blesser Wrote:tigerthelion Wrote:Paul Martin was Minister of Finance. How is it possible that he had no knowledge of what was going on??? Isn't the Finance Minister usually responsible for money going in and out of gov't??? Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not that interested in politics but this seems strange to me.
you are quite correct... but you must realize the size of the federal government's budget... the finance minister doles out cash to different departments as he is told to do, but he or she does is not responsible for keeping of track of what is done with the money once it leaves his or her hands... in any case, the money allocated to the sponsorship program was little more than a drop in an ocean of funds so it would have been impossible to monitor
Good point. While the kick back scheme was criminal (with those responsible headed for the crow-bar hotel) and the entire sponsorship program a flawed policy, the money lost to Canada was the equivalent of $40 to somebody who makes $60,000 a year.
It may have long term negative impacts on Canadian unity, but nobody's taxes are going up, or programs being cut because of sponsorship. That said, the money should have been better spent.
Also, if Cokey McSnorts-alot wins the next referndum, the program and policy will have to shoulder some of the blame... although not as much as the PM who should have left it to the RCMP instead of making it a public spectacle.
Stephen Dame Wrote:tigerthelion Wrote:Paul Martin was Minister of Finance. How is it possible that he had no knowledge of what was going on??? Isn't the Finance Minister usually responsible for money going in and out of gov't??? Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not that interested in politics but this seems strange to me.
Chretien didn't trust Martin and his Meech-like ideas about Quebec, so he kept him out of the loop, sometimes forcibly. The money for the program came from a contingency fund. Martin and Chretien simply okay'd the money going out, they didn't know what happened to it after it left Ottawa.
Gomery found that Chretien's former cheif of staff and his political friends then created a kick back scheme, which it says right on the first page of Gomery's summary; Martin and Chretien knew nothing about. The accused even testified that he told everyone involved that "JC was not to know."
Martin was entirely exonerated by the judge, Chretien was found indirectly responsible because the buck has to stop somewhere, and as he said: "I take responsibility for all the goods 
and bad that happened during my administration."
Pardon me for being cynical, but the idea of Chretien's chief of staff telling all the players involved that JC was not to know strikes me as highly implausible and appears to be the actions of a loyal servant falling on his sword. The whole affair was run out of the PMO's office and all the players were in Chretien's inner circle, so how does Chretien not have a hint that federal money was being kicked back to the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party? What strikes me as dangerous is the willingness of the Liberal leadership to work against the possibility of separatism by directing money and programs at one particular province, sometimes to the detriment of the other provinces, and promoting the idea that only the Liberal Party can reach out to Quebec and convince them to stay in the Confederation when the ideals of Canada are so much more than just the Liberal Party.
Stephen Dame Wrote:Good point. While the kick back scheme was criminal (with those responsible headed for the crow-bar hotel) and the entire sponsorship program a flawed policy, the money lost to Canada was the equivalent of $40 to somebody who makes $60,000 a year.
That was the figure I was looking for.
I don't think George Bush should be held responsible for the back door dealings within his government regarding contracts in Iraq or elsewhere. Obivously, there is a case for Bush to go to trial for war crimes regarding the unjustified invasion of Iraq or the other attrocities he's seen to in the past five years, but that's another story for another day.
If the Gomery findings called on Martin to resign based on the evidence presented, then I think I'd be calling for an end to this government too. But as Dame said, those who have been deemed responsible will be doing thier time in the clink. In the end though, neither JC or Martin were directly implicated in the wrong doing, which had to be a huge blow to the Conservative propaganda machine.
Regardless, Paul Martin's reputation has been tainted by this and his legacy will be of the blundering PM that the Toronto Sun loves to paint him as, and not the brilliant Finance Minister that made this country one of the most fiscally sound nations of the G8. Perhaps, just like the Conservatives, the Liberals need some new blood at the top that can be respected by the majority of the nation (Ken Dryden for PM anybody?)
Cheers
Pat
Stephen Dame Wrote:Gomery found that Chretien's former cheif of staff and his political friends then created a kick back scheme, which it says right on the first page of Gomery's summary; Martin and Chretien knew nothing about. The accused even testified that he told everyone involved that "JC was not to know."
And the Cigarette Smoking Man replied, "Yes ... then our plausible deniability will remain intact."
And that's all there is to say about that.
Let's remember that Gomery's scope was limited to exclude Martin's dealings with Earnscliffe.
What Gomery really needed was a huge, unlimited scope, so that he could report back sometime in 2011 and tell us that this kind of stuff has been how things get done in Canadian politics since MacDonald.
Stephen Dame Wrote:Also, if he goes on with the "third way" for health care bit, it's a blessing since it's so easy to debunk. Private insurance is a panacea as long as it operates alongside a public system. It simply doesn't increase supply. A doctor with 5 patients would then have 3 in the public line and 2 in the private line. Those in the public "queue" would likely be shifted behind the payers.
Layton appears set to make health care his election issue, which will force this discussion.
Problem is, though, you can debunk somebody's policy ideas, but voters don't always listen. People believe what they find convenient.
There's a lot of Harry Potters out there telling people that all you have to do is wave a wand at a problem and shout "Marketus freedomula!" and everything will fall into place. And a lot of people want to believe that it's true.
Did Martin just become Jimmy Carter? This could become big, very big:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/27/canadians-iraq051127.html">http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... 51127.html</a><!-- m -->
In other news, although it may pale in comparsion, there is buzz around here this morning that Layton may try and make Canadian history if this election is a re-run of 2004 and ask for a formal co-alition government.
Stephen Dame Wrote:Did Martin just become Jimmy Carter? This could become big, very big:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/11/27/canadians-iraq051127.html">http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... 51127.html</a><!-- m -->
Interesting development. It would be nice to see some more details though. I'm going to troll the wire services.
Forgive my youth, but what is the Jimmy Carter reference all about? Something to do with the Iran embassy incident? Seems sort of different because this invovles humanitarian workers not government staff or diplomats or anything of the similar "official" sort.
EDIT:
This has slightly more info. Good ol' CTV, eh? hahah joke of course <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051127/iraq_humanitarianworkers_abducted_20051127/20051127?hub=TopStories">http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... TopStories</a><!-- m -->
Stephen Dame Wrote:Good point. While the kick back scheme was criminal (with those responsible headed for the crow-bar hotel) and the entire sponsorship program a flawed policy, the money lost to Canada was the equivalent of $40 to somebody who makes $60,000 a year.
Theft is theft. I don't care how much it is. Trying to minimize the amounts involved doesn't excuse the act.
That being said, I agree where others have said that just screaming bloody murder about this will get you nowhere. Voters will just say "Yes, I understand that's wrong... but what are YOU going to do to make things better?"
I think the Conservatives really do have the best chance of doing better. Their policies don't all smack of "neo-con" or "Reaganomics", as you claim. Mind you, until they can prove to be effective in communicating their policies to people in ways that will make them understand how they will benefit, then people will continue to either believe the "Conservatives=scary" meme, or just believe whatever else they want to believe.
One other thing... blesser? I appreciate you wanting to take an active interest in politics (I don't know how old you are so I don't know if you can vote yet), but please do some research... it is the NDP and the Bloc, as well as the Conservatives, who have called the non-confidence motion, so to pin all the "blame" on Harper is very naive. Again I am confident that a Conservative win in the election will not be such a bad thing that it will make you have to do such a silly thing as to "move to Sweden". Thanks.
j-monster Wrote:Mind you, until they can prove to be effective in communicating their policies to people in ways that will make them understand how they will benefit, then people will continue to either believe the "Conservatives=scary" meme, or just believe whatever else they want to believe.
I've read this 'Stephen Harper is Scary' crap on this forum a few times now, but I'm still confused. Who, really, is scared of Stephen Harper. I mean, yes, he's monotonous, he lacks charisma and energy, he often comes off as emotionless and cold, and he looks like, as previously mentioned, a mortician (I personally feel he looks more like a subdued ballet theatre usher who spends his weekends being the most abnoxiously boring librarian of all time, but thats me).
I think that many Canadians legitimately despise the Conservatives policies, you know, the ones they can't get across properly because they are too busy screaming 'Corruption', 'Organized Crime', and 'Untrustworthy'...(anybody check the Conservative website? I love their recent headlines section at the bottom of the page... editorial genius)
j-monster Wrote:One other thing... blesser? I appreciate you wanting to take an active interest in politics (I don't know how old you are so I don't know if you can vote yet), but please do some research... it is the NDP and the Bloc, as well as the Conservatives, who have called the non-confidence motion, so to pin all the "blame" on Harper is very naive. Again I am confident that a Conservative win in the election will not be such a bad thing that it will make you have to do such a silly thing as to "move to Sweden". Thanks.
Although it took all three parties to bring down the government, Stephen Harper is the offical leader of the opposition. It was his call, and his decision to hold closed-doors meetings with the NDP and the Bloc to strategize a takedown. The blame lies on Stephen Harpers shoulders. And while I won't move to Sweden, if the Conservatives win a majority election, I'll be pretty unhappy... not because Harper is full of evil and he'll bring Satan to our doorstep, but because he just doesn't have the qualites of a great leader, and his priorities don't fit mine.
If anything, I think the Liberals will take a minor hit in seats, but I think the Conservatives will lose more...
das_hips Wrote:I've read this 'Stephen Harper is Scary' crap on this forum a few times now, but I'm still confused. Who, really, is scared of Stephen Harper.
Gord Downie. "War is organized murder, and that's what Steven Harper would have brought you." -- July 1, 2004.
Steven Harper was a very loud supporter of joining the US in going into Iraq when the war started in March 2003. I will give credit that once he realized that the war truly was unjustified and not being fought for the reasons the United States claimed it to be, he said that he would have not sent Canadians in. Some people call that flip-flopping. I call that admiting a mistake.
The fact remains, there are plenty of people who could not have supported any government in this country that would send our military into conflict under the grey circumstances of the second Gulf War.
I guess I should start watching Newsworld soon for the vote -- it's still happening today, right? Any idea when the official platforms are coming out?
Cheers
Pat
hotmetal401 Wrote:das_hips Wrote:I've read this 'Stephen Harper is Scary' crap on this forum a few times now, but I'm still confused. Who, really, is scared of Stephen Harper.
Gord Downie. "War is organized murder, and that's what Steven Harper would have brought you." -- July 1, 2004.
Steven Harper was a very loud supporter of joining the US in going into Iraq when the war started in March 2003. I will give credit that once he realized that the war truly was unjustified and not being fought for the reasons the United States claimed it to be, he said that he would have not sent Canadians in. Some people call that flip-flopping. I call that admiting a mistake.
People aren't afraid of Stephen Harper as such. What the whole "Harper is scary" thing really means is that people don't trust him. They believe that behind the reasonable facade lie strange and unreasonable ideas, and they are "scared" of what those ideas might be -- US-style health care, defence and security policy in lockstep with the US, restoration of the death penalty, restricted abortions, and so on.
This is the old hidden agenda thing that conservatives complain about and that the Liberals played on in the last election. And these things are, of course, not in the Conservative platform, but politics is perception.
Enough Conservative figures say ill-advised things to keep these fears alive, in much the same way that Reform was always hobbled by the wingnut fringe that Manning worked hard to purge. And Harper's stubborn refusal to say anything concrete about his party's policies, out of the fear that the Liberals will steal all the good ideas, hardly helps matters.
Which brings us to one of his (and his party's) real problems, a naked hunger for power. You would think that grownups wouldn't care who implemented an idea, as long as it got implemented. You would be wrong. It is clearly more important for the Conservatives to gain power than it is to see good policy implemented. This is plainly obvious to observers, and it's one of the reasons Harper has failed to win support. He's not selling a vision of Canada; he's selling a conservative movement.
In Harper's defence on the Iraq flip-flop, one of the benefits of inhabiting the reality-based community is that you get to change your opinion as new facts come to light. It's not legit imo to go after people for flip-flopping just because they change their point of view. Best to reserve that condemnation for those who just can't make up their minds, and keep dithering uselessly until the polls tell them what to do ... no names, no pack drill.
Also in Harper's defence, Martin is equally lacking in vision. But the public tends go with the devil they know, and that's why we're doomed for now to minority governments.
So star candidate Mike Ignatieff is running into some hell because of some silly nationalist (Of the Russian variety) comments he made. Lucky for me, I'll be pitching a piece about him to various rags this afternoon. Here's some of the points you fellow political geeks might find interesting... or not, but I'm adding them to this thread anyway:
- Iggy is being hailed, like all Canadian politicians with strong cheek bones: "The Next Trudeau"
- I'm unsure if he's the right choice to succeed Martin. Great Liberal leaders (Wil, Mac and Pierre) have been able to bridge the gap between solitudes. That used to mean Quebec and the ROC, now a third solitude, The West, has been added to the mix. A liberal leader who can build a bridge across any two of those solitudes is a winner.
- Ignatief isn't going to appeal to soft nationalist Quebecers, and he's certainly not going to impress any cowboys.
- The Liberal party headed by Iggy will cease to be a Pan-Canadian party. Like the Republicans in the States who rely solely on heart-land conservatives, the Liberals would become a party for Ontario liberals. Now, as an Ontario liberal, that doesn't bother me, as a Canadian, it does.
- The West and Quebec would be ceded to the nationalist/seperatist parties in their respective areas. The Liberals would become the Bloc Ontario in an increasingly divided Canada.
- Ignatief might be Ontario's man, but I don't know if he's Canada's man. It's certainly too early to be hitching wagons to Dr. Harvard.
cferneyh Wrote:fingernailsonhull Wrote:I'm going to make you feel sick. You agree with Ralph Klein.
As a non-politics guy, what's wrong with Ralph (other than drunkenly berating homeless people)? I've only been in Alberta two years, but I LOVE the way this province is run. No deficits, no PST, prosperity cheques, low unemployment..... What more could you want?
As far as I'm concerned, any premier who gets drunk before a public function and picks on homeless people should be flushed faster than you can say "fascist". Unfortunately, that's far from being all that's wrong with Ralph Klein, who is more than receptive to at least 3 ideas that have been accompanied by the waving around of large amounts of cash by certain american corporations:
1/Privatized healthcare
2/Adopting the American dollar
3/...are you ready for this? Becoming the next American state! Yeehah!
But no, obviously you're right and we should let this drunken imbecile rule Canada's most lucrative province for many a year to come.
arseface88 Wrote:cferneyh Wrote:fingernailsonhull Wrote:I'm going to make you feel sick. You agree with Ralph Klein.
As a non-politics guy, what's wrong with Ralph (other than drunkenly berating homeless people)? I've only been in Alberta two years, but I LOVE the way this province is run. No deficits, no PST, prosperity cheques, low unemployment..... What more could you want?
As far as I'm concerned, any premier who gets drunk before a public function and picks on homeless people should be flushed faster than you can say "fascist". Unfortunately, that's far from being all that's wrong with Ralph Klein, who is more than receptive to at least 3 ideas that have been accompanied by the waving around of large amounts of cash by certain american corporations:
1/Privatized healthcare
2/Adopting the American dollar
3/...are you ready for this? Becoming the next American state! Yeehah!
But no, obviously you're right and we should let this drunken imbecile rule Canada's most lucrative province for many a year to come.
That's all well and good but Alberta is probably the best run province in Canada. :thumb:
hotmetal401 Wrote:das_hips Wrote:I've read this 'Stephen Harper is Scary' crap on this forum a few times now, but I'm still confused. Who, really, is scared of Stephen Harper.
Gord Downie. "War is organized murder, and that's what Steven Harper would have brought you." -- July 1, 2004.
Steven Harper was a very loud supporter of joining the US in going into Iraq when the war started in March 2003. I will give credit that once he realized that the war truly was unjustified and not being fought for the reasons the United States claimed it to be, he said that he would have not sent Canadians in. Some people call that flip-flopping. I call that admiting a mistake.
The fact remains, there are plenty of people who could not have supported any government in this country that would send our military into conflict under the grey circumstances of the second Gulf War.
I guess I should start watching Newsworld soon for the vote -- it's still happening today, right? Any idea when the official platforms are coming out?
Cheers
Pat
Yeah, I respect Gord Downie as a singer but his beliefs almost mean nothing to me. I agree with him about nationalism but disagree with him on other things.
Call me crazy, but privatized health care doesn't sound so bad to me. Public and private health care can work IMO. I don't know why most Canadians brag about our healthcare. I think we are like 30th in the world or something in healthcare rankings. How can our system be so infallible when people have to wait over a year for surgery. Why is our system considered perfect when it's life or death for me to get an appointment with my doctor??? Why is the system perfect when many people are going to the hospital for a sore throat or other ridiculous reasons and the medical bills pile up for people who shouldn't be in the hospital to begin with??? There is so much wasted medicare money for people who don't need medical care at all. I say why not be open to new ideas?? I know I'm not closing the door on new ideas for healthcare. The healthcare system in New Zealand puts Canada to shame.