. Is that "betraying" the public trust?

We live in a parliamentary democracy. It is rare when half the adult population votes for the governing party - and even then, that still leaves some 40% or more who voted against.

Many Canadians disagree with Harper and his government. They don't like what he is doing. But that doesn't make Harper's government dishonest.

[eyeball]

Billion dollar?

There is no evidence that Harper's government gave any contract to any Jaffer lobby.

Ah yes, stealing from taxpayers is less dishonest than betraying the public trust.

ToadBrother, in a democracy, any government is bound to do the opposite of what about half the population wants. Is that "betraying" the public trust?

We live in a parliamentary democracy. It is rare when half the adult population votes for the governing party - and even then, that still leaves some 40% or more who voted against.

Many Canadians disagree with Harper and his government. They don't like what he is doing. But that doesn't make Harper's government dishonest.

What makes it dishonest is that it's leader campaigned on a promise of a more open transparent government. Instead we got one of the most secretive.

Is it reasonable to believe the 60% who voted against him are getting what they expected?

[August1991]

What makes it dishonest is that it's leader campaigned on a promise of a more open transparent government. Instead we got one of the most secretive.

Secretive according to the CBC, to Michael Enright or to other Leftist fanatics.

Elsewhere for example, there were 50,000 people in Quebec City who take a different view of this.

Eyeball, you define "secretive" in a way that prejudices.