NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember when Paul Martin stated that there was no way that the Conservatives could meet all of their promises and keep a balanced budget?

Remember Harper dismissing that as fear mongering?

A funny thing happens once people actually get elected though. They actually have to DEAL with what they promised (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060309/ca_pr_on_na/flaherty_budget_speech_1)


The federal finance minister says Ottawa won't be able to address all its election promises in its first budget.

But Jim Flaherty says the Conservatives will slash the GST by one per cent "immediately." Flaherty is expected to deliver his federal budget in April. Flaherty also says the government's goal of resolving the so-called fiscal imbalance with the provinces won't be resolved overnight but will be addressed.

Financial analysts have voiced concerns that the federal government will be unable to balance the books and keep its spending promises.

Flaherty was in his home riding in Whitby, east if Toronto, speaking at a business luncheon.


Oh yeah, and what was his campaign strategy to get various provincial premiers on board with him? "Addressing the fiscal imbalance" was the buzz-phrase was it not? Well, of course we already know of his stated intent NOT to live up to the existing child care deal. But it goes even further.... seems that the whole "fiscal imbalance" he kept going on about was a myth! (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/03/09/1480266-cp.html)


The majority of the provinces are in better financial shape than they let on when they complain about the amount of money they get from the federal government, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Thursday.

"There is somewhat of a myth (across) Canada that many provinces are in deficit, which of course is not so," Flaherty said after delivering his first speech as finance minister to the Whitby Chamber of Commerce in his riding east of Toronto.

...

Flaherty also made it clear that while he'll be meeting separately in the coming weeks with his provincial counterparts - he's scheduled to talk Friday with Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan - the fiscal imbalance won't be a priority for his first budget.




So, what part of his campaign platform that people voted on is left?

Anyone? Bueller?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! the provinces not in debt? Last time I checked, only Alberta was not in debt, and that's because they've got oil!

I change my mind. The election's going to be next spring, it's going to be this year. It seems people really are getting fed up with Harper, and parliament hasn't even began yet. Good job, Stevie, you've brought your party to a new low.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! the provinces not in debt? Last time I checked, only Alberta was not in debt, and that's because they've got oil!

I change my mind. The election's going to be next spring, it's going to be this year. It seems people really are getting fed up with Harper, and parliament hasn't even began yet. Good job, Stevie, you've brought your party to a new low.


No no! All the provinces are lying! Can't you see that? It's all a sneaky vendetta against Stevie to make him look bad!










Like he needs the help at this point.... lol.

Remember when Paul Martin stated that there was no way that the Conservatives could meet all of their promises and keep a balanced budget?

Remember Harper dismissing that as fear mongering?

A funny thing happens once people actually get elected though. They actually have to DEAL with what they promised (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20060309/ca_pr_on_na/flaherty_budget_speech_1)



Oh yeah, and what was his campaign strategy to get various provincial premiers on board with him? "Addressing the fiscal imbalance" was the buzz-phrase was it not? Well, of course we already know of his stated intent NOT to live up to the existing child care deal. But it goes even further.... seems that the whole "fiscal imbalance" he kept going on about was a myth! (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/03/09/1480266-cp.html)
Hmmmmm.....

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2004/n14jn04c.htm

Hmmmmm.....

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2004/n14jn04c.htm

You know what I find very sad about the stats?

• Stephen Harper's Conservatives would run up DEFICITS totalling $11.4 billion.
• Paul Martin Liberals would book SURPLUSES of $24.2 billion.
• NDP would retain $14.6 billion in SURPLUSES.

the NDP, who are supposedly "reckless spenders" would've had a surplus, whereas the conservatives, who are supposed to "balance the budget", havea deficit.

It's all a sneaky vendetta against Stevie to make him look bad!
Somehow I get the feeling he's been playing this stupid game his entire life. Well, this isn't elementary school anymore, Stephen. And no-one loves a two-faced, big fat liar. Especially one with shifty eyes and a perpetual air of smugness.

You know what I find very sad about the stats?



the NDP, who are supposedly "reckless spenders" would've had a surplus, whereas the conservatives, who are supposed to "balance the budget", havea deficit.
My god, you mean, it happens everywhere conservatives are in charge?

My god, you mean, it happens everywhere conservatives are in charge?
DING DING DING
We have a winner, folks.

So, what part of his campaign platform that people voted on is left?

Um... GST reduction? $1200 a year for each child under 6? Getting tough on crime? The Federal Accountability Act? Were you looking for one in particular? Or was the one stated in the article you posted not obvious enough for you?

Um... GST reduction?
At what cost? Also bear in mind that this helps the high income earners far more.

$1200 a year for each child under 6?

The Conservative plan suffers from some of the same fiscal optimism–it's $10,000-a-space tax credit may not be enough real incentive to create the 125,000 new spaces the party is hoping for, especially in the absence of other direct operating subsidies. The $10,000 is a one-shot, one space offer; costs in subsequent years would have to be carried by the operator.

The plan also seems to have another flaw. The $1,200-a-year allowance is to go to all families with kids five and under and is estimated to cost a substantial $10.9 billion over five years. But Statistics Canada reports there are 2,057,848 children five and under at the moment which would bring the five-year cost of the program to $12.3 billion. The Conservatives may be thinking that some of this money will be taxed back from higher income families. But by the same token, families in this bracket who do not require daycare can simply redirect the new-found money to a tax-protected RESP and perhaps escape the taxman's claw altogether.

Getting tough on crime?
We will have to see how this plays out. I am all for getting tougher on crime but lets see some results?

The Federal Accountability Act?
So far, it looks like Harper doesn't want to be held accountable? He entices Emerson to cross the floor and when the Ethics Commish states that he will investigate Harper, it appears that Harper is more inclined to fire the guy.

Gee, people whining about Harper *yawn* wake me up when you're done.

At what cost? Also bear in *SNIP*

My point is that he hasn't even sat in parliament yet. There are plenty of opportunities for him to live up to some of the promises in his platform. (And I don't recall any political party in Canada ever living completely up to its election promises... Not to mention the Liberal plan was to announce how they were going to spend the taxpayers money over the next 3 terms...)

Harper made a bonehead tactical move with Emerson. I believe he was trying the same style as during the election, which is to get the ugly distasteful stuff out of the way first, and then slowly start winning the trust of the electorate. Which sadly, isn't happening...

From this point on, it doesn't matter how Harper reacts to criticism's from opposition. It's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario. If he lets Shapiro go ahead with his 'work', he lets a Liberal Party appointee, who has been held in contempt for his prior behaviour by Parliament, potentially bring his government down. If he attacks Shapiro for his obvious partisan bias, he risks bringing his government down.

The sad part of that particular scenario, is that Emerson and Harper are being investigated into the possibility of whether or not an 'inducement' was offered to bring Emerson over to the Conservatives, i.e. a Cabinet posting. Defenders of the Stronach/Martin scenario, contend that 'she was sticking up for her ideals'. Regardless, the scenario is the same; 'was Belinda Stronach offered an inducement (i.e. Cabinet Posting) to switch to the Liberal Party?

To expect Emerson to live up to a completely different set of rules than his predecessors, such as by-elections and ethics investigations that people in different circumstances didn't have to put up with, is extremely partisan.

My problem is with people who take a look at the current circus surrounding Harper, and proclaim 'look, we told you so! why didn't you vote Liberal?'. Even with all the idiocy going on now, I'd still have voted conservative over liberal in the recent election, for the simple fact that, you don't endorse criminal, arrogant behaviour in government. A vote for the liberals was a vote for fear of frenchman and the guys in cowboy hats. (Frenchmen in cowboy hats is a completely different ballgame however...)

My point is that he hasn't even sat in parliament yet. There are plenty of opportunities for him to live up to some of the promises in his platform. (And I don't recall any political party in Canada ever living completely up to its election promises... Not to mention the Liberal plan was to announce how they were going to spend the taxpayers money over the next 3 terms...)

Harper made a bonehead tactical move with Emerson. I believe he was trying the same style as during the election, which is to get the ugly distasteful stuff out of the way first, and then slowly start winning the trust of the electorate. Which sadly, isn't happening...

From this point on, it doesn't matter how Harper reacts to criticism's from opposition. It's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario. If he lets Shapiro go ahead with his 'work', he lets a Liberal Party appointee, who has been held in contempt for his prior behaviour by Parliament, potentially bring his government down. If he attacks Shapiro for his obvious partisan bias, he risks bringing his government down.

The sad part of that particular scenario, is that Emerson and Harper are being investigated into the possibility of whether or not an 'inducement' was offered to bring Emerson over to the Conservatives, i.e. a Cabinet posting. Defenders of the Stronach/Martin scenario, contend that 'she was sticking up for her ideals'. Regardless, the scenario is the same; 'was Belinda Stronach offered an inducement (i.e. Cabinet Posting) to switch to the Liberal Party?

To expect Emerson to live up to a completely different set of rules than his predecessors, such as by-elections and ethics investigations that people in different circumstances didn't have to put up with, is extremely partisan.

My problem is with people who take a look at the current circus surrounding Harper, and proclaim 'look, we told you so! why didn't you vote Liberal?'. Even with all the idiocy going on now, I'd still have voted conservative over liberal in the recent election, for the simple fact that, you don't endorse criminal, arrogant behaviour in government. A vote for the liberals was a vote for fear of frenchman and the guys in cowboy hats. (Frenchmen in cowboy hats is a completely different ballgame however...)


Look, he ran on a platform of openness and accountability - including complaining about the Liberals not living up to promises. And he said that a vote for him was a vote for a change from behaviour like that. You are simply excusing him for his lies that you were amongst the group castigating Martin for. In other words - being a hypocrite.

As to Emmerson, his own words (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060206/emerson_defection_060206/20060206?hub=TopStories) unequivocably demonstrate that the offer of the Cabinet post was the factor that made him decide to cross the floor.


Former industry minister David Emerson said his decision to defect from the Liberals and take a cabinet post in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government was made to better serve his constituents.

...

He defended his position at a brief press conference late in the afternoon.

"I fundamentally went through the thought processes many times over, and came to the conclusion I can be more helpful to the people of my riding, the people of my city, the people of my province and the people of my country doing this, as opposed to being in opposition and trying to become a powerful political partisan which I have never been," Emerson said.


So clearly he was offered the inducement as part of the incentive, and clearly that is in violation of house ethics rules. As to Belinda, if the opposition felt that she had been induced to cross - they could have raised the issue with the Ethics Commissioner. They elected not to.

And indeed, if you go back and re-read the news stories from that time (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/17/stronach-liberals050517.html) you can recall quite clearly her stated opposition to toppling the
government at that time BEFORE she made the switch.


Stronach, 39, is a small-l liberal who has not always been comfortable within the Conservative ranks, especially on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Last week, she said it would be unfortunate if the Liberal government fell before the 2005 budget was passed because it contained measures on municipal funding that were of great importance to her constituents in the Toronto-area riding of Newmarket-Aurora.


She broke ranks due to differences in opinion on party policy. What did Emmerson break ranks for besides the chance to stay in Cabinet?

Oh, and it was the Conservative party who - after the Stronach defection - put forward a bill REQUIRING by-elections following a defection. If it is a new rule then it is a new rule initiated by the party that he joined, and that he knew full well was the wishes of his new party. So excuse me if I don't feel sorry for him given that he knew damn well the feelings on this matter of the Conservative Party.


As to your labelling the Liberals "criminal", dial down the crap. So far Harper has - without even taking a seat in parliament - broken almost everything he claimed made him and his party different that the Liberals. So throw that word in a mirror and see how you like the label.

I hope a few good things come out of this latest round of fiascos:

-A law requiring by-elections when people cross the floor.

-An Ethics Commissioner that is appointed by a multi-party commitee.

-An increased awareness among Canadians that NDP is the way to go!!! (sorry,had to plug them)

But since the law is the way it is right now, we cannot demand that Emerson have a by-election, nor can Harper simply dismiss Shapiro based on an alleged bias.

However, we can ask that Shapiro also investigate Stronach for the same things that Emerson is accused of.

I hope a few good things come out of this latest round of fiascos:

-A law requiring by-elections when people cross the floor.

-An Ethics Commissioner that is appointed by a multi-party commitee.

-An increased awareness among Canadians that NDP is the way to go!!! (sorry,had to plug them)

But since the law is the way it is right now, we cannot demand that Emerson have a by-election, nor can Harper simply dismiss Shapiro based on an alleged bias.

However, we can ask that Shapiro also investigate Stronach for the same things that Emerson is accused of.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. (Minus the NDP plug)

I hope a few good things come out of this latest round of fiascos:

-A law requiring by-elections when people cross the floor.

-An Ethics Commissioner that is appointed by a multi-party commitee.

-An increased awareness among Canadians that NDP is the way to go!!! (sorry,had to plug them)

But since the law is the way it is right now, we cannot demand that Emerson have a by-election, nor can Harper simply dismiss Shapiro based on an alleged bias.

However, we can ask that Shapiro also investigate Stronach for the same things that Emerson is accused of.
As far as I know, the Ethics Comissioner is appointed by the house which is a multi-party comitee (although a big one). It is even more true in a parliament where you have a minority government.

And the law in place requires a vote on the house to fire the Commissioner, if you blieve the different MPs that talked to the press these last few days.

Actually if the riding can get 40% of the constituants in favour of another vote, the precedent set in B.C. by their superior court would force Harpers hand for another election in the riding. pwned.

Look, he ran on a platform of openness and accountability - including complaining about the Liberals not living up to promises. And he said that a vote for him was a vote for a change from behaviour like that. You are simply excusing him for his lies that you were amongst the group castigating Martin for. In other words - being a hypocrite.


As I said, he has yet to sit in Parliament. His appointment of Emerson does not constitute the entirety of his term, which has barely begun. I admitted, it was a bonehead mistake, but one that might just clear up the softwood issue. He's already opened up the appointment of judges to parliamentary scrutiny (which nobody on this forum bothered to notice), and there's this thing called THE FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT that their party is working on. What, you think it's all a smokescreen so he could piss off the electorate? I agree, that the conservatives are less than stellar, but give them a chance to pass some legislation.

As to Emmerson, his own words (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060206/emerson_defection_060206/20060206?hub=TopStories) unequivocably demonstrate that the offer of the Cabinet post was the factor that made him decide to cross the floor. So clearly he was offered the inducement as part of the incentive, and clearly that is in violation of house ethics rules. As to Belinda, if the opposition felt that she had been induced to cross - they could have raised the issue with the Ethics Commissioner. They elected not to.

Oh, you mean the liberal-appointed ethics comissioner who refused to show up to a parliamentary review and was found in contempt? Did Belinda not receive a Cabinet position for switching? Take your partisan blinders off for a minute. She could have settled for the backbenches after all. It was politcal opportunism at it's best, and there is no difference between Stronach and Emerson. I believe that both should have been held to account for their actions.

And indeed, if you go back and re-read the news stories from that time (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/17/stronach-liberals050517.html) you can recall quite clearly her stated opposition to toppling the
government at that time BEFORE she made the switch.

Oh, so that means getting a cabinet position for that switch is okay then. It had nothing to due with the fact that she lost the bid for conservative party leadership, and was a sore loser.


She broke ranks due to differences in opinion on party policy. What did Emmerson break ranks for besides the chance to stay in Cabinet?

Emerson, much like Stronach, can spin a tale:

"I fundamentally went through the thought processes many times over, and came to the conclusion I can be more helpful to the people of my riding, the people of my city, the people of my province and the people of my country doing this, as opposed to being in opposition and trying to become a powerful political partisan which I have never been," Emerson said.



Oh, and it was the Conservative party who - after the Stronach defection - put forward a bill REQUIRING by-elections following a defection. If it is a new rule then it is a new rule initiated by the party that he joined, and that he knew full well was the wishes of his new party. So excuse me if I don't feel sorry for him given that he knew damn well the feelings on this matter of the Conservative Party.

There is no by-election rule.

As to your labelling the Liberals "criminal", dial down the crap. So far Harper has - without even taking a seat in parliament - broken almost everything he claimed made him and his party different that the Liberals. So throw that word in a mirror and see how you like the label.

I suppose redirecting millions of dollars into liberal friendly companies and then redirecting that money back into party coffers doesn't count as criminal in your books. And last I checked, Stephen Harper is acting well within the bounds of constitutional authority (and last I checked, that was the law of the land.)

Alright, you like the Liberals. I don't like the Liberals. Doesn't mean I love the Conservatives. But the Liberals were an ugly bloated sore that needed to be lanced. Sorry.

As far as I know, the Ethics Comissioner is appointed by the house which is a multi-party comitee (although a big one). It is even more true in a parliament where you have a minority government.

And the law in place requires a vote on the house to fire the Commissioner, if you blieve the different MPs that talked to the press these last few days.

You're right. I guess I was confusing it with the position of Ethics Councillor.

Still, the main object would be to create a position wherein it would be impossible to accuse the Ethics Commissioner of partisan bias, which is an issue currently clouding the debate.