# My take on Harper....



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 May 2007)

So far, I like most of what he is doing....

I would've preferred an income tax cut to a VAT tax cut because VAT tax cuts tend to stimulate spending (much of which is on foreign produced goods), while income tax cuts statistically lead to higher savings rates.

I'm not a fan of even pretending to buy into Kyoto because I think it's junk science.

I'm not a fan of the recent interest expense write-off change for debt funding foreign acquisitions.  At present Canadian corporations are being bought up regularly.  For our remaining institutions to NOT be able to grow on a global scale with foreign acquisitions of their own is dumb....especially for an economist.

That all being said, I've been gravely disappointed with his persona.  I expected him to get out and lead, and instead he has really hidden at key times.  

1)  The prisoner handover issue.
2)  The Shane Doan "racial slur" issue
3)  The Danny Williams being a punk issue

I really wanted to see a guy step up and when there are misstatements, lies and misrepresentation, instead of letting our left-leaning media go into a frenzy and beat him with it, get out in front of cameras at every opportunity and stuff the issues back in their ear.

Dear those concerned about prisoner handover.  Not our issue.  Signed off by Paul Martin's government.  Problem with it, talk to Stephane....it was his party that signed the agreement.  I should add that the Afghan police and army are the rightful protectors of Afghanistan.  We are there to support them, not dictate to them.

Dear those concerned about Doan's racial slur: Get over it.  Ever played hockey?  You say lots of stupid things most of which you don't think about before they come out of your mouth.  Was what Shane said wrong?  Yes.  Did he apologize? Yes.  Has he conducted his life in a manner in which he has earned the respect of ALL his teammates regardless of race?  Absolutely.  Look at his track record.....I should add that let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  How many of the reporters here and viewers at home, perhaps after a couple of alcoholic beverages not said something obnoxious that you later regretted?  Seriously folks, let's put this in context.  It was a stupid comment, he apologized, next issue.

Dear Danny Williams - Next week we will be releasing a summary document and supporting website specifically for Newfoundlander's so they can see the source of revenues over the last 25 years and what portion of those revenues they received from Canadians in other provinces.  Let's not kid ourselves, equalization is about the goodwill of citizens across the country trying to look out for one another.  Your recent soapbox antics are an embarassment because when you didn't receive more than your fair share, you threw a temper tantrum like a teenage girl.  Is that really what you want Newfoundland to be seen as on the national stage Danny? 

Bottom Line:  I'm sick of diplospeak and feigned niceties.  I don't think they help.  I think what we need is brutal honesty and someone who will get in other people's faces when they are out of line.

Sorry, I needed to rant today....


Matthew.


----------



## Armymedic (4 May 2007)

Personally, I think Mr Harper is the strongest candidate for Prime Minister in all of federal politics. It is also my personal opinion that his cabinet and party is lacking in an adequate supporting cast.


----------



## GAP (4 May 2007)

Personnally, I think the drive for a majority is really clouding a lot of issues. I will be glad when they either have one, or someone else does, whatever, just stop the antics


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (4 May 2007)

I mostly agree with you on several issues.

where i disagree:
Kyoto: we signed the protocol, i don't know about you, but when i give my word. It's a sacred thing, and i expect the least from my country(not that the liberals did much either).

Prisoner hand over: You're absolutely right we're not there to dictate them, but if we have a prisoners "agreement" shouldn't there be a line somewhere talking about execution or torture.

I 100% agree on the honesty part, but about the out of the line, i disagree. Getting in someone's face doesn't fix anything besides getting the person thinking lowly of you. I often debate with my master corporal(not about work issue) but about life issues: women, kids,etc... and we learn from each others even thought we're 12 years difference of age. I think when you debate someone, you must have the balls to admit you were wrong...and that our absolute is very subjective.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 May 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> I mostly agree with you on several issues.
> 
> where i disagree:
> Kyoto: we signed the protocol, i don't know about you, but when i give my word. It's a sacred thing, and i expect the least from my country(not that the liberals did much either).
> ...



RE: Kyoto - I believe it signed based on a false set of assumptions.  The best analogy I can think of getting married to a woman (or man if that's your thing) who appears perfect, but ends up being not who they pretended to be.  At that point, despite the fact you've given your word, you have every right to cancel the contract due to the fact that they misrepresented themselves.

RE: Getting in people's faces and confrontation in general - I think it's important that when an opponent knowingly lies, you call them on with enough emotion that it is certain to cast public focus on the issue....and with that focus on the fact they DID lie, you hope it casts enough light on it so that they don't repeat the behaviour.  Right now by not calling out those people publicly, you are giving them fully power to distort the truth.  See: Al Gore.



Matthew.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (4 May 2007)

Right you got the point...i got no scientific knowledge to argue.


And about liars, see Coderre vs Doan. Coderre is actually using this to win his court issue against Doan. I can't go technical, my english is limited... but Doan sued Coderre for 250k during the Turin olympic games, what we see in the media is the Coderre counter-attack. This is why it all went political. I can't developpe too much, my english is poor :[ if you can read french:
http://www.rds.ca/hockey/chroniques/226558.html


this guy explains it well.
http://www.rds.ca/hockey/talkbacks/226558/255961.html 

If u type Denir Coderre Shane Doan suing, im pretty sure you can get the story.

This isnt about Shane Doan being unfit for Captain of team canada, but a personnal Vendetta, Coderre wants his head...or correct me if i'm wrong.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2007)

Good points: 

Prime Minister Harper is an excellent tactician who has stick handled many issues through Parliament and the public despite being in a weak minority government position

He has stood up and been counted in areas that "really" matter; i.e. Afghanistan, Lebanon, Hamas etc.

He has articulated a fairly clear set of principles and positions, rather than 56 "priorities"

Bad points:

While he is a great tactician, it is harder to point to the "strategy". Some of this may be waving the red flag in order to score tactical points.

He has allowed the "green " agenda to dictate some of the parliamentry agenda (to be seen how much)

He is taking a drubbing in the left wing MSM because he hasn't spoken up enough (and the business of bypassing the MSM for local media has been to subtle to have had a counter influence.

Spends like a Liberal!!!!! >


----------



## MikeM (11 May 2007)

+1 GAP, would really like to see a majority, either way so things can get done and all this Minoritiy government crap done with.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 May 2007)

Why would he want to get involved with the Coderre/ Doan thing? He showed his mettle by staying quiet and letting all the other idiots prove what they were....partisan idiots. No leadership involvment needed. It was a non government issue, which he recognised, and stayed clear. Notch another vote for clear thinking,...........and strong, even handed, honest government.


----------



## GUNS (11 May 2007)

Danny Williams and Steve:

Putting aside the 11.5 billion dollars that would have went to NL if Steve kept his promise.

Danny William's tantrums(as you refer to them) have accomplished what - 100+ million dollar military base for St. John's, Coast Guard ships moved to NL, Funding for Trans-Labrador highway approved, and many more that I can not recall.

If Steve's broken promises were votes, he would have a majority in the next election.

Having family members that served in Gagetown and have medical conditions that are related to Agent Orange use. I will never forget his promise to former servicemen and there family's to look after these people. $3000.00+ monthly medical bills is not what former soldiers should have to deal with.

You judge a person by his word


----------



## George Wallace (11 May 2007)

All I can say GUNS, is he has kept a heck of a lot more of his campaign promises, than any other Political Party that has won has in a long time.  I am sure that it is to be expected that he can't keep all his promises at the start of his tenure, and will be expected to do so over a reasonable period of time, or reevaluate his position on them.  There is always the Liberal way of doing things.......forget about all campaign promises totally until it is Election Time once again and then pull them out and dust them off.  I must say, the PCC and Harper have years of waste, neglect and corruption to clean up from the previous Parties who governed the country, so it will take time.........and a fair amount of bookkeeping on the part of the Treasury Board to please Canadians.


----------



## observor 69 (11 May 2007)

Love this conversation,this is the level of argument that draws me back to this site.

My observation of the "New Harper government"...  It's getting old.  ;D

 I think he has hit a glass ceiling. Constant shouting and ranting from Baird and his ilk in parliament  that every issue is the old Liberal governments fault is wearing thin. If challenged offer a positive alternative. If Kyoto is undoable (?) offer a "Real"  alternative that parliament can accept, if the  prison agreement is wrong don't offer dozens of alternate explanations just fix it.
Basically the Harper's Conservatives are too defensive and seem to have run out of steam.  As mentioned his micromanaging of the government reflects the lack of talent in his caucus
Instead of strategies on how to get a majority, work as an elected government on the serious issues facing this country.

Ya I know this is just my ramblings but I got a few good points in there.


----------



## GAP (11 May 2007)

They definitely need to redefine their approach...the present one is old style, and is not working. Go back to what was working...good decisive government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 May 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> My observation of the "New Harper government"...  It's getting old ...



*Bingo!*

I think _National Post_ columnist John Ivison has it about right in this item which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=0e454201-b7b1-4dc7-8c94-d9a757fe6c49


> Tories 'running on vapour'
> 
> John Ivison, National Post
> Published: Friday, May 11, 2007
> ...



I have fretted, here in Army.ca, about my concern that this government is all about tactics.  Harper is, clearly, a skilled, thoughtful political tactician – not perfect (or we would, I think, be facing a general election right now).  He got the policy convention to approve an attractive election platform; he campaigned (well) on it; he won; he implemented the platform ... then he dithered.

He has a cabinet planning and priorities committee (Jim Prentice is (still?) chair).  When is the _policy planning_ committee?  Given the distress (indifferent leadership and poverty) of the Liberals and the  disarray of the BQ/PQ and the difficulties of the NDP (which fears being overtaken by the Greens) the Conservatives might just govern until the fall of 2009.  Doing what?  What do they *believe* Canada and Canadians should do – at home and abroad?  How shall we improve our prosperity?  How shall we _share the wealth_?  (Presuming we should share it at all.)  How shall we ensure liberty and justice for all – at least for all Canadians?  How shall we, finally, in the 21st century, shake off the shackles of 19th century political theories – the ones which say the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves?  Etc, etc, etc.

As to the military: I remain convinced that Harper sees it as a political tool and will use it as a political tool.  I believe he does want to restore Canada's reputation and position as a leader amongst the _middle powers_ (à la the last real, Canadian foreign policy we ever had, courtesy Louis St. Laurent – which was, coincidentally, the *first* real, Canadian foreign policy we ever had – since I do not regard O.D. Skelton's Anglophobia as a policy, _per se_).  To do that I believe he understand he needs effective military forces to give him options and to give weight to our words.  Beyond that I suspect he sees the military as a painful and expensive necessity – nothing more.


 
Edit: typo- "... I remain convinced that ..."


----------



## GAP (11 May 2007)

The Liberal dominated Senate is killing him. They have dithered and played with amendments, delayed legislation, etc., to the point his minority government is being hurt. This is by Liberal design, and it's working. 

There is not much Harper can do with the senate, even when he gets a majority. He has to outwait the mandates to stack the senate like Mulroney did, to get his legislation passed or make changes to the term limits that, if he get reelected, will sometime into his next mandate give him a senate majority.


----------



## Reccesoldier (11 May 2007)

So let me get this right...

Because Harper campaigned on, worked toward and has now managed to accomplish the vast majority of what he set out to do, then he is some sort of a lame duck? 

Wow, it's true... Canadians are never happy.

The current session will be going on summer break on the 8th of June when they return there will be another speech from the Throne and a new set of priorities.  Perhaps there will be more this time because the Conservatives now have a better idea of how much they will be able to accomplish.

Now...

The "Canada's New Government" thing is lame, it was lame the first time it was said (though possibly necessary) it is lame now.

*The principals of War as applied to the Harper Government*

1.  *Selecting and maintaining the aim*: Harper has done a fine job, his plan was simple, easily understood and he ensured everyone (citizens and politicians alike) knew what he planned to do.

2.  *Maintenance of Morale*: He stumbled with public opinion, he didn't get the message out well and has largely succeeded in spite of this. His caucus is not well trained, nor (if one believes the reason for Harper's totalitarian hold on it) are they all that disciplined.

3.  *Offensive action*: This government has been slow to react to "the enemy" in some cases and other responses have been so frenetic as to have various ministers contradict, trip over others answers and infringe on other ministers AOR's.  The governments use of offensive action in the defence has been lacklustre as well... The line "Oh yeah, well the Old Liberal government did X, Y, Z..." was also lame the first time it was used.  The government did use offensive action brilliantly during the election.  They won and kept the initiative from start to finish.

4.  *Security*: Rather topical at the moment but I believe that they have done a passing job.  Both large breaches (The Conservative party documents and the Anarchist Staffer) are both in the hands of the RCMP and both (possibly) involve theft, not incompetence.  There was no leak of the income trust issue.

5.  *Surprise*: This was used to good effect during the election but not really since.

6.  *Concentration of Force*: The Harperites have managed to use this to some extent but only because their opponents have been so disorganized, leaderless and or squabbling among themselves.  The "enemy" did concentrate their forces on the Afghan prisoner issue and it shows just how much damage they can do and will do if the Conservatives don't themselves begin to Concentrate their efforts and take coherent offensive action.

7.  *Economy of Effort*:  The five priority plan has carried this for Harper, without the "everything is my priority" approach he has arguably accomplished more in a year and a bit with a minority than either Cretien, Martin could or would have with a majority.  Harper's control of his caucus and the message minimized the risks of diverting effort to fight brush fires on Abortion and the like from the usual suspects within it (Sheryl Gallant et al)

8.  *Flexibility*: Although a mess, and some would say a sell out, the environmental file and Kyoto has shown that Harper can adapt. His transition from one plan to another needs work though.

9.  *Cooperation*: Again the panicked and differing messages coming out about the Afghan Detainee story show a serious lack of cooperation.

10.  *Administration*: For the most part this was looked after fairly well, the five priorities were supported and given all the available resources and the marching orders on them were straight forward.


----------



## safeboy43 (11 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Flexibility: Although a mess, and some would say a sell out, the environmental file and Kyoto has shown that Harper can adapt. His transition from one plan to another needs work though.


In my opinion, this seems to be Harper's biggest downfall. When he can't adapt to plans quickly, the public becomes more and more convinced that he has some sort of "hidden agenda." Of course, the opposing parties help to amplify this problem (That is their job after all, isn't it?).

My 2 cents,

Cheers


----------



## Flip (11 May 2007)

Liberal politics has more to do with appearance than substance.

So, Harper has one disadvantage when it comes to appearance.
The opposition on the left simply has more mouths making noise 
and the conservatives are left out-yapped.
It's clear the conservatives have a communication problem.

I don't think Harper made a mistake, not calling an election.
He didn't have the numbers and he appears to have acted on
principle.

I still think Harper is the most principled PM we've had in a very long time.
In the fall we'll see the momentum come back.
Hopefully we'll see conservatives express themselves more clearly, and more aggresively

The anarchist's leak taught us something - The sense of entitlement and 
self righteousness demonsrated by this country's "lefties" knows no limit.
It's going to take years to clean house.


----------



## GUNS (11 May 2007)

Mr. Harper's handling of Canada is nothing more than a BIG CONservative plan to stay elected long enough to draw a fat pension.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 May 2007)

GUNS said:
			
		

> Mr. Harper's handling of Canada is nothing more than a BIG CONservative plan to stay elected long enough to draw a fat pension.



OK....now that you've been outed as a leftist critic of all things conservative....would you care to elaborate?

I mean, if pension were all that he were after, why worry about being conservative or liberal?  Heck, he could have jumped on that big old Red Machine when JC was PM and rode the gravy train all the way to the bank.  I mean, what about Stephane Dion?  I mean, I don't like that guy's policies, but I highly doubt that Stephane Dion's motivation is to "stay elected long enough to draw a fat pension."


----------



## Yrys (11 May 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> motivation is to "stay elected long enough to draw a fat pension."



I think that this  motivation is in minority for those that get elected (campaign is gruelling).
With the requirements of the job of a deputy, seem to me as a great bonus, not an objective...


----------



## GAP (11 May 2007)

If Harper was in it for the pension, why did he not stay on as a Reform MP?


----------



## 3rd Horseman (11 May 2007)

GUNS said:
			
		

> Mr. Harper's handling of Canada is nothing more than a BIG CONservative plan to stay elected long enough to draw a fat pension.



Mr Prime Minster the right Honourable Steven Harper is not a member of the MP pension plan, he on principle opted out of the plan years ago just as he promised he would. Guess that lets the air out of your leftist pink balloon floating along above the hot air produced by protesters. I hope it lands in the forrest bursts into flames and kills some tree huggers while producing more green house gases. Oh Im getting carried away.....F(*&^ tre huggers, whale kissing, seal pup lovin, yogurt eaten, SPCA donating, Burlap bag wearing, anti gun speaking........please let it stop.....liberal voting.....anti nuc protesting....


----------



## safeboy43 (11 May 2007)

GUNS said:
			
		

> Mr. Harper's handling of Canada is nothing more than a BIG CONservative plan to stay elected long enough to draw a fat pension.


Well before you bash Mr. Harper, please look at former PM Paul Martin and his fellow Liberals. Now, he wasn't in it for money was he? (*cough*) sponsorship scandal (*cough*)   :

edit: spelling


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2007)

I find this, reproduced here, from today’s _Globe and Mail_, under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, interesting, _plus ça change_ and all that:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070512.TORIES12/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/


> GRASSROOTS
> 
> Disgruntled Tories consider rebuilding Reform Party
> *Harper's centrist decisions lambasted*
> ...



Not all of you will remember politics in the late ‘80s and the ’93 general election.

Many, possible most Canadians were sick and tired of a dysfunctional Ottawa.  Brian Mulroney was a deeply unpopular politician – not, especially, for his decisions or his vision but, rather, for his personality – which did not ‘work’ on TV.  He had endured two political misfortunes:

1.	A global recession – he adjusted, a bit, and actually managed to balance the national government’s _programme budget_* but our deficits remained in the *$40 Billion*/year range because that represented the ever increasing interest on the out-of-control national debt; and

2.	An _institutionally_ hostile media.  I personally recall the election night coverage in Sep 84 – we were just posted back to Ottawa, from overseas, and we watched the returns from what is now the _Marriott_ on Queen Street.  I think it was Pamela Wallin‡ (CTV) who said, roughly, “We [the media] will have to become the unofficial opposition – because John Turner’s Liberals are so weak, having been reduced to a 40 seat _rump_.”

The media played _gotcha_ journalism – highlighting all of Mulroney’s personality failures and foibles.  Canadians were invited to scorn his attractive wife and _Gucci_ loafers.  His economic policies – which were an anaemic response to a crisis – were decried as cruel.  He was, let there be no doubt, the author of his own misfortunes: we was a _smarmy_, old fashioned, _Irish blarney_ politician type; his constitutional proposals (the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords) were ill conceived; and he and his staff never managed to ‘handle’ the media.

Added to a deeply unpopular prime minister was a circus like parliament:

•	There was the infamous ‘Rat Pack’ – Sheila Copps, Don Boudria, John Nunziata and Brian Tobin – which managed, through its verbal and physical antics, to embarrass Canadians ad did more than Mulroney to sour Canadians to politics and politicians;

•	There was the _kazoo_ incident when Liberal senators, led by Royce Frith and Gil Molgat, disrupted the business of parliament to try to derail Mulroney’s GST; and

•	There was Mulroney’s incessant profanity, used even on the floor of the house.

Into this mix stepped _Parson_ Manning with his *Reform Party* which promised, famously, to “do politics differently.”

In the ’93 general election the Conservatives were reduced to two seats and the new, separatist _Bloc Québecois_ became the official opposition.  There was, however, no cry from the media that they should become the _unofficial opposition_ – presumably because safe, comfortable, _known_, Liberal Jean Chrétien could be trusted.

The Reform Party brought many changes to Ottawa – including red neck buffoons like Myron Thompson and Darrel Stinson who were such perfect caricatures of all that was suspicious about Reform that they completely overshadowed solid MPs like Dian Ablonczy and Chuck Strahl.  Despite Manning’s undoubted honesty and intelligence he could never overcome the Thompson/Stinson image and Reform could never become anything but a Western populist protest _movement_.

In my opinion Manning, above all others, gave us 10 years of Chrétien’s bullying buffoonery. 

Now sidelined, maybe _exiled_ and unrepentant Reformers like Connie Wilkins of Free Dominion** fame want to revisit 1993 all over again and give us 10 years of Stephane Dion and Denis Coderre.  *No thanks!*, from me.

Stephen Harper is not my favourite prime minister (that ‘honour’ goes to Liberal Louis St Laurent).  I am non enamoured by all, even most of his policies but I regard him as infinitely preferable to anyone on the Liberal benches today and, *sight unseen*, anyone who will satisfy the political _lusts_ of _Free Dominion_’s Wilkins.  


----------
*  Spending on _departmental_ programmes – defence, health, etc – but *not* spending to service the debt
‡ Not a flaming Liberal partisan but, rather, like many (most?) of her colleagues (then and now) deeply suspicious of anything _conservative_
** I am about 99% certain that there are some (at least one) Free Dominion senior members here on Army.ca.  Understandably they might have different views, but my distaste for religiously based populism is boundless


----------



## Reccesoldier (12 May 2007)

Edward, I couldn't agree more on the idea of a return of Reform.  A divided right would only lead to another decade of darkness.  Besides that, the people envisioning this return are idiots, I mean look at the things they are blaming PM Harper for...

1. "capitulation on same-sex marriage" - Um, excuse me? Didn't the motion to revisit that issue get voted down by our duly elected government?  What do they want a night of the long knives?

2. "a settlement with Maher Arar" - Who was found to have been railroaded by the RCMP.  The supreme court made that ruling, there is no higher legal authority to appeal to so what was the government supposed to do? 

3. "a reversal on income trusts" - A move supported by everyone who does not have a political dog in the fight.  Economists say that income trusts would have destroyed a good part of our tax base if the government hadn't acted.

4. "complete about-face on the environment" - I dare say if the Conservatives had not done something on the environment we would already be living under Citizen (of France) Dione's unintelligible rule.  I (personally) do not see the Conservatives as having sold out on the environment but as having hedged their bets politically in order to be able to fight another day.

These wannabe Reformers are the NDP of the right, unelectable by most, small tent, protest vote, fundamentalists.  They are the lunatic fringe of the old reform party, the ones that Preston Manning and Harper spent so much time cleaning up after.


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2007)

I agree for the most part. Given the Conservatives are in a minority government situation, their arcs are pretty narrow. On the other hand, as a "Conservative" government, they could/should have shown more restraint on spending and delivered some broad based tax relief.

My concern in the economic sphere is the huge overhead of government spending and accumulated debt gives Canada as a whole limited flexibility in the event of an economic disruption or slow down. The possible trigger would be the election of a Democratic president in 2008; a large jump in US taxes will cause their economy to slow down, and the Canadian economy will be in the same position as you when you rear end a loaded semi....

The other possible trigger could be the "colateral crisis", given the softening of the US housing market. Since most Americans use the value of their houses to finance their consumer spending, the sudden drop in housing values would devastate large areas of the American economy, the tax base of many cities and the ripple effect would be horrible to contemplate (Canadians are not as leveraged in housiing because our tax laws are different, however many people I know are using similar leveraging of their houses). This might take place regardless of which party controls the White House or the Congress.

Prime Minister Harper may have to do some very fast moving if and when that happens.


----------



## PeptoBismarck (12 May 2007)

I know this is tad bit off the topic : but everyone here is commenting on the economics of the situation. Isn't the economy the hardest to change for a government? I mean, it'll take a good long time to fix up Canada's economy, especially if the Canadian voters don't give Harper a majority. I would frankly be more pleased with Harper if he gets some work done on our basic freedoms (i.e. finally oust gun control, implement same kind of freedom of speech as the US, etc). It seems Canadians are afraid of having anything in common with the US, whereas imho the closer we are to them, the better off we are. Frankly, I'm scared to shit knowing that we could never overthrow our government even IF we all agreed about it.  :threat:


----------



## Flip (12 May 2007)

The economics issue is the most important single issue after security.
And Harpers' an economist. NOT another effing lawyer. 

It's a good thing to have a bunch of loonies on the far right 
to make Harper look far more reasonable than the liberals would
paint him. 
Splitting the conservative vote could be solved with a coalition
government but I'm not a fan of european style minority government.

The environment was the "gun to the head " issue.
Personally I would be fine with Rona Ambroses plan.
You know, fix the pollution we KNOW is killing people
not go nuts over a theory just because Suzuki says so.

Pragmatism is the thing and I believe Harper is a pragmatist.
No weird social engineering or new wrinkles on political 
correctness. - just running things the old fashioned way.
( with a modicum of dignity and integrity )


----------



## PeptoBismarck (12 May 2007)

I agree with you Flip. I just think that Canada would be better served the more American it was. Especially in regards to rights and freedoms. I mean, the state of the current hate speech laws is shameful and the fact that there isn't totally free speech is rather ridiculous. Freedom of speech = freedom of thought. How dare they limit it. Anyways, I refuse to take part in all the political correct bulls**t. I mean, look at the US, the black people nowadays are slaves just like before. Back then they were slaves to plantations, now they are slaves to Affirmative Action and social programs. Kudos to the minority of blacks that see it that way. Anyways, I'm getting way the hell off track. Suffice it say that I think Harper's doing a pretty good job considering. He's the best we got and there's just no other way to put it. If Canada doesn't re-elect him and give a majority then they deserve what's coming to them.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (12 May 2007)

PeptoBismarck said:
			
		

> I agree with you Flip. I just think that Canada would be better served the more American it was. Especially in regards to rights and freedoms. I mean, the state of the current hate speech laws is shameful and the fact that there isn't totally free speech is rather ridiculous. Freedom of speech = freedom of thought. How dare they limit it. Anyways, I refuse to take part in all the political correct bulls**t. I mean, look at the US, the black people nowadays are slaves just like before. Back then they were slaves to plantations, now they are slaves to Affirmative Action and social programs. Kudos to the minority of blacks that see it that way. Anyways, I'm getting way the hell off track. Suffice it say that I think Harper's doing a pretty good job considering. He's the best we got and there's just no other way to put it. If Canada doesn't re-elect him and give a majority then they deserve what's coming to them.



You do realize the inherent contradictions in your very questionable diatribe, do you not?

On one hand you claim to want to be more like America, and on the other point to the disenfranchisement of the black population which are the result of the policies there....

Bottom Line:  The United States has its own problems and I have no interest in rushing to emulate what they do poorly.  Instead I would propose we need to stop being ideologically lazy and instead objectively research all the world's nations and pick individual policies from all over our planet and apply them where appropriate.  


Matthew.


----------



## GAP (12 May 2007)

Start with taking a look at the countires in the Angloshere...Aus., UK, US, etc.


----------



## RangerRay (12 May 2007)

As a westerner who has voted Reform since 1993, I never saw it as a "religious" party like those from back East did (members and non-members).  For me and most other British Columbians at the time, they promised democratic reform and and we wanted in the decision making that we have long been shunted out of.  Hence why Reform got a good deal of it's support in BC from _NDP_ members.  It had nothing to do with extreme bible-thumping ideology like many former eastern Reformers like to delude themselves into thinking.

Having said that, as a former Reform voter, this movement to restart that party is lunacy.  As others have said, these morons think they have more influence as opposition rather than as government.  In fact, I would say that this may help PM Harper broaden his appeal to centrist voters and show that if the extremists in the "conservative" _movement_ are upset with him, then he may not be so bad afterall.  With Dion, Layton and May staking out very left wing territory, there is an opportunity for the PM.  Of course the PM is limited in what he can and a can't do with a minority, but I also think that he is acting like a pragmatic leader.  Sure, he could go ideologically extreme right, even with a majority, but would he survive the election?  I wouldn't think so.  

I'm willing to give the PM a majority or two before I decide if he is a compromised politician like all the others since St. Laurent.  So far, while not perfect, I have been very happy with the direction that he is moving.  After all the other clowns I've observed since Trudeau, he's a breath of fresh air!  ;D


----------



## observor 69 (12 May 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As to the military: I remain convinced that Harper sees it as a political tool and will use it as a political tool.  I believe he does want to restore Canada's reputation and position as a leader amongst the _middle powers_ (à la the last real, Canadian foreign policy we ever had, courtesy Louis St. Laurent – which was, coincidentally, the *first* real, Canadian foreign policy we ever had – since I do not regard O.D. Skelton's Anglophobia as a policy, _per se_).  To do that I believe he understand he needs effective military forces to give him options and to give weight to our words.  Beyond that I suspect he sees the military as a painful and expensive necessity – nothing more.
> 
> Edit: typo- "... I remain convinced that ..."



Edward before this comment fades into the ether I want to note how well you summarized Harper's attitude towards the Canadian military (IMHO). This paragraph has been rolling around in my head all day and I want to recognize you as the author.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 May 2007)

I would agree that all militaries are a political tool.  I mean, what else are they?  To paraphrase von Clausewitz (as heard on Cross of Iron) "war is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means."


----------



## Kirkhill (12 May 2007)

You can only lead where the crowd is willing to follow.  Step one is to get the crowd to trust you enough to let you lead it.  That means getting the crowd to accept that you are essentially one of them.

Before Harper can lead where the crowd currently doesn't want to go he has to get them to accept his leadership.  That means implementing policies that the majority can agree with most of the time.

That way he MIGHT get a majority next time around, and assuming sufficient trust, start heading the crowd in a dfferent direction.

It seems to me that the way you head off a stampede is first of all you run with the herd to get to the front.   THEN you can start redirecting it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You can only lead where the crowd is willing to follow.  Step one is to get the crowd to trust you enough to let you lead it.  That means getting the crowd to accept that you are essentially one of them.
> 
> Before Harper can lead where the crowd currently doesn't want to go he has to get them to accept his leadership.  That means implementing policies that the majority can agree with most of the time.
> 
> ...



Harper also has to do a better of job of mastering the 15-second soundbite that makes up news casts to lead from the front.  Giving a protracted 4 or 5 minute diatribe against something does not fit well into today's catchphrase environment.

Ask a protestor why they're against the deployment to Afghanistan, you'll generation get something quick & dirty like "It's an occupation."

You want to counter that, you've got to come up with something that is equally as short and to the point, even if it's not exactly 100% true.

Example: "We're there so that 4 million little girls who otherwise wouldn't be allowed to, get to go to school."

Now every time a reporter asks Harper or ANY of his MP's, they repeat that line fourteen million times.

Do the ignorant hippies really want to be against that?  No.

Seriously, this is not rocket science.  Harper's communication team should all be canned....they're pathetic.  REALLY pathetic.


Matthew.


----------



## observor 69 (13 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You can only lead where the crowd is willing to follow.  Step one is to get the crowd to trust you enough to let you lead it.  That means getting the crowd to accept that you are essentially one of them.
> 
> Before Harper can lead where the crowd currently doesn't want to go he has to get them to accept his leadership.  That means implementing policies that the majority can agree with most of the time.
> 
> ...



And that folks is Politics 101 in a nutshell.  
And until Harper masters 101 he appears stuck at a glass ceiling in the approval ratings.


----------



## safeboy43 (13 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You can only lead where the crowd is willing to follow.  Step one is to get the crowd to trust you enough to let you lead it.  That means getting the crowd to accept that you are essentially one of them.


+1 Kirkhill. That is what a democracy (on paper) is supposed to be. A democracy involves one person from the nation leading it and making the best decisions based on the people. Since people today are very skeptic about politicians, Harper must convince the public that he is not a warmonger and wants to take away a woman's right to vote  :. Once that is done, the public will trust him and his approval will rise.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2007)

There is an old aphorism which says that political leadership involves watching and waiting, patiently, to see where the mob is headed and then rushing to the front to lead them there.


----------



## PeptoBismarck (13 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You can only lead where the crowd is willing to follow.  Step one is to get the crowd to trust you enough to let you lead it.  That means getting the crowd to accept that you are essentially one of them.



It seems to me (but don't take my opinion TOO seriously, as it is baseless and ignorant ala Blackshirt) that this is the fundamental flaw in democracy as outlined by Socrates and many others after him. Don't get me wrong, it's the best system we got, but let's face it, chances are the people in the crowd don't know what's best for them. This seems clear especially in many European nations where the people have almost literally voted themselves into the gutter (btw, kudos I guess to France for electing Sarkozy). France is my example, where the social programs are so ridiculous they aren't even sustainable (i.e. 34 hour work week, welfare higher than minimum wage, etc.). I mean, sounds good for the John Doe on the street, but it's just not economically feasible. A more (ideologically) American system would entail small Federal Government to ensure that social programs are kept to a minimum. Since taxes would be very low, this would provide people better services (school, medical, et al). But, hey, I'm just some stupid white guy right? What do I know?  :blotto:


----------



## Flip (13 May 2007)

E.R.!

You've quoted our King Ralph! ( He has been quoted by so many )  :blotto:

The liberal spin machine is still a potent force.
If the soviets had this bunch in charge of PR they would still be in business.  ;D

Seriously, Harper's' mob has to get mature really fast - the learning curve is steep.
For the most part Canada is pretty much on the right track - In spite of the left

To reiterate or redirect a little.
I have a little confession.

Before 9-11 I was almost as anti-American as most everyone else.
Not against Americans - just their corporations and government.

On that rather stark Tuesday morning I realized two things.

1. We had replaced the cold war with something far different - we had active,
not theoretical enemies.

2. The proverbial excrement was about to hit the fan, this was worse than 
Pearl Harbour after all. and we all know how that turned out for the other team.
We also know how America reinvented Japan after the war. - That turned out well.

All that said, I grieve that Canadians by and large don't see it my way.
They accuse Harper and the US of preposterous things.
Canadians actually foster the illusion that the whole world is our friend.

Our PM is representing Canadians almost as well as can be expected under the 
current political circumstances.  He just need to collect credit for it.

Under liberal governments we were living in fools paradise.
With no idea how to pay for it. 

Our government needs to educate us about the very real dangers 
of going "left".

I hope this doesn't go too far off track.


----------



## PeptoBismarck (13 May 2007)

Flip, you said it. +1


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 May 2007)

I'm not convinced the CPC bench is that much thinner than the other benches when it comes to the skills required to actually conduct the business of the country.  However, it clearly isn't up to the same level of skill at playing the political <u>game</u> as the LPC.  The latter - which has reached a crescendo of frenzied denunciations and tut-tutting lately - may be entertaining and may be the source of paycheques for most of the people playing it, but doesn't actually advance the interests of the nation.


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 May 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'm not convinced the CPC bench is that much thinner than the other benches when it comes to the skills required to actually conduct the business of the country.  However, it clearly isn't up to the same level of skill at playing the political <u>game</u> as the LPC.  The latter - which has reached a crescendo of frenzied denunciations and tut-tutting lately - may be entertaining and may be the source of paycheques for most of the people playing it, but doesn't actually advance the interests of the nation.



Agreed, the problem is that for the vast majority of people in Canada do not see the difference between playing the game and governing a nation.  Sheeple that are convinced that the modern question period with TV cameras and politicians grandstanding for them accomplishes anything outnumber 100:1 those that watch the senate and parliamentary committees on CPAC to actually see what the real work on parliament hill looks like.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 May 2007)

I think he's doing a great job personally....the MND on the other hand is a bit of a light weight....I'd like to see a Cabinet shuffle after this detainee thing dies down...I don't think O'Connor handled it very well personally.


----------



## Operationblack (13 May 2007)

Stephen Harper is doing a better job than I ever thought he would. I am glad to see a right leaning party take strong stance on the environment and working on alternative methods than the Kyoto protocol.


----------



## Hunteroffortune (14 May 2007)

Operationblack said:
			
		

> Stephen Harper is doing a better job than I ever thought he would. I am glad to see a right leaning party take strong stance on the environment and working on alternative methods than the Kyoto protocol.



I agree, Kyoto is designed to suck money out of western nations to give our children's money to China or Russia, without reducing pollution, remember, money leaving Canada, can not be spent in Canada. Now, why do the environmentalists support this scheme? Why are they so shrill about supporting the unsupportable? Follow the money. If Susuki were still a fruit fly scientist, would he be getting any government funds? Not likely, so, it's all about money, shame on the scientists for selling out for money. 

Do I like that the Conservatives are paying lip service to Kyoto, NO, do I understand why they have to, YES. 

Why doesn't the left realize that every dollar spent on Kyoto and global warming, is one dollar less to help our elderly and disabled. Or do they understand that and just don't care?


----------



## Flip (14 May 2007)

Why doesn't the left realize that every dollar spent on Kyoto and global warming, is one dollar less to help our elderly and disabled. Or do they understand that and just don't care? 

Both.

Because to the true believer, there is only one cause.
Global warming is a religion. - one without a God.
Many would be perfectly happy to "sacrifice" someone else for their new cult.

There is no point in fighting this directly, Harper should only fight the
battles he can win.  Tsun Tsu comes to mind....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 May 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I think he's doing a great job personally....the MND on the other hand is a bit of a light weight....I'd like to see a Cabinet shuffle after this detainee thing dies down...I don't think O'Connor handled it very well personally.



He is not a great politican, but has done more in his stint as a MND than any Liberal.


----------



## tdwebste (14 May 2007)

Hunteroffortune, Flip

You may not like it, but Global warming is undeniable.
Addressing Global Warming is addressing reality.

Denial is never healthy. Please feel free to support Harper,
but your take on religion and global warming is deeply troubling.


----------



## Flip (14 May 2007)

> but your take on religion and global warming is deeply troubling.



A few weeks ago the Ontario environment minister announced 
no scrubbers would be placed on existing coal fired power plants.

This choice was made because the scrubbers would not reduce CO2 
emissions. The plants will continue to operate.

As they operate they WILL cause acid rain smog and pollution.
They WILL cause deaths and disease among the Ontario population.

I find this troubling.
And on religion....... Don't doubt for an instant that I practise and keep my faith.

My point is this;

Perfectly legitimate environmentalism and stewardship is being pushed aside.
I have no doubt people will die for the sake of a theory which cannot be proven.

I,m rather severly off track here.....
I put another post on the Kyoto thread to support this.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32987.585.html

I think Harpers' the real deal. ( or as close as we'll get in this cynical time.)


----------



## GAP (14 May 2007)

To add fuel to the fire, here's a Decima Research poll about some of the voting patterns....interesting

Interesting trends emerging in weekly polls
Updated Sun. May. 13 2007 4:12 PM ET Bruce Anderson, Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Anyone watching polls lately might be forgiven for their frustration at the range and unpredictability of the swings from week to week.  But beneath the surface of weekly who-might-you-vote-for polls, some fascinating trends are taking shape.

Canadian voters have loosened the attachments that anchored them to traditional party choices. They're now being propelled by currents that confound those who prefer simple, clear signals from polls.

Here are a few things we at Decima see, that are worth thinking about:

First, more than half think Canada's heading in the right direction, but no more than a third say they would vote Conservative tomorrow. That gap reveals a lack of enthusiasm with the current government.  But on Election Day 2006, 65 per cent voted against the Conservatives. Today 70 per cent would. That is not what the Conservatives were hoping for, but nor is it a surging rejection.

Secondly, when Canadians voted the Liberals out of office, one big reason was the angry mood of Quebecers.  Since then, there's been a massive 18-point increase in the number of Quebecers who feel Canada is heading in the right direction. That is chewing away at the idea of sovereignty and the parties championing independence.  Hard-core "separatists'' now number less than one in five voters. Most Quebecers are neither dogmatic federalists nor separatists and competition for these voters is flourishing.

There has been another important change from the last two elections. Many voters over that period were preoccupied with avoiding a Liberal win, and almost as many were determined to avoid a Conservative victory. Fear of the worst was more potent than desire for the best. Not any more.
More on link


----------



## George Wallace (14 May 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> Hunteroffortune, Flip
> 
> You may not like it, but Global warming is undeniable.
> Addressing Global Warming is addressing reality.
> ...



So, tdwebste, Global Warming on Mars, as detected by NASA scientists, is also undeniable and our fault?  It is a natural and cyclic thing, that is not Earth related, but Cosmos related.  Man has little to no affect on what happens in the Cosmos.


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 May 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> Hunteroffortune, Flip
> 
> You may not like it, but Global warming is undeniable.
> Addressing Global Warming is addressing reality.
> ...



The precise moment that global warming became a "Moral Question", not a scientific one is when the true denial began.

Any scientific question that will not accept, allow or condone the application of the scientific method because "proof" has been replaced by "morality" ceases by definition to be scientific.  Global warming has become one such question and its proponents have entered the realm of snake-oil salesmen and charlatans.


----------



## Flip (14 May 2007)

Gap,

Thanks for the redirect.
I think your poll results are the result of what I would call "system noise".

The more opposition parties there are - more noise.
The government is distracted - so are the people.

The Tories need a "damn the torpedoes" issue that they can sell.

Something like an Animal rights bill that confers protection
to pets.( our current law is very very old )

No one would oppose, Everyone would see leadership.
The government lives to fight another day.

As things are, Parliament is mired in rhetoric and noise.

 Just a thought..............


----------



## Operationblack (14 May 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So, tdwebste, Global Warming on Mars, as detected by NASA scientists, is also undeniable and our fault?  It is a natural and cyclic thing, that is not Earth related, but Cosmos related.  Man has little to no affect on what happens in the Cosmos.



Fortunately we do not live on mars. But I do not deny that we do not know 100% that we are the cause of global warming. But in the same way you can say we do not know 100% the cause of gravity. The fact the earth is warming up at record rates and causing massive shifts in the global environment is not disputable. It is occurring and it is having dramatic effects on the earth and if it continues at this rate the effects will only become more devastating. 

Sure, there is a chance that it is being cause by some force we have no control over. Maybe something beyond our control occurred and it is the result of the massive (and unprecedented) climate change. But just because there is a “chance” we are not at fault does not mean that we should ignore our part in it and just hope it will fix itself. As much as we can hope it is a natural occurance that will fix itself, we have to realize the fact that it is more and more appearing each day that it is not a natural occurance and is being caused by  humans globally. Thus the world governments should not just deny global warming, but embrace it and work to effectively lower our impact on the earth. 

 Even if It turns out in 200 years we weren’t to blame for global warming, governments changing our relationship with the environment and bringing higher green standards will have made the world a better place anyway.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 May 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> Hunteroffortune, Flip
> 
> You may not like it, but Global warming is undeniable.
> Addressing Global Warming is addressing reality.
> ...



Manmade global warming is a giant scam.  Please see the Global Warming mega-thread (I believe it's in the politics board) on the issue if you wish to debate this topic specifically, but bring your science book because lacking scientific support, your comments won't carry much weight.


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2007)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32987.0.html

Here's the link Matt.  - 40 pages and counting with some current additions.

And there is this one as well - although perhaps it should now be merged with the Megathread.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60662.0.html

Chris.


----------



## tdwebste (15 May 2007)

To me your first comment read like this.
Religion:
I don\'t need facts to back up my beliefs because I have faith. Around 1100AD in Islamic world there was a struggle between philosophy and theology. Theology won and the Islam world has not advanced much since than. I am a Christian, however I don\'t feel bible is about science. Evolution is NOT a religious issue. How we walk our life is.

Bring your science text book:
Global warming is widely recognised as an observable event caused in part by the activities of man. The question is what will the effects as the planet seeks a new stability condition. The CIA recommends the effects of climate change should be studied as they effect the safety of the US. Global warming is accepted as the theory that fits the observed data.
Scientist are best prepared to model climate change and select which model of climate change best fits the observed data. Some climate change models will be invalidated in the process, but this does not change the climate change observed data. How many links do you want? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Solar variation: Two researchers at Duke University have estimated that the Sun may have contributed about 40–50% of the global surface temperature warming over the period 1900–2000, and about 25–35% between 1980 and 2000.[21]  The general oppinion is the solar variation is has contributed as significant smaller portion. 
Economist are best prepared to create economical incentives to reduce the activities of man accelerating climate change. Economist have many ideas, Kyoto is too indirect, but it saves them from even more controversial polices which more directly effect automobile/land usage. 

The fact that some of the climate changes is due to solar cycles does not invalidate that a great potion is also caused by mans activities. More importantly how should we prepare for the rapid climate change? 

Not doing anything to reduce man\'s contribution to climate change and taking no steps to prepare for change. Its like not buying a fire extinguisher, taking no steps to prevent fire. And not buying fire insurance, taking no steps to protect your livelihood.


----------



## tdwebste (15 May 2007)

Support Harper for his support of the Canadian Military and his dedication to following through in Afghanistan, but not for his handling of climate change or for his desire to remove the independence of the Judiciary.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2007)

td:

I'll stand with you on preparing for change - catastrophic or otherwise - and leave it there.  We know that whether we are "innocent or guilty" change happens, as it has in the past,  and we have to deal with THAT, as we have in the past.


----------



## tdwebste (15 May 2007)

The other area where I cannot support Harper is his handling of the Judiciary Independence. Loss of the independence of the Judiciary is a serious matter.

It is because the Canadian Judiciary is independent it was able to reject recent laws imposed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that went too far in curtailing basic rights and civil liberties in the name of public safety. 
In fact these laws where not even needed, as stated by the RCMP.

For more detail see. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/opinion/27tue1.html

The judicial independence threaten by Conservative Government nomination changes. 
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/top-canada-judges-say-nomination.php
Harper is naming a police and crime victim representative to the judicial panels. Again an additional nomination is only required to remove the independence of the judicial. A police representative can be filled as one of the three appointment available to the federal government.

Here is a good technical summary of the changes.
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/article.asp?id=3072
The government is now appointing a fourth member to serve on each Committee. A related change is to remove the right to vote for the representative of the judiciary, except in the event of a tie. This means that there are seven members who are ordinarily entitled to vote, with four chosen by the Minister of Justice.
Because the majority of voting members are now appointed by the Minister, the advisory committees may neither be, nor seen to be, fully independent of the government. This puts in peril the concept of an independent body that advises the government on who is best qualified to be a judge.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 May 2007)

I disagree on your take on the judiciary.

I think judges have shown themselves to be complete morons specifically when it comes to things like sentencing and granting parole to violent offenders.

I don't think we want a federal government that bullies our judiciary, but at the same time I truly believe our judiciary has been completely negligent in their duty to protect the public and because of lack of transparency, there is no system to hold them accountable.

My specific legislated changes would include:
1)  Setting higher minimum sentences and parole conditioners for violent offenders.
2)  Annual reviews with police, crown prosecutors and defence attorneys in a public forum.  Opaque ivory towers of invincibility do not serve the public good.



Matthew.


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 May 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> The judicial independence threaten by Conservative Government nomination changes.
> http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/top-canada-judges-say-nomination.php
> Harper is naming a police and crime victim representative to the judicial panels. Again an additional nomination is only required to remove the independence of the judicial. A police representative can be filled as one of the three appointment available to the federal government.



Someones been drinking the kool-aid.  :

Can you explain to me how it is a threat to judicial Independence to have police and crime victims represented at these nominations?  If they were going to go over judicial sentences one by one and change them, sure that would qualify but having a voice in the nomination process can not and does not.


----------



## GAP (15 May 2007)

The police and victims reps should be on these committee's. That's what representation is all about.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2007)

And a judiciary appointed by the Government of the day was independent how?  ???

They may have had "jobs for life" once appointed (and still do) but the appointment process was highly politically partisan.


----------



## Flip (15 May 2007)

tdwebste,

Have you actually met a judge? - I mean socially?

Generally they are artsy people who have spent nearly their 
entire adult lives in one academic pursuit after another.

They very seldom see a crime scene - the body
-or any of the icky stuff.

Except for the golf course or bridge club they lead a
cloistered life.  I've heard judges express surprise that
a witness or refugee claimant would lie to them.

Personally, I think something has to change.
The old way has started to fail us badly.

What would you suggest?


----------



## Operationblack (15 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 1)  Setting higher minimum sentences and parole conditioners for violent offenders.



Longer sentences doesn't work, we should model our prisons after those in Scandinavia which focus on reform not punishment. They show that when a system is working to reform them not only does it decrease crime in prison itself but greatly reduced how many will re-offend. We don't want a US like system which has the largest prison population in the world and in which their prisons are just revolving doors. 

 Repelling our drug laws would also greatly reduce our prison population but that is another issue. How ever it is unfortunate that Mr.Harper and the conservatives did not continue on the liberals path to de-criminalize marijuana.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 May 2007)

Operationblack said:
			
		

> Repelling our drug laws would also greatly reduce our prison population but that is another issue. How ever it is unfortunate that Mr.Harper and the conservatives did not continue on the liberals path to de-criminalize marijuana.


OK, "Ricky", suppose the use of marijuana were decriminalised.  Just when society is marginalising the use of tobacco more and more, they would free up the use of marijuana?
Know what else would reduce our prison population?  De-criminalise heroin, rape, murder and any other crime sure would drop the prison populations, no?
Remember, it's not so much to "re-educate" the criminals, but to protect society.  I too favour rehabilitation, but stiffer sentences must be implemented (IMHO) as a deterrent AND to keep the dangerous away from society.


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 May 2007)

Operationblack said:
			
		

> Repelling our drug laws would also greatly reduce our prison population but that is another issue. How ever it is unfortunate that Mr.Harper and the conservatives did not continue on the liberals path to de-criminalize marijuana.



How about education, not the reading, writing or Arithmetic kind but good old fashioned civics.  

In our head-over-heels rush toward namby pamby feel good liberalism we have forgotten how to produce responsible citizens.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 May 2007)

Operationblack said:
			
		

> Longer sentences doesn't work, we should model our prisons after those in Scandinavia which focus on reform not punishment.



Stay in your lane, sonny............why do you think we are called "Corrections"?  Besides,I can "reform" my horse all I want but guess what, he will never be a big dog.



			
				Operationblack said:
			
		

> We don't want a US like system which has the largest prison population in the world and in which their prisons are just revolving doors.



Yup, because they also have one of the highest populations of 'civilized' countries that inmates don't just dissappear.................but I hear lots of those countries have cut thier organ transplant waiting lists way down. 
.......and whomever told you we do not have a revolving door system lied to you.



			
				Operationblack said:
			
		

> Repelling our drug laws would also greatly reduce our prison population but that is another issue. How ever it is unfortunate that Mr.Harper and the conservatives did not continue on the liberals path to de-criminalize marijuana.



Come talk to some of my "hard-hooks" and just about to a man, they will tell you they started out with just a few tokes. Funny how those who have broken the habits are the most vocal about keeping up the fight on drugs..............guess they know somwthing that hopefully you never need to find out.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 May 2007)

Operationblack said:
			
		

> Longer sentences doesn't work, we should model our prisons after those in Scandinavia which focus on reform not punishment. They show that when a system is working to reform them not only does it decrease crime in prison itself but greatly reduced how many will re-offend. We don't want a US like system which has the largest prison population in the world and in which their prisons are just revolving doors.
> 
> Repelling our drug laws would also greatly reduce our prison population but that is another issue. How ever it is unfortunate that Mr.Harper and the conservatives did not continue on the liberals path to de-criminalize marijuana.


How old are you?

I'm sorry, but you cannot have much life experience to state such things.

First, the primary role of jails is to protect the public from criminals, then to punish criminals for commiting crimes, and the last priority is to give criminals an opportunity to reform themselves.  In short, jail shouldn't be a daycare for murderers.  It should be a place where we lock-up those who are a threat to society and not let them until we're certain they no longer pose a threat.  Have a look at most of the recent gun crimes and most of the offenders have been convicted of multiple offences in the past, they were given short sentences, and then allowed back out to commit more crimes.

It's not that I'm against providing education in jails because I'm not, but it has to be put in context.  

Second, regarding repealing our drug laws - I don't think so.  If you want to see how non-addictive marijuana can be, check out Ricky Williams and Quincy Carter from the NFL.  I should add, if you want to try something really interesting, do a poll of people currently in prison and ask how many smoked marijuana before going to jail.  The number you'll get is close to 100%.  

Bottom Line:  I think you're overly optimistic about the nature of man which is causing you draw a series of related false conclusions.


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (15 May 2007)

Ladies and gentlemen. I often wonder why we take the time to engage people who are obviously not interested in debate (AKA "trolls"). Don't take this as a slur, I am probably the biggest offender since my Occam's rasor is about the size of a Samurai Katana, and I enjoy the ritualistic drawing and swordwork which follows...........

I have come to realize our efforts are actually a good thing (although never apprieciated) and a reflection of the fact that despite the cranky outward behaviour, inside we are actually optomists at heart, something like the man in this story:



> Nasrudin was caught in the act and sentenced to die. Hauled up before the king, he was asked by the Royal Presence: "Is there any reason at all why I shouldn't have your head off right now?" To which he replied: "Oh, King, live forever! Know that I, the mullah Nasrudin, am the greatest teacher in your kingdom, and it would surely be a waste to kill such a great teacher. So skilled am I that I could even teach your favorite horse to sing, given a year to work on it." The king was amused, and said: "Very well then, you move into the stable immediately, and if the horse isn't singing a year from now, we'll think of something interesting to do with you."
> 
> As he was returning to his cell to pick up his spare rags, his cellmate remonstrated with him: "Now that was *really* stupid. You know you can't teach that horse to sing, no matter how long you try."
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (15 May 2007)

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

http://www.upmc.com/Communications/NewsBureau/Research/Articles/NoSmokingGun.htm

I can only speak for what I know from personal experience.  I live in the GTA and marijuana is in common usage among not only youth but across all ages and economic classes.
While certainly it has lead to hard drug us for some I don't think this is true for the majority of the population. 
See cited references also.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 May 2007)

Sure, and smoking used to be good for you.......

Lets get this back on to the original topic....we have way too many drug threads as it is.


----------



## stealthylizard (15 May 2007)

Hmmm, my opinion on Harper.....  I don't have much to complain about yet, it has only been a year.  The income trust thing messed a lot of people up.  Something had to be done with it, but the CPC broke their promise of not touching it.  While Harper leads a minority government there is not a lot he can do to force through his "5 Pillars".  The opposition plays politics with everything, and changes positions more times than I change my underwear, depending on which way the rooster's egg will fall provided the wind is blowing in X direction, at y km/h.  I look forward to the day when the Tories have a majority government.  That day will not be soon.  The opposition parties do not have enough campaign funding to mount a vote of non-confidence.

It has been nice to have a Prime Minister in office, that actually gives a fart about the military.  The Governor General seems genuinely interested as well, but not paying attention to her predecessor, I don't know what the last one was like.

Blah, blah, blah, about the marijuana.  The Liberals never intended to do anything about it.  As long as the US government is against it, you will most likely not see it legalized in Canada.  The only reason the Liberals ever brought it up was to attract some of the younger voters, and get them out and active in the election.

I give Harper a B- for his performance.  I am a tough grader.  There are things that must be reformed, and hopefully once he earns a majority mandate, I can increase the grade level.


----------



## Operationblack (15 May 2007)

> OK, "Ricky", suppose the use of marijuana were decriminalised.  Just when society is marginalising the use of tobacco more and more, they would free up the use of marijuana?



 What an individual does in the privacy of their own home is no business of the government. Criminalizing something as harmless as marijuana does not help anyone, our government spends hundreds of millions, if not billions on a “war on drugs” which has had no results other than to  create vast criminal empires, cost the taxpayers more money and all this at the expense of personal freedom. 
At least de-criminalize it, hopefully that will lead to it eventually being legalized so it can be sold in stores at un-inflated prices, putting profit into the hands of honest business people and creating more revenue for our nation. 



> De-criminalise heroin, rape, murder and any other crime sure would drop the prison populations, no?


The crimes of Rape and Murder are ones in which you deprive another individual of their rights, you physical harm someone. The act of using drugs is a personal choice, if done in the privacy of ones home it is not our concern. 


> Remember, it's not so much to "re-educate" the criminals, but to protect society.  I too favour rehabilitation, but stiffer sentences must be implemented (IMHO) as a deterrent AND to keep the dangerous away from society.



 Unless Canada is going to adopt absolute life sentences (they never get out) these criminals eventually are going to be re-entered into society. Harsher penalties have been proven to not be an effective deterrent and they will only serve to make these criminals worse when they come out than they were when they went in. Like I said, look at the Scandinavian model, their maximum security prisons on first glance look more like weekend retreats and they have drastically reduced prison violence and the rate at which violent criminals re-offend. That sounds better off to society than giving these people 20 years to become even more hardened criminals.


----------



## stealthylizard (15 May 2007)

At least decriminalize it, hopefully that will lead to it eventually being legalized so it can be sold in stores at un-inflated prices

Just like alcohol and tobacco :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 May 2007)

Goodbye Opera..err, I mean 'French Affair'.  Watch those IP's.....


----------



## Hunteroffortune (16 May 2007)

I grew up in Wainwright and have a very healthy respect for the military, so I have been very happy that PM Harper has been so strong in his support of the military. I will never forget our troops being sent to Afghanistan with green camo's, what a disgrace. I have also recently talked to someone who was over in Afghanistan when PM Harper made his trip over there, she was very impressed with his support, and she is one smart lady (Physics degree, I failed Physics twice  ???), something that shouldn't shock anyone, but most uninformed people seem to think that those in the military are uneducated. I wish the media would be more truthful about the mission and our troops. 

I am proud to wear red every Friday in support of the troops, it helps me feel like I am doing something. I feel that finally the military are getting some of the recognition that they deserve, some of the equipment that is vital, and for this alone I would support the Conservatives. 

I have other things I like, they have raised the age of consent from 14 to 16, given money to parents to decide how their children should be cared for, and started with income splitting for seniors. 

All in all, when you take the opposition noise out of the equation, I'm pretty happy with their performance to date. 

Something I am curious about, are people who join the military more likely to be conservative thinking, or is that just my imagination?


----------



## RangerRay (16 May 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> I have other things I like, they have raised the age of consent from 14 to 16...



I could be wrong, but I thought this was being held up by the Opposition, or by the Liberal-dominated Senate...

 ???


----------



## tdwebste (16 May 2007)

> Again an additional nomination is only required to remove the independence of the judicial. A police representative can be filled as one of the three appointment available to the federal government.





			
				Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Can you explain to me how it is a threat to judicial Independence to have police and crime victims represented at these nominations?  If they were going to go over judicial sentences one by one and change them, sure that would qualify but having a voice in the nomination process can not and does not.



Exactly we agree. Having a police and crime victims representative does NOT require Harper to take away the independence of the Judiciary by adding another member selected by the Federal Government. So why is Harper undermining the independence of the Judiciary?

Further more the independence of the Judiciary is required to insure that laws are applied uniformly and fairly. Setting higher minimum sentences and stiffer parole conditions for violent offenders does not lessen this requirement.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> ...
> Something I am curious about, are people who join the military more likely to be conservative thinking, or is that just my imagination?



If you read Samual P Huntington's _The Soldier and the State – The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations_ (Harvard, 1957) you will learn that the military, as an _institution_, is broadly conservative in, equally broadly, liberal societies.   (But remember, please, that conservative ≠ Conservative and liberal ≠ Liberal, when Conservative and Liberal = Canadian political parties)


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 May 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> Exactly we agree. Having a police and crime victims representative does NOT require Harper to take away the independence of the Judiciary by adding another member selected by the Federal Government. So why is Harper undermining the independence of the Judiciary?
> 
> Further more the independence of the Judiciary is required to insure that laws are applied uniformly and fairly. Setting higher minimum sentences and stiffer parole conditions for violent offenders does not lessen this requirement.



I see what you are getting at, you fear the government having more members on the panel than the Judges and Lawyers. 

To be rather blunt... Bollocks!

Who do you think placed the government in power?  

It was the people of this country, not the elite, not the academics not the lawyers and not the criminals but every single person who went out and voted.  

So with our representative government in place just who do you think has more of a right to decide what the composition of one of these panels should look like, the unelected lawyers and judges or the people through our elected representatives.



> Judicial independence is not the private right of judges but the foundation of judicial impartiality and a constitutional right of all Canadians.


  Man, this is spinning like a top!  Cut away the bafflegab and what you are left with is Lawyers telling the people that only lawyers are qualified to say who should become a judge.

The lawyers and judges do not fear loosing their independence, they fear loosing their power.

I'm with Shakespear (King Henry VI (Act IV, Scene II), or more rightly Wat Tyler (1381)...   Kidding


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2007)

The _Demos_ are having a difficult time making up their minds, what we are seeing is the instability of a system which is about to undergo a phase change:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=7bc933f3-3397-4b38-885b-5b91f7bc7c65



> *Everywhere you look: losers*
> Andrew Coyne, National Post
> Published: Wednesday, May 16, 2007
> 
> ...



Ac@andrewcoyne.com


----------



## niner domestic (16 May 2007)

This may someday come back to bite the PM in the butt as voters often do not recall the minute details of an action at polling time only that it appears in their eyes, to have been an effort to "hide" something.  http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/15052007/3/canada-pm-invoking-parliamentary-privilege-defamation-case.html I hope Harper can survive this and the numerous mini scandals that have cropped up.


----------



## Hunteroffortune (17 May 2007)

niner domestic said:
			
		

> This may someday come back to bite the PM in the butt as voters often do not recall the minute details of an action at polling time only that it appears in their eyes, to have been an effort to "hide" something.  http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/15052007/3/canada-pm-invoking-parliamentary-privilege-defamation-case.html I hope Harper can survive this and the numerous mini scandals that have cropped up.



At first blush, that article looks bad, but thinking about it, why would the PM get involved with a fight between a sour grapes rejected candidate and the CPC? Let them fight it out, why drag the PM into it? 

Mini scandals created by the opposition, like the language committee, interesting that they fired the Chairman on the same day that the language Commissioner gave his report. Partisan politics, yes, the opposition needs to grow up, this will not score any points in the west, even Quebecors understand the grandstanding by the opposition.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2007)

When he stays in his lane (politics) the _Globe and Mail_'s Lawrence Martin – often excoriated by the Ruxted Group for commenting on strategic/military matters which are outside of his lanes - is worth a read.  Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, from today's _Globe_ is a column in which he offers PM Harper some advice:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070517.wxcomartin17/BNStory/National/home


> Harper's Act II: Retrench, refuel, retool
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...



I think Martin has it here:



> *At the heart of the dilemma is what happened on Jan. 23, 2006. In that election, the country didn't vote for Stephen Harper's ideology. They elected him because they were tired of the other governing party.
> 
> He has tried, with some early success, to do the improbable balancing act of simultaneously catering to his right-wing base and to the centre. For the right, he loaded up the Armed Forces, reformed the court-appointment process along conservative lines, steered foreign policy in a dramatically pro-Israel direction and began Senate reform. For the moderates, he has offered liberal spending, avoided heavy tax reform, taken a soft line on Quebec, and turned from being anti-green to semi-green.
> 
> But neither side has been left satisfied. For Mr. Harper to move harder to the right would reduce his overall support. To push the moderate buttons would alienate his base, as well as further contradicting his own principles. On the war, he is stubbornly committed. On the green plan, he's been gored. There are a lot of things in the platform still to be done but, as many MPs noted, none carry a big whack. Thus the push, while the country profits from a good economy, for a cycle of quiet governance.*



I share the view that Canada is not, broadly, favourable to so-called _right wing_ positions.  Jean Chrétien, following well established Liberal Party _tradition_ campaigned _left_ – with special attention to (broken) social spending promises and large dollops of anti-Americanism – and then governed _right_ (well, right of centre, anyway).  Harper need not copy the anti-Americanism (although, as he demonstrated during his first days in office when he lambasted US Ambassador Wilkins over some quite proper comments about America's views of Canada's *claims* over the Arctic waterway he is quite capable of enlisting anti-Americanism into his campaign) but he may want to copy Chrétien's formula of low expectations and sound, quiet government.  Of course the Liberals will not want to allow him that luxury and, in a minority parliament, Harper's options are limited.


----------



## GAP (17 May 2007)

"The PM has to learn that governing is about more than just vote-targeting."

I would say that is just what governing is all about....everything is orientated towards that.


----------



## CF_Enthusiast (17 May 2007)

Well maybe if he got majority then he could start governing. Real governing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 May 2007)

>Why doesn't the left realize that every dollar spent on Kyoto and global warming, is one dollar less to help our elderly and disabled. Or do they understand that and just don't care? 

They understand.  Their method is to spend the first dollar, and then take another one from somewhere and spend it as well.

Whatever the merits of judicial independence, the point of law isn't to be an arcane game for the enjoyment and enrichment of the guild members.  It is to serve the interests of the society.  All the powers of government are nothing more than the delegated authority from each person, summed over all the people.  Ultimately the law has to be created and interpreted to serve those interests.  If we are dissatisfied with the outcomes of interpretation, it is within our authority to directly influence how the interpreters are appointed.


----------



## tdwebste (19 May 2007)

Agree, but the devil is in the details. In the days of Trudeau, judges was a patronage appointments. People elected Trudeau so I guess he had the right. ha ha, just kidding, it was not a good system. After Trudeau, a systems was setup that actually resembles the election scrutineer system. Representatives from the recognized parties, plus a regional representative, and 3 members selected from the Ministry of Justice. Two of the Ministry of Justice selected members can not be lawyers. This was vast improvement.

Adding a fourth member selected from the Ministry of Justice is easily used to defeat the ability of the members to scrutinize in unpartizan manner.
In the past I was a reform party member, how does not feel Harper represents good government. I joined the reform party because of the Liberals, now Harper turns out to be worse. 


Singing off. Political threads go no where here. This political thread should be locked.


Lets get back to discussing Mil:
How to reduce mine risks. I am know many systems pull anti-mine trailers. Can you please point me to systems the push anti-mine trailers, so that the mine is detonated before the vehicle drives over it. I know mine rollers and plows are used for this purpose. But how well do they work in tight manouvering? Do mine rollers and plows have any other drawbacks?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (19 May 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> Agree, but the devil is in the details. In the days of Trudeau, judges was a patronage appointments. People elected Trudeau so I guess he had the right. ha ha, just kidding, it was not a good system. After Trudeau, a systems was setup that actually resembles the election scrutineer system. Representatives from the recognized parties, plus a regional representative, and 3 members selected from the Ministry of Justice. Two of the Ministry of Justice selected members can not be lawyers. This was vast improvement.
> 
> Adding a fourth member selected from the Ministry of Justice is easily used to defeat the ability of the members to scrutinize in unpartizan manner.
> In the past I was a reform party member, how does not feel Harper represents good government. I joined the reform party because of the Liberals, now Harper turns out to be worse.
> ...



And there are a lot of sheep out there still who think that anything St Pierre did was the absolute only way to do things. Maybe we can try some new ways of doing business that might work for us all and not just the Liberal elite.


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 May 2007)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f7806f79-bf1f-4bd1-8d33-c904feb71047



> Among other things, since the film's release last year, scientists have rejected Mr. Gore's claims that 2005 was the warmest year on record (temperatures have been receding since 1998), that polar bears are heading for extinction (their numbers are growing), that Antarctica is warming (interior temperature readings show cooling) and that sea levels will "rise 18 to 20 feet," swamping coastal cities (the International Panel on Climate Change predicts a few inches).



Not everyone has been lulled into a scientific dreamland by Global Warming hype, hyperbole and hysteria.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2007)

I have shared The Ruxted Group's general disdain for _Globe and Mail_ columnist Lawrence Martin when he strays out of his lane and into defence issues and, especially, when he resorts to cheap, dishonest and personal attacks on Gen. Hillier.  In general, however, despite a clear anti-Conservative (maybe just anti-Harper-Conservative) bias, Martin is an astute observer of the Canadian political scene.

That brings me to today's column, reproduced from today's _Globe and Mail_ under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, which lambastes Prime Minister harper for failing to achieve the ethical standards he set for his government:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070521.wxcomartin21/BNStory/National/home


> So much for the new governing morality
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...



I share Martin's _general_ view: Harper set a laudable, necessary goal and then he went some way (Accountability Act) to accomplishing it but he and his team are failing to live up to the standards they set.

I am not off-put by the 'How to manipulate committees' book – that's _old hat_ in parliamentary Ottawa I am told.  I am somewhat dismayed by the Conservatives' general contempt for the committees and the committee process, however, as I think committees are the _best_ part of our current parliament.  I recognize that the Liberals and NDP, especially, are trying to _back seat drive_ the legislative agenda but that's allowed in a minority parliament.  If Harper cannot endure that level of interference then he can engineer a general election.

I am also not off-put by Harper's failure to disclose his funding in the old _Reform-Alliance_ days.  There is neither a legal nor a moral requirement for him to do so.  It is an _inside the green-belt_ issue of interest to an unholy cabal of Liberal politicians and Liberal (anti-Harper, anyway) journalists.

I am dismayed by the actions and inactions of some of Harper's ministers – Oda's overspending is just an especially egregious example of what I see as a fairly common tendency, and not just amongst Conservatives, ether.

The problem is: Harper promised to do better.  Canadians want him to do better.  He will, likely, pay a price for disappointing them.  Remember that _Parson_ Manning came to Ottawa with much goodwill for promising to _”do politics differently”_ – that goodwill (and any hope for electoral gains in Ontario) evaporated when he could not pull it off.


----------



## Reccesoldier (21 May 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I recognize that the Liberals and NDP, especially, are trying to _back seat drive_ the legislative agenda but that's allowed in a minority parliament.  If Harper cannot endure that level of interference then he can engineer a general election.



It is the governments prerogative to appoint the chair of a committee.  

As much as the opposition is allowed to try to back seat drive, the Conservatives are allowed to take the keys and walk.  The prevalent attitude from the opposition, supported by the sycophantic media is that the Conservatives *must * take whatever the opposition tries to shove down its throat.  

Wrong.  

Of course if *the opposition* doesn't like the way the conservatives are governing *they* can force an election...  But they don't have the power, guts or popular position to start that do they?  

No, it is much easier to blame the conservatives for playing the game when they have been playing the same game all year.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> It is the governments prerogative to appoint the chair of a committee.
> ...



Actually, if I remember my lessons on parliamentary procedure, the government's prerogative is to nominate most committee chairs.  Committees are _sovereign_ and they may elect whomever they wish - usually, by well established _convention_, the government's nominee, except in the case of the Public Accounts Committee where the _binding_ convention is that the chair is elected from amongst the opposition members.  The committees can, as the Official Languages Committee just did, vote _no confidence_ in the chair (which it elected); equally, the government can, as it is doing in the same committee, decline to nominate a replacement and, so long as well established _convention_ is respected, the committee is paralyzed (and the consequences of not respecting it are _nuclear_ for the management of parliament and would, most likely, do more long term damage than anyone is willing to risk (except, maybe, some BQ members).


----------



## GAP (21 May 2007)

If the governing party nominates the chairs, but the committee votes on the chairman, would that not mean that most committee's be composed of a majority of the ruling parties in order that the Conservative chair nominee be elected?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2007)

The situation in a minority parliament is that the combined strength of the opposition parties gives them effective control of each committee.

The _convention_ that the committee elects its chair from the governing party is strong; and all parliamentary _conventions_ are tied together - if one is not respected then none need be.  It is the *fear* of the consequences of discarding _conventions_ (which work) that keeps the opposition parties from, for example, electing a Liberal to chair the Official Langages Committee.  If they toss aside one _convention_, which serves the government, then the government is likely to toss aside others which, by and large, serve the opposition.

_Convention_ - parliamentary and constitutional, is a wonderful thing: an infinitely better tool for managing complex situations than any regulations can ever hope to be.  The more complex the situation the better _convention_ serves because humans are, simply, too stupid to craft regulations suitable for high orders of complexity.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... humans are, simply, too stupid to craft regulations suitable for high orders of complexity.



I don't know whether to agree or not here.  

On one side I have problems with written regulations because the clearly define the rules of the game and allow the brighter members of society (lawyers and criminals among them) to figure out how to circumvent them by arguing "the letter" rather than "the intent".  Convention seems to force the discussion to "the intent" rather than "the letter" for the simple reason there is no "letter".

On the other hand I am constantly reminded of some advice I got from a mentor years ago when I was tasked with designing my first processing plant. I spent days agonizing over things that could possibly go wrong, how I could cover them with controls, how I could cover them with instructions to operators and maintainers, all in the hopes of deriving a "fool-proof system".  My mentor, getting frustrated at the time I was taking trying to come up with this perfect solution finally told me to forget about it and go with what I had because, no matter what I did or proposed, "The fools will always be smarter".

So Edward, I agree with your take on Conventions versus Regulations. I just don't know if the problem is "stupidity" or "being too clever by half".


----------



## observor 69 (21 May 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Convention_ - parliamentary and constitutional, is a wonderful thing: an infinitely better tool for managing complex situations than any regulations can ever hope to be.  The more complex the situation the better _convention_ serves because humans are, simply, too stupid to craft regulations suitable for high orders of complexity.



Gee reminds me of my RRSP which is made up of mostly "Index Funds."  Index funds simply track the index of the  market, for example the TSX. 
The premise of index mutual funds is that by simply following the ups and downs of the market you can do better than a actively managed fund of stocks "because  humans are, simply, too stupid to select stocks  suitable for high orders of complexity."


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2007)

At risk of taking this further Off Topic:

I believe that the counter to Al Gore and Dave Suzuki, with their fear of impending doom, is to advocate diversity.  Suzuki in particular, the geneticist, rails against "monocultures" in agriculture because on bug or bad season can destroy everything. He preaches the gospel of diversity - demanding that many people on small plots of land grow a mixture of many varieties of everything.  

Well I suggest that he think in the same terms when it comes to public policy.  If, through some miracle, he could get all 6 Billion people on the planet to agree on the same course of action then he is putting the race at risk of uniform obliteration if he has guessed wrong as to the nature of the threat.

Mankind has survived to this point in time in the face of many catastrophes precisely because people lived different lifestyles in different places and made different decisions.  

Humanity will survive in the future not because of the wisdom of an individual (hubris?) but because you can't herd 6 Billion people all making their own decisions.  Nor can you predict what all those individuals will do individually or collectively.

The key to success in genetics and farming - diversity; in stocks - diversity; in military operations - dare I say, dispersal.

The short answer to everything is that the mob is more survivable, if not more intelligent, than the individual.

Back on topic.

Harper's getting pretty muddy these days.  I hope he can find a shower soon.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (22 May 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Gee reminds me of my RRSP which is made up of mostly "Index Funds."  Index funds simply track the index of the  market, for example the TSX.
> The premise of index mutual funds is that by simply following the ups and downs of the market you can do better than a actively managed fund of stocks "because  humans are, simply, too stupid to select stocks  suitable for high orders of complexity."



I've been 100% energy-weighted for the last 4-years, including a little bit or uranium exposure.

Does that mean I should be in government?  ....because looking from the outside in, I'd think it might disqualify me.


Matthew.   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jun 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a column by Lawrence Martin – no Harper fan:



> Harper's angry-man syndrome dominated Parliament
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...



I’m a card carrying Conservative and a regular contributor to the Party’s fund.  I want Stephen Harper to win a majority government – even if he’s not governing *exactly* the way I wish or even if he’s not doing many of the things I think are right.  I still think he and his party are vastly more ‘worthy’ than Dion’s Liberals (and, of course, only a nincompoop would vote NDP).

That being said I hope he reads Martin’s column because I think Martin is offering good advice.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Jun 2007)

I agree, as a fellow traveller in the big C and one who sees only good coming from a majority for the Conservatives I hope he takes the summer to reflect on how to reach the average Joe and get his majority.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jun 2007)

One idea on how to get that majority:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=fac08435-9c02-4680-917f-e635de152f11



> Tories short on bold moves
> Government big disappointment on economic front
> 
> Jacqueline Thorpe
> ...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Jun 2007)

And this whole tempest in a tea pot about equalization is best summarized in the following editorial in the Halifax paper in my humble opinion

The Atlantic accords: Time for truth-telling 


By DAN LEGER 


IT’S TIME to start saying things that need to be said about the Atlantic accords and the Great Equalization Flap of 2007. The past two weeks have been so full of half-truths, propaganda, "urban myths" and outright baloney that things have to be put straight.

So here are some truths about equalization and the Atlantic accords.

Truth No. 1: The federal government owns the oil and gas off Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, period. It’s not a matter of interpretation. It’s not politics. It’s a legal fact. The Supreme Court of Canada decided in 1984 that offshore resources are federal property.

That means it is absolute rubbish for Newfoundlanders or Nova Scotians to claim that the offshore is our birthright and a sacred entitlement. We tried that argument, and lost.

Truth No. 2: Nova Scotia and Newfoundland get royalties from the offshore and have a say in running it because of a deal worked out for political reasons by the Mulroney government in 1985. It was the right thing to do, but it was political. It’s also true that Tories held 25 out of the 32 federal seats in Atlantic Canada at the time.

Truth No. 3: Federal bureaucrats and the vast majority of the political and journalistic class in Ottawa, of which I was an enthusiastic member for six years, believe provinces are ruled by blowhards and hillbillies. Provincial premiers are rubes. It is axiomatic that the biggest rubes in federal Ottawa right now are Danny Williams and Rodney MacDonald.

It is an Ottawa truth that when the likes of Mr. MacDonald or Mr. Williams make a demand, it is automatically considered to be a money-grubbing ruse by whining have-nots. If Quebec makes the same demand, it is a national-unity challenge. If Ontario makes it, it’s for the good of all of Canada.

Truth No. 4: In 2005, then-prime minister Paul Martin was so desperate to win seats in the coming election that he was willing to agree to just about anything. He guaranteed that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland would be immune from having offshore royalties clawed back through the equalization program. He did not do this because it was right or wrong, merely because he needed the votes.

Truth No. 5: The federal government can and it has unilaterally changed the Atlantic accord. It can also claw back Nova Scotia’s gas royalties and it can thumb its nose at our complaints. All these moves are perfectly legal and constitutional. The Atlantic accord is merely an "arrangement" signed by two fairly junior cabinet ministers. 

Remember, equalization is a federal program. As long as Ottawa is meeting the program’s general goals – that have-not provinces are funded to provide services roughly equal to those in have provinces at roughly equal tax rates – then Nova Scotia can’t do a thing about it.

Truth No. 6: There’s no such thing – as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty would have us believe – as "contributing provinces" and "receiving provinces." Every Canadian taxpayer pays into equalization, no matter where they live, and that includes all of us Bluenoses.

Truth No. 7: We might not be having these problems if the provinces themselves didn’t squander their chance to create a new equalization formula. Last summer, the premiers battled themselves to an impasse trying to work out a new system, leaving Stephen Harper the right and responsibility to devise a new one. We’ve all seen what he came up with.

Truth No. 8: This new hard-line position on equalization reflects the absolute belief in Ontario that it is being soaked by provinces like Nova Scotia. It’s mind-boggling, I know, but poor little Ontario thinks it’s getting robbed by nasty Nova Scotia. 

Truth No. 9: Both Bill Casey and Peter MacKay are right. Mr. Casey rebelled on a point of principle. Mr. MacKay is staying and working inside the cabinet in line with his own principle: that some things are done better within the system.

Truth No. 10: This is the tough one. What we are demanding is unfair. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador should be content to get their fiscal capacities to the national average and then allow sharing of their resource wealth.

Why? Because that is what democratic nations are built on: fairness and justice. Because Alberta shares its petro-wealth. Because Ontario used to be generous too. Because without the great Canadian sense of fairness, equalization wouldn’t exist in the first place. And Nova Scotia would be poor as dirt. 

(dleger@herald.ca)

Dan Leger is director of news content for The Chronicle Herald. The opinions expressed here are his own.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Jun 2007)

When are they going to hang Mr Leger in effigy, not to mention Truro and Corner Brook?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Jun 2007)

I read that earlier this morning.

I thought #6 specifically was a load of bollocks....

If you and I both put $10 in a pot, and then you take $20, regardless of how you try to embelish it, I just gave you $10.



Matthew.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jun 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I read that earlier this morning.
> 
> I thought #6 specifically was a load of bollocks....
> 
> ...



But he is factually correct.  Equalization is paid from general revenues - not from _special_ taxes levied only on Alberta and Ontario, as Dalton McGuinty would have us believe.

His 'cause' is correct but your 'effect' is more so!


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jun 2007)

My greatest surprise is the source.  I'll have to mentally withdraw some of my previous black thoughts about that paper and commentator.  

Point 6 notwithstanding (see I'm becoming Canadian) a pretty honest appraisal.


----------



## GAP (18 Jun 2007)

Yup,........pretty honest appraisal......finally someone did one.


----------



## stealthylizard (18 Jun 2007)

In regards to the Conference Board report.  We received good marks in everything except for Environment, and Innovation, both of which are tied together.  For environment we rated well for each of the subtopics except for climate change.  Innovation marks were also based on trying to combat climate change.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Jun 2007)

Well done Dan Leger.  It is time for us all to face some unpleasant truths about the country and the way that it is run...


----------



## Osotogari (19 Jun 2007)

I wonder what the hue and cry would have been like if Dan Leger's byline was from the Calgary Herald or the Edmonton Journal?

Still, couldn't have said it better myself, except for point #6, and on that I will take the side of CdnBlackshirt.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Jun 2007)

Great follow-up article I found this morning with some really clear statistics which are currently not being taken into account.

Ignore the title as it's unnecessarily divisive, but read the content.  To say it's eye-opening is an understatement.



Matthew.  

Copyright disclaimer goes here....



> Greed knows no bounds in Atlantic Canada
> Lorne Gunter, National Post
> Published: Tuesday, June 19, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## scoutfinch (19 Jun 2007)

Even if all of the analysis of the Atlantic Accords vs the new budget is true, the real issue for me is why didn't the Conservatives indicate during the election campaign that they were not going to abide by the agreement made by the previous government??  Rather, Harper confirmed that he supported the Atlantic Accord and that there would be no equalization claw back.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Jun 2007)

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

> Even if all of the analysis of the Atlantic Accords vs the new budget is true, the real issue for me is why didn't the Conservatives indicate during the election campaign that they were not going to abide by the agreement made by the previous government??  Rather, Harper confirmed that he supported the Atlantic Accord and that there would be no equalization claw back.



Like Aldous Huxley said, perception is reality:



> Harper did no such thing. He told the Atlantic provinces they could keep the Atlantic Accord, which shielded their new resource wealth from equalization calculations, or they could go with the new higher equalization in this spring's budget, but they would have to count 50% of their resource revenues. They could choose whatever was better for them, and they could switch back and forth between the two formulas each year to maximize their equalization.


----------



## scoutfinch (19 Jun 2007)

Harper made these comments referencing a budget that would not have been available at the time of the campaign.  At the time of the election, he stated that he supported the Atlantic Accords.  The Accords were intentionally negotiated as free standing agreements independent of equalization.  

I am not arguing or commenting on the double dipping aspect of the Atlantic provinces argument.  I just don't think Harper was being honest with the electorate and I think it is going to cost him in the next election.  In that regard, I think you are correct: perception is reality and I don't think the public perception of the Conservatives or Mr. Harper is being enhanced by their performance in the past few months.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2007)

I think Harper has had a steep learning curve: he’s discovered that a PM cannot keep all, even many of the *policy* promises his *political* handlers required him to make.

Harper, personally, not ‘just’ the  Conservatives, made a whole host of silly promises: GST cut, Atlantic Accord, Income Trusts, etc, etc.   To his credit he learned that keeping some of those *political* promises was bad *policy* and he cast them aside.  There is going to be a price – to paraphrase Ruxted, while  “Liar! Liar! Pants on Fire!” is inappropriate for political discourse in a mature democracy that doesn’t mean it’s not going to be the Liberals’ main ‘line’ in the next campaign.  It’s going to resonate, too.

Mr. Harper might do well, starting as soon as the house rises, to acknowledge that his campaign promises were ill-considered.  He may wish to say, “I’ve learned from my mistakes.  *I’ll promise less* and deliver more: good, sound, _conservative_ government – socially moderate, fiscally responsible and honest.”

I think he still needs to keep a very tight leash on the socially immoderate (Cheryl Gallant, _et al_) intellectually suspect (e.g. Peter McKay) and flannel mouthed (Gordon O’Connor) members of his team but he should let a handful of ‘respectable’ Tories (Flaherty, Prentice, etc) and the trusted ‘attack dogs’ (Baird) go ‘off leash’ (bit never *’off message’*) for a bit.

He needs to keep running against Dion and the _Chrétienistas_ – painting them as just more and more of the same old corrupt Québecers while reminding Canadians that the _Martinis_ (Hello Michael Ignatieff!) were indecisive bumblers who promised everything and delivered Sweet Fanny Adams.

He has, I think neutralized the global warming issue.  He can point out that Canada’s position is appropriately ‘moderate’ – not too (and too expensively) ambitious like Germany’s but, equally, not ‘rejectionist’ like the USA’s – being careful to point out that the US rejectionists outperformed the preachy Liberals with Dion as Environment Minister.  The rest will still attack him but my sense is that the issue has lost its ‘bite.’

Dion is, for now, regarded as honest – if a bit of a bumbler.  The Conservatives need to find and exploit the chinks in his ‘integrity armour.’  That’s a bit tougher: Dion’s academic career is not, I think, full of scandal and his performance as Intergovernmental Affairs minister may have annoyed Québecers but it’s ‘lean pickings’ for scandal mongers.  The most fertile field is his leadership campaign – financing and his ‘deal’ with Kennedy.

Lots of work to do – if he wants to be re-elected sometime between now and fall ’09.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Jun 2007)

I guess it is hair-splitting, but the way I see it, Harper did honour his campaign province by allowing the Atlantic Provinces to opt to remain within the Accord if they wished.

I find Premier William's remarks about how the court of public opinion is more important than courts of law quite telling, and more than a little distressing.  It is clear (to me) that he is aware of the inherent weakness of his position, and is merely seeking to inflame an uninformed public.

So, yet again I am dissapointed, but not surprised, at the eternal wrangling between the provinces and the federal government.  If everyone just stayed in their lane and was honest with their constituencies, our particular model of federalism would actually be surprisingly effective.

You just wait until I am PM.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jun 2007)

While not arguing one way or the other on the Accords.....or to put too fine a point on it, I think the electorate has the attention span of a gnat. As such, the election campaigns will be argued on whatever crisis latches onto the voters' meager attention at the time.


 “Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist”
_~George Carlin_


----------



## scoutfinch (19 Jun 2007)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> If everyone just stayed in their lane and was honest with their constituencies, our particular model of federalism would actually be surprisingly effective.



With this, I agree entirely.


----------



## Flip (19 Jun 2007)

Oh really Olga?



> I find Premier William's remarks about how the court of public opinion is more important than courts of law quite telling, and more than a little distressing.  It is clear (to me) that he is aware of the inherent weakness of his position, and is merely seeking to inflame an uninformed public.



I liked this bit best!

And Edward...............





> Sweet Fanny Adams.



It's been a while since I've heard that!
Actually when I heard it (regularly) I was too young to get it!


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jun 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Dion is, for now, regarded as honest – if a bit of a bumbler.  The Conservatives need to find and exploit the chinks in his ‘integrity armour.’  That’s a bit tougher: Dion’s academic career is not, I think, full of scandal and his performance as Intergovernmental Affairs minister may have annoyed Québecers but it’s ‘lean pickings’ for scandal mongers.  The most fertile field is his leadership campaign – financing and his ‘deal’ with Kennedy.





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> While not arguing one way or the other on the Accords.....or to put too fine a point on it, I think the electorate has the attention span of a gnat. As such, the election campaigns will be argued on whatever crisis latches onto the voters' meager attention at the time.



Running against Stephan Dion's record would be an outstanding strategy, except for Journyman's observation. How many Canadians either know or care that Dion was a Cabinet Minister during the Creitien and Martin eras, and thus was involved or had knowledge of Adscam, the decision to deploy to Afghanistan, non action on Kyoto, approving in principle a 5X expansion of the Alberta tar sands production (in spite of Kyoto), transferring Taliban prisoners to the custody of the GoA, etc.

So far he comports himself as if he simply sprang into being just after the 2005 election, and the MSM supports the illusion since his action/non action or presence at these and other events is never mentioned, but the "blame" for many of these policies is given to the Conservatives. 

Prime Minister Harper also has an interesting problem. His tactical ability to work the house and govern effectively in a minority situation seems to depend on keeping his hand close to the chest and springing surprise after surprise on the opposition, but we, the voters, need to see much better communications coming from the PM and his front bench.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jun 2007)

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

> Harper made these comments referencing a budget that would not have been available at the time of the campaign.  At the time of the election, he stated that he supported the Atlantic Accords.  The Accords were intentionally negotiated as free standing agreements independent of equalization.



I recognize that "truth" is always what people "think" it is.  Even at the time of signing a document two people can have very different expectations of the agreement being made.  And people that want to generate an issue will portray the "facts" any which way that resonates to support their cause.  Facts don't really matter except as hangers from which to hang a story.

My version of the story is this:

Harper agreed to the Atlantic Accord.
When he got into power he allowed the Premiers to hash out equalization without his involvement.
They failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Harper exercised his power to arbitrate and made an arbitrary decision.
That decision was accepted in most of Canada.
In Newfoundland (a premier running for re-election) and Nova Scotia (a premier managing a minority government), both with deficits and no spending room to support elections, the decision was decried.  
The decision allowed Danny and Ronny to choose between the Atlantic Accord which was offered in accordance with Harper's campaign promise, or accept a different formula.

Now they seem to be arguing that it is unfair to force them to make a choice.


----------



## scoutfinch (19 Jun 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Oh really Olga?
> 
> I liked this bit best!
> 
> ...



What does any of this have to do with me???


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jul 2007)

This item, reproduced here from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_ under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, might go in a number of places but, since it deals with promises, I’m putting it here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070712.wcosimp13/BNStory/Front/home


> Civil servants can ‘speak truth to power,' but will they be heard?
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...



Simpson didn’t go quite far enough.

There is a ‘spectrum’ of ‘advice’ which the public service, including the armed services and the civil service, may – in some cases *must* – give to politicians.

At one end: public servants have a duty to ‘advise’ and politicians have an obligation to accept such advice on *regulatory* matters.  As an example: let’s imagine that Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor called in his senior staff and said: “Cut a cheque for the Dinning family, settle this mess ASAP.”  Shortly afterwards his Deputy Minister (Ward Elcock) would have said, “Minister, you cannot give that order.  No one here is allowed to obey such and order.  There are ways to do what you want – only one, a change in government policy, is the right one. Go ahead, if you need to, and blame us bureaucrats for frustrating your efforts to help these poor folks but, for now, we cannot do as you ask – it is an improper, indeed illegal order which will not be obeyed.”  Minister O’Connor must take that ‘advice.’  The civil servants, and the military, have responsibilities, defined in law, and ministerial fiat cannot change that.

At the other end is this sort of advice, given (I’m guessing) to Peter MacKay:  “Minister we are worried about the implications of the shift in our Middle East policy.  We understand that it *is* policy and we are here to implement your government’s policy, but here are some factors which we believe you need to consider …”  Peter MacKay would be well within his rights to say: “Thank your for your concern but we elected politicians will set policy and you will make it work despite all your reservations.”

In the middle is this sort of advice which we might, again, imagine was given to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.  “Minister, you are well aware of the fact that all of us senior bureaucrats are opposed to the GST cut, but here is how we plan to implement it and here is a pocket briefing note on the consequences – something you can use in discussions, we hope.”  Then, later, we can imagine he got this advice: “Minister, the telephone companies are sending us warnings about income trusts. As you know, we officials disapprove of the political promise to leave trusts as they are and now we must strongly advise you to break your promise and reverse the policy – the economic health of the country requires it.”

We can also imagine this ‘middle ground’ advice to Defence Minister O’Connor: “Minister, three armed Polar * icebreakers will cost $_n_ Billion and will need _xxx_ sailors each.  We cannot find that much ‘room’ in the budget before the year 20_yy_ which is long after you and we want to have these ships in service.  In addition, we’re not sure the Navy can handle the personnel bill.  We could afford six ice capable patrol vessels with much smaller crews.  We may have to ‘pay off’ a few of our smaller coastal patrol vessels to free up some naval reserve sailors for the new ships, but we can manage both the people and money in the near term.”

The ‘middle ground’ advice is the sort of thing that happens on a regular basis in Ottawa.  The senior public servants, including Gen. Hillier, can and do speak their minds and ministers understand that they usually have a range of options – except where ministerial, even prime ministerial ‘power’ is not sufficient to force a public servant to do something improper.  Ministers would be much ‘poorer’ if the public service just accepted all ‘policy’ as a hard fact; the _Mandarins_ help most when they give politicians unbiased, professional advice – even, perhaps especially, when the politicians will not like what they hear.  It’s best to understand that some, maybe a lot of people don’t agree with your policy before you get nailed by a hostile reporter or a crowd of angry voters.

I think Harper can and will use his policy/promise reversals as examples of ‘listening’ and ‘doing the right thing’ and will say he is prepared to take his lumps for doing those right things.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2007)

>In one case, then, the government broke promises after reflecting on advice; in another, the government got mad because it doesn't like the advice. What's the civil service to do?

Not go leaking to the media when it doesn't get its way, at the least.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jul 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >In one case, then, the government broke promises after reflecting on advice; in another, the government got mad because it doesn't like the advice. What's the civil service to do?
> 
> Not go leaking to the media when it doesn't get its way, at the least.



+1 Brad.  They are there to supply legal options and to define risk - just like any good corporate lawyer or accountant.  The Chief EXECUTIVE Officer gets to make the decision and carry the can for both success and failure.


----------

