The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[a_majoor]

Like Kirkhill, I find the idea of political parties and politicians as being "Leaders" to be rather disturbing. On a local level, my city council has exercised "leadership" and "vision" to the extent of spending $100 million on downtown redevelopment. This "leadership" and "vision" resulted in a drop in downtown property values of between $60 and 75 million dollars between 2000 and 2007 (the City's own Downtown Task force provides the figures, but fudge it so it is not clear which is the correct figure).

Rather than learning from that mistake (and the ballooning of the city's debt to over $360 million dollars in the same time period), or concentrating on fixing infrastructure (which has been crumbling for years), the local politicians are now exercising "leadership" and "vision" by attempting to ban drive throughs and actually banning bottled water in city owned venues. Oh, and they also want to spend another $125 million on Downtown redevelopment.......

On a grander scale, the "leadership" and "vision" of successive Federal governments has resulted in over half a trillion dollars in debt (plus about the same amount in unfunded liabilities through government pensions), with really precious little to show for it. The streets are not paved in gold, wait times for healthcare constantly escalate, our children's education is becoming rubbish (check out this billboard in Saskatoon) and we can go on and on. The cult of "leadership" has had some pretty negative effects in other parts of the world; the most dramatic example is to look at a night time photo of the Korean peninsula from space; you can really see the difference "Leadership" makes.

If the government (at any level) is to concentrate on protecting my rights of Freedom of Expression, Property Rights, and enforces the Rule of Law, then all Canadians are free to work to achieve their own goals. In that regard, I am not a big fan of the current government, although I realize that electoral politics in a minority government does hamper their freedom of action to some extent (Imagine what the lefties would say if Prime Minister Harper dismantled or even spoke out against the "Human Rights" commissions; despite the overwhelming evidence they are attacking free speech in Canada and are otherwise capricious and out of control institutions) still it would be nice to get an unambiguous signal that this and future governments will not be constantly crowding out individual choice and freedom.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Well sir, a majority of the country did not vote for him or his party and this can be seen in the fact that he has a minority.

Which was the last sitting majority government which commanded a "majority of the country", vote-wise?

I increasingly hear and read opinions by which I conclude that Liberal partisans fervently believe it is fine and proper for them to control the nation with vote shares in the mid to high '30s, but that it is a social crime for a Conservative government to exist one second longer than necessary to corral the necessary votes to declare non-confidence.  If that is the collective (approximate) view of Liberals, then the time of rational debate and give/take has ended because there is only take and no give from them.  Do not come to me with entreaties of political accommodations and compromises when you have declared war.

 

[geo]

I can tell you that, so long as the Liberal leadership behaves more like a weathervane than anything eles, flipping and flopping all over the place.... the Conservative minority government will not be at risk.... IMHO

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is a column by Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080820.wcomartin20/BNStory/specialComment

Bumbling Grits give Team Harper an economic free ride

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
August 20, 2008 at 8:29 AM EDT

When it was announced that the governing Tories had registered a fiscal deficit for the first two months of the year, Liberals were practically dancing in the streets. Manna from heaven, they told me. The Conservatives were supposed to be the party of economic rectitude. Yet, they'd gone from a surplus of $2.8-billion from the same period a year earlier to $500-million in the red.

It was good news for any opposition party. Except the Grits. They went missing in action. Nothing happened. The story disappeared in a day. Their blowing it caused some consternation within the ranks, complaints to Stéphane Dion's office, finger-pointing at finance critic John McCallum.

That passed, but then came another potential blessing for them. Unemployment numbers. Huge! Fifty-five thousand job losses in the month of July. Biggest drop in 17 years, stoking fears we're heading downstream with the ailing neighbour. But the same thing happened. The Liberals couldn't capitalize. The unemployment story was a one-day wonder. Caucus members were left to wonder: Where are we?

The economy, not the environment, is emerging as the No. 1 issue in the next election, which now seems certain to take place in the fall. The Conservatives keep serving up balls to bat out of the park. The income-trust flip-flop, the savaging of Ontario as a dismal place to invest, two of the biggest-spending budgets of all time, soaring energy prices, and now the deficit numbers and big unemployment tallies. But check the charts. On the question of which party is seen as the better manager of the economy, it's Stephen Harper's Conservatives out in front by a long shot.

"The economy should be a slam dunk for us," said Liberal MP Maurizio Bevilacqua. "But, as yet, it isn't happening." Speaking of the recent Tory deficit numbers, he said: "To me, it was clear you had to jump on those."

The Liberals enjoy some immunity from prosecution on the economy. On other issues such as the environment and ethics, the Conservatives can point, with some effectiveness, to past Liberal failings. Mr. Harper was up to that old trick yesterday in rather sophomoric fashion. He said Jean Chrétien's criticism of his not attending the Beijing Olympics was hypocritical because he had only attended one such Olympic opening himself. Of course, on China, Mr. Chrétien was making a point about the importance of building relations with the world's emerging economic giant. Missing Olympic openings in Seoul or Sydney was hardly a valid comparison.

On the economy, Mr. Harper can't resort to blaming the other side. Paul Martin and Mr. Chrétien erased a staggering $42-billion deficit and put in place economic fundamentals that saw the country go on a long happy fiscal roll. There was, of course, a considerable amount of luck involved, and their tenure coincided with fortuitous international conditions. But they deserve some credit.

"We've got a great story to tell on this," said Mr. Bevilacqua. "We have to refresh people's memories." The Liberals should have had their leader and others out stomping for a week, waving the Martin/Chrétien numbers against those of the Tories. Some party members say they've been making noises, but their noises haven't found the way into the media. That's always a problem. But the test for any political party is to have the moxie to attract media attention.

In the United States, Bill Clinton posted positive numbers just as the Liberals did here. Conservatives then came to power in Washington and have plunged the country into one of its worst deficit crises. It's more fodder for building the case that conservatives should no longer be considered prudent fiscal managers.

Being a willowy styled academic and an expert on things constitutional, the Liberal Leader doesn't carry much heft on the economy. Much of his own economic platform is buried in his Green Shift plan. And there are few big-bang measures with which the public can identify.

But, given the Tory vulnerabilities, that shouldn't stop the Liberals from being able to score points. One idea the party is mulling is to have the men with the economic clout -- Mr. Martin and Mr. Chrétien -- do some speaking out. Although former prime ministers shouldn't be heard from too often, there are times -- Mr. Chrétien didn't do badly on China -- they can be most effective. On the economy, with a few pointed reminders of their own record, they could end the free ride the Grits are giving Team Harper.

Lawrence Martin is well plugged into the Ottawa political scene, especially, being Jean Chrétien’s biographer, to the Liberals and, within that fractious family, to the Chrétienistas. It is interesting that he quotes Maurizio Bevilacqua, a well known Martini. It appears that the internecine warfare is still going strong.

A few quibbles:

• The deficit had two components –

o The programme deficit – which was put right by Brian Mulroney and Michael Wilson in the late ‘80s, and

o The structural deficit that is based, largely, on interest on a too large national debt. It is that which Mulroney, Wilson and Mazankowski lacked the political courage to attack. Full credit to Chrétien and Martin for screwing downloading enough expenses onto Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario to deal with it. The national debt is still too high, especially when provincial debts are factored into it. The interest payments are still wasted money and wasted opportunities for Canadians. The right answer is: less debt not more social programme spending;

• Former Prime Minister Chrétien’s recent comments re: Harper’s error in not visiting China for the 2008 Olympic opening ceremonies are highly suspect because he is a big time lobbyist with many clients who need better access in China. He loses when they lose and Harper is not doing well by them. I agree that Canada should have had a better delegation – Her Excellency the Governor General should have led our delegation, but that’s all water under the bridge; and

• Dion is, surprisingly (to me) popular, despite being “a willowy styled academic and an expert on things constitutional.” Or, perhaps it’s just that Canadians do not like Stephen Harper.
But, on the main point, Martin is right: the Liberals have failed to exploit opportunities, the Tories have had a free ride. It bodes well (or ill, depending upon one’s point of view) for the forthcoming election campaign.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, I suppose there are worse reasons for calling an election. Putting ‘Partisan Paul’ Szabo’s Unethical Committee out of business will be a big favour for all Canadians. Partisan Paul is doing more than the other 307 MPs combined to drag Canadian politics into disrepute.

What am I babbling about?

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is the story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080820.wcontempt21/BNStory/National/home

Tories pushing fall election to shut down probe, MPs say

CAMPBELL CLARK

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
August 20, 2008 at 10:55 PM EDT

OTTAWA — A federal election would kill any attempt by MPs to cite for contempt Tory witnesses who ignored parliamentary summonses to election-finance hearings last week, and opposition politicians argue it is a key reason the government wants to rush to the polls.

More than a dozen Conservatives boycotted the hearings, including a half-dozen who had received a summons from the Commons ethics committee.

Opposition MPs have threatened to take tougher action if the reluctant witnesses do not appear between Sept. 15 and 30 – which could include issuing a Speaker's warrant, or having the Commons cite them for contempt.

But the committee, each summons and any attempt to pursue or cite witnesses will die if an election is called first, and Parliament is dissolved, procedural experts say. Once that happens, the matter is not revived in the next Parliament unless the new ethics committee starts all over again.

“The summons dies with the dissolution of Parliament for an election,” said Thomas Hall, a former Commons committee clerk and procedural clerk.

The opposition began the hearings into the Conservatives' so-called in-and-out scheme from the last election, where the national party transferred money into the campaigns of local candidates to pay for a share of party advertising, and then took it back.

Elections Canada has alleged it was a scheme to overspend the party's national limit by $1-million, by transferring national campaign expenses to candidates. The Tories say all parties have done the same kind of thing, and they just did more.

The Conservatives have called the hearings a “kangaroo court” and complained the opposition chose all the witnesses, and refused Tory suggestions. Last week, several Conservatives, including some who were summoned, skipped the hearings, and one Conservative candidate's agent said a party organizer told witnesses not to attend.

It's relatively rare for a committee to even issue a summons, let alone for a witness to ignore one, in part because the full Commons still has the power to enforce a committee's orders, said parliamentary procedure expert Ned Franks.

The Speaker can issue a warrant, and the Commons can cite the recalcitrant witness for contempt – normally just a very public condemnation, although the Commons, at least in theory, retains the long-unused power to fine or even imprison.

Former Liberal cabinet minister and Royal Canadian Mint president David Dingwall was able to evade a summons to testify on his lobbying activities in 2005, as his lawyer refused to accept service.

Mr. Dingwall did not show up, but he was scheduled to appear on the day Paul Martin called an election after losing a confidence vote, so the matter died with the dissolution of Parliament.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he will decide in a few weeks whether to call an election, and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion accused him of trying to dodge the in-and-out hearings.

“That's the only thing that can stop us. Because we are bound and determined to drag … all these senior Conservatives before the committee. And it's going to be embarrassing,” said MP Pat Martin, the New Democrat on the ethics committee.

“It certainly contradicts the spirit of the fixed-election date laws to manipulate the election date to avoid embarrassment. … Maybe they figured better to take one or two days of bad headlines than risk genuinely damaging testimony, and if they're going to pack up Parliament anyway, then they're scot-free.”

Mr. Harper's communications director, Kory Teneycke, said it is “silly” to accuse the government of wanting an election just to shut down the committee.

Although he said the party wonders whether it's worth participating, he said the Prime Minister is considering an election call because partisan obstruction in Parliament goes far beyond the ethics committee.

“What this is about is whether the government can have a mandate to get a legislative agenda through the House of Commons, to be able to provide certainty in leadership for the country in what are challenging times,” Mr. Teneycke said.

NDP MP Pat Martin occasionally stumbles into the truth telling mode. He did so here, saying, ”... we are bound and determined to drag … all these senior Conservatives before the committee. And it's going to be embarrassing,” That’s the goal of Szabo’s Zoo: to embarrass the Conservatives; the Ethics Committee has been turned on its head by unethical party hacks, flacks and bagmen in an effort to find some way to tar Harper et al with the scandal brush.

As George W Bush said, Bring it on! – the election, that is.


By the bye and on a slightly different tack – an acquaintance tells me that some Liberals don’t want an election because ... wait for it:

They are afraid they will win!

The problem is that some Liberals think we are on the cusp of a recession or, at best, a prolonged period of slow growth and the government (which might be Liberal) will find itself unable to spend, something that will not bother the Conservatives, too much, but which will make Dion’s plans unaffordable. The Liberals would, in that scenario, be blamed for doing nothing, breaking their promises and bringing economic hard times to Canadians. (The corollary (about which I have not heard a word!) is that Harper would not mind losing in fall 2008 – being confident of a majority in spring 2010 based on the problems foreseen by some Liberals.)
   

 

[a_majoor]

The bigger problem if they win is Mr Dion will still be their leader 

I imagine Bob Rae, Micheal Ignateiff and "King in Waiting" Justin Trudeau and their courtiers will not be too pleased with that outcome..... >

 

[stegner]

If Harper loses the next election the knives will come out and he will be gone.  His highly centralized style is tolerated for now, but he has burned a lot of bridges in his own party and is of course an outsider to the traditional Conservative party, all factors that will come to haunt him if he loses.   

 

[Edward Campbell]

If Harper loses the next election the knives will come out and he will be gone.  His highly centralized style is tolerated for now, but he has burned a lot of bridges in his own party and is of course an outsider to the traditional Conservative party, all factors that will come to haunt him if he loses.   

In think you are on the right track, but:

• The traditional Conservatives are dead and buried, never to be seen again.

• Peter McKay wants to be the face of the new 'progressives' but he is getting a lot of competition from former Reformers who are willing to give us a flash of 'caring and sharing' pinkish petticoats when they rustle their long, severe, dark blue skirts.

• Harper is not, I think, enjoying himself. I suspect he would much rather swap jobs with Kevin Lynch. If he doesn’t get a majority – so that he can implement his own agenda - he may well want to step aside.

• The Conservative Party, I agree, is waiting for improvement; if it doesn't come the 'new' Conservatives may resurrect an 'old' Conservative sporting even: the inwards facing, circular firing squad!

• There are several attractive alternatives to Harper - starting with Jim Prentice; but do not discount the ambitions of and/or support for (in no particular order):  Diane Ablonczy, Lawrence Cannon, Jay Hill, Jason Kenny and a few others.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

If Harper loses the next election the knives will come out and he will be gone.   His highly centralized style is tolerated for now, but he has burned a lot of bridges in his own party and is of course an outsider to the traditional Conservative party, all factors that will come to haunt him if he loses.   

It is, and would be, difficult for his 'naysayers' to attack his leadership. He's had the most successful minority government in the country's history. Anyone wishing to negate or excel that would be hard pressed without following his model and acquiescing to his foresight.

Anyone not reaching that bar, because of partisan politics, is wasting our time, money and future.

 

[geo]

Most successful minority government CAUSE they have been faced by the most dissorganized, poorly led opposition parties in the country's history...

 

[stegner]

It is, and would be, difficult for his 'naysayers' to attack his leadership. He's had the most successful minority government in the country's history

He has had the longest.  That does not necessarily the most successful, but I guess it depends on you define success.  I would submit the Chief and Pearson got more done during their shorter minorities.  But that is just me.

 

[geo]

The only thing I can say is that, during Mr Harper's tenure, the CF has at long last received the attention it's desperately needed.  And the CF as a whole has gotten a lot of respect from John Q Public.

I believe that Mr Chrétien had absolutely no use for the Military - xcept for international window dressing - peacekeepers with their arm(s) tied behind their back.
I believe that Mr Martin, with Gen Hillier & an assist by Mr Graham started the turnaround.  A lot of the projects that came thru during the Harper government were started during the Martin government - lord knows the procurement system is SLOW and cumbersome.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The only thing I can say is that, during Mr Harper's tenure, the CF has at long last received the attention it's desperately needed.  And the CF as a whole has gotten a lot of respect from John Q Public.

I believe that Mr Chrétien had absolutely no use for the Military - xcept for international window dressing - peacekeepers with their arm(s) tied behind their back.
I believe that Mr Martin, with Gen Hillier & an assist by Mr Graham started the turnaround.  A lot of the projects that came thru during the Harper government were started during the Martin government - lord knows the procurement system is SLOW and cumbersome.

Agreed, geo and you are, correctly, giving credit where credit is due: to Paul Martin who really did want to turn Canadian Foreign Policy onto a radically 'new' (50 year old) course. Sadly, Stephen Harper takes a far less optimistic view; but, I suppose, his main interests are domestic and systemic.

You are quite correct, I think, re: Chrétien’s distaste for the military. He always was a Trudeau acolyte and Trudeau had a real, active dislike for all things military.

(Pace friend  stegner; Trudeau is important – even long after his death; his influence remains powerful because he was incredibly charismatic and he had, and still has, an expert PR team at his service.

To the degree that Trudeau had any coherent political philosophy it was based on anti-nationalism. That’s why he opposed the Québec separatists even as he sympathized with and shared many of their grievances. Almost all anti-nationalists are knee-jerk anti-military types, too. They cannot, mostly, accept that there are degrees of nationalism that are healthy and that a nation with a healthy sense of its own ‘place’ in the world might want, even need to use military force to protect and advance it own interests.)

 

[stegner]

You are quite correct, I think, re: Chrétien’s distaste for the military. He always was a Trudeau acolyte and Trudeau had a real, active dislike for all things military.

I agree to some degree.  However, there was an intense pride by Chrétien that his older brother had served in the CF during the Second World War.  I just think Chretien thought that in a time of deficit that the military should be a very low priority.  Whether this was fair considering the operational tempo he subjected the CF is an entirely different matter.  You don't cut the military and then place huge demands on them.   

(Pace friend  stegner; Trudeau is important – even long after his death; his influence remains powerful because he was incredibly charismatic and he had, and still has, an expert PR team at his service.

To the degree that Trudeau had any coherent political philosophy it was based on anti-nationalism. That’s why he opposed the Québec separatists even as he sympathized with and shared many of their grievances. Almost all anti-nationalists are knee-jerk anti-military types, too. They cannot, mostly, accept that there are degrees of nationalism that are healthy and that a nation with a healthy sense of its own ‘place’ in the world might want, even need to use military force to protect and advance it own interests.)

Agreed.

Trudeau for the record did serve in the Canadian military-he was conscripted during the Second World War.  He did not serve abroad of course, but was trained as an officer and later expelled for a lack of discipline.  I get the sense that he did not like his experiences in the Canadian military or its culture, which he thought to be low-class, and these perspectives remained with him for his entire life.   

 

[2 Cdo]

Trudeau for the record did serve in the Canadian military-he was conscripted during the Second World War.   He did not serve abroad of course, but was trained as an officer and later expelled for a lack of discipline.   I get the sense that he did not like his experiences in the Canadian military or its culture, which he thought to be low-class, and these perspectives remained with him for his entire life.     

I actually agree with this part. Trudeau oozed elitism and thought that all military personel were "beneath" him. In reality, I would take one 'low class" soldier over an entire brigade of Trudeauites.

 

[stegner]

I actually agree with this part. Trudeau oozed elitism and thought that all military personel were "beneath" him. In reality, I would take one 'low class" soldier over an entire brigade of Trudeauites.

Quite.  I think Trudeau's elitism was clear in that he refer to opponents from the low-middle class as 'eaters of hotdogs.'  Now I for one will always proudly eat hotdogs!

 

[Kat Stevens]

I agree to some degree.  However, there was an intense pride by Chrétien that his older brother had served in the CF during the Second World War.  I just think Chretien thought that in a time of deficit that the military should be a very low priority.  Whether this was fair considering the operational tempo he subjected the CF is an entirely different matter.  You don't cut the military and then place huge demands on them.   

Agreed.

Trudeau for the record did serve in the Canadian military-he was conscripted during the Second World War.  He did not serve abroad of course, but was trained as an officer and later expelled for a lack of discipline.  I get the sense that he did not like his experiences in the Canadian military or its culture, which he thought to be low-class, and these perspectives remained with him for his entire life.   

Gatineau Highlanders, wasn't it?    >

 

[a_majoor]

That does not necessarily the most successful, but I guess it depends on you define success.   

This might help: http://jacksnewswatch.com/2008/04/20/sandy-harper-govt-accomplishments/

60 items as of 20 April 2008.

 

[stegner]

This might help: http://jacksnewswatch.com/2008/04/20/sandy-harper-govt-accomplishments/

60 items as of 20 April 2008.

Thanks for this.  It's appreciated. 

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Harper may ask for election as soon as Sept. 5
Updated Sun. Aug. 24 2008 10:27 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Prime Minister Stephen Harper may go to the Governor General as early as Sept. 5 to ask for a general election, senior Conservative sources have told CTV News.

That would cancel four byelections already scheduled for next month, with three set for Sept. 8. Campaigns have already kicked into gear in the Guelph riding of Southwestern Ontario, and the Quebec ridings of Westmount-Ville Marie in Montreal and nearby Saint Lambert.

A fourth byelection in the Toronto riding of Don Valley West is scheduled for Sept. 22.

Liberal candidate Marc Garneau, who is running in Westmount-Ville Marie, said the Conservatives want an election to avoid addressing issues like the economy.

"I'm not surprised the Harper government is doing this because I think they're very embarrassed the economy is softening, and they have nothing to propose to Canadians," he told CTV News.

Sources say Conservatives favour a short election campaign because anything longer would waste taxpayers' money. The shortest allowed by law is 37 days, so an election call on Sept. 5 would mean a vote on Thanksgiving Monday. Because of the holiday, the vote would be pushed to Tuesday Oct. 14.

That would send Canadians to the ballot box before the U.S. holds its presidential election on Nov. 4. Some analysts believe a Democratic win by Barack Obama would help the Liberals north of the border.

"There's something coordinated about all of this," said NDP Leader Jack Layton. "I think it's a charade. Harper's up to no good here."

Harper has said Parliament has become too "dysfunctional" to continue, although his governmental has legislated a fixed election date for October 2009.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has been coy about triggering an election, saying he wants to wait until Canadians are ready to head to the polls.

For the past 10 days, senior government officials have been signalling they don't believe Dion is serious about allowing Parliament to work. But in Saskatoon on Sunday, Dion said he's ready to meet the prime minister.

"Parliament is working. Parliament is not dysfunctional. This is an invention by Mr. Harper to trigger and election," he said.

With a report by CTV's Graham Richardson in Ottawa