The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[geo]

Let's face it, this minority gov't has lasted longer than anyone would have expected.

Then again, the various leaders that are lined up against Mr Harper couldn't fart together and blow they way out of a wet paper bag.

Pathetic!

 

[armyvern]

Vern,

So the Liberals are the only government to have scandal?   Every government that has been in power provincially or federally has had scandal, performed tasks that they should not have, made stupid mistakes and demonstrated evidence of corruption, not just the Liberals.    Governments have been bribing the people with their own money since there have been governments.   They have also been treating the national treasury as their personal piggy bank also, irrespective of their political stripe, Liberal or Conservative.   Its fine to support whatever political party you want but don't pretend that 'your' political party has the ethical and moral high ground because it does not.  Given their nature, it is an oxymoron for either a political party or politician to be honest or to occupy a moral or ethical high ground.   You  go after sgf for not thinking critically about her voting-but do not heed your own advice.  You remember political scandal from ten years ago but seem to forget scandal ten months and ten days ago.  Thus, you are just as forgiving and forgetting as her-don't kid yourself.  But hey all of us are.   But, isn't wonderful that we can vote the way we want.  I think so.         

Stegner

Stenger,

Get a grip on reality buddy. I didn't say anywhere that the Tories were scandal free. My post was made directly to "sgf" and her seeming ability to ignore every thing the Liberal party has ever NOT DONE for her. It was a post made to point out to her what the LIBERALS had done scandalously.

My post was about the Liberals -- to a Liberal with big old blinders on her head.  As apparently you had on when you read my post in relation to what I was responding to.  :

Now, go ahead and do a search ... and find me one place, just one single post, where I've said the Tories were angels, had no scandals, or anything of the sort.

Why TF would I post about Tory scandals in a post I was making about Liberal scandals??

By the way -- did you notice that others have posted that this is applicable to all politicians and that I didn't pull up their posts to quote and say "well NO this is NOT applicable to the Tories!!" I haven't forgotten a thing.

You'll find threads on this site where I have clearly stated that I do NOT VOTE along a party line simply because I am "for" or "against" another party.

Quite unlike sgf here, I actually consider the merits (and remember the governship - and consider it's scandals, pros/cons etc) and demerits of the candidates who are on my ballot. I make an INFORMED choice with my vote rather than simply voting Red for Liberal/Blue for Tory 'just because'.

It may be either/or/neither that gets my vote ... exactly BECAUSE I don't just "forget and vote red for Liberal anyway."

Yes some of those scandals were 10 years old!!! That is precisely why I made the comment at the end of that post which said:

And people like YOU still go out and vote FOR them.

Seems to me --- that's exactly why the Liberals ended up with their back-to-backs then ... because of the blindness and forgetfulnees of their voting public and tit's ability to write-off/IGNORE how much that government was taking for itself --- while screwing them. Quite ironic.

sgf should try it sometime.

 

[ModlrMike]

No he wasnt the only PM to do this, but he made a promise in the election that he would not appoint anyone to Senate that was not elected. He broke this promise immediately after being voted in. I really dont care who any PM puts in the Senate, its the broken promise that I have an issue with, especially when this particular PM ran on accountability. I feel the same about income trust, in the end it was a good thing. The lesson here is be very careful what one promises during elections, they can come back to bite ya.

You mean breaking it in this fashion: Harper appoints Albertan senator-in-waiting. Mr Harper has appointed exactly two senators. One from Alberta (Bert Brown - elected) and one from Quebec (Michel Fortier). The terms of Mr Fortier's appointment are that he is expected to resign his seat in the next general election and run for a seat in the House of Commons. Doesn't look like a whole lot of promise breaking going on.

Considering Alberta is the only province to hold senatorial elections, and considering the other provinces have steadfastly refused to hold similar elections, it's going to be pretty hard to not to appoint unelected members. Or are you suggesting that under the current conditions only persons from Alberta should be appointed to the senate?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Vern,

So the Liberals are the only government to have scandal?   Every government that has been in power provincially or federally has had scandal, performed tasks that they should not have, made stupid mistakes and demonstrated evidence of corruption, not just the Liberals.    Governments have been bribing the people with their own money since there have been governments.   They have also been treating the national treasury as their personal piggy bank also, irrespective of their political stripe, Liberal or Conservative.   Its fine to support whatever political party you want but don't pretend that 'your' political party has the ethical and moral high ground because it does not.  Given their nature, it is an oxymoron for either a political party or politician to be honest or to occupy a moral or ethical high ground.   You  go after sgf for not thinking critically about her voting-but do not heed your own advice.  You remember political scandal from ten years ago but seem to forget scandal ten months and ten days ago.  Thus, you are just as forgiving and forgetting as her-don't kid yourself.  But hey all of us are.   But, isn't wonderful that we can vote the way we want.  I think so.         

Stegner

Scandal has been a feature of Canadian politics since well before 1867. What has changed, since the 1970s, is that we used to be scandalized, at least a little bit. In the ‘70s we learned to accept lies and scandal as the price we had to pay if we wanted (as we most certainly did) to slavishly emulate our American neighbours.

They, the political ”pros” in Ottawa – schooled by their friends in Washington – told us not to worry: we had out very own, Kennedyesque leader, just the like the Americans; we were “cool,” too, because our leader was bedding Hollywood celebrities, just like the Americans we idolized; we were “with it,” far removed from the old, white, mostly WASP men who had governed from the grey background for so long. So the ‘price’ was more than just a whiff of corruption and incidents of incompetence; so the price was a stark repudiation of decades of sound, solid, prudent policy in return for a dilettante’s flirtations with the communist dictator flavour of the month, so what? We had our very own little, frozen, imitation Camelot.

Scandals are, indeed, part of the price of partisan politics; politics is a highly human enterprise and humans, as we all ought to understand, are very, very imperfect – that’s why socialism is, always and everywhere and without exception, a stupid idea. “From each according to ability and to each according to his needs”: might be wonderful (but I doubt it) and it might even be achievable when/IF humans are perfect; we aren’t, so socialism = pushing on a rope – an exercise in futility that keeps the terminally stupid busy.

The fact that some level of scandal is inevitable does not mean we have to just “lie back think of England.” We, citizens, can and should keep our political leaders’ feet to the ethical fires and demand that they keep cleaning house. The House of Commons in Ottawa is, as it always has been, a sort of Augean stables and rivers of effort will be required to get it fairly clean and keep it that way; the fact that it is a Herculean labour ought not to keep us from it.

I do think however, that we need to separate broken promises (remember “Zap! You’re frozen.”? That was an order of magnitude greater a lie than the Income Trusts issue.) from real scandals – like Shawinigate and l’affair Beaudoin (in which former prime Minister Chrétien attempted to strong-arm  François Beaudoin, president of the federal Business Development Bank of Canada, to aprove a $2 million loan for Yvon Duhaime, who bought the Auberge Grand-Mère from  Chrétien and needs the money to make the deal work). Those were instances where the serving Prime Minister of Canada and the office of the PM were tarnished soiled by real scandal. That’s the sort of thing we ought to require our parliamentarians to investigate – no matter which party is involved.

 

[2 Cdo]

I do think however, that we need to separate broken promises (remember “Zap! You’re frozen.”? That was an order of magnitude greater a lie than the Income Trusts issue.) from real scandals – like Shawinigate and l’affair Beaudoin (in which former prime Minister Chrétien attempted to strong-arm  François Beaudoin, president of the federal Business Development Bank of Canada, to aprove a $2 million loan for Yvon Duhaime, who bought the Auberge Grand-Mère from  Chrétien and needs the money to make the deal work). Those were instances where the serving Prime Minister of Canada and the office of the PM were tarnished soiled by real scandal. That’s the sort of thing we ought to require our parliamentarians to investigate – no matter which party is involved.

Not to mention the ensuing RCMP witch hunt, with the PMO's blessing, on Mr. Beaudoin that horribly tarnished his reputation. It seems Mr Chretein used the RCMP for PERSONAL reasons. But the Liberals are far better than the Conservatives. :

 

[stegner]

I do think however, that we need to separate broken promises (remember “Zap! You’re frozen.”? That was an order of magnitude greater a lie than the Income Trusts issue.) from real scandals – like Shawinigate and l’affair Beaudoin (in which former prime Minister Chrétien attempted to strong-arm  François Beaudoin, president of the federal Business Development Bank of Canada, to aprove a $2 million loan for Yvon Duhaime, who bought the Auberge Grand-Mère from  Chrétien and needs the money to make the deal work). Those were instances where the serving Prime Minister of Canada and the office of the PM were tarnished soiled by real scandal. That’s the sort of thing we ought to require our parliamentarians to investigate – no matter which party is involved.

Exactly! 

There used to be a really good RCMP investigation unit that looked at political scandal, but it was doing its job a little too well, and was decommissioned sometime in the 1990's.  For more details you can read this book: http://www.amazon.ca/Last-Guardians-Crisis-RCMP-Canada/dp/0771069065

I think there should be a special federal law enforcement agency established that reports directly to Parliament, as a whole, or the Governor General, as Commander-in-Chief, that investigates these political scandals to ensure that politicians cannot in anyway influence investigations as they have with the RCMP, as noted by 2CDO and by the book I have provided a link for. 

Quite unlike sgf here, I actually consider the merits (and remember the governship - and consider it's scandals, pros/cons etc) and demerits of the candidates who are on my ballot. I make an INFORMED choice with my vote rather than simply voting Red for Liberal/Blue for Tory 'just because'.

 

Sgf did not claim that the Liberals were scandal free either.  I am sure sgf has considered the pros/cons of the Liberal party as well as the other parties. The truth is on the political spectrum both the Conservatives and the Liberals are centrist parties.  Both parties have really big tents.  Heck, Martin was just as much of a fiscal hawk when he was finance minister as Flaherty is now-maybe even more so.

 

[stegner]

ModlrMike,

The Alberta senate elections are not in any way shape or form the resemblance of democracy.  The only candidates are from the PC's with even the "independents" being conservatives.  Lots of people vote for their MLA and not their senator in these events.  None of the opposition parties contest them-so these events largely resemble the voting in a communist country.  The last election was significantly before the date of the appointment too.  Also these elections are a violation of the Constitution Act, 1867.  I would love to vote for my senator in Alberta-but it should be the feds not the province running the elections-as senators are federal employees.

Stegner 

 

[armyvern]

Sgf did not claim that the Liberals were scandal free either.  I am sure sgf has considered the pros/cons of the Liberal party as well as the other parties. The truth is on the political spectrum both the Conservatives and the Liberals are centrist parties.  Both parties have really big tents.   Heck, Martin was just as much of a fiscal hawk when he was finance minister as Flaherty is now-maybe even more so.

One more time ... I say again ... one more time ... over. Read her posts before you start flying your silly little accusations at me. Party colours ... colours that blind. I believe I was pointing out the blinders which she wears when SHE profess' to write off Liberal scandal as meaningless yet not do so with Tory scandal.

She has claimed that the Tories are scandal ridden and break all their promises .. which causes her to want to see them gone ... and processing votes based upon this:

well seeing as i am a Liberal,  of course I would like to see them form the government...

Are you getting it yet? She's a Liberal. She votes Liberal ... regardless of any scandal etc that occurs with them YET she uses that very "scandal" ideal to write off voting for the Tories. That's pretty unbiased eh?

No thanks. I'd rather belong to NO party, vote along NO party lines, and make an INFORMED choice based upon the actions/deeds & doings of the candidate on my ballot form -- regardless of party.

And you're making me out to be the biased one who forgets? Can I please have some of whatever you're smoking?

 

[stegner]

Are you getting it yet? She's a Liberal. She votes Liberal ... regardless of any scandal etc that occurs with them YET she uses that very "scandal" ideal to write off voting for the Tories. That's pretty unbiased eh?

  My response:  So what.  Canada is a free country.  We are entitled to be politically biased if we so choose  

 

[ModlrMike]

ModlrMike,

The Alberta senate elections are not in any way shape or form the resemblance of democracy.  The only candidates are from the PC's with even the "independents" being conservatives.  Lots of people vote for their MLA and not their senator in these events.  None of the opposition parties contest them-so these events largely resemble the voting in a communist country.  The last election was significantly before the date of the appointment too.  Also these elections are a violation of the Constitution Act, 1867.  I would love to vote for my senator in Alberta-but it should be the feds not the province running the elections-as senators are federal employees.

Stegner 

The fairness or unfairness of these elections was not at issue. The issue was Mr Harper's actions WRT senate appointments and the contention that he had broken a promise. The fact remains that Mr Brown was elected and subsequently appointed to the senate by Mr Harper. Something Mr Cretien refused to do, and in fact appointed a different, unelected Albertan.

As to the fairness on the elections... There is certainly the appearance of unfairness, but if only Conservatives run, then they are the only ones from which to choose. Lay the blame on the other parties for not proposing candidates. From my perspective, the Senate should be apolitical, that is, no party affiliations. And I agree with you, the elections should be federally administered.

BTW, Mr Harper only promised to advise the GG to appoint persons selected through popular vote. He didn't promise not to appoint others. In the end, the GG makes the appointment and has the power to ignore the PM on the issue. I know it's a power that has seldom if ever been exercised, but it exists none the less.

 

[sgf]

You mean breaking it in this fashion: Harper appoints Albertan senator-in-waiting. Mr Harper has appointed exactly two senators. One from Alberta (Bert Brown - elected) and one from Quebec (Michel Fortier). The terms of Mr Fortier's appointment are that he is expected to resign his seat in the next general election and run for a seat in the House of Commons. Doesn't look like a whole lot of promise breaking going on.

Considering Alberta is the only province to hold senatorial elections, and considering the other provinces have steadfastly refused to hold similar elections, it's going to be pretty hard to not to appoint unelected members. Or are you suggesting that under the current conditions only persons from Alberta should be appointed to the senate?

What bothers me about the Fortier issue, is Harper ran and won on accountability. He said on Radio-Canada that he would not appoint non elected people to the cabinet. He broke this the day his party took power. Now having said that, I dont have a problem with non elected in the Senate, its been done many times in the past. The issue I have is the broken promise.
I also find it interesting that Fortier did not take the opportunity to run in a by election held in Repentigny  27 Nov.

 

[George Wallace]

........... The issue I have is the broken promise.

Come on now!  You seem to be fixated solely on "Conservatives promises", specifically Prime Minister "Steven Harper's promises".  You don't seem to have any problems with the promises broken by Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, PET, and numerous others of the Liberal persuasion.  Talk about biased.  :

 

[sgf]

Scandal has been a feature of Canadian politics since well before 1867. What has changed, since the 1970s, is that we used to be scandalized, at least a little bit. In the ‘70s we learned to accept lies and scandal as the price we had to pay if we wanted (as we most certainly did) to slavishly emulate our American neighbours.

They, the political ”pros” in Ottawa – schooled by their friends in Washington – told us not to worry: we had out very own, Kennedyesque leader, just the like the Americans; we were “cool,” too, because our leader was bedding Hollywood celebrities, just like the Americans we idolized; we were “with it,” far removed from the old, white, mostly WASP men who had governed from the grey background for so long. So the ‘price’ was more than just a whiff of corruption and incidents of incompetence; so the price was a stark repudiation of decades of sound, solid, prudent policy in return for a dilettante’s flirtations with the communist dictator flavour of the month, so what? We had our very own little, frozen, imitation Camelot.

Scandals are, indeed, part of the price of partisan politics; politics is a highly human enterprise and humans, as we all ought to understand, are very, very imperfect – that’s why socialism is, always and everywhere and without exception, a stupid idea. “From each according to ability and to each according to his needs”: might be wonderful (but I doubt it) and it might even be achievable when/IF humans are perfect; we aren’t, so socialism = pushing on a rope – an exercise in futility that keeps the terminally stupid busy.

The fact that some level of scandal is inevitable does not mean we have to just “lie back think of England.” We, citizens, can and should keep our political leaders’ feet to the ethical fires and demand that they keep cleaning house. The House of Commons in Ottawa is, as it always has been, a sort of Augean stables and rivers of effort will be required to get it fairly clean and keep it that way; the fact that it is a Herculean labour ought not to keep us from it.

I do think however, that we need to separate broken promises (remember “Zap! You’re frozen.”? That was an order of magnitude greater a lie than the Income Trusts issue.) from real scandals – like Shawinigate and l’affair Beaudoin (in which former prime Minister Chrétien attempted to strong-arm  François Beaudoin, president of the federal Business Development Bank of Canada, to aprove a $2 million loan for Yvon Duhaime, who bought the Auberge Grand-Mère from  Chrétien and needs the money to make the deal work). Those were instances where the serving Prime Minister of Canada and the office of the PM were tarnished soiled by real scandal. That’s the sort of thing we ought to require our parliamentarians to investigate – no matter which party is involved.

There have been a lot of real scandals in recent years: tunagate with Mulroney in 1985; the problem with some Mulroney Cabinet Ministers:

First there was Robert Coates, who stepped down as defence minister in 1985 after it was revealed that he had visited a strip club in West Germany while in that country on official business. Communications Minister Marcel Masse left over an alleged violation of the Canada Elections Act (he was later exonerated), followed closely by John Fraser.

In 1986, Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion Sinclair Stevens stepped down because of conflict of interest allegations related to a $2.6-million loan to a Stevens family company. André Bissonnette, the minister of state for transport, resigned in 1987 while the RCMP investigated his alleged involvement in land speculation. Roch La Salle, who served Mulroney in the public works, and supply and services portfolios, left cabinet the same year after being charged with demanding a bribe and accepting money from businesses looking for government favours. The charges were later dropped.

Conflict of interest allegations involving a personal loan felled Supply and Services Minister Michel Coté in 1988. Bernard Valcourt stepped down in 1989 after pleading guilty to an impaired driving offence. In 1990, current Quebec Premier Jean Charest had to leave his two posts as minister for fitness and amateur sport, and minister for youth after trying to talk to a judge about an ongoing case.

And, finally, in 1991, Housing Minister Alan Redway offered his resignation after being charged over joking about having a gun while boarding a flight at the Ottawa airport. Not a cabinet minister but equally embarrassing to the Conservatives was Quebec MP Michel Gravel, who in 1986 was charged with 50 counts of fraud and influence peddling. He later pleaded guilty to 15 charges, paid a $50,000 fine and served four months in jail.

then other Lib scandals - the APEC Inquiry,Jane Stewart,Shawinigate and of course the sponsorship scandal. Lets not forget the Airbus Scandal which is still not resolved.
http://www.cbc.ca:80/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/scandals.html

I do agree that scandals are much more damaging than broken promises. I realize that politicans have been making and breaking promises since the beginning of time. I just am sick of both.. the scandals and the promises not kept (and there have been enough  from both)

I am well aware of the faults of all political parties, well aware that mistakes have been made, and have voted over the years for both Liberals and Consevatives.  For many reasons I am not a fan of Harper (both the man and his method of government), I am also not all that keen on Dion either. I also feel the next government will be another minority govt and dont really see the need to go to the expense of an election right now. I also dont think either Harper nor Dion want an election right now. Having said all that, if there is an election in the coming months I know how I will be voting!!! 

 

[sgf]

Come on now!  You seem to be fixated solely on "Conservatives promises", specifically Prime Minister "Steven Harper's promises".  You don't seem to have any problems with the promises broken by Paul Martin, Jean Chretien, PET, and numerous others of the Liberal persuasion.  Talk about biased.   :

See my new post, that may respond to this

 

[George Wallace]

......... Having said all that, if there is an election in the coming months I know how I will be voting!!! 

Yeah.  We know.    :-\




Yup!  :

 

[RangerRay]

Exactly!

Do think like I do, that the GG should exercise the prerogatives of the Crown more often.  Is such a debate worthy of a new thread?

Only if the person were truely qualified and knowledgable about the Constitution and their role as Her Majesty's representative, instead of the political hacks and media hangers-on we've had since Roland Michner (with the exception of former diplomat Jules Leger).

 

[Edward Campbell]

... if there is an election in the coming months I know how I will be voting!!! 

Good for you; that makes you a better citizen than 40ish percent of our fellow Canadians.

I'll vote too - I have no doubt that my choice will not be 100% well reasoned because, regardless of the merit of the candidates, I will not vote for a Liberal.

I used to vote Liberal. I have not since the mid '60s. I disagreed, vehemently, with Mike Pearson's decision to bring Jean Marchand, Gerard Pelletier and Pierre Trudeau into his government. I thought all three were economic illiterates: socialists. I also thought, and still think, that Pierre Trudeau was a pompous, puffed up, petty, provincial, pseudo-intellectual poltroon. I will never vote Liberal until the party wrings the last remnants of Trudeau out of its policy fabric; that will be so hard to do that I expect that even my grandchildren will never vote Liberal.

But, sgf, what matters is that you and I will vote so we will earn the right to complain about the results; those who don't vote don't matter; most are lesser Canadians.

 

[ModlrMike]

... so we will earn the right to complain about the results; those who don't vote don't matter; most are lesser Canadians.

That's why I tell my troops that they have a duty to vote. If you're going to risk your life for the country, you should at least have a voice in how it is run.

 

[stegner]

Less layers of Gov'mnt crap is what I want, not more.

From my current understanding,  the GG is already a layer of Government, as all executive power resides with that office or with the Queen of Canada.  In a formal sense, the Prime Minister has no power and is not even mentioned in the written Constitution-his source of power is being the Chief advisor to the GG.  Any law passed in Parliament or a  Governor-in-Council decision or appointment (and there are a gazillon those needed to run Canada), requires the GG to sign off on it.  This office, the oldest political office in North America, has been acting as a check and balance on the legislature, long before any American President.  Given all these power provided to the GG and the theoretical possibility that this individual might have to act contrary to the Prime Minister , I was of the mind that this person should have a little more democratic legitimacy to act (thus my proposal to elect this office). Also to quote ModlrMike the GG should be

truely qualified and knowledgable about the Constitution and their role as Her Majesty's representative, instead of the political hacks and media hangers-on we've had since Roland Michner (with the exception of former diplomat Jules Leger).

  Let the people decide on this matter.  I would add that Schreyer was a decent GG-he understood the Constitution quite well having served as the Premier of Manitoba and he checked PM Trudeau when he wanted to patriate the Constitution unilaterally and without consent of the provinces back in 1980-81.  Schreyer made clear that any attempt to do that would result in him dismissing him as PM and the holding of an election.    Clarkson was decent too,  she had some scandal but handled some of the intrigue in the 38th Parliament quite well.  Her efforts in supporting the CF as Commander-in-Chief were remarkable. 

 

 

[Edward Campbell]

That's why I tell my troops that they have a duty to vote. If you're going to risk your life for the country, you should at least have a voice in how it is run.

Good on you, too, ModlrMike. More leaders should do the same.