Election 2015

[PPCLI Guy]

I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the PM engaged in wanton subterfuge to lie to the public. Notwithstanding what Mulcair, Trudeau and the MSM say.

The question is whether or not Mr Harper knew that his COS had paid the amount, vice Duffy:

On 14 Aug, Mr Harper said this:

"We are all told that Mr. Duffy had repaid his expenses. Mr. Duffy said that on national television, he had borrowed money from the bank, etc. That is what we all understood to be the truth."

"That is what the vast majority of — that's not what only the entire caucus thought and I thought, that is what the majority of our staff also believed was the case," Harper said.

The testimony of Mr Perrin that Mr Novak knew of the plan, compounded with Mr Tenyecke's earlier statement that it would be "inconceivable that Mr Novak would know of that and not tell Mr Harper" has called onto question whether or not Mr Harper was lying in the statement quoted above.

As Mr Harper himself said last week:

You hold people responsible for their own actions; you certainly don't hold subordinates responsible for the actions of their superiors

 

[Harrigan]

I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the PM engaged in wanton subterfuge to lie to the public. Notwithstanding what Mulcair, Trudeau and the MSM say.

It has nothing to do with what Mulcair, Trudeau, or the MSM say.

"Good to Go"
+
Novak being in the room for the conference call
+
"I've known Ray (Novak) for 20 years.  It's unfathomable that Ray would be aware of a payment from Nigel to Mr.Duffy and not tell the prime minister." (Kory Teneycke 19 Aug 2015) 
=
exactly the suggestion that you don't see. 

It may yet play out exactly as many on this board hope, and Harper was kept in the dark throughout and really doesn't know anything - just as Andrew Coyne suggested (sarcastically) in his recent column.  But at this stage, it certainly looks like he knew about it at the time. 

Again, in my opinion the best thing that could happen for the CPC would be for Duffy to be acquitted by the end of the week.  I doubt that will happen though.

Harrigan

 

[PuckChaser]

1. "Good to go" is how someone interprets the meaning of that phrase, and cannot possibly link the PM to anything. Someone thought it meant the PM was aware, doesn't mean he had a clue what was going on.

2. Novak in the room for a conference call: If he lied to the PM, I'll expect him sacked soon.

3. Your third point is complete conjecture. It ties nothing to the PM, only provides one person's opinion of a long-time acquaintance's character, who had absolutely nothing to do with the whole situation.

Whenever there's an actual link to the PM, that's not media conjecture and amateur sleuthing, I'll call for the PM's head. Don't you think if the RCMP was able to link anybody to this whole scheme in their investigation, they would have nabbed them too? Nigel Wright isn't even charged with anything, only Duffy. That to me says they have no evidence that anyone other than Duffy committed a crime. This whole thing smells of manufactured outrage by people with an agenda, hoping a scandal sticks.

 

[Harrigan]

1. "Good to go" is how someone interprets the meaning of that phrase, and cannot possibly link the PM to anything. Someone thought it meant the PM was aware, doesn't mean he had a clue what was going on.

2. Novak in the room for a conference call: If he lied to the PM, I'll expect him sacked soon.

3. Your third point is complete conjecture. It ties nothing to the PM, only provides one person's opinion of a long-time acquaintance's character, who had absolutely nothing to do with the whole situation.

Whenever there's an actual link to the PM, that's not media conjecture and amateur sleuthing, I'll call for the PM's head. Don't you think if the RCMP was able to link anybody to this whole scheme in their investigation, they would have nabbed them too? Nigel Wright isn't even charged with anything, only Duffy. That to me says they have no evidence that anyone other than Duffy committed a crime. This whole thing smells of manufactured outrage by people with an agenda, hoping a scandal sticks.

Yes, and I am sure you use the term "sweet" to refer to frustration too......  :

I absolutely agree with you that nothing is proven, and I don't claim otherwise.  What I am saying is that a lot of dots line up, and whether you want it to or not, most Canadians (based on the polls) don't believe the prime minister on this one.

Do you believe the Prime Minister Harper's Version of Events?

1.  http://www.pentictonherald.ca/poll_c9e0d462-49ed-11e5-a6e8-5f8da160f0fa.html
Yes - 11.1%, No - 77.8%, Don't Know - 11.1%

2.  https://www.straight.com/news/513666/poll-suggests-stephen-harper-has-credibility-issue-many-soft-conservative-voters
Yes - 7%, No - 91%, Don't Know - 2%

3.  http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/22/poll-most-canadians-dont-believe-harper-on-duffy-scandal.html
Yes - 22%, No - 56%, Don't Know - 22%

4. http://abacusdata.ca/duffy-wright-harper-does-it-matter/
Q. Do you think Prime Minister Stephen Harper has acted properly or improperly in terms of how he has dealt with this matter?
Properly - 15%, Improperly - 47%, Don't Know - 38%

5.  http://angusreid.org/duffy-trial-senate/
Q. Do you believe Prime Minister Stephen Harper's version of events
Yes - 20%, No - 59%, Don't Know - 22% (I know that adds up to 101%, but that is what the data showed)
Amongst Conservative supporters - Yes - 60%, No - 12%, Don't Know - 28%

"You can’t govern effectively without trust. And there can be no trust without integrity and transparency.... We’re going to put an end to the culture of entitlement. And replace it with a culture centred on accountability."-- Stephen Harper (2006)

Personally, I have not completely made up my mind on this yet, though the information available so far does tend to lean one way. 
There may yet be more information that will back up the CPC party line.  It is odd, though, that during an election campaign they wouldn't reveal whatever information they have that might change the perception that is clearly out there at the moment.  What are they waiting for?

Harrigan

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is a rather more balanced (than 'normal') view of Prime Minister Harper, but, as always, with almost all political analyses, I find things with which I agree and disagree:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harper-hysteria-a-sign-of-closed-liberal-minds/article26055892/

Harper hysteria a sign of closed liberal minds

KONRAD YAKABUSKI
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Aug. 24, 2015

If even a fraction of the darkness that his haters say has descended upon Canada under Stephen Harper was real, then the opening line of any election victory speech by Thomas Mulcair or Justin Trudeau could only be: “My fellow Canadians, our long national nightmare is over.”

In less than a decade, during most of which Mr. Harper led a minority government, Canada has gone from a “haven” of enlightened liberalism and goodness to a hermit kingdom run by a small-minded tyrant propagating, in the words of one excitable critic, “know-nothing conservatism.”

Just what it is about the Conservative Leader that sends reasonable people into such fits of hysteria is best examined by historians, or better yet, psychiatrists. But it surely can’t be evidence, for Mr. Harper’s political style is not particularly novel, nor have his reforms been that transformational.

Rather, Mr. Harper cultivates his base with mostly rhetorical, and only occasionally policy-driven, validations of their beliefs and value systems. It’s largely window dressing. For the most part, he governs from the centre, upholding the long Canadian tradition of middle-of-the-road pragmatism. So much so that movement conservatives who once considered him one of them feel utterly betrayed.

If the Harper government seems more obsessed with spin than its predecessors, it’s partly because the science of political message control and targeting has undergone a revolution in the Internet-Big Data age. Mr. Harper’s government, like President Barack Obama’s administration south of the border, has simply been in the right place at the right time to make the most of it.

Yes, the Conservatives have made some questionable policy choices in the name of stroking their base. Killing the long-form census was one. The form had been a long-standing bugaboo among conservatives who felt the state has no business knowing the granular details of their lives. Its demise has inconvenienced some researchers, but it has hardly led to a “subtle darkening of Canadian life.” Somehow when it comes to critiquing Mr. Harper, all perspective gets thrown out the window.

Nothing infuriates the critics more – and this is where their slip shows – than his success at usurping the political tools their side once used to corner the market. He’s turned the Liberals’ invention of multiculturalism against them. He’s wooed suburban couples with kids away from the Liberals with an array of dubiously useful family-friendly tax credits.

The truth is, Mr. Harper does not play to his base any more than the NDP’s Mr. Mulcair or the Liberals’ Mr. Trudeau play to theirs. But because elites in the media and academe have deemed Conservative supporters a less evolved species than the progressive subclass to which they themselves belong, they are beside themselves at the loss of their own influence.

Autocratic, Stephen Harper? Well, yes, like just about every other successful prime minister from John A. Macdonald to Mackenzie King to Jean Chrétien. The centralization of decision making in the Prime Minister’s Office is a phenomenon much bigger than Mr. Harper and it would take wholesale parliamentary, if not constitutional, reform to reverse the trend.

What’s fairly clear is that a Mulcair PMO would not be expected to operate in a meaningfully different manner. The NDP Leader is as much a control freak and ruthless enforcer of caucus discipline. How else do you think he has kept his neophyte MPs in Quebec from embarrassing him too much? The worry with Mr. Trudeau is that his lack of experience would allow unelected political aides or bureaucrats to wield most of the power in a Trudeau PMO. But that doesn’t mean the PMO would be any less dominant in a Trudeau government.

Mr. Harper may deserve to take a hit for the Senate expense scandal. The questions raised at Senator Mike Duffy’s fraud trial about the conduct of Mr. Harper’s closest staff in the PMO, and the Conservative Leader himself, are not flattering. But in the annals of Canadian political scandals – a fairly tame volume to begin with – this is a footnote.

Most voters basically believe all politicians are self-interested maximizers and judge them on their intelligence, competence, likeability and integrity. They know they can’t get everything on their wish list. It could be that, after 10 years, they’ll decide they’ve had enough of Mr. Harper.

And the hysterics won’t have Harper to kick around any more.

I agree that "the Conservatives have made some questionable policy choices in the name of stroking their base," but I disagree (same paragraph) that "Killing the long-form census was one [of them]." I am one of those conservatives who believes, very firmly, that governments ought not to be in the social engineering business. I am with Henry David Thoreau who said (Walden and Civil Disobedience 1849) “That government is best which governs least.” The long form census was just one (small, actually) example of too much government intrusion into our daily lives. The census, per se, isn't a problem, it is the outcomes that are enabled by the long form questions that I, broadly, oppose. Some of those outcomes are desirable, but I suggest we ~ the collective "we," Canada, society at large ~ would have got there anyway; other outcomes are undesirable.

I agree that "The truth is, Mr. Harper does not play to his base any more than the NDP’s Mr. Mulcair or the Liberals’ Mr. Trudeau play to theirs. But because elites in the media and academe have deemed Conservative supporters a less evolved species than the progressive subclass to which they themselves belong, they are beside themselves at the loss of their own influence." Most, but by no means all of the media represent the Laurentian elites about which Darell Bricker and John Ibbitson wrote in The Big Shift. Not all journalists are, like e.g. Jeffrey Simpson, knowing, committed advocates of the Laurentian consensus, some (maybe even many) are simply products of their education and environment which was, until, say (just for argument's sake), 1990, the national consensus. (When, in the early 1990s, Preston Manning challenged that consensus he was, initially, resoundingly successful ~ displacing the Progressive Conservatives on (and extending the definition of) the acceptable political right in Canada.)

I also agree that "What’s fairly clear is that a Mulcair PMO would not be expected to operate in a meaningfully different manner. The NDP Leader is as much a control freak and ruthless enforcer of caucus discipline. How else do you think he has kept his neophyte MPs in Quebec from embarrassing him too much? The worry with Mr. Trudeau is that his lack of experience would allow unelected political aides or bureaucrats to wield most of the power in a Trudeau PMO. But that doesn’t mean the PMO would be any less dominant in a Trudeau government."

See my comments, yesterday about sailing into strong policy headwinds. I think whoever leads our next government is going to be tightly constrained by "events, dear boy, events" rather than his (or even her) own wishes, ideas, policies and promises. It will be, I think, a time when we will be grateful for the soulless, grey, nearly invisible Mandarins in drab business suits, scattered around the capital who really set policy, by adapting political promises and policies to the realities of the day.


Edit: spelling   :-[

 

[Harrigan]

The census, per se, isn't a problem, it is the outcomes that are enabled by the long form questions that I, broadly, oppose. Some of those outcomes are desirable, but I suggest we ~ the collective "we," Canada, society at large ~ would have got there anyway; other outcomes are undesirable.

You may be right, but as you say - it isn't the census itself that was the problem (if there ever was a problem), it was the outcomes.  And now those outcomes are still being enabled, but with less information that before.  I fail to see how that can be in the national interest.

And before anyone goes on about the "huge intrusion" into Canadian lives that the long-form census apparently was, I would ask the simple question:  How can one decry the intrusiveness of the Long Form Census, but at the same time acquiesce to Bill C-51?

Harrigan

 

[observor 69]

I kept looking for some mention of Harper's numerous missteps with the Supreme Court.

 

[Edward Campbell]

You may be right, but as you say - it isn't the census itself that was the problem (if there ever was a problem), it was the outcomes.  And now those outcomes are still being enabled, but with less information that before.  I fail to see how that can be in the national interest.

And before anyone goes on about the "huge intrusion" into Canadian lives that the long-form census apparently was, I would ask the simple question:  How can one decry the intrusiveness of the Long Form Census, but at the same time acquiesce to Bill C-51?

Harrigan

That's a very good question and every mindless, automatic CPC supporter ought to be required to address it.

For myself: I oppose both, on principle. I agree that the long form census helped social engineering, some of it for the common good, but I believe that social engineering failed on the basic utilitarian test of: the greatest good for the greatest number. I believe that most social programmes since, say (just for the sake of argument again) 1960, fail that test. I agree that C-51 makes life a bit easier for our security service, and I agree that they need some good, useful tools. But I also believe that C-51 is a blunt instrument ~ a hammer and prybar ~ when a scalpel is needed.

 

[Altair]

Trudeau promises to restore lifelong pensions to injured veterans

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/world/liberals-woo-disgruntled-veterans-with-promise-to-restore-lifetime-pensions-for-injured-ex-soldiers&pubdate=2015-08-24

Really surprised that's not getting more attention here considering it effects you guys the most.

 

[Kilo_302]

I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the PM engaged in wanton subterfuge to lie to the public. Notwithstanding what Mulcair, Trudeau and the MSM say.

Then you need to watch this gem of a video that captures the moment Jim Flaherty reacts to Harper telling the HoC that Nigel Wright didn't tell Novak about Duffy's expenses.

https://www.facebook.com/drigcanada?fref=nf

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Canada didn't get stolen by Prime Minister Stephen Harper
BY IAN ROBINSON, CALGARY SUN
FIRST POSTED: SUNDAY, AUGUST 23, 2015 04:00 AM MDT | UPDATED: SUNDAY, AUGUST 23, 2015 09:36 AM MDT

Okay, kidlets.

Time to put away the beret and the Che T-shirt.

This is a real-life, grown-up election … so enough with the insurgent fantasies, already.

Deep in every little leftie’s heart, they want to ride into a “liberated” Havana with Che and Fidel. They want to drive the Russian-made tank through the gates of the presidential palace in Saigon. They want to storm the Bastille. (BTW: Hardly a fair fight. A half a dozen guys guarding seven prisoners were butchered by 1,000 armed revolutionaries. That’s like Stephen Hawking versus Ronda Rousey, but I guess the surrender monkeys have to celebrate their victories where they find them.)

The fantasy fuels the zeal. And in the absence of a real enemy … they just invent one.

Which explains why Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being portrayed as the equivalent of Generalissimo Francisco Franco.

Can’t tell you how often on Facebook I’ve seen some variant of this posted: “We have to take our country back!”

Seriously? How did Stephen Harper steal your country?

Let’s run through the arguments.

1. The New York Times doesn’t respect us anymore.

Well … good.

2. We don’t do a lot of UN peacekeeping.

I would argue the UN — at best a noble failed experiment, at worst a corrupt body whose primary task is promoting hatred for Jews on the world stage — isn’t worth anybody’s time.

As for the efficacy of peacekeeping, I refer you to the Rwandan genocide.

3. Harper won’t give government employees the unfettered ability to communicate with the public unsupervised.

If you work for a big oil company downtown, are you allowed to call a press conference to discuss global warming whenever you feel like it?

Didn’t think so.

4. Harper doesn’t like the CBC.

Well … who the hell does? It’s not 1955 anymore and genuine Canadian voices in the culture — like Trailer Park Boys — are doing just fine on Netflix, thank you very much.

5. Bill C-51 destroys democracy.

It’s actually a law to allow government agencies investigating terrorism to talk to each other more efficiently. It’s not about the mass internment of Greenpeace supporters … more’s the pity.

6. Stephen Harper is an evil, soulless cyborg from the future with Lego hair who is a control freak.

So what?

Did everybody forget Harper presided over the merger of the remains of Reform and the Tories?

He inherited all those wild-eyed, old-school prairie radicals who wanted to govern with a King James Bible in one hand and a bullwhip in the other.

The ones wanted to ban abortion and men slow dancing cheek-to-cheek. The ones who thought a woman’s place was on her back or chained to a stove. The guys who thought public executions would be just the thing to further the moral development of the kiddies.

Harper forged a bunch of tired old Tories and the Reform nuts into an effective political organization that actually won elections.

You don’t do that by being Mr. Dressup.

But the end result is something that should gladden the hearts of leftists.

We spend more on health care and all those other things dear to the leftist heart than before
Harper came to power. The civil service is bigger.

Public money was poured into an economic stimulus.

The Economist reports Canada came out of the global recession in better shape than any other G7 nation.

The only places Harper is free to govern like a right winger is on crime and foreign policy. So murderers spend more time in prison. (Eeek. Eeek.)

Fighter bombers and JTF2 go to hot, dusty places to kill people we don’t like. And in the absence of strong, moral leadership from the Obamawimp, Harper stepped up to scold Russia for tiny trifles like invading other countries.

Neither one of those things is a sin.

You want to hate Stephen Harper, fill your boots, buddy.

But at least have one of those boots on the firm ground of reality.

More on LINK.

 

[Altair]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


More on LINK.

I actually don't mind harper on any of those issues.

The circumventing of democracy, the omnibus bills, the vilification of everyone who opposes him, the non answers in question period, the attack advertising that has taken political discourse to a new low, the nickel and diming the Canadian armed forces while saying that he is the only one that cares about it, those are things I want harper gone for. Just harper. Conservatives on a whole aren't too bad a party, and I would probably vote for someone like ambrose or Baird, definitely the late Flaherty. (I have the feeling harper would prefer pierre poilievre as his heir apparent)

But it's being lead by Steven Harper, and the best way for renewal in the conservative party is for them to lose.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I kept looking for some mention of Harper's numerous missteps with the Supreme Court.

Can anyone predict the outcome of Supreme Court decisions?  Much of the time Harper consulted retired Supreme Court judges, particularly in the Nadon case.  Is Harper supposed to quit governing in the face of an activist court.  He was elected, they weren't.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

NDP MP Pat Martin used donations from unions to pay off debt from defamation law suit

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-mp-pat-martin-used-donations-unions-pay-210359545.html

And the Quebec Liberal Party paid Mulcair's libel lawsuit.  How exactly are these cases different than Wright's payment of Duffy's debt.  Another question is, why do these commies have such a hard time keeping their mouths shut?

 

[McG]

They don't contain a potential lie about where those funds came from.

 

[Remius]

NDP MP Pat Martin used donations from unions to pay off debt from defamation law suit

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-mp-pat-martin-used-donations-unions-pay-210359545.html

And the Quebec Liberal Party paid Mulcair's libel lawsuit.  How exactly are these cases different than Wright's payment of Duffy's debt.  Another question is, why do these commies have such a hard time keeping their mouths shut?

Not sure but I suspect that in both cases, libel cases against both men, the libel was brought against them as individuals and not MPs.  Pat Martin was sued as was Thomas Mulcair, as individual citizens not as MPs.  Who pays for their defence is irrelevant.  It is a civil case.

If Mike Duffy was being sued as Mike Duffy and not Senator Duffy I suspect that Nigel Wright helping him out would be all perfectly fine.  But the Duffy case is not a libel case.  It's a Bribery and Breach of trust where his position as a Senator is a significant factor.  This also being a criminal case as opposed to a civil one.

Again, I don't know.  I'm not a legal expert nor pretend to be one.  My guess is as good as yours.

:dunno:

 

[a_majoor]

Trudeau promises to restore lifelong pensions to injured veterans

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/world/liberals-woo-disgruntled-veterans-with-promise-to-restore-lifetime-pensions-for-injured-ex-soldiers&pubdate=2015-08-24

Really surprised that's not getting more attention here considering it effects you guys the most.

Let's just say that based on his record to date, there is no evidence that there would be any follow through either if elected or in the "kingmaker" position in a minority government (i.e. support this bill ro we pull the plug). Of course at this point I would be equally dubious if any other party was to try to pander to military voters now.

 

[dapaterson]

Let's just say that based on his record to date, there is no evidence that there would be any follow through either if elected or in the "kingmaker" position in a minority government (i.e. support this bill ro we pull the plug). Of course at this point I would be equally dubious if any other party was to try to pander to military voters now.

Well, the Conservatives have promised to increase the size of the Reserve Force to 30,000; the same promise they made in 2008.  Lack of follow-through appears not to be restricted to certain colours on the spectrum...

 

[George Wallace]

I actually don't mind harper on any of those issues.

The circumventing of democracy, the omnibus bills, the vilification of everyone who opposes him, the non answers in question period, the attack advertising that has taken political discourse to a new low, the nickel and diming the Canadian armed forces while saying that he is the only one that cares about it, those are things I want harper gone for. Just harper. Conservatives on a whole aren't too bad a party, and I would probably vote for someone like ambrose or Baird, definitely the late Flaherty. (I have the feeling harper would prefer pierre poilievre as his heir apparent)

But it's being lead by Steven Harper, and the best way for renewal in the conservative party is for them to lose.

"Nickel and diming" to keep the National Debt down is part and parcel of a responsible government.  Do we really have the silly notion that money grows on trees?  Don't overlook the fact that all Government Departments have also been trimming their fat.

Personality wise, perhaps it is time for a new leader of the Conservative Party.  Perhaps not. 

The questions Canadians should "HONESTLY" ask themselves, having all the facts, is do you want to have a government that is fiscally responsible, or one that will throw money at bad projects in the hope that no one will notice?  Which Party really has the honest answers to your questions, that satisfy you enough to vote for them?  A protest vote, just because you don't like a person without any other reason is absurd.

 

[The Bread Guy]

An interesting commitment from the Tories ....

Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper reaffirmed his proven approach to supporting Canadian communities by keeping taxes low and encouraging civic engagement in our communities.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled a new measure to support service clubs in Canada in recognition of the valuable contributions these clubs provide, and to encourage greater participation. Under the new measure, service club membership fees can be included in an individual’s claim under the annual Charitable Donations Tax Credit.

“If we can support service clubs to keep doing what they already do so well, I am confident that Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast will be better as a result,” said the Prime Minister.

There are many service clubs in Canada such as the Royal Canadian Legion, Knights of Columbus, Rotary, the Lions, Masons and Shriners, Elks of Canada, Kiwanis, KinCanada, and Optimists. Service clubs are involved in countless initiatives ranging from providing opportunities for young people, Canadians with disabilities, and vulnerable communities, to eradicating diseases and providing disaster relief overseas, to supporting community infrastructure projects. In recent years, demographic changes have put pressure on service club membership.

Approximately one million Canadians could benefit from the new measure, which has a 15% to 29% value depending on the individual’s overall charitable donations. This measure builds on other initiatives by the Harper Government to encourage charitable giving such as broadening the tax exemption on capital gains associated with certain types of donations; the First-Time Donor’s Super Credit on cash donations of up to $1,000; and allowing charities to diversify their investment portfolios and use modern technology to conduct lotteries ....