Mr. Harper's Accountability Measures Would Carry More Weight

scribblet · April 15, 2006

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.

There's facts and there's facts....the use of the NCC is a strawman argument. the NCC promotes free enterprise, individual freedom and better, more accountable gov't. It fights to protect free political speech, expose wasteful government spending, nothing wrong with the NCC in my opinion. they are standing up for Canada.

Speaking about being open minded, Harper has shown extreme open mindeness by appointing 2 liberals.

August1991 · April 15, 2006

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.

Well then, you could at least get the facts straight.

The NCC may well take positions similar to the Tories but that is neither here nor there. In the past election, the CAW urged people to vote Liberal or NDP. Different organizations take different positions. The Toronto Star's editorial board supported the Liberals.

Harper contested the gag law because he didn't feel the State should restrict how third parties decide to get involved in elections. In particular, he contested limits on how much a third party should be free to spend. Ultimately, Harper lost when the Supreme Court decided to uphold the campaign expenses law, and uphold the right of the State to restrict how a third party spends money to influence voters during an election.

At present, we have a situation where I can create a newspaper and publish pro-Marxist articles urging voters to vote for the Marxist Party of Canada. I cannot, on the other hand, take out a full page ad in an existing newspaper to convince people to vote Marxist. You tell me if that makes sense.

scribblet · April 15, 2006

The NCC is a private organization funded by individuals. The fact that it is private and does not have to release the names of its contributors gets the left in a knot, especially the unions. As long as the NCC isn't funded by the gov't there is no complaint.

What the gag laws do is deny free speech to all Canadians, while you might not agree with the NCCs politics, there is nothing hypocritcal about them or Harper.

Naci Sey · April 15, 2006

I'm pleased to see some of the measures, e.g., the banning of corporate and union donations and the reduction to $1,000 for individual donations.

The CPCs never said it would be in their Accountability Act, but I'm disappointed not to see Electoral Reform there. It was something the NDP were proposing, although certain of the specifics had me hesitating.

scribblet · April 16, 2006

I'm pleased to see some of the measures, e.g., the banning of corporate and union donations and the reduction to $1,000 for individual donations.
The CPCs never said it would be in their Accountability Act, but I'm disappointed not to see Electoral Reform there. It was something the NDP were proposing, although certain of the specifics had me hesitating.

Hi: (a refugee from rabble ? )

I'm not against those measures actually, I do think corporate and union donations should be limited, not sure about indivudual donations, maybe $1,000.00 is too low ?

Electoral reform isn't one of their 5 priorities which is dissappointing, although I believe Senate reform is on their 'to do' list. I also seem to recall set election dates being on that list. If you are thinking of Prop. rep. I don't believe its even mentioned.

betsy · April 16, 2006

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.

Then it's obvious that you'll always find fault with Harper and the CPC. Your topic and reasoning clearly reflects the way you feel.

scribblet · April 16, 2006

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.

Then it's obvious that you'll always find fault with Harper and the CPC. Your topic and reasoning clearly reflects the way you feel.

Indeed, and its too bad if she doesn't like the term Tory, guess she'll have to get used to it, and if one doesn't care, why would one continue going on about it.

Seems like a lot of Canadians are liking what they see with Stephen Harper's government. When was the last time anyone saw the Torys at 41%?

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/11565

Nocrap · April 16, 2006

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.

Then it's obvious that you'll always find fault with Harper and the CPC. Your topic and reasoning clearly reflects the way you feel.

Indeed, and its too bad if she doesn't like the term Tory, guess she'll have to get used to it, and if one doesn't care, why would one continue going on about it.

Seems like a lot of Canadians are liking what they see with Stephen Harper's government. When was the last time anyone saw the Torys at 41%?

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/11565

41% acceptance for a governing party is very low, meaning that 59% are not happy with their performance; and the Liberals don't even have a leader! Much less than the 60% approval rating that someone else suggested they had.

Again this is about accountability and the first three months in, they are doing nothing to reassure Canadians that they are not throwing taxpayers' money out the window. Maybe if John Baird gave Ontario the 500 million dollars he bilked us out of, or had at least addressed the issue with our provincial auditor, I would not have this knot in my stomach now that he has a larger budget.

I stand by my original statements about non-accountability and that third party CAMPAIGNING should be held to the same guidelines as any political campaigns.

As far as the publication of Marxist newspapers, only those interested in that type of ideology will subscribe to the paper, so it is not going to affect the election. On the other hand, a full page ad in a newspaper read by all in the political spectrum - can and will influence votes.

scribblet · April 16, 2006

40%+ is all it takes in a first past the post system.

scribblet · April 16, 2006

I'm pleased to see some of the measures, e.g., the banning of corporate and union donations and the reduction to $1,000 for individual donations.
The CPCs never said it would be in their Accountability Act, but I'm disappointed not to see Electoral Reform there. It was something the NDP were proposing, although certain of the specifics had me hesitating.

Apparantly the Tories are adopting their new party financing rules now (The Chronicle-Herald 2006-04-15) even though it isn't law yet.

The Liberals are opposed to it, no surprise there as they are have a 4 M debt so the Grits will continue to take advantage of it, its no surprise that the Tories rather than the Grits tend to rely on smaller donations from a larger number of donors.

MacKinnon says the financing reforms proposed in the bill directly target the Liberals.

"It's no secret to anybody that the Liberal party is the most affected (by the proposed law)," said MacKinnon.

I would guess that this could affect the Tories financial position for the next election if the grits continue to take in the larger amounts. Wonder how soon they can get the bill passed.

Edited to correct the second paragraph.

Edited April 16, 2006 by scriblett

margrace · April 16, 2006

Hey Scribblet " it is no surprise that the grits rather than the tories tend to rely on smaller donations from a larger number of donors", doesn't that tell one which party has the more support. I don't understand this, I thought we were considering the lobby support so are you saying that large companies lobbying are more important to the tories?

August1991 · April 16, 2006

As far as the publication of Marxist newspapers, only those interested in that type of ideology will subscribe to the paper, so it is not going to affect the election. On the other hand, a full page ad in a newspaper read by all in the political spectrum - can and will influence votes.

You still don't get my point about the "gag" law, no crap.

The Toronto Star can endorse the Liberal Party and the National Post the Conservative Party, both putting their opinions in full page editorials.

If you and I however take up a collection and place a full page ad in either paper supporting the Liberals, the NDP or any political party during an election, we could go to jail or be fined.

Does that make sense to you?

IMHO, this is a bad law, and the Supreme Court decision was worse.

scribblet · April 16, 2006

Hey Scribblet " it is no surprise that the grits rather than the tories tend to rely on smaller donations from a larger number of donors", doesn't that tell one which party has the more support. I don't understand this, I thought we were considering the lobby support so are you saying that large companies lobbying are more important to the tories?

Whoops, that should have read, 'its no surprise that the tories tend to rely on smaller donations etc." I will edit the original post.

Traditionally the CPC (and prior to that Alliance) received more individual donations than large co-orporate donations. So, this proposed bill will affect the grits more than the tories.

Naci Sey · April 16, 2006

The CPCs never said that it would be in their Accountability Act, but I'm disappointed not to see Electoral Reform there. It was something the NDP were proposing, although certain of the specifics had me hesitating.
Hi: (a refugee from rabble? - Ah huh )
I'm not against those measures actually, I do think corporate and union donations should be limited, not sure about indivudual donations, maybe $1,000.00 is too low?

When I was employed where there was a union, I was furious that my membership dues went to the NDP. I'd have been as peeved if they went to any other party. How dare union management decide which party to support and then use my dollars for political influence! Similar issue with corporations and other business. These entities cannot vote. Only their shareholders and employees can. Unions and business should not be permitted to fund political parties. Therefore, I'm really pleased to see the Accountability Act cut them out (hope that part of it goes through).

The $1,000 limit evens out the sphere of influence, which I support.

Scriblett (cute moniker): Electoral reform isn't one of their 5 priorities which is dissappointing, although I believe Senate reform is on their 'to do' list. I also seem to recall set election dates being on that list. If you are thinking of Prop. rep. I don't believe its even mentioned.

No, it isn't and I don't think the Tories are trying to hide that fact either, to be fair. Neither they nor the Liberals want PR. I commented previously about the NDP mentioning PR in their proposed ethics package. But their proposal tries to pin down in advance what PR in Canada should look like. You have to look hard to find any reference in their literature to the notion that the people should decide this, not politicians.

Nocrap · April 16, 2006

The CPCs never said that it would be in their Accountability Act, but I'm disappointed not to see Electoral Reform there. It was something the NDP were proposing, although certain of the specifics had me hesitating.
Hi: (a refugee from rabble? - Ah huh )
I'm not against those measures actually, I do think corporate and union donations should be limited, not sure about indivudual donations, maybe $1,000.00 is too low?

When I was employed where there was a union, I was furious that my membership dues went to the NDP. I'd have been as peeved if they went to any other party. How dare union management decide which party to support and then use my dollars for political influence! Similar issue with corporations and other business. These entities cannot vote. Only their shareholders and employees can. Unions and business should not be permitted to fund political parties. Therefore, I'm really pleased to see the Accountability Act cut them out (hope that part of it goes through).
The $1,000 limit evens out the sphere of influence, which I support.

Scriblett (cute moniker): Electoral reform isn't one of their 5 priorities which is dissappointing, although I believe Senate reform is on their 'to do' list. I also seem to recall set election dates being on that list. If you are thinking of Prop. rep. I don't believe its even mentioned.

No, it isn't and I don't think the Tories are trying to hide that fact either, to be fair. Neither they nor the Liberals want PR. I commented previously about the NDP mentioning PR in their proposed ethics package. But their proposal tries to pin down in advance what PR in Canada should look like. You have to look hard to find any reference in their literature to the notion that the people should decide this, not politicians.

Traditionally the CPC (and prior to that Alliance) received more individual donations than large co-orporate donations.

In 2005, the CPC received more corporate contributions than other other party. I have a list of their 3000+ benefactors. The majority are CEO's of large cororations, their wives and families. More than half are from Alberta Oil Companies and many longtime supporters of the Reform Party.

Like I've said before, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The CPC just has more Fat Cats behind their success.

The Liberals used the same technique - the NDP very little if at all - the CPC had the most. No grass roots here.

geoffrey · April 17, 2006

In 2005, the CPC received more corporate contributions than other other party. I have a list of their 3000+ benefactors. The majority are CEO's of large cororations, their wives and families. More than half are from Alberta Oil Companies and many longtime supporters of the Reform Party.
Like I've said before, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The CPC just has more Fat Cats behind their success.

The Liberals used the same technique - the NDP very little if at all - the CPC had the most. No grass roots here.

Do have any evidence of these massive amounts of money going to the Tories from 3000+ companies?

If you actually believe the CPC is more big business than the liberals, you are a very naive person. Power Corp. is a massive company, and the last two liberal leaders had a turn in executive management there.

August1991 · April 17, 2006

Do have any evidence of these massive amounts of money going to the Tories from 3000+ companies?
If you actually believe the CPC is more big business than the liberals, you are a very naive person. Power Corp. is a massive company, and the last two liberal leaders had a turn in executive management there.

This is the key question.

I don't think a $5000 contribution to a political party (soon to be reduced to $1000) will buy much influence. If control of government policies were up for sale, surely the price would be much higher than that.

In a sense, it is. We just saw an example in the past election. Harper "sold" the government to families with children under six ($1200 child allowance) and consumers (1% cut in GST).

Teddy Ballgame · April 17, 2006

If you actually believe the CPC is more big business than the liberals, you are a very naive person. Power Corp. is a massive company, and the last two liberal leaders had a turn in executive management there.

- G - You are, of course, entirely correct. Mind you, it is easy to be entirely correct when debating with ALLCRAP. Simply take the exact opposite position to whatever one is espoused by ALLCRAP and you will almost always be entirely correct.

- In this case, everyone who really knows about political fundraising and the basis of financial support for parties in Canada knows that the Conservative Party has for the past decade been far better at securing the thousands of small donations from grass roots supporters than has the Liberals who have relied almost solely on bog corporate contributions by companies wanting to maintain their access to federal contracts, loans, influence, etc.

- Here is a recent report from the Globe and Mail on this topic:

Liberals bring in American organizer

Candidates seek fundraising tips

JANE TABER

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The U.S. political organizer credited with "reinventing campaigning" by using the Internet to raise millions for Howard Dean's presidential bid is going to teach Liberals how to do the same for their leadership campaigns.

About 50 Liberals, including some of the potential leadership candidates, caucus members, volunteers and organizers, will hear from Joe Trippi, the former Vermont governor's campaign manager, at an event in Toronto next week.

Mr. Trippi tapped into the U.S. grassroots through the Internet by raising money in increments averaging less than $100 that resulted in millions of dollars for Mr. Dean, who ran unsuccessfully against John Kerry for the 2004 Democratic Party nomination.

The rules for financing political campaigns in Canada changed significantly after new legislation was passed in 2003, and leadership candidates can no longer receive thousands of dollars from corporations or unions.

The new Canadian rules allow an individual to donate up to $5,200 to a candidate's campaign. The candidate can give only $10,200 of his or her own money.

The leadership vote is to be held Dec. 2 in Montreal. Candidates are allowed to spend up to $3.4-million.

The organizer behind the Trippi event is Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein, who wanted to do something to help Liberals think creatively about the party's future.

Mr. Grafstein said he is concerned about the lack of unity in the party that led many Liberals to sit out this year's election and previous votes.

He was also wondering how to use this leadership race as an opportunity to increase party membership.

And so Mr. Grafstein, who is knowledgeable about U.S. politics, picked up his telephone several weeks ago and invited Mr. Trippi to Toronto for lunch and a 30-minute talk followed by questions. He invited the other participants personally, picking a range of Liberals from all aspects of the party and the country.

Mr. Grafstein said the purpose of the event is to "get somebody who could give us advice" with respect to grassroots and democracy. He also said participants, who pay $100 to $150 to attend the event, can learn from Mr. Trippi's mistakes.

Mr. Trippi has attracted some controversy for the way he has run campaigns, says one Democrat, who also helped out on the Dean campaign.

"He's extremely talented, he has a funky personality," said the Democratic organizer, who noted, however, that Mr. Trippi is "arrogant in his ideas."

"I don't know the last candidate he produced a win for. . . . I'm not sure what Joe could possibly have to offer that would be relevant or new in Canada. But he's American and so by definition he must be smart," the organizer said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Grafstein, whose roots in the Liberal Party go back to the Pearson and Trudeau eras, is no stranger to thinking outside the box. He organized the Canada Loves New York weekend, in which thousands of Canadians travelled to New York after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

Potential leadership candidate Carolyn Bennett, a former Martin cabinet minister and veteran Toronto MP, is one of the participants in the Trippi event.

Dr. Bennett, who says she will decide whether to seek the leadership in the next several weeks, noted that the Conservative Party raised much of its money for the recent election in smaller amounts from truly grassroots organizations. The Liberals, in the past, have relied on corporations.

"It's something that a lot of us have been very keen about in terms of obviously turning the Liberal Party into a truly liberal party . . . ," she said.

geoffrey · April 17, 2006

Oh my goodness, an Amercian organizer?

I wonder if the CPC will fear monger like the Liberals did on that point? :lol:

scribblet · April 17, 2006

[quote name='Naci Sey' post='108998'
The $1,000 limit evens out the sphere of influence, which I support.

Scriblett (cute moniker): Electoral reform isn't one of their 5 priorities which is dissappointing, although I believe Senate reform is on their 'to do' list. I also seem to recall set election dates being on that list. If you are thinking of Prop. rep. I don't believe its even mentioned.

No, it isn't and I don't think the Tories are trying to hide that fact either, to be fair. Neither they nor the Liberals want PR. I commented previously about the NDP mentioning PR in their proposed ethics package. But their proposal tries to pin down in advance what PR in Canada should look like. You have to look hard to find any reference in their literature to the notion that the people should decide this, not politicians.

Thanks but its spelled wrong and I can't correct it.

I believe the NDP do want PR, probably because it might be to their advantage, also the Greens would have had a few seats under PR.

The liberal dominated Senate is now making noises about stalling the package, another good reason to get rid of it or reform it.

To G et al: The CPC has always relied on small donations from individuals, the Liberals used to rely on huge corporate donations until the rules changed, maybe that why the Liberals are in the red now.

According to Elections Canada from 1993-2003 big corporations gave the Liberals $10.8 million and gave the other two right of centre parties only $3.5 million.

Naci Sey · April 17, 2006

Scriblett (cute moniker): Electoral reform isn't one of their 5 priorities which is dissappointing, although I believe Senate reform is on their 'to do' list. I also seem to recall set election dates being on that list. If you are thinking of Prop. rep. I don't believe its even mentioned.

No, it isn't and I don't think the Tories are trying to hide that fact either, to be fair. Neither they nor the Liberals want PR. I commented previously about the NDP mentioning PR in their proposed ethics package. But their proposal tries to pin down in advance what PR in Canada should look like. You have to look hard to find any reference in their literature to the notion that the people should decide this, not politicians.

Thanks but its spelled wrong and I can't correct it.

I believe the NDP do want PR, probably because it might be to their advantage, also the Greens would have had a few seats under PR.

I wondered about that! Went to put in two 'b's and one 't', checked back and Oops, I'd got it wrong.

Yes, they do, but they want a certain kind of PR, which is not a problem in itself. However, it's that type of PR which turns up in their proposed ethics package. While in one place in their literature - I think it was in their convention materials - a citizens assembly is mentioned, there was no mention of it in their campaign or website materials. That worries me. They want PR, but also want it stipulated in advance what the system will look like.

mcqueen625 · April 17, 2006

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.

I think there is a new poll that suggests that many Liberal and NDP supporters are now supporting the initiatives of Stephen Harper. That does not mean that they will vote Conservative, but it does show that the people of Canada are pleased with having some measure of accountability in government. God knows the Liberal certainly did not want to be held accountable to the people of Canada, especially since it was issustrated by Paul Martin when he made the statement; " As far as I'm concerned the Supreme Court is the final say in this country." That told me and many other Canadian's that he was willing to step aside and allow a bunch of political appointees to effectively run this country, instead of our elected politicians. I don't know about you, but I am definitely not comfortable with have those morons in the Supreme Court making choices for me and my family and us having no recourse to be able to hold them accountable for those decisions. To me, that is called a dictatorship!

shoop · April 17, 2006

The *success* of Paul Martin's Hail Mary with the notwithstanding clause shows what the Canadian public thinks of the Supreme Court. Canadians like having that safety net in place. It keeps the Supreme Court from going too far.

I think there is a new poll that suggests that many Liberal and NDP supporters are now supporting the initiatives of Stephen Harper. That does not mean that they will vote Conservative, but it does show that the people of Canada are pleased with having some measure of accountability in government. God knows the Liberal certainly did not want to be held accountable to the people of Canada, especially since it was issustrated by Paul Martin when he made the statement; " As far as I'm concerned the Supreme Court is the final say in this country." That told me and many other Canadian's that he was willing to step aside and allow a bunch of political appointees to effectively run this country, instead of our elected politicians. I don't know about you, but I am definitely not comfortable with have those morons in the Supreme Court making choices for me and my family and us having no recourse to be able to hold them accountable for those decisions. To me, that is called a dictatorship!

Black Dog · April 18, 2006

Harper changes tune on appointments

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is choosing which Conservative MPs will become chairs of Commons committees, reversing a parliamentary reform that he championed while leader of the Official Opposition.

Not only is this another flip flop, it also seems to be setting the kooks loose:

The new selection process is expected to be used next week, according to Saskatoon-Wanuskewin Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, who issued a press release titled "Vellacott accepts Prime Minister's Nomination as Committee Chair."
Mr. Vellacott is one of the more controversial MPs in the Conservative caucus, an evangelical pastor who frequently issues anti-abortion press releases

Not only that, Vellacott has been fingered to head the aboriginal afairs committee, despite his rather, uh, colorful history on aboriginal issues:

Maurice Vellacott drew fire in 2004 for defending two Saskatoon police officers convicted of leaving a drunken aboriginal man on the outskirts of town on a -25 winter evening.

August1991 · April 18, 2006

From the G & M link above:

"If you just bring in a total crap shoot, that probably doesn't serve the interests of the members or the party, because one of those members may be assigned to another committee that has [a] heavy meetings schedule or they may have some other responsibilities," Mr. Vellacott said in explaining the need for nominations.
Mr. Harper's spokeswoman, Carolyn Stewart Olsen, said other Conservative MPs are free to trigger a vote by putting their names forward to challenge the government's recommendation.

"I don't believe there's any kind of restriction at all. If someone else on the committee wanted to stand for chair, they probably could stand for chair and then the vote would be a secret-ballot vote," she said. "I don't believe there would be any objection from the [Prime Minister's] office, as long as they were qualified to chair a committee."

So, the PM is openly naming names to have some kind of co-ordination of duties but members are still free to nominate someone else. (The Liberal PMO apparently pulled strings behind the scenes to play high school politics.)

This story is a non-story.

Except:

Mr. Vellacott is one of the more controversial MPs in the Conservative caucus, an evangelical pastor who frequently issues anti-abortion press releases.

What is this doing in the article and what does it have to do with committee membership?

The "scary/hidden agenda" Harper line was old a year ago. Now, it just looks ridiculous. OTOH, this is what I would expect of a newspaper based in Toronto. The truly sad thing is that the journalist appears to think that he is being controversial when all he is doing is showing disconnected he is from most Canadian voters.