Where Harper Lost me...

[Bionic Antboy]

(or where I learned to stop worrying and turn to the NDP)

I've voted in every single federal election since I was of age. I've never belonged to a party, nor have I voted for a single party. I've always looked at where the country was (IMHO) and voted for who I thought would best fill the role of Prime Minister in the next term.

For example, in 2000, I voted for good old Joe Clark. I was hoping a lot more would. My reasoning was threefold.

1) The complacency of the Liberal Party was starting to get to me.

2) I suspected that if the PCs bombed, they would get swallowed by the Alliance.

3) Clark won me over in the debate. He owned them all, much like Duceppe did this time around.

Obviously, I was psychic, as my fears have come true. Harper failed on two key points last night to assauge my fears. And that's why I think there's still such a high "undecided factor" only 12 days before the election.

He spoke in weasel words regarding social issues, and the use of free votes.

He also called the cities "a small interest group" (despicable to write of MILLIONS of Canadians that way), and thinks the status quo of trickle down through the provincial coffers is good enough.

There are other economic stands that I don't think he's too bad on, but these are really key points that NEED to be addressed sooner than later.

So that means I'm not voting for Harper.

Obviously, I'm sick of Liberal corruption. Martin, in his zeal to replace Chretien, has spoiled the prize. He DOES have highlights in his record as Finance Minister that he COULD run on, but the scandal has tainted him.

So no Martin.

I realize that, although they can be problematic, I really want a minority gov't this time round.

Interestingly, the NDP platform, though relatively unchanged, seems more pragmatic than the past. When it comes to NATO and other military issues, they've held to their "anti-militarization of space" stance, which I agree with. At the same time, Layton's NDP isn't going to tear out of NATO. They realize that things are different in a post 9/11 world. They'd also push more for electoral reform than either the Liberals or the Conservatives, something else I'd like see happen, whether it's proportional representation or fixed terms.

I like Jack. He's a smart and decent guy. I guess being a Torontonian I've had more experience with how he gets things done than, say, someone in St. John's or Kelowna, but he's always been a man of integrity.

Similarly, he is MILES ahead of the last to NDP leaders, Audrey and Alexa, who were TERRIBLE for the party. Neither seemed to present any kind of deep understanding of many national issues. Alexa in particular did no good by JUST complaining about health care and education.

I don't think either Martin or Harper deserve to be PM. One of them will, in all likelyhood, unless the 26% undecided ALL vote NDP of course. That's not gonna happen...

So I'm embracing the NDP. Not because Layton was the best in the debate (maybe it was because Harper and Martin both failed to meet their goals). Mainly out of strategy, and out of my gut instinct that now, more than every, the party that's always billed itself as the "conscience of Canada" needs to be a strong voice in what will almost surely be a minority gov't.

That's my take.

[Argus]

He spoke in weasel words regarding social issues, and the use of free votes.

Perhaps you failed to notice the response Jack Layton gave to his firt question about health care? The question was that health care costs had been skyrocketing, but it seemed to many that his only solution was throwing more and more money at it. Layton talked for a minute, saying nothing, not answering the question, giving no clue he HAD any clue except - yes, throwing more and more money at it.

He also called the cities "a small interest group" (despicable to write of MILLIONS of Canadians that way), and thinks the status quo of trickle down through the provincial coffers is good enough.

Layton and his simplistic solutions go over well on TV, but not in real life. When he was a Toronto city councillor he was always trying to stick his nose into provincial and federal business. Now he aspires to be a federal politician and right off the bat he wants to stick his nose into provincial and municipal matters. The fact is, as Duceppe and Layton pointed out, municipalities are under provincial jurisidiction. Now you can take an interest and try to work with the provinces to establish stable funding, but you don't try to shove everyone aside and solve the problem yourself. You'll just make enemies and cause trouble.

Layton should figure out what the responsibilities and roles of a federal government are and work to take care of those first. Then, if the federal government has got all its ducks in order, has all its problems solved, it can stick its nose into what the provinces are doing and try to solve THEIR problems for them.

[maplesyrup]

Argus......you seem quite confused. Maybe this will help you out.

The NDP platform

[Bionic Antboy]

Those are reasons why I said I'd like to see him not as Prime Minister, but have a strong voice in a minority gov't.

[daniel]

"The question was that health care costs had been skyrocketing, but it seemed to many that his only solution was throwing more and more money at it. "

Actually, he started addressing the issue of skyrocketing health costs by looking at environmental issues - something that was not debated at all and we all know the Reform/Alliance/neoConservative position on that.

Unfortunately, the debate was cut short.

"Layton and his simplistic solutions go over well on TV, but not in real life. "

Cut-and-spend; cut-and-spend. What's more simplistic than the Common-Sense-Revolution and Reaganomics? In both of these cases, the outcome has not been what was desired: Reagonomics tripled the deficit and the CSR created a crumbled infrastructure.

"When he was a Toronto city councillor he was always trying to stick his nose into provincial and federal business. Now he aspires to be a federal politician and right off the bat he wants to stick his nose into provincial and municipal matters. "

Now that's the kind of leader we need. Someone who knows all the issues and problems from the municipal right to the international level.

With Martin and/or Harper, they wouldn't know because they are so far removed.

And Harper called 80% of Canadians a "Special Interest Group". A term Harris always liked to use when creating class warfare.

[Bionic Antboy]

Now that's the kind of leader we need. Someone who knows all the issues and problems from the municipal right to the international level.

With Martin and/or Harper, they wouldn't know because they are so far removed.

And Harper called 80% of Canadians a "Special Interest Group". A term Harris always liked to use when creating class warfare.

That's EXACTLY the problem.

When it comes to the relationship between feds/provinces/municipalities there's CLEARLY an imbalance that needs to be addressed, especially when it comes to cities, which have become a larger factor than they once were in that three way relationship.

If the cities are being hard done by, especially when there are provincial gov'ts that are clearly ANTI-city (here in Ontario, the Harris-Eves gov'ts have been disasterous), there needs to be reform.

Harper was the biggest disappointment in that area, though it wasn't surprising because his stance has been clear. If his party had rethought that issue, I may view him in a more favourable light, but to INSULT them the way he did was just reprehensible.

He CLEARLY believes issues like homelessness are NOT federal issues, but tell me, when other provinces solutions to homelessness are to buy one way tickets to Toronto, crossing provincial lines, guess what? It's a national one.

[August1991]

Bionic, I thought your justification for voting NDP made perfect sense. I disagree with you but I understand your reasoning.

Tell me if I'm wrong but I concluded that some people just don't like Stephen Harper. In Canada, we rarely like our politicians and the most they can aspire to is respect.

On the issue of cities and municipalities, these are clearly a provincial jursidiction. There have been highly controversial mergers (and now potential demergers) in Quebec. The federal government rightly has nothing to do with this process.

The federal government should not go over the heads of provinces and subsidize cities directly. Canada works badly when such happens.

As to the issue of "interest groups", I think Harper meant that municipal politicians are always there with their cap in hand for a bon-bon. Hospital administrators, university presidents, various research organizations are similar. Heck, many private businesses are no different.

The way our Parliament is designed, urban areas are under-represented and rural areas over-represented. The West is under-represented and the East is over-represented. One person's vote in a rural riding in PEI is worth five persons' votes in a riding in downtown Calgary.

Canada is not alone in this bias.

[BQSupporter]

Poll gives Harper boost as leaders target Ontario

Martin puts focus on Charter but can't slow Harper's surge

By CAMPBELL CLARK, BRIAN LAGHI and STEVEN CHASE

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Ottawa — Paul Martin and Stephen Harper both head today to the key battlegrounds of Southern Ontario after last night's bruising English-language leaders debate, but the Conservative Leader appears to be taking with him a clear edge.

Liberal advisers had insisted that the Conservative Leader's momentum had stalled in Ontario just as the two men prepared to focus their final struggle on dozens of ridings in that province that could decide the winner of the June 28 election.

But an instant survey of 2,107 Canadians who watched last night's English-language debate suggests Mr. Martin did not reignite the Liberal campaign with his performance, as 37 per cent said they believed Mr. Harper was the winner, compared to 24 per cent for Mr. Martin. Another 18 per cent said NDP Leader Jack Layton won.

(The Ipsos-Reid poll was conducted on the Internet with a pre-arranged sample of Canadians who said they are likely to vote. It is considered accurate within 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.)

"If Paul Martin was going to deliver new momentum for his campaign, it didn't happen tonight," said Ipsos-Reid president Darrell Bricker.

[August1991]

BQS, do not post the same quote on two threads. Keep your quotes shorter. Provide a link. I enjoy reading your comments. What do you think of the article? Why do you want me to read it?

[in fact, I think this article is old news now and was already posted elsewhere on this forum.]

[Black Dog]

The federal government should not go over the heads of provinces and subsidize cities directly. Canada works badly when such happens.

Is anyone actually advocating this?

As to the issue of "interest groups", I think Harper meant that municipal politicians are always there with their cap in hand for a bon-bon. Hospital administrators, university presidents, various research organizations are similar. Heck, many private businesses are no different.

Harper's one to talk of interest groups, having fronted one of the biggest special interest lobbies in the nation. But as for municipal politicians, the 90s were an era of unprecedented spending cuts at all levels. The feds cut transfers to the provinces and downloaded many responsibilities on to provincial governments, which had a trickle down effect on Canada's cities. The meager increases, both federally and provincially, haven't come close to restoring municipalities to their former strength, despite the fact that municipalities are the level of government that has the most impact on people's day to day lives.

I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring creative solutions. Both Martin and Layton have called for a new deal for municipalities, and I'm sur emost provincial politicians would argue. What they would argue about is how big a cut the provinces pocket.

The way our Parliament is designed, urban areas are under-represented and rural areas over-represented. The West is under-represented and the East is over-represented. One person's vote in a rural riding in PEI is worth five persons' votes in a riding in downtown Calgary.

That's why we need Proportional Representation.

[Bionic Antboy]

Bionic, I thought your justification for voting NDP made perfect sense.  I disagree with you but I understand your reasoning.

Tell me if I'm wrong but I concluded that some people just don't like Stephen Harper.  In Canada, we rarely like our politicians and the most they can aspire to is respect.

On the issue of cities and municipalities, these are clearly a provincial jursidiction.  There have been highly controversial mergers (and now potential demergers) in Quebec.  The federal government rightly has nothing to do with this process.

The federal government should not go over the heads of provinces and subsidize cities directly.  Canada works badly when such happens.

As to the issue of "interest groups", I think Harper meant that municipal politicians are always there with their cap in hand for a bon-bon.  Hospital administrators, university presidents, various research organizations are similar.  Heck, many private businesses are no different.

The way our Parliament is designed, urban areas are under-represented and rural areas over-represented.  The West is under-represented and the East is over-represented.  One person's vote in a rural riding in PEI is worth five persons' votes in a riding in downtown Calgary.

Canada is not alone in this bias.

I guess we agree on the state of inter-gov't working, but disagree on the solution...

That relationship served us well in the past, but Canada has over the years become more and more urbanized, while some provincial gov'ts have seemed to turn their backs on the cities. It's certainly clear that it occured for a decade in Ontario....

The Urbanization of Canada...

http://www.sustreport.org/signals/canpop_urb.html

I disagree with wholeheartedly disagree with Harper's dismissive view on the issue. I don't think the Mayoral group should be lumped in with other groups as they are the elected officals of a large percentage of Canadians. Their stance is to address the problems they're finding.

It's enough to make an irrational Torontonian to want to separate from Ontario and become it's own city-state (er city-province). Not that I advocate that, but there is that sentiment, after the past decade of willful neglect.

I'm not advocating an overnight sea-change in inter-gov't relationships, but think that a voice that DOES advocate a sea-change would be good in an opposition role especially in a minority gov't, where some of their key issues CAN be addressed.

[August1991]

Is anyone actually advocating this?

Bionic said:

If the cities are being hard done by, especially when there are provincial gov'ts that are clearly ANTI-city (here in Ontario, the Harris-Eves gov'ts have been disasterous), there needs to be reform.

Both Martin and Layton met the mayors. I believe both said they will provide direct financing to cities.

In fact, it should be the provinces that decide how cities finance themselves.

Harper's one to talk of interest groups, having fronted one of the biggest special interest lobbies in the nation.

The NCC never asked for a dime from the federal government.

the 90s were an era of unprecedented spending cuts at all levels.

BD, you make these kinds of assertions without any statistical proof at all. Government grew throughout the 1990s.

municipalities are the level of government that has the most impact on people's day to day lives. 

I tend to agree with you.

I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring creative solutions. Both Martin and Layton have called for a new deal for municipalities,

One shouldn't contravene the Constitution. More pertinently, the record of the federal government's involvement in Canadian cities has not been good. Too many boondoggles, election-time promises to "redo the waterfront", build new centres of excellence and so on. Sheila Copps was great at getting pork for Hamilton.

[Black Dog]

Both Martin and Layton met the mayors. I believe both said they will provide direct financing to cities.

There's nothing in the ND's platform to indicate it would bypass the provinces when providing funding for cities. Now, there's no mention at all of what kind of role the provinces would have, but I think it's a sin of ommission rather than one of malicious intent towards the provinces.

The NCC never asked for a dime from the federal government.

Perhaps not. But that doesn't change the fact they are a "special interest group" lobbying for policy changes that will affect all Canadians.

Government grew throughout the 1990s.

August, you make these kinds of assertions without any statistical proof at all.

One shouldn't contravene the Constitution. More pertinently, the record of the federal government's involvement in Canadian cities has not been good. Too many boondoggles, election-time promises to "redo the waterfront", build new centres of excellence and so on. Sheila Copps was great at getting pork for Hamilton.

Anyone can tell you taht municipalities need sustainable funding. The provinces simply can't provide that alone. In areas like the fuel tax, the GST, infrastructure, housing, transit, it's the feds that are in the best position to help.

[Bionic Antboy]

One shouldn't contravene the Constitution. More pertinently, the record of the federal government's involvement in Canadian cities has not been good. Too many boondoggles, election-time promises to "redo the waterfront", build new centres of excellence and so on. Sheila Copps was great at getting pork for Hamilton.

There are provisions in the Constitution for the federal gov't to deal directly with municipalities. We aren't LOCKED with the provinces as being a middle man in ever instance...

For example....

---Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after the Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.

This, in fact, doesn't strike me as contravening the Constitution at all.

I agree on the comment about boondoggles, but that's the case of a fed initiating something for his/her riding (pork, as you put it) . In the case of a concerted organization of city leaders approaching the feds, I see it entirely differently, and would hope that I haven't become so cynical to think that something can't be done.

[August1991]

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,--

8. Municipal Institutions in the Province.

Constitution Act (BNA Act)

This is the famous section 92. Unlike the US Constitution which states that powers not explicitly given to the Federal government (so-called residual powers) belong to the States or to the people, our Constitution does the opposite. The Canadian federal government gets residual powers.

Nevertheless, section 92 is fairly clear about cities.

Legal niceties aside, the feds have not been good at urban affairs. Hand over the cash or let the provinces tax as they see fit.

[August1991]

August, you make these kinds of assertions without any statistical proof at all.

My joke BD, but you're too quick as usual. You were the first one to make the assertion, I thought I'd get a freebie too.

All stats below are in nominal billions. These are all levels of government combined. Statistics Canada (prior to 1999 require a fee).

............ Revenue ..Expenditure

1999 .... 404.9 .... 407.3

2000 .... 436.6 .... 422.4

2001 .... 473.4 .... 444.6

2002 .... 466.4 .... 459.6

2003 .... 473.8 .... 465.4

This also puts in perspective the "50 billion black hole". First over five years, or 10 billion/year. Second, I don't know where the Libs got that number. But anyway, total government expenditures were rising annually by 15 billion or more prior to 2002. (God I hate these kinds of stats.)

----

Although you might not like the source, the following table presents the situation starkly.

Fraser Institute on Goverment 1926-1996

There is no question whatsoever BD that "government" is as large as it can possibly be.

We have reached the stage where the mafia don has extorted everything he can out of the grocery store. He's going to have to choose between the wife and the girlfriend because they both can't get the diamond necklace.

[idealisttotheend]

So August since the rate of inflation for 1999-2003 was 10.58% and the growth your own figures show is 14.25 that leaves a real net increase of 3.67% or some 15 billion dollars, 3 billion a year. Martin says Harper has a 50B black hole which Harper doesn't disagree with he just says that he can make it up without cutting. SInce he's only got 3B a year to "cut" without cutting services AND he's gonna put more into the military AND more into Health Care AND a large tax cut I think Martin makes a whole lot more since on the math side than Harper does n'est pas? Plus he's only got the federal share of that number to play with anyway. Your own figures, adjusted for inflation clearly show that real growth is fairly stable.

Consider also that the US is heading for a recession almost guarenteed and will drag us down with them. Consider that interest rates can't go much lower and again they look like they are going up in the US very soon meaning a higher cost of borrowing on the public debt. And finally, consider that demands on government services (health and retirement) are going to continue to climb as the population grows older.

Harper is practicing vodoo economics if he thinks he can do everything he wants without cutting services.

BOC inflation calculator -- Very Handy

(and I think that I did the math wrong I think that I should have done 1999-2004 which would have given a number in the high 12% range reducing the "growth" further.)

[willy]

So August since the rate of inflation for 1999-2003 was 10.58% and the growth your own figures show is 14.25 that leaves a real net increase of 3.67% or some 15 billion dollars, 3 billion a year. Martin says Harper has a 50B black hole which Harper doesn't disagree with he just says that he can make it up without cutting. SInce he's only got 3B a year to "cut" without cutting services AND he's gonna put more into the military AND more into Health Care AND a large tax cut I think Martin makes a whole lot more since on the math side than Harper does n'est pas? Plus he's only got the federal share of that number to play with anyway. Your own figures, adjusted for inflation clearly show that real growth is fairly stable.

3B per year form this area yes +

Expected surpluses in the next few years+

Corporate subsidy reduction of 5b+

Scraped Gun Registry+

phased in approach over 5 years=

no black hole

As for the American recession, I read the economist, New York Times, Fortune and they are predicting economic growth for the seeable future as business spending and retooling are just now picking up after the correction of 99/00.

[Argus]

Martin says Harper has a 50B black hole which Harper doesn't disagree with he just says that he can make it up without cutting. SInce he's only got 3B a year to "cut" without cutting services AND he's gonna put more into the military AND more into Health Care AND a large tax cut I think Martin makes a whole lot more since on the math side than Harper does n'est pas? Plus he's only got the federal share of that number to play with anyway. Your own figures, adjusted for inflation clearly show that real growth is fairly stable.

Consider also that the US is heading for a recession almost guarenteed and will drag us down with them. Consider that interest rates can't go much lower and again they look like they are going up in the US very soon meaning a higher cost of borrowing on the public debt. And finally, consider that demands on government services (health and retirement) are going to continue to climb as the population grows older.

Harper is practicing vodoo economics if he thinks he can do everything he wants without cutting services.

BOC inflation calculator -- Very Handy

(and I think that I did the math wrong I think that I should have done 1999-2004 which would have given a number in the high 12% range reducing the "growth" further.)

So August since the rate of inflation for 1999-2003 was 10.58% and the growth your own figures show is 14.25 that leaves a real net increase of 3.67% or some 15 billion dollars, 3 billion a year.

His figures aren't really of value in this case. They are for ALL government, not just the federal government. The federal government has been increasing spending by 6-7% per year, while inflation has been 2-3%. As I have noted earlier, if the Tories can slow the increase by 3% that will save about $4.5b

[liberalpaulmartin]

As the federal election nears - 11 days left!!!!! - the choice for prime minister is clear: NOT Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Here are about a dozen reasons why:

http://www.primeministergeorgebush.org/harpervids/

Prime Minister Paul Martin is really THE only voice that can lead this country. He tackled the deficit. He's paying down the debt, freeing up billions a year in interest payments. The Liberals have tabled SEVEN consecutive budgets. We are the only G-7 nation in surplus. Child poverty is down. Quality of life for seniors is improved. The Liberals are obviously doing something right! Let's keep up the momentum by voting Liberal June 28.

[Stoker]

As the federal election nears - 11 days left!!!!! - the choice for prime minister is clear: NOT Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Here are about a dozen reasons why:

I only counted 11........if you had of had that 12th one.....I would have changed me mind

Prime Minister Paul Martin is really THE only voice that can lead this country. He tackled the deficit. He's paying down the debt, freeing up billions a year in interest payments. The Liberals have tabled SEVEN consecutive budgets. We are the only G-7 nation in surplus. Child poverty is down. Quality of life for seniors is improved. The Liberals are obviously doing something right! Let's keep up the momentum by voting Liberal June 28.

Wasn't it Layton that said Harper is just a faster Paul Martin? If thats the case, I want things done fast.......

Whats Paul Martin going to be doing on June 29th? Going back to CSL perhaps.....golfing? Does Paul Martin Golf?

[BQSupporter]

Why do I have a feeling that Liberal campaign members are signing up to this website in a desperate attempt at something and god know what that could be.

First it was Joesph, then casear and now liberalpaulmartin and they have all joined the website in the last week. Now does that sound strange to anyone?

[noelandmero]

Well no matter what you say about Harper at least he does not have to a line Item in his budget for a theft and mismangement fund.

And no matter how you slice it Martin was either a) in on the scandals and theft or an incompetent boob

[Reverend Blair]

I like to think he was both, noelandmero. I like to think that because it would take both to a) let it happen in the first place and let it become such a big part of the campaign. When he said he could have swept it under the rug he was telling the truth. That he didn't will likely cost him the leadership in short order.

Nonje of which should convince anybody to vote for Harper and his Regressive Convertibles, to quote Allan Fotheringham. There is no evidence that Harper is any more honest or forthright than Martin. There is evidence that he's willing to lie though. He's been busy backing away from all sorts of statements since the campaign began. He's lying to us because he's as big a liar as Paul Martin. Just as crooked, just as owned by corporate interests, and just as willing to kneel in front of his friend George Bush.

Canada deserves better than either of these two idiots.