Mr. Harper's Accountability Measures Would Carry More Weight

[Nocrap]

I always admire Mr. Harper's ability to make hypocritical statements with a straight face. I watched some of his announcement on CBC and then read a Canadian Press Release by Jennifer Ditchburn entitled "Tories Clean House - Conservatives roll out sweeping ethics bill; critics point to loopholes"

My own thoughts on some of the measures:

"Reduce the influence of lobbyists" - would carry more weight if he hadn't appointed former military lobbyist Gordon O'Connor as Minister of Defense.

"Strengthen the Role of of the Ethics' Commissioner"- would carry more wait if he hadn't refused to even speak with him over the whole Emerson mess.

"Ensure Government Appointments are Based on Merit" - would carry more weight if he hadn't fast tracked unelected Fortier to the senate and then given him a cabinet post.

"Reform Financing of Political Parties to Reduce Big Money Influence" - would carry more weight if he hadn't syphoned thousands of dollars out of the Alberta Pipeline.

"Banning Secret Donations" - would carry more weight if he hadn't been so committed to keeping contributions a secret.

Harper vs The Attorney General

His National Citizens' Coalition has always fought what they consider a 'gag law' because they were forced to divulge their election spending.

Recently the NCC vice-president wrote:

"My group, the National Citizens Coalition, has long opposed these types of laws because

we believe all citizens should have the right to freely participate in the electoral process.

Indeed, we battled the Liberal gag law tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme Court of

Canada where, despite victories at lower-court levels (when Stephen Harper was NCC President) , we ultimately lost.

In a controversial (some would say incomprehensible) ruling, the Supreme Court judged

the gag law to be constitutional. We battled the gag law not only in court; we also sought

to convince politicians to kill this horrible law, on the idea that whatever politicians enact,

they can also repeal. And so, back in early 2004, we contacted the three contenders for the

Conservative Party leadership and asked them to sign a special pledge form that

committed them to scrapping the gag law should they become prime minister.

Those contenders were Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and Belinda Stronach, then a

Conservative Party star. All three signed our pledge."

I guess instead of being called an 'Accountability Act', it should be called 'The Accountability Act for Everyone except Stephen Harper', since he refuses to be accountable for anything.

[FTA Lawyer]

I always admire Mr. Harper's ability to make hypocritical statements with a straight face. I watched some of his announcement on CBC and then read a Canadian Press Release by Jennifer Ditchburn entitled "Tories Clean House - Conservatives roll out sweeping ethics bill; critics point to loopholes"

My own thoughts on some of the measures:

"Reduce the influence of lobbyists" - would carry more weight if he hadn't appointed former military lobbyist Gordon O'Connor as Minister of Defense.

"Strengthen the Role of of the Ethics' Commissioner"- would carry more wait if he hadn't refused to even speak with him over the whole Emerson mess.

"Ensure Government Appointments are Based on Merit" - would carry more weight if he hadn't fast tracked unelected Fortier to the senate and then given him a cabinet post.

"Reform Financing of Political Parties to Reduce Big Money Influence" - would carry more weight if he hadn't syphoned thousands of dollars out of the Alberta Pipeline.

"Banning Secret Donations" - would carry more weight if he hadn't been so committed to keeping contributions a secret.

Harper vs The Attorney General

His National Citizens' Coalition has always fought what they consider a 'gag law' because they were forced to divulge their election spending.

Recently the NCC vice-president wrote:

"My group, the National Citizens Coalition, has long opposed these types of laws because

we believe all citizens should have the right to freely participate in the electoral process.

Indeed, we battled the Liberal gag law tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme Court of

Canada where, despite victories at lower-court levels (when Stephen Harper was NCC President) , we ultimately lost.

In a controversial (some would say incomprehensible) ruling, the Supreme Court judged

the gag law to be constitutional. We battled the gag law not only in court; we also sought

to convince politicians to kill this horrible law, on the idea that whatever politicians enact,

they can also repeal. And so, back in early 2004, we contacted the three contenders for the

Conservative Party leadership and asked them to sign a special pledge form that

committed them to scrapping the gag law should they become prime minister.

Those contenders were Stephen Harper, Tony Clement and Belinda Stronach, then a

Conservative Party star. All three signed our pledge."

I guess instead of being called an 'Accountability Act', it should be called 'The Accountability Act for Everyone except Stephen Harper', since he refuses to be accountable for anything.

Let's not be too quick to judge...I mean, Harper repeatedly promised the first thing he'd do is bring in the Accountability Act, and that's what he's doing. It may not be exactly what was planned (had he obtained a majority) but he is being accountable for this election promise.

The fact that he is proceeding with the measures even though they would prevent some things he has recently done (assuming that your allegations above are accurate...although, I'm pretty sure Harper did eventually cooperate with the ethics commissioner, and just because he was "fast-tracked", doesn't mean Fortier is an unmeritorious appointment) to me actually speaks volumes about the fact that this legislation will change the way things get done in Ottawa.

I would be concerned if, having reviewed his decisions and determining that the Accountability Act would preclude such decisions, Harper then dropped or drastically amended the Act so as to prevent real change. This would be the scenario that would justify forwarding the types of criticisms you are making because it would demonstrate in Harper a lack of principle...i.e. I'll clean things up, unless it means I might also have to make some changes.

FTA

[shoop]

There's problem more than four measures in the act.

Hmm, you think you would have come up with much less tenuous examples if you were going to be so selective.

[Spike22]

I think the act like all acts will have its flaws and may require refinement down the road but all in all it looks to be a very well put together piece of legislation. Excellent initiative by the conservatives now lets see if the pablum pukers will support it.

[scribblet]

It is an excellent initiative, I'm glad that they have acted on this. Harper has to be careful as this is a minority gov't. Can't clean it up too quickly you know, too much of a shock for the old liberal boys.

[Nocrap]

It is an excellent initiative, I'm glad that they have acted on this. Harper has to be careful as this is a minority gov't. Can't clean it up too quickly you know, too much of a shock for the old liberal boys.

I mean, Harper repeatedly promised the first thing he'd do is bring in the Accountability Act, and that's what he's doing

Hmmm...so let me get this straight....he only promised to bring in the act, not abide by it. That makes much more sense.

And I love the $1000.00 reward for whistleblowers. I mean people will be lining up to risk their jobs for such a windfall. This will create an atmosphere akin to schoolyard tattle-taling and do nothing to expose corruption, though I'm catching glimpses of it now.

[Teddy Ballgame]

- ALLCRAP ... Once again, you reveal your obviously obsessive and seriously unbalanced animus to PM Harper with yet another ridiculous and utterly bogus post of ALL CRAP. Since you are too deranged to be capable of learning and change where harper and the CPC are concerned, I won't waste my time dealing with the ridiculously thin gruel of your post, namely four false accusations that anyone with half a brain and one eye open can see are ALL CRAP. Instead, I merely present for the information of others here the Toronto Star editorial yesterday on Harper's ethics package. Since the Toronto Star has long been the official house organ of the Liberal party of Canada, bound by the original sale of the paper from Joe Atkinson's estate to the family compact that runs it to always adhere to "liberal principles", and almost as obsessive an enemy of the Conservatives as is ALLCRAP, this unexpectedly objective and honest editorial is worth the read:

Editorial: A promising start on ethics package

Apr. 12, 2006. 01:00 AM

For much of the last two years, Stephen Harper has told Canadians that, once in power, he would clean house in Ottawa after what he described as a long history of Liberal arrogance and corruption. He railed at the Liberals' Quebec advertising sponsorship scandal and promised to make ethics and transparency a cornerstone of his government. And so it is no surprise that he made the Federal Accountability Act, tabled in Parliament yesterday, his first piece of legislation.

The massive bill, running more than 200 pages, is a welcome attempt to bring more openness and honesty to the way the federal government operates. It covers everything from election financing to the role of lobbyists and increased protection for government whistle-blowers.

"We are creating a new culture of accountability that will change forever the way business is done in Ottawa," Harper said. "It will replace the culture of entitlement which became rooted here in Ottawa under the former government by a culture of accountability."

Canadians can only hope that happens. But while much of the bill is encouraging, there a few troubling signs that suggest there is less to Harper's ethics package than there might seem at first.

On the positive side, Harper is building on the actions taken by Paul Martin, who was moving to clean up the sponsorship mess created on Jean Chrétien's watch. Martin imposed strict new controls on the awarding of government contracts and was planning to hire 300 new auditors.

As a first step, Harper will ban all corporate and union donations to federal political parties. That is important, although it is primarily symbolic because the old limit was just $1,000, so low that nobody really believed it was enough to buy influence or a politician's vote. The same is true with cutting the limit on individual donations from $5,000 to $1,000.

Similarly, Harper's measures to boost protection for whistle-blowers, to have all government appointments be based on merit, to give the auditor-general more powers and to create a Procurement Auditor to study the awarding of government contracts should go a long way to convincing the public that real change is occurring in Ottawa.

At the same time, though, Harper is taking steps that both bring into question just how committed to openness he actually is and whether he is strangling legitimate interaction between bureaucrats and business people and public interest groups under an unrealistic requirement for lengthy reports on every meeting, right down to a shared cup of coffee.

One worrisome sign is Harper's handling of access to information legislation. He is rightly expanding coverage to include some Crown corporations such as Canada Post, VIA Rail and the CBC, as well as government agents such as the Chief Electoral Officer. But he has backpedalled on plans to allow easier access to government files by sending that part of the package to committee for further study. In Ottawa, that is equivalent to a "kiss of death" for controversial legislation.

Another controversial move is to merge the ethics commissioners for the Commons and the Senate. When Martin tried to do that in 2004, senators rebelled, arguing the two chambers should be kept separate. Harper is inviting a backlash from the Liberal-heavy Senate, which may feel that Harper wants to legislate Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro, with whom he has refused to co-operate on several occasions, out of a job.

Still, the overall thrust of the ethics package is good. Harper wants a healthy debate on it, which will give opponents a chance to propose reasonable amendments. They should take advantage of the opportunity.

[Nocrap]

- ALLCRAP ... Once again, you reveal your obviously obsessive and seriously unbalanced animus to PM Harper with yet another ridiculous and utterly bogus post of ALL CRAP. Since you are too deranged to be capable of learning and change where harper and the CPC are concerned, I won't waste my time dealing with the ridiculously thin gruel of your post, namely four false accusations that anyone with half a brain and one eye open can see are ALL CRAP. Instead, I merely present for the information of others here the Toronto Star editorial yesterday on Harper's ethics package. Since the Toronto Star has long been the official house organ of the Liberal party of Canada, bound by the original sale of the paper from Joe Atkinson's estate to the family compact that runs it to always adhere to "liberal principles", and almost as obsessive an enemy of the Conservatives as is ALLCRAP, this unexpectedly objective and honest editorial is worth the read:

Editorial: A promising start on ethics package

Apr. 12, 2006. 01:00 AM

For much of the last two years, Stephen Harper has told Canadians that, once in power, he would clean house in Ottawa after what he described as a long history of Liberal arrogance and corruption. He railed at the Liberals' Quebec advertising sponsorship scandal and promised to make ethics and transparency a cornerstone of his government. And so it is no surprise that he made the Federal Accountability Act, tabled in Parliament yesterday, his first piece of legislation.

The massive bill, running more than 200 pages, is a welcome attempt to bring more openness and honesty to the way the federal government operates. It covers everything from election financing to the role of lobbyists and increased protection for government whistle-blowers.

"We are creating a new culture of accountability that will change forever the way business is done in Ottawa," Harper said. "It will replace the culture of entitlement which became rooted here in Ottawa under the former government by a culture of accountability."

Canadians can only hope that happens. But while much of the bill is encouraging, there a few troubling signs that suggest there is less to Harper's ethics package than there might seem at first.

On the positive side, Harper is building on the actions taken by Paul Martin, who was moving to clean up the sponsorship mess created on Jean Chrétien's watch. Martin imposed strict new controls on the awarding of government contracts and was planning to hire 300 new auditors.

As a first step, Harper will ban all corporate and union donations to federal political parties. That is important, although it is primarily symbolic because the old limit was just $1,000, so low that nobody really believed it was enough to buy influence or a politician's vote. The same is true with cutting the limit on individual donations from $5,000 to $1,000.

Similarly, Harper's measures to boost protection for whistle-blowers, to have all government appointments be based on merit, to give the auditor-general more powers and to create a Procurement Auditor to study the awarding of government contracts should go a long way to convincing the public that real change is occurring in Ottawa.

At the same time, though, Harper is taking steps that both bring into question just how committed to openness he actually is and whether he is strangling legitimate interaction between bureaucrats and business people and public interest groups under an unrealistic requirement for lengthy reports on every meeting, right down to a shared cup of coffee.

One worrisome sign is Harper's handling of access to information legislation. He is rightly expanding coverage to include some Crown corporations such as Canada Post, VIA Rail and the CBC, as well as government agents such as the Chief Electoral Officer. But he has backpedalled on plans to allow easier access to government files by sending that part of the package to committee for further study. In Ottawa, that is equivalent to a "kiss of death" for controversial legislation.

Another controversial move is to merge the ethics commissioners for the Commons and the Senate. When Martin tried to do that in 2004, senators rebelled, arguing the two chambers should be kept separate. Harper is inviting a backlash from the Liberal-heavy Senate, which may feel that Harper wants to legislate Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro, with whom he has refused to co-operate on several occasions, out of a job.

Still, the overall thrust of the ethics package is good. Harper wants a healthy debate on it, which will give opponents a chance to propose reasonable amendments. They should take advantage of the opportunity.

On the positive side, Harper is building on the actions taken by Paul Martin, who was moving to clean up the sponsorship mess created on Jean Chrétien's watch. Martin imposed strict new controls on the awarding of government contracts and was planning to hire 300 new auditors.

So the Liberals started the initiative?

At the same time, though, Harper is taking steps that both bring into question just how committed to openness he actually is and whether he is strangling legitimate interaction between bureaucrats and business people and public interest groups under an unrealistic requirement for lengthy reports on every meeting, right down to a shared cup of coffee.

Just what we need - more bureaucracy.

As a first step, Harper will ban all corporate and union donations to federal political parties. That is important, although it is primarily symbolic because the old limit was just $1,000, so low that nobody really believed it was enough to buy influence or a politician's vote. The same is true with cutting the limit on individual donations from $5,000 to $1,000.

I posted here once before that there is more than one way to take money from corporations. Go to elections Canada and google a few of the names of the CPC's contributors. Husband/wife/children of CEO's all donating the maximum. The Liberals did the same thing . The CPC just MORE.

I won't argue that an Accountability Act is a welcome thing, but stand by my opinion that it would carry more weight if Harper was actually 'accountable' for his own actions. Just 3 months in office and he has broken every ethical and accountable rule in the book. Not allowing his caucus to speak to the media makes me wonder what it is he doesn't want us to know.

Transparency? Not with this government. Accountability? Not with this government. Ethics? Not with this government.

But thanks for the article. It was very generous of you.

[scribblet]

-----

Another controversial move is to merge the ethics commissioners for the Commons and the Senate. When Martin tried to do that in 2004, senators rebelled, arguing the two chambers should be kept separate. Harper is inviting a backlash from the Liberal-heavy Senate, which may feel that Harper wants to legislate Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro, with whom he has refused to co-operate on several occasions, out of a job.

Still, the overall thrust of the ethics package is good. Harper wants a healthy debate on it, which will give opponents a chance to propose reasonable amendments. They should take advantage of the opportunity.

Excellent post TB, I concur. There are those who are not willing to wait and see, or to give any credit to Harper for anything. It doesn't matter what he does, it will be wrong.

This act will redefine how business is conducted in Parliament and could take a long time before we know if it has resulted in a more transparency. The long arm of the AG, will be reaching a lot further and should help protect the taxpayers from too much federal largesse.

Not much more to ad at this point, I'm willing to give the CPC a chance. So far they havn't broken any rules and have played the game within the law, once the rules change I expect them to abide by them.

[Michael Hardner]

Just 3 months in office and he has broken every ethical and accountable rule in the book.

This really is an overstatement of what has happened. Mr. Harper has enough to do in starting up a new government without having to initiate processes with the previous adminstation's ethics office - an office that is really a lame duck now.

His measures are stronger than what was in place before, and they will improve the political process in Canada far and above the US process.

[southerncomfort]

Just 3 months in office and he has broken every ethical and accountable rule in the book.

This really is an overstatement of what has happened. Mr. Harper has enough to do in starting up a new government without having to initiate processes with the previous adminstation's ethics office - an office that is really a lame duck now.

His measures are stronger than what was in place before, and they will improve the political process in Canada far and above the US process.

Yup !!!! and then some.

[Nocrap]

Just 3 months in office and he has broken every ethical and accountable rule in the book.

This really is an overstatement of what has happened. Mr. Harper has enough to do in starting up a new government without having to initiate processes with the previous adminstation's ethics office - an office that is really a lame duck now.

His measures are stronger than what was in place before, and they will improve the political process in Canada far and above the US process.

Yup !!!! and then some.

I won't get into the Emerson mess (it's all over the net), but he sure got O'Connor in there before he passed, or tried to pass his Lobbyist rule

O'Connor

Like I say, it would have meant more if he didn't have a 'not so former' Lobbyist slap dab in the middle of his cabinet. And he hasn't even got into his appointments of Baird/Flaherty/Clement; key players in one of the most corrupt governments Ontario has ever had.

He needs Ontario for a majority, but won't get it that way.

As to his lowering of personal contributions, after signing the deal with Nicholls and the NCC, like I posted, they will be able to do his dirty work and it won't cost him a dime.

[Hicksey]

As a first step, Harper will ban all corporate and union donations to federal political parties. That is important, although it is primarily symbolic because the old limit was just $1,000, so low that nobody really believed it was enough to buy influence or a politician's vote. The same is true with cutting the limit on individual donations from $5,000 to $1,000.

I posted here once before that there is more than one way to take money from corporations. Go to elections Canada and google a few of the names of the CPC's contributors. Husband/wife/children of CEO's all donating the maximum. The Liberals did the same thing . The CPC just MORE.

Who cares who did it more? The Liberals wasted/stole untold billions. Let's just prevent that sort of thing from happening again. By limiting personal donations and eliminating union/corporate donations altogether Harper will come as close as possible to achieiving that.

[shoop]

Nocrap, there's a good 40% of the public that would never vote conservative. You are one of them, we get it.

But seeing editorials crying out that Harper is going too far tells me that this is a good bill that will appeal to the 60% of Canadians who would consider voting for Harper.

No reason to appeal to the likes of you. You hate him, would never support him or give him credit for being successful in doing something.

[Black Dog]

Nocrap, there's a good 40% of the public that would never vote conservative. You are one of them, we get it.

But seeing editorials crying out that Harper is going too far tells me that this is a good bill that will appeal to the 60% of Canadians who would consider voting for Harper.

No reason to appeal to the likes of you. You hate him, would never support him or give him credit for being successful in doing something.

I think you've got your numbers reversed.

[shoop]

Yet another insightful post that merely goes to prove your hatred for Harper without adding anything to the conversation.

I salute you for your diligence good sire.

I think you've got your numbers reversed.

[August1991]

This thread starts with a partisan post and then it's all downhill from there.

If you hate Harper, this legislation is bogus. If you like Harper, this legislation is an attempt.

Call me partisan, but I'm all curious. IME, self-regulating rules work best and imposed rules need harsh policing. Authority is best to choose the rules it can enforce, and ignore the rest.

Can "the government" enforce the rules in Harper's accountability act? Are these rules self-enforcing and if not, can they be enforced?

Drafting "people must tell the truth" legislation seems like a great idea but I'm a bit cynical about whether it will work. I'm inclined to believe that Harper's accountability legislation is bogus and it won't work. Harper is naive, or simply stupid. Smart people will find a way around it.

With that said, Rene Levesque and the PQ enacted legislation in 1977 about party financing and government public-works contracts that has worked more or less for 25 years. (Other parts of the Quebec government work less well.) Quebec's political debates, and its government procurements, are more or less clean - during a time when a bitter debate about Quebec's future involved different governments.

IOW, "government must be honest" legislation is possible but it takes a deft touch. How deft is Harper's legislation? I have seen no analysis yet. I'm still waiting.

----

BTW, TeddyBall, we have a rule on this forum to copy a short quote and provide a link - we don't cut and paste.

[Argus]

I always admire Mr. Harper's ability to make hypocritical statements with a straight face.

Yes, I can see where the making of hypocritical statements would be something you would admire.

"Reduce the influence of lobbyists" - would carry more weight if he hadn't appointed former military lobbyist Gordon O'Connor as Minister of Defense.

You don't get branded on your forehead with a big "L" because you once worked as a lobbyist. O'Connor was a general for decades, and then worked as a lobbyist for a few years. He no longer works as a lobbyist. He has a new job. It's funny that the left made no noises about the Liberals being loyal to companies they actually OWNED, and dismissed such suggestions from everyone else, but seems to have this bizarre idea that O'Connor now belongs, heart and soul, to a lobbying firm he worked for briefly.

"Strengthen the Role of of the Ethics' Commissioner"[/b]- would carry more wait if he hadn't refused to even speak with him over the whole Emerson mess.

Not with most of us. We recognized that the former Ethics Commisioner was a Liberal Party hack.

"Ensure Government Appointments are Based on Merit" - would carry more weight if he hadn't fast tracked unelected Fortier to the senate and then given him a cabinet post.

I don't think anyone sane thought that "government appointments" meant "cabinet ministers" Do you think jobs in cabinet should be put out to bid or something? That they shouldn't go to Party members!?

"Reform Financing of Political Parties to Reduce Big Money Influence" - would carry more weight if he hadn't syphoned thousands of dollars out of the Alberta Pipeline.

Oh right. He should have turned down all corporate cash while the Liberals were having cash stuffed into their pockets from every bank on Bay street, not to mention having it handed across the tables to them by the bagful by Quebec ad agencies.

With the new rules, you can be content that he won't be taking money from Alberta Pipeline any more. I would have thought you lefties would be happy at the removal of corporate cash from election financing instead of whining about what happened before the rules were in place.

"Banning Secret Donations" - would carry more weight if he hadn't been so committed to keeping contributions a secret.

The NCC is not a political party. You are going through a rather tortuous exercise in twisted logic to try and make Harper look hypocritical here. I'm afraid it only reflects badly on you.

[Nocrap]

I always admire Mr. Harper's ability to make hypocritical statements with a straight face.

Yes, I can see where the making of hypocritical statements would be something you would admire.

"Reduce the influence of lobbyists" - would carry more weight if he hadn't appointed former military lobbyist Gordon O'Connor as Minister of Defense.

You don't get branded on your forehead with a big "L" because you once worked as a lobbyist. O'Connor was a general for decades, and then worked as a lobbyist for a few years. He no longer works as a lobbyist. He has a new job. It's funny that the left made no noises about the Liberals being loyal to companies they actually OWNED, and dismissed such suggestions from everyone else, but seems to have this bizarre idea that O'Connor now belongs, heart and soul, to a lobbying firm he worked for briefly.

"Strengthen the Role of of the Ethics' Commissioner"[/b]- would carry more wait if he hadn't refused to even speak with him over the whole Emerson mess.

Not with most of us. We recognized that the former Ethics Commisioner was a Liberal Party hack.

"Ensure Government Appointments are Based on Merit" - would carry more weight if he hadn't fast tracked unelected Fortier to the senate and then given him a cabinet post.

I don't think anyone sane thought that "government appointments" meant "cabinet ministers" Do you think jobs in cabinet should be put out to bid or something? That they shouldn't go to Party members!?

"Reform Financing of Political Parties to Reduce Big Money Influence" - would carry more weight if he hadn't syphoned thousands of dollars out of the Alberta Pipeline.

Oh right. He should have turned down all corporate cash while the Liberals were having cash stuffed into their pockets from every bank on Bay street, not to mention having it handed across the tables to them by the bagful by Quebec ad agencies.

With the new rules, you can be content that he won't be taking money from Alberta Pipeline any more. I would have thought you lefties would be happy at the removal of corporate cash from election financing instead of whining about what happened before the rules were in place.

"Banning Secret Donations" - would carry more weight if he hadn't been so committed to keeping contributions a secret.

The NCC is not a political party. You are going through a rather tortuous exercise in twisted logic to try and make Harper look hypocritical here. I'm afraid it only reflects badly on you.

It's funny that the left made no noises about the Liberals being loyal to companies they actually OWNED,

Why does everyone assume that if you are not a Harper supporter, than you must support Liberal corruption? I'm left of centre and support honest government.

The NCC is not a political party. You are going through a rather tortuous exercise in twisted logic to try and make Harper look hypocritical here. I'm afraid it only reflects badly on you.

The NCC is not a political party but a third party group that has had tremendous success in getting their favourites elected. They have taken credit for not only Stephen Harper's original victory in Calgary using what they referred to as the "gag law" campaign, but also Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris. (And yes I will get you the links if you like. It's not a secret) Since Mr. Harper has signed a deal with the NCC promising to stop the "gag law" for third party campaign groups, it's business as usual.

However, when I see Stephen Harper standing beside John Baird, a man who cheated Ontarians out of millions of dollars (see Boondoggle Schmoondoggle), I can't take a wait and see approach, now that Baird has a larger budget. He refused to expalin his actions to Ontario's Auditor, so how can I believe that he will be accountable to the Auditor General?

If you found out that a co-worker had served time for murder, you might want to give him/her a chance, but you will also watch your back. I'm watching my back.

And as to the 60-40 split, the recent poll states that 40% will vote CPC, 35% Liberal and the remaining 25% split between NDP and Green Party. Harper does not have a 60% approval rating.

[Teddy Ballgame]

The NCC is not a political party but a third party group that has had tremendous success in getting their favourites elected. They have taken credit for not only Stephen Harper's original victory in Calgary using what they referred to as the "gag law" campaign, but also Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris. (And yes I will get you the links if you like. It's not a secret) Since Mr. Harper has signed a deal with the NCC promising to stop the "gag law" for third party campaign groups, it's business as usual.

However, when I see Stephen Harper standing beside John Baird, a man who cheated Ontarians out of millions of dollars (see Boondoggle Schmoondoggle), I can't take a wait and see approach, now that Baird has a larger budget. He refused to expalin his actions to Ontario's Auditor, so how can I believe that he will be accountable to the Auditor General?

If you found out that a co-worker had served time for murder, you might want to give him/her a chance, but you will also watch your back. I'm watching my back.

And as to the 60-40 split, the recent poll states that 40% will vote CPC, 35% Liberal and the remaining 25% split between NDP and Green Party. Harper does not have a 60% approval rating.

ALLCRAP ... The reason I have named you ALLCRAP is that when it comes to your comments concerning PM Harper and the CPC pretty much everything you have to say is a bold faced lie. Nowhere is your duplicity and deception - not to mention your delusions derived from your obsessive animus to Harper and the CPC - more evident than in this ridiculous thread. You begin with ALL CRAP concerning the Accountability Act and continue to dig yourself into an even deeper hole.

Your ridiculous comments in this latest post on Harper, Baird and the non-partisan political action group called the NCC are not worth my time in response. But I have decided to respond to your comments on polls because ANYONE HERE WHO CAN READ AND REASON will immediately see that you are a complete and utter liar. Polls, you see, are quantitative and therefore lies are IMMEDIATELY VERIFIABLE. Here is the latest poll taken just a week ago by a respected and long time Liberal favourite polling organization Environics as published in The Globe and Mail on April 6th. For the benefit of yourself and any other left-lib learning impaired ideologues, I have printed the salient portions in bold font.

Having caught you out in your deliberate falsifications here, I am not interested in wasting my time time any further debating the matter with you. I'll leave that to others who may suffer fools, liars and left-lib lunatic fringers better than I do.

4/6/2006 6:15:50 PM

Stephen Harper and his new government solidify voter support across the country as they begin to govern.

OTTAWA: Weeks into their new mandate, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have solidified its support among Canadians, according to a new survey by the Environics Research Group conducted in March.

Party Support. This latest survey shows that, nationally, 41 percent of eligible and decided Canadian voters would support the Conservative Party if an election were held today, compared with the 36 percent it earned in the January 23rd federal election. The Liberal Party, now under interim leadership, has seen its support drop to 22 percent (down 8 points), and is now in a statistical tie with the New Democratic Party, which has seen its support edge upwards to 21 percent (up 3 points). Support for the Bloc Québécois in Quebec is stable at 44 percent (up 2 points). Relatively few (13%) voters are currently undecided about which party might deserve their support.

Approval of Party Leaders. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has earned solid public approval in his first months in office, with 60 percent of Canadians expressing approval of the job he has done to date. This marks a dramatic jump from the 33 percent who approved of his performance as Opposition Leader last fall. Just under three in ten (28%) now disapprove of his performance, while 12 percent cannot say either way.

New Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham’s individual approval rating is 35 percent, but just as many (35%) cannot offer any assessment of him at this point in time. Thirty-one percent express disapproval. NDP Leader Jack Layton receives the approval of 58 percent of Canadians, essentially unchanged since last Fall, compared with 29 percent who disapprove. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe has earned 59 percent approval ratings in Quebec, down slightly from last fall, compared with 35 percent who disapprove.

Why the Conservatives Won. The survey also asked Canadians why they thought the federal Conservative Party won the last election and are now forming a new government in Ottawa.

More than half share the view that the outcome was because of widespread dissatisfaction with the previous Liberal government (54%), while more than a third (37%) said there was a general feeling it was time for a change. By comparison, only five percent of Canadians said they thought the Conservatives won this election because of their platform or policies. This perspective is largely the same across supporters of the different parties.

Will the New Government be Different? Canadians are evenly divided on whether they expect the new Harper government will be similar or different from the previous Liberal government. Half (50%) think it will be fairly similar in many ways, while a slightly smaller percentage (45%) believe it will offer very different policies. Expectations for a very different type of government are modestly stronger among those who would currently support the Conservatives (53%) or Bloc Québécois (50%), than among those supporting the Liberals (40%) and NDP (42%). Undecided voters are the least apt to share this view (33%).

For further information, please contact:

Keith Neuman, Ph.D., Group Vice President – Public Affairs, Environics Research Group

(613) 230-5089 [email protected]

Methodology

These results are taken from an Environics survey of 2,035 Canadians aged 18 and older, conducted in English and French between March 9 and 31, 2006. On a national basis, these results are accurate to within +/-2.2 percentage points, in 95 out of 100 samples.

Questions (English):

If a Canadian federal election were held today, which one of the following parties would you vote for [ROTATE PARTIES] the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, or [Quebec Only] the Bloc Québécois?

[if “Undecided” ask] Perhaps you have not yet made up your mind; is there nevertheless a party you might be inclined to support?

Please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the way the following party leaders are doing their jobs: [READ AND ROTATE] Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham, NDP Leader Jack Layton, or Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe?

Thinking back to the January 23rd election, which of the following do you believe is the main reason why we have a new government in Ottawa today. Is it because of: READ AND ROTATE 01 and 02

Dissatisfaction with the previous government, Support for the new government’s platform and policies, or a belief it is simply time for a change

Do you think the new government led by Stephen Harper will have very different policies and directions than the previous Liberal government, or do you think its policies will end up being similar in many ways to the previous government?

[Nocrap]

The NCC is not a political party but a third party group that has had tremendous success in getting their favourites elected. They have taken credit for not only Stephen Harper's original victory in Calgary using what they referred to as the "gag law" campaign, but also Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris. (And yes I will get you the links if you like. It's not a secret) Since Mr. Harper has signed a deal with the NCC promising to stop the "gag law" for third party campaign groups, it's business as usual.

However, when I see Stephen Harper standing beside John Baird, a man who cheated Ontarians out of millions of dollars (see Boondoggle Schmoondoggle), I can't take a wait and see approach, now that Baird has a larger budget. He refused to expalin his actions to Ontario's Auditor, so how can I believe that he will be accountable to the Auditor General?

If you found out that a co-worker had served time for murder, you might want to give him/her a chance, but you will also watch your back. I'm watching my back.

And as to the 60-40 split, the recent poll states that 40% will vote CPC, 35% Liberal and the remaining 25% split between NDP and Green Party. Harper does not have a 60% approval rating.

ALLCRAP ... The reason I have named you ALLCRAP is that when it comes to your comments concerning PM Harper and the CPC pretty much everything you have to say is a bold faced lie. Nowhere is your duplicity and deception - not to mention your delusions derived from your obsessive animus to Harper and the CPC - more evident than in this ridiculous thread. You begin with ALL CRAP concerning the Accountability Act and continue to dig yourself into an even deeper hole.

Your ridiculous comments in this latest post on Harper, Baird and the non-partisan political action group called the NCC are not worth my time in response. But I have decided to respond to your comments on polls because ANYONE HERE WHO CAN READ AND REASON will immediately see that you are a complete and utter liar. Polls, you see, are quantitative and therefore lies are IMMEDIATELY VERIFIABLE. Here is the latest poll taken just a week ago by a respected and long time Liberal favourite polling organization Environics as published in The Globe and Mail on April 6th. For the benefit of yourself and any other left-lib learning impaired ideologues, I have printed the salient portions in bold font.

Having caught you out in your deliberate falsifications here, I am not interested in wasting my time time any further debating the matter with you. I'll leave that to others who may suffer fools, liars and left-lib lunatic fringers better than I do.

4/6/2006 6:15:50 PM

Stephen Harper and his new government solidify voter support across the country as they begin to govern.

OTTAWA: Weeks into their new mandate, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have solidified its support among Canadians, according to a new survey by the Environics Research Group conducted in March.

Party Support. This latest survey shows that, nationally, 41 percent of eligible and decided Canadian voters would support the Conservative Party if an election were held today, compared with the 36 percent it earned in the January 23rd federal election. The Liberal Party, now under interim leadership, has seen its support drop to 22 percent (down 8 points), and is now in a statistical tie with the New Democratic Party, which has seen its support edge upwards to 21 percent (up 3 points). Support for the Bloc Québécois in Quebec is stable at 44 percent (up 2 points). Relatively few (13%) voters are currently undecided about which party might deserve their support.

Approval of Party Leaders. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has earned solid public approval in his first months in office, with 60 percent of Canadians expressing approval of the job he has done to date. This marks a dramatic jump from the 33 percent who approved of his performance as Opposition Leader last fall. Just under three in ten (28%) now disapprove of his performance, while 12 percent cannot say either way.

New Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham’s individual approval rating is 35 percent, but just as many (35%) cannot offer any assessment of him at this point in time. Thirty-one percent express disapproval. NDP Leader Jack Layton receives the approval of 58 percent of Canadians, essentially unchanged since last Fall, compared with 29 percent who disapprove. Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe has earned 59 percent approval ratings in Quebec, down slightly from last fall, compared with 35 percent who disapprove.

Why the Conservatives Won. The survey also asked Canadians why they thought the federal Conservative Party won the last election and are now forming a new government in Ottawa.

More than half share the view that the outcome was because of widespread dissatisfaction with the previous Liberal government (54%), while more than a third (37%) said there was a general feeling it was time for a change. By comparison, only five percent of Canadians said they thought the Conservatives won this election because of their platform or policies. This perspective is largely the same across supporters of the different parties.

Will the New Government be Different? Canadians are evenly divided on whether they expect the new Harper government will be similar or different from the previous Liberal government. Half (50%) think it will be fairly similar in many ways, while a slightly smaller percentage (45%) believe it will offer very different policies. Expectations for a very different type of government are modestly stronger among those who would currently support the Conservatives (53%) or Bloc Québécois (50%), than among those supporting the Liberals (40%) and NDP (42%). Undecided voters are the least apt to share this view (33%).

For further information, please contact:

Keith Neuman, Ph.D., Group Vice President – Public Affairs, Environics Research Group

(613) 230-5089 [email protected]

Methodology

These results are taken from an Environics survey of 2,035 Canadians aged 18 and older, conducted in English and French between March 9 and 31, 2006. On a national basis, these results are accurate to within +/-2.2 percentage points, in 95 out of 100 samples.

Questions (English):

If a Canadian federal election were held today, which one of the following parties would you vote for [ROTATE PARTIES] the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, or [Quebec Only] the Bloc Québécois?

[if “Undecided” ask] Perhaps you have not yet made up your mind; is there nevertheless a party you might be inclined to support?

Please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the way the following party leaders are doing their jobs: [READ AND ROTATE] Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham, NDP Leader Jack Layton, or Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe?

Thinking back to the January 23rd election, which of the following do you believe is the main reason why we have a new government in Ottawa today. Is it because of: READ AND ROTATE 01 and 02

Dissatisfaction with the previous government, Support for the new government’s platform and policies, or a belief it is simply time for a change

Do you think the new government led by Stephen Harper will have very different policies and directions than the previous Liberal government, or do you think its policies will end up being similar in many ways to the previous government?

ALLCRAP ... The reason I have named you ALLCRAP is that when it comes to your comments concerning PM Harper and the CPC pretty much everything you have to say is a bold faced lie.

I read your explanation of how you got your handle, well here's mine. NOCRAP stands for No Conservative Reform Alliance Party, and it is simply my silent protest of a Reform Party hybrid calling themselves Tories. The ship has sailed on how Peter MacKay and Stephen Harper masterminded this, and I no longer really care. The name just reminds me everyday not to look at CPC policy from a Tory point of view, but from the Reform Party/Alliance point of view. Fortunately in a democracy, I'm allowed to do this.

Your ridiculous comments in this latest post on Harper, Baird and the non-partisan political action group called the NCC are not worth my time in response.

Whenever you challenge anything I have to say you always claim that it is not worth your time in response, but follow with paragraphs of diatribe, so I can only assume that I've hit a nerve.

I believe that you are from New Brunswick. So am I (Grandfalls) and have an aunt in Chatham. I've lived in Ontario for decades now so am not up to date on NB politics. However, I'm sure that the province has it's share of corrupt government officials. Now picture in your mind one NB politician that you would love to see behind bars, and then imagine them standing beside the PM announcing an accountability act.

The NCC are not non-partisan. Google 'Operation Porkchop'. Mike Harris and the NCC (Conservative). Brian Mulroney and the NCC (Conservative) Stephen Harper and the NCC (CPC) "Gag Law" and the NCC (Reform/CPC).

However, I do respect your opinion so if you could provide a link to an NCC campaign that helped the Liberals or the NDP, I will be sure to check it out.

And thank you for not using profanity this time. Calling me a Left-Lib Liar is much more civil.

[scribblet]

I always admire Mr. Harper's ability to make hypocritical statements with a straight face.

Yes, I can see where the making of hypocritical statements would be something you would admire.

"Reduce the influence of lobbyists" - would carry more weight if he hadn't appointed former military lobbyist Gordon O'Connor as Minister of Defense.

You don't get branded on your forehead with a big "L" because you once worked as a lobbyist. O'Connor was a general for decades, and then worked as a lobbyist for a few years. He no longer works as a lobbyist. He has a new job. It's funny that the left made no noises about the Liberals being loyal to companies they actually OWNED, and dismissed such suggestions from everyone else, but seems to have this bizarre idea that O'Connor now belongs, heart and soul, to a lobbying firm he worked for briefly.

"Strengthen the Role of of the Ethics' Commissioner"[/b]- would carry more wait if he hadn't refused to even speak with him over the whole Emerson mess.

Not with most of us. We recognized that the former Ethics Commisioner was a Liberal Party hack.

"Ensure Government Appointments are Based on Merit" - would carry more weight if he hadn't fast tracked unelected Fortier to the senate and then given him a cabinet post.

I don't think anyone sane thought that "government appointments" meant "cabinet ministers" Do you think jobs in cabinet should be put out to bid or something? That they shouldn't go to Party members!?

"Reform Financing of Political Parties to Reduce Big Money Influence" - would carry more weight if he hadn't syphoned thousands of dollars out of the Alberta Pipeline.

Oh right. He should have turned down all corporate cash while the Liberals were having cash stuffed into their pockets from every bank on Bay street, not to mention having it handed across the tables to them by the bagful by Quebec ad agencies.

With the new rules, you can be content that he won't be taking money from Alberta Pipeline any more. I would have thought you lefties would be happy at the removal of corporate cash from election financing instead of whining about what happened before the rules were in place.

"Banning Secret Donations" - would carry more weight if he hadn't been so committed to keeping contributions a secret.

The NCC is not a political party. You are going through a rather tortuous exercise in twisted logic to try and make Harper look hypocritical here. I'm afraid it only reflects badly on you.

Excellent response.

Actually Harper did release his contributions, it was on the CPC website some time ago, but I don't have time to go looking for the link, and at the time there was no legal requirement that he do so.

The CPC (and Allliance) have far fewer corporate donations than the Liberals, the majority are from individuals.

As someone who supports the NCC (although I don't agree with everything they do) I don't see why its a problem for some people, who cares if Harper was the Pres. at one time.

[Nocrap]

Actually, if you go to elections Canada website and google some of those 'private' contributions, you will see the corporations behind the CPC. $20,000.00 from Power Corporation alone- Father, mother, son, daughter. The Liberals did the same thing, the CPC just have far more corporate CEO's and their families all giving the maximum.

Therefore, it really doesn't matter whether Corps. can't contribute because there is more than one way to skin a cat.

My point with the NCC is that their campaigns are DEFINITELY PARTISAN, and they do (by their own bragging rights) influence elections. Therefore, if Mr. Harper sticks to his WRITTEN promise to NCC VP and somehow gets rid of what they call the "gag law", it won't matter who contributes to the CPC or how much, because the NCC can do the campaigning for them. That is my point.

[fixer1]

Nocrap

You just do not make any sense in your posting at all. It has one thing though that is glaringly present in all of this, and that is you hate Harper and the CPC. Your reasons are not even understanable, and you logic is that of a programmed zombie. I sure am glad that you are a Liberal supporter, as as long as they have people like you, the rest around you will see this and vote for CPC just because they would never want anything to be like you. The idea of being able to debate is to have open minds. Do you actually believe you have an open mind. I do not mean vacant but open. This just makes me wonder just how anybody can get to this point and not even know the facts.

[Nocrap]

Nocrap

You just do not make any sense in your posting at all. It has one thing though that is glaringly present in all of this, and that is you hate Harper and the CPC. Your reasons are not even understanable, and you logic is that of a programmed zombie. I sure am glad that you are a Liberal supporter, as as long as they have people like you, the rest around you will see this and vote for CPC just because they would never want anything to be like you. The idea of being able to debate is to have open minds. Do you actually believe you have an open mind. I do not mean vacant but open. This just makes me wonder just how anybody can get to this point and not even know the facts.

Fixer1 - Please enlighten me. Is the information at Elections Canda listing the $5,000 contributors inaccurate? I googled the names and most can be traced to the oil industry or private healthcare. That is fact and I have posted many of them before.

The National Citizens' Coalition boasts of being the brainchild behind the victories of Stephen Harper (his initial bid in Calagary), Mike Harris and Brian Mulroney, amoung others. Are they not being truthful?

Stephen Harper himself has said that much of the Reform Party Policy he wrote came from the NCC's handbook. Is he not being honest? Their former president Somerville claims that they 'cribbed' 2/3. Perhaps he's not being honest.

The 'gag law' that the NCC opposed (see Harper vs the Attorney General) was the law that made third party political campaign groups 'accountable', in the same way that those running for office were. The same limits on spending and transparency in contributions.

Recently the NCC vice-president Nicholls stated that Stephen Harper SIGNED a contract with him promising to overturn the 'gag law' if elected PM. If he manages to do this, the NCC will once again be given free reign to spend thousands on negative ad campaigns during elections.

You are right though. I like the CPC as much as you like the Liberals, and I rather doubt that my post will really influence votes either way. Just expressing my fact based opinion.