Canada: Meet the new boss... same as the old boss. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Charlatan · 02-06-2006, 08:50 PM

So Stephen Harper and his cabinet have been sworn into office. What is the first thing they do...

1. They encourage an MP that was elected as a Liberal, just two weeks ago and by a wide margin (the conservative in the riding came in a distant 3rd), to cross the floor and join the Conservative caucus. He is now a member of the cabinet.
2. They appoint a new member to the senate and then make him a member of the cabinet.

Wow. One cabinet member who was not elected as a Conservative and one cabinet member who was not elected at all. Please remind me again, who was it that was so up in arms when Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison crossed the floor about a year ago?

I am astounded at the audacity of Harper. This is a ballsy move given his stance on these sorts of issues in the past.

Is this just a Matador's red cape trying to distract us from the reality that his cabinet is actually very, very conservative. Distract us so we waste energy chatting about this rather than looking at Jim Flaherty as Minister of Finance. The same Jim Flaherty that was a key player in the Harris government and finance minister under Ernie Eves... the same government that ended up running massive deficits?

Or, is this Harper trying to reach out to the urban centres in Vancouver and Montreal, where he doesn't have representation... trying to build bridges and mend fences?

All I know is that this move doesn't smell very good.

If he was honourable, he would have these to men fave elections, one for his seat as an MP under the Conservative party and the other as an elected Senator. As it stands, neither has been elected.

What are your thoughts on this?

Ace_O_Spades · 02-06-2006, 08:53 PM

I think the voters in vancouver kingsway will deal with this accordingly during the next election. The reaction there is very negative, they elected a liberal and now they have a conservative... albeit he will be able to do more from his new position, but it's just a classless move.

Stabbing backs... gotta love politics in it's raw form.

Charlatan · 02-06-2006, 09:00 PM

Interestingly, this shifts the balance of power slightly.

Liberals: 102
Conservatives: 125
NDP: 29
Bloc: 51
Independant: 1

Conservative + NDP + Indie = majority

Previously they were one vote away. It seems that this Radio Shock jock will hold the swing vote in any Conservative NDP alliance that may come about...

highthief · 02-07-2006, 05:12 AM

The number of Conservatives like Lorrie Goldstein (who is as Blue as you get) who are furious about this just shows what a bone head move this is. I'm sure harper hopes it will all blow over by the time the next election rolls around, but there will be tons of voters who won't soon forget.

fresnelly · 02-07-2006, 06:21 AM

I was wondering if anyone else was as shocked by these moves as I was. How depressing.

Could there be a recall election in Vancouver Kinsgway if the riding was so moved?

Charlatan · 02-07-2006, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fresnelly

Could there be a recall election in Vancouver Kinsgway if the riding was so moved?

I don't think our system as provision for recall (I take it you are suggesting something like the process that brought Swatzenegger into power).

Hightheif: I think Harper is doing the same thing he did at the start of the election. Right out of the blocks, he announced he intention to have another vote on same-sex marriage. I think the idea what that if he came out and said it early, it would get talked about and then forgotten by the time of the election.

If that is the case, I think he underestimates the "purity" of his reform base.

fresnelly · 02-07-2006, 06:53 AM

[QUOTE=Charlatan]I don't think our system as provision for recall (I take it you are suggesting something like the process that brought Swatzenegger into power).QUOTE]

Apparently, BC is the only province with recall legislation, but it might only work at the provincial level. A quick google search turned up a number of failed attempts.

I'm also interested in how the various news organizations will cover the story and whether it will slip off the radar or not.

I thought the Globe and Mail's headline was pretty funny : "26 Conservatives and a Liberal"

percy · 02-07-2006, 03:55 PM

I don't see it as a big deal. Wasting billions of dollars and treating the Canadian public as pissants I see as a big deal, that courtesy of the Liberals. Also, where is the outrage at David Dingwalls severance that was kept under wraps, again by the Liberals. Possible majority if that would have surface during the final week of the elections some say. And before we compare the old boss with the new boss, let's hope the new boss has some honesty and integrity, something sorely lacking from the previous boss.

Tories claim Liberal deception in compensation award to Dingwall

By JIM BROWN

OTTAWA (CP) - The incoming Conservative government say they are powerless to stop a hefty settlement with ousted Mint boss David Dingwall announced in the final hours before Paul Martin was due to leave office.

The $417,780 award was based on the findings of an independent arbitrator who concluded that Dingwall, contrary to past claims by the Martin government, was forced out of his job and didn't leave voluntarily.

Neither PCO nor Dingwall's lawyers would elaborate on the reasons for that conclusion. The detailed ruling by arbitrator George Adams, a retire judge of Ontario Superior Court, was not made public.

Tory MP Jason Kenney insisted the Liberals knew about the compensation award on Jan. 20 - three days before election day - and sat on it to avoid political embarrassment.

"I believe that could have been the difference between a Conservative minority and a majority," Kenney said Sunday on CTV's Question Period.

"This was a cover-up that affected the result of the election - and I think in a way subverted democracy.,"

Jay Hill, another Conservative MP, suggested Dingwall or others might be called before a parliamentary committee to explain the situation.

"We can only be left to surmise what difference it would have made if they had been honest with Canadians and had this come out on the Friday before the Monday election," said Hill.

Bob Quinn, a spokesman for the Privy Council Office, said it's true that lawyers for the government and for Dingwall were notified of the arbitrator's ruling on Jan. 20.

But he said the decision was not passed along to Martin or his prime ministerial aides until after voting day.

"Mr Martin and his staff knew that discussions between the government lawyers and Mr. Dingwall's lawyers were ongoing," said Quinn.

"They didn't know anything about the outcome of the process prior to the election. They didn't even know it had gone to binding arbitration."

Martin and his Conservative successor, Stephen Harper, were finally notified of the ruling simultaneously after the campaign was over, said Quinn, although he couldn't name a precise date.

He said the decision to go to arbitration as made by Alex Himelfarb, the clerk of the Privy Council, on the advice of Justice Department lawyers after negotiations with Dingwall's legal team broke down.

The clerk did not consult Martin or his staff on the decision, said Quinn.

Dingwall resigned from his $277,000-a-year-job as mint president in September after a prolonged controversy about his six-figure office expense account.

A subsequent review by PricewaterhouseCoopers accounting firm concluded his spending was within the rules with minor discrepancies.

But Harper, in a statement issued Saturday, said the Liberals had misled MPs and the public about details of the affair.

"After months of evasive answers in the House of Commons, we have now learned that David Dingwall's departure from the Royal Canadian Mint was involuntary," said the prime minister-designate.

"This is contrary to the information given by the Liberal government. I am very disappointed that Parliament was misled on this matter."

William Stairs, Harper's director of communications, said it appears the incoming government will have to live with the compensation award.

"It's very unlikely there's anything we can do given that, as we understand it, this (decision) has the force of a court order," said Stairs.

He couldn't't say whether they new government would at least be able to make the full arbitration ruling public to shed light on the reasons for the award.

Dingwall was at the centre of controversy for weeks last fall after reports that his office had run up expenses of almost $748,000 in 2004.

There was particular outrage after reports that he had put in an expense claim for a pack of chewing gum. Opposition MPs alleged he had used taxpayers as his "personal ATM."

His defence of "I'm entitled to my entitlements" was picked up by the Tories and used in campaign ads to hammer Martin and the Grits with accusations of arrogance.

Then-revenue minister John McCallum insisted last fall that Dingwall - who had sided with Jean Chretien in his long-running Liberal leadership war with Martin - offered voluntarily to step down from the mint and wasn't fired by the Martin government.

McCallum also insisted that any compensation paid would be the minimum legally required.

In a statement Sunday, Dingwall's lawyers said he is satisfied with the arbitration ruling and "pleased that the government is complying with its legal obligations."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...426125-cp.html

highthief · 02-08-2006, 05:05 AM

Man, today even Tory backbenchers are publicly shaking their heads about Harper's move vis a vis Emeson and Fortier. He had to buy off one Ontario MP with a secretarial appointment, apparently.

And so much for the elected senate, I guess.

Charlatan · 02-08-2006, 06:03 AM

percy... so are you suggesting two wrongs make a right? That because the Liberals had some corruption we should give a pass to Harper? The same guy who has been on a very high horse for at least 12 years.

If anything, Harper now has to extra squeeky clean. To quote Brian Mulroney, "You sir, had a choice!"

By the way, welcome to the forum Percy!

Leto · 02-08-2006, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by percy

I don't see it as a big deal. Wasting billions of dollars and treating the Canadian public as pissants I see as a big deal, that courtesy of the Liberals. Also, where is the outrage at David Dingwalls severance that was kept under wraps, again by the Liberals. Possible majority if that would have surface during the final week of the elections some say. And before we compare the old boss with the new boss, let's hope the new boss has some honesty and integrity, something sorely lacking from the previous boss.

and so it goes....

I remember when Kim Campbell got trounced. Same arguments. Same issues with the Mulroney Cronies, scandals, millions of dollars misspent.

... The thread title is very appropriate

percy · 02-09-2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

percy... so are you suggesting two wrongs make a right? That because the Liberals had some corruption we should give a pass to Harper? The same guy who has been on a very high horse for at least 12 years.

If anything, Harper now has to extra squeeky clean. To quote Brian Mulroney, "You sir, had a choice!"

By the way, welcome to the forum Percy!

Thanks. I know I know. What's the line about a leopard changing his spots. For now I'll give Harper the benefit of the doubt simply because there isn't an imminent alternative. He is Prime Minister. I do hope he can do the things he promised without the other parties trumping him at every turn. I don't agree with everything he stands for but was impressed at some of the ideas put forth. I think it shows a real effort from his party to highlight other important issues rather than the standard healthcare, education and national unity.

Interesting thing this Canada forum. Posted a bit in General regarding the cartoon thing and wow! not to say I'm always right but I am tolerant. Seems some people are really on edge. It's too bad. At times it's so easy to be righteously judgemental at one form of ignorance then absolved of such clarities when other instances are of in the favour, yet not dissimilar, comparitively speaking anyways.

But that's off topic. Maybe I'll stick around here and avoid the onslaught of radicalization, unless that under current resides here as well.

Charlatan · 02-09-2006, 07:50 AM

Percy... you will find, that while we don't always agree with each other here, we don't tend to go as far off the deep end (partisan-wise) as the Americans do in the main political forum.

I am continually impressed with everyone here and their ability to play nice while still carrying on a reasonably heated discussion.

Perhaps is it is just our "inherent Canadian politeness"... I don't know.

Again, welcome.

Charlatan · 02-09-2006, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

And so much for the elected senate, I guess.

This is the part that I find most amazing about the move. The triple E senate was a cornerstone of the Reform and Alliance platform... I believe the Conservative platform called for, "an elected Senate in the interim, then introduce Senate reform."

It goes completely counter to their stated platform, not to mention that they have installed an unelected official into the Cabinet. I didn't know they could include members of the Senate in the Cabinet. Is there precedence for this?

*off to Google*

highthief · 02-09-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

This is the part that I find most amazing about the move. The triple E senate was a cornerstone of the Reform and Alliance platform... I believe the Conservative platform called for, "an elected Senate in the interim, then introduce Senate reform."

It goes completely counter to their stated platform, not to mention that they have installed an unelected official into the Cabinet. I didn't know they could include members of the Senate in the Cabinet. Is there precedence for this?

*off to Google*

What I'm surprised about is that, if he wanted Montreal represented, and wanted to stick his elected senate guns, he could have picked a sitting senator, surely. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a qualified Montrealer represented in the current senate, probably someone appointed by Mulroney.

Like this dude maybe:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb...Language=E&M=M

Charlatan · 02-09-2006, 10:00 AM

By the way, I checked and you can appoint someone from the Senate as part of the Cabinet (I didn't look for other examples of this) and you can also appoint unelected people to the Cabinet (Brian Tobin was oppointed to the Cabinet 3 months prior to winning his seat in a by-election).

That said, convention dictates that the members of cabinet in an effort to deliver "responsible government", as mentioned in the preamble of our Constitution, should sit in the House of Commons where they will face the house (i.e. in Question Period).

Highthief... Harper probably didn't owe that 'dude' any favours.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-09-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by percy

I think it shows a real effort from his party to highlight other important issues rather than the standard healthcare, education and national unity.

I think it's funny you say that because Harper won the election on the back of one of the most omnipresent smear campaigns in Canadian election history.

He was running against many consecutive budget surplusses, falling unemployment, and a rising loonie.

His election platform was dirty... dirty enough to get him in power for the next two years (if that).

percy · 02-10-2006, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

I think it's funny you say that because Harper won the election on the back of one of the most omnipresent smear campaigns in Canadian election history.

He was running against many consecutive budget surplusses, falling unemployment, and a rising loonie.

His election platform was dirty... dirty enough to get him in power for the next two years (if that).

Interesting point but, had Paul Martin focused his campaign on the
consecutive budget surplusses, falling unemployment, and a rising loonie, he probably would have won again.

Instead he chose to run a dirty campaign that rarely had anything of non-fictional value to do with Harper or anything else.

If outwitting the other parties strategists' is dirty, then the Liberals should have been around for one term only, not three.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-10-2006, 10:10 AM

Percy... Martin's campaign WAS run on those premises. His commercials were positive, and he never once attacked his opponent. But you didn't see many of his advertisements on TV. All you saw was the mock news broadcasts that Harper had running 24/7. This election was won in the media, on the backs of gun violence and the Gomery inquiry, which if you'll remember exonorated Martin... The whole thing was a big clown show, it wasn't based on who would do a better job at governing.

God we're an easy bunch to dupe aren't we?

Yes, Martin's 2004 campaign was won on the back of a smear campaign, so he's not innocent... Pure testament to how politics has become "DON'T elect him because...." instead of "Elect me because..."

Just sad is all...

Charlatan · 02-10-2006, 10:29 AM

Ace... I don't know what you guys were seeing in BC but in Ontario, there were a heck of a lot of Martin's Liberal ads attacking Harper on the air. The fact that the worst of the bunch was pulled (after breifly being on the party website) was a big mistake on their part.

The media played it up because it was *the* story of the campaign. Martin's terrible marketing efforts. The Libs fell back on the same old saw they used in the last campaign -- attack the hidden agenda.

The problem was, Harper wasn't playing the same game he was playing. Harper stuck to the issues. He struck a believable (to many anyway) figure who was ready to step to the middle. It was one of the slickest campaigns Canada has seen in years.

Yes, they did run some attack ads (the inflating Martin Balloonhead comes to mind) but they were not the only thing they ran on. In the end, it was a solid campaign. Offering what appeared to be an alternative to the Liberals (with whom many were pissed and didn't want to vote for).

Ace_O_Spades · 02-10-2006, 11:00 AM

That's strange... because I didn't see ONE liberal attack ad... weird.

I stand corrected!

percy · 02-10-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

Percy... Martin's campaign WAS run on those premises. His commercials were positive, and he never once attacked his opponent. But you didn't see many of his advertisements on TV. All you saw was the mock news broadcasts that Harper had running 24/7. This election was won in the media, on the backs of gun violence and the Gomery inquiry, which if you'll remember exonorated Martin... The whole thing was a big clown show, it wasn't based on who would do a better job at governing.

I respect your opinion, but the first thing I thought of when I read this was, "Did this person actually follow the campaign." No offence Ace, but the majority of ads the Liberals ran made me cringe, not because they were Liberal ads but because they were really beyond negative and as said before, had really nothing to do with fact or reality. From my perspective, the Conservative attack ads just added the icing on the cake, the cake the Liberals baked for themselves.

In the last week Martins campaign finally had him in ads that made him look and sound priministerial rather than a rabid pitbull but by that time it was to late, the damage was done. Having said that, probably saved a minority instead of majority. Aside from that, Charlatans post hit the nail on the head.

percy · 02-10-2006, 01:42 PM

Sorry here are a couple of links. Forgot to add them. There are more stories but they can be goggled

NEWS STORY

Liberal campaign in "disarray" critics charge

Allan Woods and Peter O'Neil
CanWest News Service

Thursday, January 12, 2006

CREDIT: Canada.com
A screen shot from one of the Liberal Party's new campaign ads, calling Stephen Harper "Bush's new best friend."

OTTAWA -- Liberal policy leaks and negative advertising show that Prime Minister Paul Martin's re-election campaign is in "disarray" and that the Grits should be removed from office on Jan. 23, critics said Wednesday.

The day began badly for the Liberals when three Conservative MPs, speaking ahead of the official release of the Liberal Red Book, read from an identical version that appeared hours earlier on the website of a conservative magazine, the Western Standard.

The MPs called the Liberals' accounting into question noting the platform fails to account for $14.2 billion in campaign promises and makes no mention of Martin's bombshell Constitutional promise to remove the notwithstanding clause from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Conservatives said this is proof the Liberals are creating policy on the fly.

"You're making it up as you go along," said Alberta Conservative Monte Solberg. "The Liberal party is in disarray, and day-by-day they Liberals are proving why we need a change of government."

The Liberals also continued to be hammered Wednesday for a negative advertisement attacking the Conservative party's defence policy.

The ad said: "Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up."

Harper said the Liberals owe an apology to Canada's present and past soldiers. "It's not only angered our soldiers and our veterans. But it raises serious credibility questions. Who believes this?" Harper said.
At a raucous rally in Woodstock, N.B,, Harper intensified his criticism of the Liberal ads, saying they abuse the "brave" men and women serving in the Canadian Forces.

"A prime minister of Canada should never run an ad that directly or indirectly badly reflects on the military of this country," he told the cheering crowd. "Our opponent has. I will never do that."

The ad, which was posted on the Liberal party website Tuesday, was quickly pulled. But reports emerged Wednesday afternoon the ad was still being aired in Quebec. It was also still available on the Internet.

Many soldiers, sailors and airmen were incensed at the suggestion the Canadian Forces would be used to impose some form of martial law, but others found it an amusing comment on the lack of knowledge on defence issues in Liberal party ranks. "Where would we get the soldiers? Where would we get the guns?" asked one officer, who asked not to be named. "Haven't these guys been reading their own policies?"

Douglas Bland, chairman of defence management studies at Queen's University, said whomever produced the advertisement clearly had not read the government's initiative to add another 3,000 soldiers to the army reserve, part-time troops based in almost every major city across Canada.

"The Canadian Forces are already in our towns -- our militia and reservists," he said. "They do good deeds there and the Liberal government has until now supported and praised the reserves and their policy is to increase troops in the cities by increasing the reserves."

Peter Hunter, a retired army colonel and co-chairman of the lobby group Reserves 2000, called the Liberal ad "a very cheap shot" and pointed out there are 15 regiments and nearly 1,500 reserve soldiers in the Toronto area alone.

He said reservists have been instrumental in helping with the aftermath of crises such as the 1998 ice storm in Ontario and flooding in Quebec and Manitoba. "They're there to protect the people if the need arises," he said. "You've got to have soldiers there, even armed soldiers, to respond to emergencies."
Retired major general Lewis MacKenzie, a former Progressive Conservative candidate, said in an interview the ad, which he viewed on the Internet, "took my breath away."

"I can't imagine anyone being dumb enough to use the soldiers as a wedge issue while we have a fairly high-profile mission going on in a foreign country and ... portraying them as some sort of gestapo on a street corner with weapons," he said.

Deputy Conservative leader Peter MacKay described the ads as an attempt to "demonize and distort" Harper, which he said is not working.

"But it's almost as if people have seen this scary movie before so they know all the scary parts, and they're not scary. The monster doesn't exist," he said from Antigonish, N.S.

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton ridiculed Liberal scare tactics saying Martin is resorting to "threats" and "manipulations" in debates and TV ads.

Martin "has nothing left to say to Canadians other than to tell them that unless they vote Liberal, the sun will not rise, spring will not come, and volcanoes will destroy the Earth" if Liberals aren't re-elected, Layton said in his written speech. "I don't think that's going to work this time Paul."

Speaking to reporters in Toronto, Martin defended his attack on Harper's Conservatives and suggestions there is a hidden social agenda.

Two Liberal cabinet ministers also dismissed Conservative calls Wednesday for an apology.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew and Social Development Minister Ken Dryden said in separate interviews, early Wednesday, no harm was done because the ads never aired, which they said renders Tory complaints baseless.

"I don't think they should try to do politics on something that did not happen," said Pettigrew. "We have the highest respect for our military."

Dryden said it's inappropriate to make comments on an ad that didn't run.

"It's that time of the campaign where people are looking to be as inflammatory as possible," said Dryden, an Ontario MP who was once a star goaltender with the Montreal Canadiens.

CanWest News Service/Vancouver Sun/with files from Mike Blanchfield (Ottawa Citizen), Chris Wattie (National Post)

© CanWest News Service 2006

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/natio...a-7b4e56be9d5c

Ad wasn't an attack on military: Paul Martin
Updated Thu. Jan. 12 2006 2:52 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Paul Martin defended the series of controversial ads his Liberal Party unleashed this week and continued his attack on Stephen Harper, painting him as a leader who subscribes to a far right-wing ideology.

In an interview Thursday morning on CTV's Canada AM, Martin said he approved every one of the harshly critical ads -- including one that suggested the Tory Leader would use the military to occupy Canadian cities.

The ad did not air and was pulled from the party's website within hours of being posted. But Martin said the ad was lifted simply because he didn't think it was very good.

But later Thursday, Liberal MP Keith Martin took a far more critical tone, calling the ad "appalling" before apologizing to members of the military who were offended by it.

"Some idiot inadvertently sent out an ad that was not approved and not supported by the party with the 11 (ads) that were supported," Martin told CP. His riding includes CFB Esquimalt, the headquarters of Canada's Pacific naval fleet.

Paul Martin stressed, however, that the ad wasn't meant to target soldiers, and that his party is a defender of the military.

"I've probably put more money into the military than almost any prime minister," said Martin on Canada AM, in his most comprehensive remarks regarding defence during this campaign thus far.

He said the Tory Leader's plan to increase military presence in Canadian cities so soldiers can be on hand to help in emergencies would create a logistical nightmare.

He quoted chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, as saying: "I want to have a Canada Command. I want to be able to really have top-flight soldiers in top-flight positions with top-flight equipment."

Martin added: "You can't do that if it's spread out all across the country."

He then spoke on the difference in values that exists between his policies and those of the Tory Leader.

"(Harper) said that his views have not changed in 10 years. So if you take a look at our ads, what we have simply done is said, 'this is what Stephen Harper has said'," Martin told Canada AM co-host Beverly Thomson.

The Liberal Leader pointed to a speech that Harper gave in 1997 to the Council for National Policy, a right wing American think tank, in which he referred to Canada as a "northern European welfare state, in the worst sense of the term."

"Those are his words," said Martin. "He has said those are still his views. He said Canada was second rate -- that was his view."

The Conservatives have claimed that those comments, including one in which Harper told U.S. conservatives that their movement was a "a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world," were meant to be "tongue-in-cheek."

But Martin said those statements are indicative of the far right views harboured by the Tory Leader. "I don't share the views of the far right Conservative groups in the United States. And so that's the chasm between us and that's where the debate should take place," said Martin.

The Liberal Leader then took a series of questions from Canadians on a wide-range of topics. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...e=election2006

And call me crazy, but I'm sure I saw the ads with tanks in the streets saying something like, "Is this the Canada you want?"

Charlatan · 02-10-2006, 01:47 PM

From the way I see things, the Liberal ads weren't saying anything that wasn't true. The problem is, the Liberals simply didn't do enough to tell us about why we should vote for them (as opposed to why we shouldn't vote for Harper).

This is why I continue to support Layton and the NDP.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-10-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by percy

In the last week Martins campaign finally had him in ads that made him look and sound priministerial rather than a rabid pitbull but by that time it was to late, the damage was done. Having said that, probably saved a minority instead of majority. Aside from that, Charlatans post hit the nail on the head.

see... these were the only ads that I saw, the later ones. Strange too, because I watch a generous amount of tv, and I saw tons and tons of Conservative adverts, but just those Liberal ones.

highthief · 02-10-2006, 02:43 PM

Garth Turner has now come out against Emerson. He was joking he's going to get the janitor's closet for an office. I don't think the Tory backbenchers are going to let this go, nor the grassroots Tory supporters who feel betrayed by the whole mess. And certainly, that Vancouver riding is going to be mighty pissed off next time around. Unless the Tories do something miraculous like cure cancer, they'll be wasting their money to even run a candidate there.

Ace_O_Spades · 02-10-2006, 03:11 PM

The tories are humped in Vancouver Kingsway for at least one election... People forget so very easily though... don't expect the hate to last.

Anyone remember how corrupt Mulroney's government was? You sure don't hear much about that anymore.

percy · 02-10-2006, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace_O_Spades

The tories are humped in Vancouver Kingsway for at least one election... People forget so very easily though... don't expect the hate to last.

Anyone remember how corrupt Mulroney's government was? You sure don't hear much about that anymore.

And in about 18 months, you won't hear about a decade of Liberal scandals and lies. Nature of the beast I suppose. Or just the media. Same shit, different pile. And on.

percy · 02-11-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Garth Turner has now come out against Emerson. He was joking he's going to get the janitor's closet for an office. I don't think the Tory backbenchers are going to let this go, nor the grassroots Tory supporters who feel betrayed by the whole mess. And certainly, that Vancouver riding is going to be mighty pissed off next time around. Unless the Tories do something miraculous like cure cancer, they'll be wasting their money to even run a candidate there.

Now this bothers me. Where is the transparency Harper was promising? Turner raises a thought, which I agree with, the guy should serve the party he ran with or have a byelection.

Just the notion now that Turner is on the outs within caucus and more than likely relegated to the furthest of backbenches really sounds like meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I agree with what Charlatan said earlier, that Harper has to be squeeky clean. If he completely screws this up, the Conservatives will be waiting a lot longer than 12 years to regain power again.

02-06-2006, 08:50 PM	#1 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Canada: Meet the new boss... same as the old boss. So Stephen Harper and his cabinet have been sworn into office. What is the first thing they do... 1. They encourage an MP that was elected as a Liberal, just two weeks ago and by a wide margin (the conservative in the riding came in a distant 3rd), to cross the floor and join the Conservative caucus. He is now a member of the cabinet. 2. They appoint a new member to the senate and then make him a member of the cabinet. Wow. One cabinet member who was not elected as a Conservative and one cabinet member who was not elected at all. Please remind me again, who was it that was so up in arms when Belinda Stronach and Scott Brison crossed the floor about a year ago? I am astounded at the audacity of Harper. This is a ballsy move given his stance on these sorts of issues in the past. Is this just a Matador's red cape trying to distract us from the reality that his cabinet is actually very, very conservative. Distract us so we waste energy chatting about this rather than looking at Jim Flaherty as Minister of Finance. The same Jim Flaherty that was a key player in the Harris government and finance minister under Ernie Eves... the same government that ended up running massive deficits? Or, is this Harper trying to reach out to the urban centres in Vancouver and Montreal, where he doesn't have representation... trying to build bridges and mend fences? All I know is that this move doesn't smell very good. If he was honourable, he would have these to men fave elections, one for his seat as an MP under the Conservative party and the other as an elected Senator. As it stands, neither has been elected. What are your thoughts on this? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-06-2006, 08:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	I think the voters in vancouver kingsway will deal with this accordingly during the next election. The reaction there is very negative, they elected a liberal and now they have a conservative... albeit he will be able to do more from his new position, but it's just a classless move. Stabbing backs... gotta love politics in it's raw form. __________________ Feh.

02-06-2006, 09:00 PM	#3 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Interestingly, this shifts the balance of power slightly. Liberals: 102 Conservatives: 125 NDP: 29 Bloc: 51 Independant: 1 Conservative + NDP + Indie = majority Previously they were one vote away. It seems that this Radio Shock jock will hold the swing vote in any Conservative NDP alliance that may come about... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-07-2006, 05:12 AM	#4 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	The number of Conservatives like Lorrie Goldstein (who is as Blue as you get) who are furious about this just shows what a bone head move this is. I'm sure harper hopes it will all blow over by the time the next election rolls around, but there will be tons of voters who won't soon forget. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

02-07-2006, 06:21 AM	#5 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	I was wondering if anyone else was as shocked by these moves as I was. How depressing. Could there be a recall election in Vancouver Kinsgway if the riding was so moved? __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

02-07-2006, 06:53 AM	#7 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	[QUOTE=Charlatan]I don't think our system as provision for recall (I take it you are suggesting something like the process that brought Swatzenegger into power).QUOTE] Apparently, BC is the only province with recall legislation, but it might only work at the provincial level. A quick google search turned up a number of failed attempts. I'm also interested in how the various news organizations will cover the story and whether it will slip off the radar or not. I thought the Globe and Mail's headline was pretty funny : "26 Conservatives and a Liberal" __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

02-07-2006, 03:55 PM	#8 (permalink)
percy Addict	I don't see it as a big deal. Wasting billions of dollars and treating the Canadian public as pissants I see as a big deal, that courtesy of the Liberals. Also, where is the outrage at David Dingwalls severance that was kept under wraps, again by the Liberals. Possible majority if that would have surface during the final week of the elections some say. And before we compare the old boss with the new boss, let's hope the new boss has some honesty and integrity, something sorely lacking from the previous boss. Tories claim Liberal deception in compensation award to Dingwall By JIM BROWN OTTAWA (CP) - The incoming Conservative government say they are powerless to stop a hefty settlement with ousted Mint boss David Dingwall announced in the final hours before Paul Martin was due to leave office. The $417,780 award was based on the findings of an independent arbitrator who concluded that Dingwall, contrary to past claims by the Martin government, was forced out of his job and didn't leave voluntarily. Neither PCO nor Dingwall's lawyers would elaborate on the reasons for that conclusion. The detailed ruling by arbitrator George Adams, a retire judge of Ontario Superior Court, was not made public. Tory MP Jason Kenney insisted the Liberals knew about the compensation award on Jan. 20 - three days before election day - and sat on it to avoid political embarrassment. "I believe that could have been the difference between a Conservative minority and a majority," Kenney said Sunday on CTV's Question Period. "This was a cover-up that affected the result of the election - and I think in a way subverted democracy.," Jay Hill, another Conservative MP, suggested Dingwall or others might be called before a parliamentary committee to explain the situation. "We can only be left to surmise what difference it would have made if they had been honest with Canadians and had this come out on the Friday before the Monday election," said Hill. Bob Quinn, a spokesman for the Privy Council Office, said it's true that lawyers for the government and for Dingwall were notified of the arbitrator's ruling on Jan. 20. But he said the decision was not passed along to Martin or his prime ministerial aides until after voting day. "Mr Martin and his staff knew that discussions between the government lawyers and Mr. Dingwall's lawyers were ongoing," said Quinn. "They didn't know anything about the outcome of the process prior to the election. They didn't even know it had gone to binding arbitration." Martin and his Conservative successor, Stephen Harper, were finally notified of the ruling simultaneously after the campaign was over, said Quinn, although he couldn't name a precise date. He said the decision to go to arbitration as made by Alex Himelfarb, the clerk of the Privy Council, on the advice of Justice Department lawyers after negotiations with Dingwall's legal team broke down. The clerk did not consult Martin or his staff on the decision, said Quinn. Dingwall resigned from his $277,000-a-year-job as mint president in September after a prolonged controversy about his six-figure office expense account. A subsequent review by PricewaterhouseCoopers accounting firm concluded his spending was within the rules with minor discrepancies. But Harper, in a statement issued Saturday, said the Liberals had misled MPs and the public about details of the affair. "After months of evasive answers in the House of Commons, we have now learned that David Dingwall's departure from the Royal Canadian Mint was involuntary," said the prime minister-designate. "This is contrary to the information given by the Liberal government. I am very disappointed that Parliament was misled on this matter." William Stairs, Harper's director of communications, said it appears the incoming government will have to live with the compensation award. "It's very unlikely there's anything we can do given that, as we understand it, this (decision) has the force of a court order," said Stairs. He couldn't't say whether they new government would at least be able to make the full arbitration ruling public to shed light on the reasons for the award. Dingwall was at the centre of controversy for weeks last fall after reports that his office had run up expenses of almost $748,000 in 2004. There was particular outrage after reports that he had put in an expense claim for a pack of chewing gum. Opposition MPs alleged he had used taxpayers as his "personal ATM." His defence of "I'm entitled to my entitlements" was picked up by the Tories and used in campaign ads to hammer Martin and the Grits with accusations of arrogance. Then-revenue minister John McCallum insisted last fall that Dingwall - who had sided with Jean Chretien in his long-running Liberal leadership war with Martin - offered voluntarily to step down from the mint and wasn't fired by the Martin government. McCallum also insisted that any compensation paid would be the minimum legally required. In a statement Sunday, Dingwall's lawyers said he is satisfied with the arbitration ruling and "pleased that the government is complying with its legal obligations." http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...426125-cp.html Last edited by percy; 02-07-2006 at 03:57 PM..

02-08-2006, 05:05 AM	#9 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Man, today even Tory backbenchers are publicly shaking their heads about Harper's move vis a vis Emeson and Fortier. He had to buy off one Ontario MP with a secretarial appointment, apparently. And so much for the elected senate, I guess. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

02-08-2006, 06:03 AM	#10 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	percy... so are you suggesting two wrongs make a right? That because the Liberals had some corruption we should give a pass to Harper? The same guy who has been on a very high horse for at least 12 years. If anything, Harper now has to extra squeeky clean. To quote Brian Mulroney, "You sir, had a choice!" By the way, welcome to the forum Percy! __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-09-2006, 07:50 AM	#13 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Percy... you will find, that while we don't always agree with each other here, we don't tend to go as far off the deep end (partisan-wise) as the Americans do in the main political forum. I am continually impressed with everyone here and their ability to play nice while still carrying on a reasonably heated discussion. Perhaps is it is just our "inherent Canadian politeness"... I don't know. Again, welcome. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-09-2006, 10:00 AM	#16 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	By the way, I checked and you can appoint someone from the Senate as part of the Cabinet (I didn't look for other examples of this) and you can also appoint unelected people to the Cabinet (Brian Tobin was oppointed to the Cabinet 3 months prior to winning his seat in a by-election). That said, convention dictates that the members of cabinet in an effort to deliver "responsible government", as mentioned in the preamble of our Constitution, should sit in the House of Commons where they will face the house (i.e. in Question Period). Highthief... Harper probably didn't owe that 'dude' any favours. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke Last edited by Charlatan; 04-10-2006 at 12:32 PM.. Reason: typos...

02-10-2006, 10:10 AM	#19 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	Percy... Martin's campaign WAS run on those premises. His commercials were positive, and he never once attacked his opponent. But you didn't see many of his advertisements on TV. All you saw was the mock news broadcasts that Harper had running 24/7. This election was won in the media, on the backs of gun violence and the Gomery inquiry, which if you'll remember exonorated Martin... The whole thing was a big clown show, it wasn't based on who would do a better job at governing. God we're an easy bunch to dupe aren't we? Yes, Martin's 2004 campaign was won on the back of a smear campaign, so he's not innocent... Pure testament to how politics has become "DON'T elect him because...." instead of "Elect me because..." Just sad is all... __________________ Feh.

02-10-2006, 10:29 AM	#20 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Ace... I don't know what you guys were seeing in BC but in Ontario, there were a heck of a lot of Martin's Liberal ads attacking Harper on the air. The fact that the worst of the bunch was pulled (after breifly being on the party website) was a big mistake on their part. The media played it up because it was the story of the campaign. Martin's terrible marketing efforts. The Libs fell back on the same old saw they used in the last campaign -- attack the hidden agenda. The problem was, Harper wasn't playing the same game he was playing. Harper stuck to the issues. He struck a believable (to many anyway) figure who was ready to step to the middle. It was one of the slickest campaigns Canada has seen in years. Yes, they did run some attack ads (the inflating Martin Balloonhead comes to mind) but they were not the only thing they ran on. In the end, it was a solid campaign. Offering what appeared to be an alternative to the Liberals (with whom many were pissed and didn't want to vote for). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-10-2006, 11:00 AM	#21 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	That's strange... because I didn't see ONE liberal attack ad... weird. I stand corrected! __________________ Feh.

02-10-2006, 01:42 PM	#23 (permalink)
percy Addict	Sorry here are a couple of links. Forgot to add them. There are more stories but they can be goggled NEWS STORY Liberal campaign in "disarray" critics charge Allan Woods and Peter O'Neil CanWest News Service Thursday, January 12, 2006 CREDIT: Canada.com A screen shot from one of the Liberal Party's new campaign ads, calling Stephen Harper "Bush's new best friend." OTTAWA -- Liberal policy leaks and negative advertising show that Prime Minister Paul Martin's re-election campaign is in "disarray" and that the Grits should be removed from office on Jan. 23, critics said Wednesday. The day began badly for the Liberals when three Conservative MPs, speaking ahead of the official release of the Liberal Red Book, read from an identical version that appeared hours earlier on the website of a conservative magazine, the Western Standard. The MPs called the Liberals' accounting into question noting the platform fails to account for $14.2 billion in campaign promises and makes no mention of Martin's bombshell Constitutional promise to remove the notwithstanding clause from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives said this is proof the Liberals are creating policy on the fly. "You're making it up as you go along," said Alberta Conservative Monte Solberg. "The Liberal party is in disarray, and day-by-day they Liberals are proving why we need a change of government." The Liberals also continued to be hammered Wednesday for a negative advertisement attacking the Conservative party's defence policy. The ad said: "Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up." Harper said the Liberals owe an apology to Canada's present and past soldiers. "It's not only angered our soldiers and our veterans. But it raises serious credibility questions. Who believes this?" Harper said. At a raucous rally in Woodstock, N.B,, Harper intensified his criticism of the Liberal ads, saying they abuse the "brave" men and women serving in the Canadian Forces. "A prime minister of Canada should never run an ad that directly or indirectly badly reflects on the military of this country," he told the cheering crowd. "Our opponent has. I will never do that." The ad, which was posted on the Liberal party website Tuesday, was quickly pulled. But reports emerged Wednesday afternoon the ad was still being aired in Quebec. It was also still available on the Internet. Many soldiers, sailors and airmen were incensed at the suggestion the Canadian Forces would be used to impose some form of martial law, but others found it an amusing comment on the lack of knowledge on defence issues in Liberal party ranks. "Where would we get the soldiers? Where would we get the guns?" asked one officer, who asked not to be named. "Haven't these guys been reading their own policies?" Douglas Bland, chairman of defence management studies at Queen's University, said whomever produced the advertisement clearly had not read the government's initiative to add another 3,000 soldiers to the army reserve, part-time troops based in almost every major city across Canada. "The Canadian Forces are already in our towns -- our militia and reservists," he said. "They do good deeds there and the Liberal government has until now supported and praised the reserves and their policy is to increase troops in the cities by increasing the reserves." Peter Hunter, a retired army colonel and co-chairman of the lobby group Reserves 2000, called the Liberal ad "a very cheap shot" and pointed out there are 15 regiments and nearly 1,500 reserve soldiers in the Toronto area alone. He said reservists have been instrumental in helping with the aftermath of crises such as the 1998 ice storm in Ontario and flooding in Quebec and Manitoba. "They're there to protect the people if the need arises," he said. "You've got to have soldiers there, even armed soldiers, to respond to emergencies." Retired major general Lewis MacKenzie, a former Progressive Conservative candidate, said in an interview the ad, which he viewed on the Internet, "took my breath away." "I can't imagine anyone being dumb enough to use the soldiers as a wedge issue while we have a fairly high-profile mission going on in a foreign country and ... portraying them as some sort of gestapo on a street corner with weapons," he said. Deputy Conservative leader Peter MacKay described the ads as an attempt to "demonize and distort" Harper, which he said is not working. "But it's almost as if people have seen this scary movie before so they know all the scary parts, and they're not scary. The monster doesn't exist," he said from Antigonish, N.S. New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton ridiculed Liberal scare tactics saying Martin is resorting to "threats" and "manipulations" in debates and TV ads. Martin "has nothing left to say to Canadians other than to tell them that unless they vote Liberal, the sun will not rise, spring will not come, and volcanoes will destroy the Earth" if Liberals aren't re-elected, Layton said in his written speech. "I don't think that's going to work this time Paul." Speaking to reporters in Toronto, Martin defended his attack on Harper's Conservatives and suggestions there is a hidden social agenda. Two Liberal cabinet ministers also dismissed Conservative calls Wednesday for an apology. Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew and Social Development Minister Ken Dryden said in separate interviews, early Wednesday, no harm was done because the ads never aired, which they said renders Tory complaints baseless. "I don't think they should try to do politics on something that did not happen," said Pettigrew. "We have the highest respect for our military." Dryden said it's inappropriate to make comments on an ad that didn't run. "It's that time of the campaign where people are looking to be as inflammatory as possible," said Dryden, an Ontario MP who was once a star goaltender with the Montreal Canadiens. CanWest News Service/Vancouver Sun/with files from Mike Blanchfield (Ottawa Citizen), Chris Wattie (National Post) © CanWest News Service 2006 http://www.canada.com/globaltv/natio...a-7b4e56be9d5c Ad wasn't an attack on military: Paul Martin Updated Thu. Jan. 12 2006 2:52 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff Paul Martin defended the series of controversial ads his Liberal Party unleashed this week and continued his attack on Stephen Harper, painting him as a leader who subscribes to a far right-wing ideology. In an interview Thursday morning on CTV's Canada AM, Martin said he approved every one of the harshly critical ads -- including one that suggested the Tory Leader would use the military to occupy Canadian cities. The ad did not air and was pulled from the party's website within hours of being posted. But Martin said the ad was lifted simply because he didn't think it was very good. But later Thursday, Liberal MP Keith Martin took a far more critical tone, calling the ad "appalling" before apologizing to members of the military who were offended by it. "Some idiot inadvertently sent out an ad that was not approved and not supported by the party with the 11 (ads) that were supported," Martin told CP. His riding includes CFB Esquimalt, the headquarters of Canada's Pacific naval fleet. Paul Martin stressed, however, that the ad wasn't meant to target soldiers, and that his party is a defender of the military. "I've probably put more money into the military than almost any prime minister," said Martin on Canada AM, in his most comprehensive remarks regarding defence during this campaign thus far. He said the Tory Leader's plan to increase military presence in Canadian cities so soldiers can be on hand to help in emergencies would create a logistical nightmare. He quoted chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, as saying: "I want to have a Canada Command. I want to be able to really have top-flight soldiers in top-flight positions with top-flight equipment." Martin added: "You can't do that if it's spread out all across the country." He then spoke on the difference in values that exists between his policies and those of the Tory Leader. "(Harper) said that his views have not changed in 10 years. So if you take a look at our ads, what we have simply done is said, 'this is what Stephen Harper has said'," Martin told Canada AM co-host Beverly Thomson. The Liberal Leader pointed to a speech that Harper gave in 1997 to the Council for National Policy, a right wing American think tank, in which he referred to Canada as a "northern European welfare state, in the worst sense of the term." "Those are his words," said Martin. "He has said those are still his views. He said Canada was second rate -- that was his view." The Conservatives have claimed that those comments, including one in which Harper told U.S. conservatives that their movement was a "a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world," were meant to be "tongue-in-cheek." But Martin said those statements are indicative of the far right views harboured by the Tory Leader. "I don't share the views of the far right Conservative groups in the United States. And so that's the chasm between us and that's where the debate should take place," said Martin. The Liberal Leader then took a series of questions from Canadians on a wide-range of topics. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...e=election2006 And call me crazy, but I'm sure I saw the ads with tanks in the streets saying something like, "Is this the Canada you want?" Last edited by percy; 02-10-2006 at 01:46 PM..

02-10-2006, 01:47 PM	#24 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	From the way I see things, the Liberal ads weren't saying anything that wasn't true. The problem is, the Liberals simply didn't do enough to tell us about why we should vote for them (as opposed to why we shouldn't vote for Harper). This is why I continue to support Layton and the NDP. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-10-2006, 02:43 PM	#26 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Garth Turner has now come out against Emerson. He was joking he's going to get the janitor's closet for an office. I don't think the Tory backbenchers are going to let this go, nor the grassroots Tory supporters who feel betrayed by the whole mess. And certainly, that Vancouver riding is going to be mighty pissed off next time around. Unless the Tories do something miraculous like cure cancer, they'll be wasting their money to even run a candidate there. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

02-10-2006, 03:11 PM	#27 (permalink)
Ace_O_Spades The Death Card Location: EH!?!?	The tories are humped in Vancouver Kingsway for at least one election... People forget so very easily though... don't expect the hate to last. Anyone remember how corrupt Mulroney's government was? You sure don't hear much about that anymore. __________________ Feh.