2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Savvy27]

The dissonance being displayed by Conservative supporters is impressive.

The PMO did not show terrible judgment in bringing in a convicted fraudster to work with the highest levels of government, they actually proved heroic by bringing in the RCMP to expose the crook.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_p...92834&sponsor=

Being the first government in the history of Canada to be found in contempt of parliament doesn't reflect poorly on the the Harper government, it really just shows how obsessed the opposition parties are with gaining power (the government did nothing wrong).

Harper's government didn't refuse to provide details surrounding the cost of programs, they just didn't provide details fast enough.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1956416/

Requiring government scientists to get approval from political channels before speaking publicly about their findings isn't Eastern-bloc style authoritarianism, it's.... I dunno. CC can you help with this one?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...1624/comments/

Appointing a public sector integrity commissioner who investigated a grand total of 7 (out of 228) complaints over three years (finding no wrong-doing) and blackmailed her own employees, and then dismissing her with a $500 000 pay off wasn't absurdly suspicious, it showed how the Harper government is able to step in and right the wrongs of government.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...ot-500k-payout

Announcing budget details and then stating publicly that there would be no further negotiation doesn't mean that Harper's government is unwilling to work with other parties, it means that other parties are unwilling to work with the Conservatives and Canada needs a majority so that there will no longer be a need to compromise.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/po...service=mobile

I know that the Liberals were corrupt too, but that doesn't excuse the Conservatives. It would be one thing if Conservative supporters were demanding some changes from the party that ran on a transparency and accountability platform, but all I'm seeing are rationalizations (usually amounting to 'the other guys do it too').

I am sure that if the Liberals were behind these particular scandals, there would be Liberal supporters rationalizing every move too. What makes the Conservatives any better?

I really hope that we do not see a Conservative majority. If we do, we'll get five years with no oversight at all for a government that was corrupting the system from a minority position.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

The dissonance being displayed by Conservative supporters is impressive.

The PMO did not show terrible judgment in bringing in a convicted fraudster to work with the highest levels of government, they actually proved heroic by bringing in the RCMP to expose the crook.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/story_p...492834&sponsor=

I don't neccessarily disagree, however the prime ministers office has called in investigations on multiple occassions in these influence peddling issues, If your going to be fair about it then some credit has to go to that.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Being the first government in the history of Canada to be found in contempt of parliament doesn't reflect poorly on the the Harper government, it really just shows how obsessed the opposition parties are with gaining power (the government did nothing wrong).

I've discussed this recently, but the whole thing came across as partisian gamesman ship in a lot of ways to me when the committee is made up of the people that are bascially charging you with it. If your going to do contempt of parliment proceedings then the process has to change to depoliticize it. Nice spelling

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Harper's government didn't refuse to provide details surrounding the cost of programs, they just didn't provide details fast enough.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1956416/

Every government has probably done this, I look at the hedging that the Liberals did on the long gun registry. They were no where near forthcomign on the costs of that program. And I would have to go back but there were some serious problems on the IT upgrade programs under the Liberals as well. Every government has done it, its why the Canadian system to me is broken.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Requiring government scientists to get approval from political channels before speaking publicly about their findings isn't Eastern-bloc style authoritarianism, it's.... I dunno. CC can you help with this one?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...1624/comments/

I would expect that every government wants oversight on its employees before they run to the press. If your going to work for the government I think its normal that you have to clear things before going to the press.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Appointing a public sector integrity commissioner who investigated a grand total of 7 (out of 228) complaints over three years (finding no wrong-doing) and blackmailed her own employees, and then dismissing her with a $500 000 pay off wasn't absurdly suspicious, it showed how the Harper government is able to step in and right the wrongs of government.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...ot-500k-payout

Yeah that one I certainly didn't like, unfortunately she didn't do anything criminal, she was just incompetant, and as we know if your a boob at the upper level of government and your getting removed from your post your going to get paid.

It was the same situation with the RCMP appointed civilian commissioner who got terminated. I'm sure if we did some research you would see at least one or two per term that got bounced and got a massive parachute.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Announcing budget details and then stating publicly that there would be no further negotiation doesn't mean that Harper's government is unwilling to work with other parties, it means that other parties are unwilling to work with the Conservatives and Canada needs a majority so that there will no longer be a need to compromise.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/po...service=mobile

I actually agreed with the Conservatives on that. Harper came out before the budget and did say that he was willing to talk to the opposition parties, and he clearly talked to Layton and put in what he could deliver. But there was no way that all of Layton's ideas were going into that budget. And I agree with the time to negoiate the budget is before not after. And I think that if people were fair, all parties need to take blame for the poison environment in Parliment.

Its not just Harper.

Originally Posted by Savvy27

I know that the Liberals were corrupt too, but that doesn't excuse the Conservatives. It would be one thing if Conservative supporters were demanding some changes from the party that ran on a transparency and accountability platform, but all I'm seeing are rationalizations (usually amounting to 'the other guys do it too').

I am sure that if the Liberals were behind these particular scandals, there would be Liberal supporters rationalizing every move too. What makes the Conservatives any better?

I really hope that we do not see a Conservative majority. If we do, we'll get five years with no oversight at all for a government that was corrupting the system from a minority position.

Maybe I'm jaded, in that I expect scandals in every government and some level of crap in every government that it becomes degrees of crap.

Shawnigate and Adscam to me were incredible levels of corruption for example compared to what we're seeing from the Conservatives.

But I'm not basing my vote on the ethics issue anymore as I don't believe that ethics and civility exist anymore. I'm more voting on personal ideaology versus platform announcements.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Being the first government in the history of Canada to be found in contempt of parliament doesn't reflect poorly on the the Harper government, it really just shows how obsessed the opposition parties are with gaining power (the government did nothing wrong).

.

Is it really the 1st time? I heard on the news that it was the first time that an election is happening while the PM is in contempt of parliament, but they didn't say it was the 1st time ever. Maybe it is, but it's a funny way to word it if that is the case.

Honestly, "contempt of parliament" and "coalition" are just buzz words meant to distract people IMO.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Is it really the 1st time? I heard on the news that it was the first time that an election is happening while the PM is in contempt of parliament, but they didn't say it was the 1st time ever. Maybe it is, but it's a funny way to word it if that is the case.

Not only is it the first time the governement has been found in comtempt of parliament in Canada, it's the first time in the Commonwealth!

[FiftyBelow]

The legitimacy of the contempt motion is laughable. The majority of the parliamentary committee that found the government in contempt was composed of OPPOSITION members. Its the same thing as asking a jury of mostly black people to determine the guilt of a white guy. There was inherent bias in the motions.

Its also laughable that opposition members are actings as if the Harper government was some kind of dictatorship and a villian of democracy. If anything previous governments have done worse. Heck the sponsorship scandal is still fresh in mind.

If anything, I think the opposition has set a bad precedent of using the motion of contempt on relatively miniscule issues and thus watering down its actual function in the future. There's a reason why the commonwealth hadn't used it before, and thats because there hasn't really been scandals of the magnitude that actually warrant its use. All the opposition has done was to turn the motion into a political tool to be used whenever an opportune moment for gain arises.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

Its the same thing as asking a jury of mostly black people to determine the guilt of a white guy. There was inherent bias in the motions.

Your analogy implies that a black jury can't fairly assess the guilt of a white defendant. That's racist!

[FiftyBelow]

Sure they can... but I was referring more to how courts will usually strive to have a balanced composition rather than one which is more likely to favor a particular side.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't neccessarily disagree, however the prime ministers office has called in investigations on multiple occassions in these influence peddling issues, If your going to be fair about it then some credit has to go to that.

I do give them some credit for doing what is absolutely necessary, but it is outweighed by the huge mistake of bringing him into the fold in first place when his history was a matter of public record.

I've discussed this recently, but the whole thing came across as partisian gamesman ship in a lot of ways to me when the committee is made up of the people that are bascially charging you with it. If your going to do contempt of parliment proceedings then the process has to change to depoliticize it. Nice spelling

From what I understand, the composition of the Parliamentary Committee is proportionate to the composition of parliament. It's not like the opposition was waiting for a chance to finally make up the majority of a committee and it isn't like the charge came out of nowhere. The government had plenty of opportunity to produce the information. If they didn't have the information, then they should not have gone forward with the purchase.

Thank you?

Every government has probably done this, I look at the hedging that the Liberals did on the long gun registry. They were no where near forthcomign on the costs of that program. And I would have to go back but there were some serious problems on the IT upgrade programs under the Liberals as well. Every government has done it, its why the Canadian system to me is broken.

This is what I don't get. You don't know that there are precedents for the Conservative mistakes, but you assume that there are and that is enough for you to overlook them. That doesn't make any sense even if there is a precedent because you didn't like the way that the Liberal governments did things.

I would expect that every government wants oversight on its employees before they run to the press. If your going to work for the government I think its normal that you have to clear things before going to the press.

A democratically elected government suppressing scientific findings because they are politically inconvenient is totally unacceptable. If the green party was in power and muzzled scientists who found data that disproved climate change, it would be equally unacceptable. Canada doesn't need an ideological government determining which science we can be exposed to.

Yeah that one I certainly didn't like, unfortunately she didn't do anything criminal, she was just incompetant, and as we know if your a boob at the upper level of government and your getting removed from your post your going to get paid.

Even if she was merely incompetent, the Conservatives won the 2008 election on a campaign to bring transparency and accountability to Ottawa. It took them three years and media coverage to figure out that she wasn't doing a good job?

It was the same situation with the RCMP appointed civilian commissioner who got terminated. I'm sure if we did some research you would see at least one or two per term that got bounced and got a massive parachute.

I guess I will have to take your word for it. It doesn't change the failures of this government though.

I actually agreed with the Conservatives on that. Harper came out before the budget and did say that he was willing to talk to the opposition parties, and he clearly talked to Layton and put in what he could deliver. But there was no way that all of Layton's ideas were going into that budget. And I agree with the time to negoiate the budget is before not after. And I think that if people were fair, all parties need to take blame for the poison environment in Parliment.

This is fine, but the Harper government is in a minority position. They need to reach a consensus with at least one other party to pass any legislation. They do not have the mandate to draft a bill that is only acceptable to their own party. The Conservatives may have wanted an election, but they certainly can not blame any other party for refusing to support a bill that they do not agree with.

Its not just Harper.

Harper is a very smart man and a shrewd politician, but he is trying to do things that he does not have a mandate to do and disregarding democratic institutions to do them. That is enough for me to not want him to be the leader of this country.

Maybe I'm jaded, in that I expect scandals in every government and some level of crap in every government that it becomes degrees of crap.

Shawnigate and Adscam to me were incredible levels of corruption for example compared to what we're seeing from the Conservatives.

But I'm not basing my vote on the ethics issue anymore as I don't believe that ethics and civility exist anymore. I'm more voting on personal ideaology versus platform announcements.

So you decided to stop voting on ethics when your party of choice violated the ethics that they were elected on?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I had heard that he was beeing wooed at a provincial level, but I will honestly say that he's one of the best party leaders in a campaign out of the big four.

I would honestly miss him just a little.

He would be awesome if he dropped that fake french accent though. Like anyone would seriously talk like that.

[Savvy27]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

The legitimacy of the contempt motion is laughable. The majority of the parliamentary committee that found the government in contempt was composed of OPPOSITION members. Its the same thing as asking a jury of mostly black people to determine the guilt of a white guy. There was inherent bias in the motions.

You don't think that the government should be required to provide the cost of programs to parliament? How could parliament operate? The whole basis of parliamentary democracy is that the acting government cannot act without the support of the majority of the parliament. They shouldn't be free to do as they wish (unfortunately we have insanely strong party discipline in Canada, so majority governments can pretty much do what they want as long as it is constitutional).

Its also laughable that opposition members are actings as if the Harper government was some kind of dictatorship and a villian of democracy. If anything previous governments have done worse. Heck the sponsorship scandal is still fresh in mind.

It doesn't seem like he's a very big fan of our democratic system. The sponsorship scandal was definitely worse than anything done by the Harper government, but I wouldn't say it was an attack on democratic institutions so much as it was blatant stealing of tax-payer money.

If anything, I think the opposition has set a bad precedent of using the motion of contempt on relatively miniscule issues and thus watering down its actual function in the future. There's a reason why the commonwealth hadn't used it before, and thats because there hasn't really been scandals of the magnitude that actually warrant its use. All the opposition has done was to turn the motion into a political tool to be used whenever an opportune moment for gain arises.

They were found to be in contempt of parliament because they would not report the cost of purchases to the committee. It wasn't a new rule that the committee made up and it didn't spring the judgment on them. The government could have avoided that judgment by providing the information (or if they couldn't because they didn't have it, they shouldn't have gone forward with the purchase in the first place).

[octothorp]

What do you all think the ethics are regarding political parties having paid shills to go out and stump for them on social media?

http://calgary.en.craigslist.ca/wri/2291978638.html

(While the ad above is almost certainly for the conservatives, I'm sure it exists on both sides - I've just never seen a shill position blatantly advertised before. It's also possible that this ad is a plant by a left-winger.)
I'm on the fence about this. Part of me is a bit angry that this sort of thing goes on, part of me accepts that this is the inevitable outcome of social media.

[Frequitude]

Let's say, if given the choice, that a majority of Canadians would choose a Conservative majority over a Liberal-NDP-seperatist coalition. Does it really matter what Harper tried to do in 2004?

Seems like the opposition is playing a card that can very easily be flipped on them "keep living in the past, I'm trying to move Canada into the future".

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Let's say, if given the choice, that a majority of Canadians would choose a Conservative majority over a Liberal-NDP-seperatist coalition. Does it really matter what Harper tried to do in 2004?

Seems like the opposition is playing a card that can very easily be flipped on them "keep living in the past, I'm trying to move Canada into the future".

"Moving Canada into the future" is hardly the conservative position, ever, by definition. Having any kind of vision would go against the whole "staying the course" thing.

Harper's 2004 actions matter because they make him a hypocrite.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Let's say, if given the choice, that a majority of Canadians would choose a Conservative majority over a Liberal-NDP-seperatist coalition. Does it really matter what Harper tried to do in 2004?

Seems like the opposition is playing a card that can very easily be flipped on them "keep living in the past, I'm trying to move Canada into the future".

What do you think of Trudeau?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by SebC

"Moving Canada into the future" is hardly the conservative position, ever, by definition. Having any kind of vision would go against the whole "staying the course" thing.

Harper's 2004 actions matter because they make him a hypocrite.

Ya, but who cares when it comes down to coalition vs Conservative majority. What does it actually mean in terms of the type of government this country has going forwards...ie what the election is about?

I get the hypocrite thing and I agree, its not a checkmark on the guy that's for sure. But what does it matter in the grand scheme of things if the majority of Canadians don't want a coalition?

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

What do you think of Trudeau?

Which one?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Ya, but who cares when it comes down to coalition vs Conservative majority. What does it actually mean in terms of the type of government this country has going forwards...ie what the election is about?

I get the hypocrite thing and I agree, its not a checkmark on the guy that's for sure. But what does it matter in the grand scheme of things if the majority of Canadians don't want a coalition?


Which one?

Pierre.

[FiftyBelow]

You don't think that the government should be required to provide the cost of programs to parliament? How could parliament operate? The whole basis of parliamentary democracy is that the acting government cannot act without the support of the majority of the parliament. They shouldn't be free to do as they wish (unfortunately we have insanely strong party discipline in Canada, so majority governments can pretty much do what they want as long as it is constitutional).

Certainly they should. Was the nondisclosure enough to warrant a motion of contempt based on precedence? In my opinion not quite. If we define contempt as the obstruction of parliamentary functions, seemingly any scandal can be arguably framed as contempt. Based on the precedence that previous governments were not subject to contempt, especially when their faults were arguably worse, makes me question why they have decided to do so now. Now I'm not arguing from an ethical perspective but from a political standpoint. I agree that the Cons should have disclosed etc. However, when looking back at historical precedence regarding contempt, its clearly opportunistic politics.

It doesn't seem like he's a very big fan of our democratic system. The sponsorship scandal was definitely worse than anything done by the Harper government, but I wouldn't say it was an attack on democratic institutions so much as it was blatant stealing of tax-payer money.

Not an attack on democratic institutions? Misappropriation of public dollars is undeniably an act of misleading parliament. Funds that were allocated by our "democratic institution" for one particular area were funneled elsewhere. My point is that its easy frame almost any scandal as contempt.

As I've said earlier, I'm not defending the Cons nondisclosure. I definitely think its bad practice. But to me whole contempt thing was just opportunity capitalized by the opposition for they know they can't debate along economic dimensions. As someone has said earlier, contempt and coalitions are just political distractions to frame the election the way that works best for their goals.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

Certainly they should. Was the nondisclosure enough to warrant a motion of contempt based on precedence? In my opinion not quite. If we define contempt as the obstruction of parliamentary functions, seemingly any scandal can be arguably framed as contempt.

That isn't how contempt of parliament is actually defined.

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Parliament

Actions which can constitute a contempt of Parliament vary, but typically include such things as:
- deliberately misleading a House of Parliament or a parliamentary committee;
- refusing to testify before, or to produce documents to, a House or committee; and
- attempting to influence a Member of Parliament, for example, by bribery or threats.

Bev Oda initially told parliament that she didn't know who inserted the word "not" in a government document but it was later revealed that she was responsible, so there's little doubt that she's in violation of the first point.

By not delivering documents related to the cost of Harper's new prison program, the Conservatives arguably were in violation of the second point (the CPC contend that they provided the requested information; the opposition parties contend that the info supplied was both insufficient and not timely).

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

Pierre.

Silly question. What's the logical trap you're trying to spring?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Hate the NEP.

...awaits logical trap.

why so mad? so long ago... hehe