If I were harper

[PIK]

I would make the next election about the refugee system and using the not withstanding clause to change the 1985 supreme court ruling. . And I would campaign also on coalition and tell the people give us a majority or we will have a coalition goverment with the bloc having veto power. And then let the canadian people decide if they want changes or just let everyone in till there is no room and we are a 3rd world country.

[Topaz]

I would make the next election about the refugee system and using the not withstanding clause to change the 1985 supreme court ruling. . And I would campaign also on coalition and tell the people give us a majority or we will have a coalition goverment with the bloc having veto power. And then let the canadian people decide if they want changes or just let everyone in till there is no room and we are a 3rd world country.

OR Canadians could give either the NDP or the Libs a majority andsend Harper back to Alberta. It's too late for Harper's majority. Canadians have seen exactly what he is and what he does.

[segnosaur]

I would make the next election about the refugee system and using the not withstanding clause to change the 1985 supreme court ruling....And then let the canadian people decide if they want changes or just let everyone in till there is no room and we are a 3rd world country.

There may be a need to reform our refugee system. However, its a little extreme to suggest that our refugee program will turn us into a '3rd world country'.

We currently accept around 200,000 immigrants and refugees into this country. Only a small portion of those (around 10%) are refugees, and even if many of those claims are false, the vast majority of people coming into this country are doing so properly as immigrants or genuine refugees (and many have needed skills, others have an interest in working, etc.) Even if every one of those refugee claimants was bogus and they went directly on welfare, it would add less than 1% to the number of people already on welfare.

Edited August 30, 2010 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

OR Canadians could give either the NDP or the Libs a majority andsend Harper back to Alberta. It's too late for Harper's majority. Canadians have seen exactly what he is and what he does.

And what exactly is he doing?

Is he spending money/increasing the deficit? Yeah, he is. But then, the Liberals/NDP were demanding huge spending increases at the start of the recession.

Is he increasing spending on the military? Yeah, but many of those purchases were necessary.

Did he spend a whole bunch on the G8/G20 conference? Yeah, but then, that's just the cost of being involved in international organizations.

Is he working to cut the gun registry? Yeah, but a recent poll shows that most Canadians want it scrapped.

Is he working to ban gay marriage? No, that's not on their agenda anymore.

Is he working to ban abortion? No, that's not on the agenda at all.

Is he working to turn our health care more 'American'? No, not really. Haven't seen any sort of large scale private reforms from them.

[Topaz]

And what exactly is he doing?

Is he spending money/increasing the deficit? Yeah, he is. But then, the Liberals/NDP were demanding huge spending increases at the start of the recession.

Is he increasing spending on the military? Yeah, but many of those purchases were necessary.

Did he spend a whole bunch on the G8/G20 conference? Yeah, but then, that's just the cost of being involved in international organizations.

Is he working to cut the gun registry? Yeah, but a recent poll shows that most Canadians want it scrapped.

Is he working to ban gay marriage? No, that's not on their agenda anymore.

Is he working to ban abortion? No, that's not on the agenda at all.

Is he working to turn our health care more 'American'? No, not really. Haven't seen any sort of large scale private reforms from them.

What the opposition parties were saying to Harper was, IF you have all this stimlus money going out then GET IT OUT so the ecomony will hopefully grow and put Canadians back to work. The Tories want to spend billions in the military but they don't want to spend big bucks looking after the troops after they come back, especially, the ones with disabilities and won't be able to work the rest of their lives. The RCMP report says the registry is working and more people were killed by long guns than people think as it was said tonight on Power and Politics. As far as the rest of your statements go, Harper would have to have a majority to bring them in because the opposition would definitely be against them and so would a greater part of Canadians

[YEGmann]

The RCMP report says the registry is working and more people were killed by long guns than people think as it was said tonight on Power and Politics.

This means the registry is not working or at least it is useless. Isn't it?

[segnosaur]

What the opposition parties were saying to Harper was, IF you have all this stimlus money going out then GET IT OUT so the ecomony will hopefully grow and put Canadians back to work.

Uhhhh... no. The Economic update of 2008 that the Liberals and NDP complained about initially had no stimulus spending. The extra spending was added only after they threatened to bring the government down.

From: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/27/question-period.html

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois said they would not support the update introduced by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty because it contained no stimulus package to spur Canada's slumping economy and protect Canadian workers during the crisis.

The Tories want to spend billions in the military but they don't want to spend big bucks looking after the troops after they come back...

I rather suspect that the average Canadian feels that, even if they don't like possible cuts to vet benefits, probably consider funding the active military to be a much greater concern.

The RCMP report says the registry is working...

First of all, as I have pointed out, it is the population itself that wants the registry scrapped (44% want it scraped, only 35% want it kept. See: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/need+know+long+registry+works/3448969/story.html )

Secondly, a lot of people might consider it a bit suspicious to accept the finding of an organization such as the RCMP that may not exactly be unbiased in this issue.

Lastly, there is also the possibility that support for the registry is only coming from the 'top' of the police hierarchy, and front line officers do not share the opinion. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any proper poll of front line officers; however, there has been a straw poll where it was found >90% were against the registry. (Unfortunately, such polls are not scientific because of selection bias.)

As far as the rest of your statements go, Harper would have to have a majority to bring them in because the opposition would definitely be against them and so would a greater part of Canadians

I see... so you're suggesting he has some sort of "hidden agenda" where he's planning on turning Canada into Taliban North? Sorry, I'd rather deal with actual real politics and issues, rather than dealing with conspiracy theories.

(I always wonder about people who make those types of accusations... does it ever occur to you that any political party who decides to enact such legislation would find themselves turfed out at the next election, probably never to regain power, and as such it would be stupid to even attempt such changes?)

[nicky10013]

I see... so you're suggesting he has some sort of "hidden agenda" where he's planning on turning Canada into Taliban North? Sorry, I'd rather deal with actual real politics and issues, rather than dealing with conspiracy theories.

(I always wonder about people who make those types of accusations... does it ever occur to you that any political party who decides to enact such legislation would find themselves turfed out at the next election, probably never to regain power, and as such it would be stupid to even attempt such changes?)

There are full reports written by Harper calling Canada nothing more than a failing European Socialist Welfare state and that when he gets through with Canada, no one would recognize it. That's a little more than a "conspiracy theory."

As for your list, I can come up with one of my own.

1) The stimulus was forced by the opposition but it was implemented so badly that it had no affect on the economy according to the PBO. Now, we're heading into a second recession with nothing gained in terms of one stimulus and we've still added next to 60 billion to our debt. It would be much easier to swallow if we had recieved anything positive.

2) Afghan detainee documents and refusing to respect the supremacy of parliament

3) AECL - cancer is sexy, or didn't you know?

4) Chuck Cadman - bribed a dying man to bring down the Liberals in 2006 with a million dollar life insurance policy.

5) Suspension of parliament part 1

6) Suspension of parliament part 2

7) 16 billion dollar sole sourced contract for fighter planes we might not need.

I could go on, but you know

[Bonam]

There may be a need to reform our refugee system. However, its a little extreme to suggest that our refugee program will turn us into a '3rd world country'.

We currently accept around 200,000 immigrants and refugees into this country. Only a small portion of those (around 10%) are refugees, and even if many of those claims are false, the vast majority of people coming into this country are doing so properly as immigrants or genuine refugees (and many have needed skills, others have an interest in working, etc.) Even if every one of those refugee claimants was bogus and they went directly on welfare, it would add less than 1% to the number of people already on welfare.

That number is per year. I don't know where you got the 1% number from, but even assuming it's correct, you really think that just allowing the number of people on welfare to increase by 1% every year is fine and dandy? If as you say 10% of the 200k are refugees, and if many are bogus, that means after two or three decades or so we'd have half a million bogus refugees in Canada. Probably all in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Do those numbers sound optimistic to you? Acceptable? Not to me.

[MontyBurns]

As for your list, I can come up with one of my own.

1) The stimulus was forced by the opposition but it was implemented so badly that it had no affect on the economy according to the PBO. Now, we're heading into a second recession with nothing gained in terms of one stimulus and we've still added next to 60 billion to our debt. It would be much easier to swallow if we had recieved anything positive.

2) Afghan detainee documents and refusing to respect the supremacy of parliament

3) AECL - cancer is sexy, or didn't you know?

4) Chuck Cadman - bribed a dying man to bring down the Liberals in 2006 with a million dollar life insurance policy.

5) Suspension of parliament part 1

6) Suspension of parliament part 2

7) 16 billion dollar sole sourced contract for fighter planes we might not need.

I could go on, but you know

How about the sponsorship scandal?

[capricorn]

There are full reports written by Harper calling Canada nothing more than a failing European Socialist Welfare state

I must say, the truth hurts.

Here is the exact quote.

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status."

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2010/01/11/DobinProrogue/

Since you dislike Harper intensely, I purposely selected a source that is sure to please you.

and that when he gets through with Canada, no one would recognize it.

Do you have a link for that? I could not find one reference that Harper ever said those words. However, I did find a Mulroney quote to that effect.

Brian Mulroney was fond of saying “Give me twenty years and you won’t recognize this country.”

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/05/19/OutOfAfghanistan/

Another gem from The Tyee that is sure to bring a smile to your face.

Enjoy!

[Jack Weber]

How about the sponsorship scandal?

What about it?

Frankly,it's becoming past history...Harper has the football now and he's had it for four years...

That list is a fairly scathing indictment of the actions of the Harper Tories,and most of that list takes place in the last 2 1/2 years!

The ineptitude of the Mr.Ignatieff has more chance of sticking than the sponosorship scandal...

Edited August 31, 2010 by Jack Weber

[ToadBrother]

I would make the next election about the refugee system and using the not withstanding clause to change the 1985 supreme court ruling. . And I would campaign also on coalition and tell the people give us a majority or we will have a coalition goverment with the bloc having veto power. And then let the canadian people decide if they want changes or just let everyone in till there is no room and we are a 3rd world country.

Ah my, the Conservatives, how funny they're the ones wanting the Not-withstanding Clause used.

[segnosaur]

There are full reports written by Harper calling Canada nothing more than a failing European Socialist Welfare state and that when he gets through with Canada, no one would recognize it. That's a little more than a "conspiracy theory."

Sounds more to me like hyperbole/rhetoric than actual policy plans.

As for your list, I can come up with one of my own.

1) The stimulus was forced by the opposition but it was implemented so badly that it had no affect on the economy according to the PBO. Now, we're heading into a second recession with nothing gained in terms of one stimulus and we've still added next to 60 billion to our debt. It would be much easier to swallow if we had recieved anything positive.

Yet the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has stated:

...the vast majority of stimulus projects are on schedule and municipalities are working hard to make it happen.

(From: http://www.fcm.ca/English/View.asp?mp=1320&x=1470 )

2) Afghan detainee documents and refusing to respect the supremacy of parliament

Probably not something that matters to the majority of Canadians.

Plus there is a little issue of the need to keep some documents confidential for security purposes. You DO realize that the conservatives eventually did make a deal with the other parties to have documents released, after they had been examined by arbiters to ensure that security is not compromised. (See: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/809483--all-party-deal-reached-on-afghan-detainee-files?bn=1 )

3) AECL - cancer is sexy, or didn't you know?

What exactly is your complaint, that they were running the Chalk River reactor against certain recommendations? Remember, some of the opposition parties voted to restart the reactor during one of its shutdowns as well.

4) Chuck Cadman - bribed a dying man to bring down the Liberals in 2006 with a million dollar life insurance policy.

Yes, and the Liberals offered a cabinet position to Stronach which allowed them to avoid loosing a budget vote.

5) Suspension of parliament part 1

6) Suspension of parliament part 2

The ability to suspend parliament is something that has been used regularly for quite a while.

Chretien and Martin both prorogued parliament. (And not only that, Chretien also called early elections far earlier than he needed to, for no other reason than to take advantage of a divided opposition.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2003/11/12/liberals031112.html

7) 16 billion dollar sole sourced contract for fighter planes we might not need.

You mean the same fighter purchase that Liberal Senator Dallaire said we should actually purchase more of? Or the one that former Liberal MP Saada said that there was already a competitive bidding process years ago when development of the fighter began?

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/07/21/14785521.html

Edited August 31, 2010 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

There may be a need to reform our refugee system. However, its a little extreme to suggest that our refugee program will turn us into a '3rd world country'.

We currently accept around 200,000 immigrants and refugees into this country. Only a small portion of those (around 10%) are refugees, and even if many of those claims are false, the vast majority of people coming into this country are doing so properly as immigrants or genuine refugees (and many have needed skills, others have an interest in working, etc.) Even if every one of those refugee claimants was bogus and they went directly on welfare, it would add less than 1% to the number of people already on welfare.

That number is per year.

Yes I know. But then, the Canadian population base and the GDP are also expanding as well.

I don't know where you got the 1% number from...

There are approximately 1-2 million Canadians on Welfare. We accept around 20,000 refugees per year. 20k/2 million=1%.

Now, since that time I've found that the number of people on welfare is actually closer to 1.6 million. But then, not all of those 20,000 refugees are going to go on welfare.

...but even assuming it's correct, you really think that just allowing the number of people on welfare to increase by 1% every year is fine and dandy?

No, I don't. I have no problem with some sort of welfare reform. But pointing to the refugees only as something that might 'bankrupt' us is something that's not supportable. Handle welfare reform as a separate issue.

If as you say 10% of the 200k are refugees, and if many are bogus, that means after two or three decades or so we'd have half a million bogus refugees in Canada. Probably all in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Do those numbers sound optimistic to you? Acceptable? Not to me.

I have no problem with reforms to the refugee system. (Heck, if nothing else we should be doing proper criminal background checks.) I just have to question the suggestion that we'll be "bankrupted" by accepting too many.

Edited August 31, 2010 by segnosaur

[Argus]

I would make the next election about the refugee system and using the not withstanding clause to change the 1985 supreme court ruling. . And I would campaign also on coalition and tell the people give us a majority or we will have a coalition government with the bloc having veto power. And then let the canadian people decide if they want changes or just let everyone in till there is no room and we are a 3rd world country.

People do care about the refugee and immigration systems but it isn't their primary focus. I would indeed suggest that there needs to be sanity let into both systems, including our inability to deport criminals without years of hearings, and that we should go to the notwithstanding clause. But I would make the focus of the election health care and the economy. I would focus on returning to a fiscally balanced budget - which the other parties will all be talking about too - and I would suggest rebuilding our health care system along European lines in order to greatly lower wait times, along with a national strategy to train more doctors and nurses involving free tuition and bonuses for those working in under-served areas. Get people's imaginations working, get them talking about serious, major health care reform as something other than an abstract concept and you might excite enough of them to get a majority. I would also suggest that anything less than a Conservative majority will likely lead to a deal between the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP to prop up a Liberal minority in exchange for major concessions to both separatists and socialists. Raise the spectre of the BQ being in charge and the NDP controlling peoples lives while raising taxes on the middle class and giving the money away.

[ToadBrother]

People do care about the refugee and immigration systems but it isn't their primary focus. I would indeed suggest that there needs to be sanity let into both systems, including our inability to deport criminals without years of hearings, and that we should go to the notwithstanding clause. But I would make the focus of the election health care and the economy. I would focus on returning to a fiscally balanced budget - which the other parties will all be talking about too - and I would suggest rebuilding our health care system along European lines in order to greatly lower wait times, along with a national strategy to train more doctors and nurses involving free tuition and bonuses for those working in under-served areas. Get people's imaginations working, get them talking about serious, major health care reform as something other than an abstract concept and you might excite enough of them to get a majority. I would also suggest that anything less than a Conservative majority will likely lead to a deal between the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP to prop up a Liberal minority in exchange for major concessions to both separatists and socialists. Raise the spectre of the BQ being in charge and the NDP controlling peoples lives while raising taxes on the middle class and giving the money away.

I think the chief argument for Harper calling an election now is the potential for a double-dip recession. Better to go to the polls soon than wait until we're back in the sh-tpile again, and Iggy (if he grows a brain) decides that that is the perfect opportunity to go to the polls.

[Jack Weber]

I think the chief argument for Harper calling an election now is the potential for a double-dip recession. Better to go to the polls soon than wait until we're back in the sh-tpile again, and Iggy (if he grows a brain) decides that that is the perfect opportunity to go to the polls.

Tactically,if we do head into another recession,would'nt it be more prudent for Iggy(and the opposition) to hold onto this parliament as long as possible???

Would'nt it allow the narrative go something like,"The Tories claim to be great stewards of the economy...Look at what that great stewardship has got us into!!!"...And thereby letting Mr.Harper hang on the bad economic news???

[segnosaur]

Tactically,if we do head into another recession,would'nt it be more prudent for Iggy(and the opposition) to hold onto this parliament as long as possible???

Would'nt it allow the narrative go something like,"The Tories claim to be great stewards of the economy...Look at what that great stewardship has got us into!!!"...And thereby letting Mr.Harper hang on the bad economic news???

Depends on how long they expect any recession to last.

Ideally they'd want to get power when the economy is at a low point, so they can claim any improvements occurred under "their watch" (whether it was due to a natural economic rebound, policies put in place by the previous government, or their own policies).

Now, Canada was in a recession for about a year (and most of the decline took about 6 months.) If it takes approximately 3-4 months to arrange the defeat of the government, call and run the election, and turn over power, then the Liberals would be taking power at near the low point of the economic cycle, and even if things stayed bad for the first part of their reign, they'd still be seen as saviors when the economy did pick up.

[ToadBrother]

Tactically,if we do head into another recession,would'nt it be more prudent for Iggy(and the opposition) to hold onto this parliament as long as possible???

Would'nt it allow the narrative go something like,"The Tories claim to be great stewards of the economy...Look at what that great stewardship has got us into!!!"...And thereby letting Mr.Harper hang on the bad economic news???

I was thinking more along the lines of Harper doing the deed. I can't imagine any circumstance save the polls saying the Libs were in the high 30s that would convince Iggy to force an election.

[Evening Star]

Harper did say "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it", as quoted here: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SpecialEvent7/20051213/elxn_harper_speech_text_051214/

"You won't recognize this country when I get through with it" was actually a Liberal distortion of a milder Harper quote.

I can't see how anyone could justify the price tag for the G8/G20 summits, considering what every other one of those summits has cost. The handling of civil liberties during those was also poor, although McGuinty deserves as much blame for that (and I'll probably vote for him again anyway).

Canadians should care about the Afghan detainee issue (given that we were complicit in a UN-recognized war crime) and the government's cavalier attitude towards it. Admittedly, it may well not be the sort of thing that could win or lose an election (and I have little trust that Ignatieff would handle something like that better).

[nicky10013]

I was thinking more along the lines of Harper doing the deed. I can't imagine any circumstance save the polls saying the Libs were in the high 30s that would convince Iggy to force an election.

Because you expect the Liberals to only go after a majority.

[ToadBrother]

Because you expect the Liberals to only go after a majority.

No, because it's clear that Iggy isn't a risk taker.

[segnosaur]

I can't see how anyone could justify the price tag for the G8/G20 summits, considering what every other one of those summits has cost.

The cost of those summits has been discussed quite extensively in other threads. (Typically, it involves people who dislike the conservatives claiming "overspending" without pointing to what exactly they overspent on., and the pro-conservatives pointing out that its just the cost of doing business in a globalized world.)

When you consider the cost, consider this: When Canada hosted the G8 conference in Alberta (when Chretien was the leader), the cost of the summit was around $200 million. The 2010 conference A: lasted longer and B: involved more countries (it was a combined G8/G20 summit). So, relatively speaking, the costs don't seem to be that far out of line. Perhaps we should wait to see if there are any real cost overruns before condemning the conservatives.

Canadians should care about the Afghan detainee issue (given that we were complicit in a UN-recognized war crime) and the government's cavalier attitude towards it.

Yes we should. We should also be concerned about security issues. (Or do you think that no document should ever be considered "top secret"?

[nicky10013]

No, because it's clear that Iggy isn't a risk taker.

Clear to who? Last year he came out and said they'll be bringing down the government at the earliest opportunity when they were behind in the polls. The polls crashed and that was that. Now, they're playing a much more ambiguous game. THey're going to work with the government until they get to something that they can't swallow. With John Baird as house leader something tells me that will come sooner rather than later. The front page of the Globe and Mail website right now has the title "Ignatieff Not Afraid of an Election." Throughout the fall and winter term every question regarding an election was "we're not having one." The fact that he won't rule it out now says a lot; about how ready the party is.