A house built on trust. Those five words more than any others capture the basis on which the Harper government gained its minority victory. Canadians, and especially Quebecers, turned away from a tired Liberal government that was racked with allegations of impropriety as a result of the advertising and sponsorship scandal. The Conservative government has placed great emphasis on trust and ethics showcasing the Federal Accountability Act as its pledge to clean up government.
As such, the emerging story from Elections Canada, which tracks the movement of funds between the central Tory campaign and local riding associations, should give the Harper Conservatives pause.
The importance of trust and ethics should not be a big surprise. Cast aside platform, advertising and political strategy – it was mistrust of the Liberals that drove voters to the Conservatives in the 2006 federal election.
During what was supposed to be a quiet break between Christmas and New Year’s during the last federal election, the RCMP launched a bombshell allegation against the Liberals.
The result was immediate. According to the SES Research election tracking on behalf of CPAC, the percentage of Canadians who trusted Paul Martin dropped an astounding 10 points in one night.
This critical juncture changed the landscape, tilting the election from a probable Liberal minority victory to a Conservative minority victory.
With the promise of something different, Harper rode a wave of anger directed at the Liberals and broke their 13-year grip on power.
More than a year after the 2006 victory, Stephen Harper continues to fare well on the trust and ethics front.
One year after his victory, the polling showed that he had increased the percentage of Canadians who considered him the most trustworthy leader by 14 points.
Fast forward to the summer of 2007 and we have Elections Canada questioning a Conservative initiative which transferred money from the national campaign to local ridings to fund advertising.
Regardless of whether anything improper was done or not, the Conservatives should be wary of any perception that they worked around the intent of the rules.
If the Conservatives have trouble arguing that those expenses were legitimately incurred by the local candidates, it may have to account for these funds as part of the national campaign budget.
To do so would mean that the Conservative national campaign exceeded the $18.3-million spending limit and be in violation of Canada’s election laws.
It is still difficult for the Liberals to attack the Conservatives on ethics – even with a new leader at the helm. The most likely beneficiaries of this issue – if it continues to have legs – would be the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec and the New Democrats outside of Quebec.
Unless the Conservatives can quickly and effectively put this behind them, it will play directly into the hands of the separatists, allowing Gilles Duceppe to undermine and discredit both the Conservative and the Liberal federalist options in Quebec.
For Jack Layton, it may be the needed spark to energize NDP fortunes by lumping together the Grits and the Tories.
Add a probable fall throne speech, which leads to a confidence vote, and five expected byelections, and we get potential political turmoil for the Tories.
The political house built on trust could be rocked.
What do you think?
Cheers,
NJN
Remember to rate the views of others - to allow us to recognize the opinion leaders in our national conversation.
Individuals with the top ratings make it to Nik’s Leaderboard.
Most Read Comments
Highest Rated Comments
My wife is the CFO for a Conservative MP. We have had a lot of back and forth w... more
Ed Hardison (Ontario) 10 Sep 17:59
I believe it is no coincidence with the Prime Minister's outrage over electoral ... more
Jim Johnston (Ontario) 10 Sep 18:35
I think Dion and the Liberals are also staking out trust and accountability with... more
parnel (Ontario) 10 Sep 18:02
If the system is too adversarial, you have your party largely to blame for that ... more
Erich (Ontario) 17 Sep 13:46
It is formality that comments are 'addressed' to the speaker, but it has been Ca... more
Erich (Ontario) 17 Sep 17:43
It's to be hoped that the Tory abuse of 10% mailers -- sending nonsense junk mai... more
HappyBCer (British Columbia) 02 Sep 18:35
Comments
Ed Hardison
My wife is the CFO for a Conservative MP.
We have had a lot of back and forth with Elections Canada ....some of it downright sily.
However they call the shots and we abide by them....and our MP's financials for the last election have passed their audit.[ It took them 18 months]
It is our belief that Elections Canada , which seems to have turned a blind eye to the Liberal's past excesses , is determined to undermine the Harper Government .
WHY?
Not because the Conservative MP's are dishonest .
Who appointed or hired those who run Elections Canada ?
Guess !
blessings
[updated Mon Sep 10 17:59:11 -0400 2007]
10 Sep 17:59
9 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
parnel
I think Dion and the Liberals are also staking out trust and accountability with the populace although it might take longer in Quebec to show up in popular voting intentions.
Jack Layton has not done anything to warrant any move up in voting intentions and if his candidate loses Outremont, which he should by a large percentage, then his stock will stay down. The bloc are opportunists and could actually benefit the Liberals by holding back the CPC if the campaign money "affair" becomes a major issue there.
Harper's credibility is generally starting to weaken, in my opinion, and if this problem becomes a major issue he will surely drop considerably in the polls. Dion has been patiently waiting for an issue of confidence that would force the other parties to vote with him to topple Harper and this could be it.
[updated Mon Sep 10 18:02:17 -0400 2007]
10 Sep 18:02
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
alfeee
The timing could not be better to question the common sense and practices of Elections Canada. I can't wait to see how many people turn up at the upcoming by-elections wearing birkas et al and this at a time when our Quebec Commission is examining the accommodation of immigrants in our province. Oh yes and it was just announced that one of the commissioners (Mr. Taylor) can't show up for the 4 first audiences due to a "fore arm" operation. I guess "subs" are not allowed at these important inquiries into public opinion...........cheeech!
[updated Mon Sep 10 18:21:04 -0400 2007]
10 Sep 18:21
2 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Jim Johnston
I believe it is no coincidence with the Prime Minister's outrage over electoral procedures regarding facial covering follows so closely on the tail of the reports that CPC may have exceeded election spending limits. In close parallel to the behaviour of the government during question period, it would seem that the preferred defence is a spirited attack on those who would dare question Canada's New Government.
[updated Mon Sep 10 18:35:48 -0400 2007]
10 Sep 18:35
10 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tom
This issue with Elections Canada is just another example of the Harper Conservatives saying one thing and doing another. I think the Canadian public is beginning to see an obvious pattern of behaviour starting to develop.
- Not claiming $530,000 raised at the Conservative 2005 Convention and being caught by Elections Canada, then paying it back. They then tried to change the rules and were thwarted by the NDP.
- Complaining about the non-elected Senate, then appointing Fortier and putting him in charge of Public Works and outside of scrutiny. Recently over $1Billion in government buildings were sold off with no public oversight.
- Jason Kenney exploding in the House of Commons about Liberal abuses with the use of Challenger jets, claiming they cost $11,000 per hour to run when the Liberals were in power. Now the Conservatives are expensing the use of these same jets at $1,500 per hour.
- Harper's government paid image advisor.
- Cancelling all of Dion's environmental initiatives, then renaming many of them with less funding and calling them Conservative programs.
Just a few examples out of a long string. I agree with Nick that it will be difficult for the Liberals to fight the next election on ethics, although Dion does have a very clean reputation which could help quite a bit. Since the Conservatives ran a single issue campaign on ethics in the last election anything like this issue with Elections Canada could hit them hard with the voting public.
I think the lustre is dropping off Harper fairly quickly these days. When under stress he has quite an over-the-top combative and partisan style which I believe only appeals to hard core Reform/neoCons. If Harper continues to drop in the polls I would predict that he will become more vicious in his attacks - and quite possibility seriously hurt his slipping image in the process.
The key to the next election for the Liberals is to present a well thought out and integrated platform that addresses the environment, social justice, and solid economic performance - and position Dion as an open, rational man that can be trusted. I don't think he can ever be packaged as charasmatic - there is not enough money in the coffers or enough brilliant image consultants to pull that one off!
Perhaps the next election will be fought over substance, not the emotion that the Adscam issue generated. If that is the case I would predict a Liberal minority government.
[updated Mon Sep 10 18:37:54 -0400 2007]
10 Sep 18:37
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
e guye
The timing of this opinion piece is suspect - exactly one week away from three important byelections in Quebec. It could be seen as an attempt to shift support away from the Conservative party to opposition parties in these upcoming byelections (as you point out, the Bloc, the NDP could gain - and just how could the Liberals lose? I didn't quite follow your line of thought there) - on an issue that is 'internal' to the Tories and not one that has any bearing on the conduct or honesty of the party with public funds. And of course exactly one month away from the Ontario provincial election - the writ just dropped.
Your article states 'the emerging story from Elections Canada, which tracks the movement of funds between the central Tory campaign and local riding associations, should give the Harper Conservatives pause'. I agree - if an error was made then it should be corrected - but to compare this type of impropriety, if indeed there was one, to the sponsership scandal is ridiculous to the extreme. Your article states 'Regardless of whether anything improper was done or not, the Conservatives should be wary of any perception that they worked around the intent of the rules'. Therefore, you admit it's entirely possible nothing improper occurred. Yet you choose to take a healthy part in promoting such 'perceptions' - and to air this topic one week away from three crucial Quebec byelections and a month away from the Ontario provincial election.
You say 'The political house built on trust could be rocked' - I agree, when influential pollsters are throwing the rocks.
[updated Mon Sep 10 18:42:52 -0400 2007]
10 Sep 18:42
12 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
The trust issue is fundamental for citizens relating to politicians and breeds their cynicism. It has been beaten to death by too many individuals and events as of late. The Harper Cons seem to think that if their electoral fiscal sins involved less dollars than the Chretien Liberals tht they should get points for that.
It is hard to think of a single social or economic institution from business, to churches and religion to educational institutions to politics and even the judicial system that has not breached or betrayed our trust in the past decade or so. Maybe one - the libraries seem to have not screwed up.
I think Harper believe he won the last election. He did not. We took him for a test drive and parked the Liberals for a while. I don't think Harper has sold us the car based on the experiences we have "enjoyed" (sic) with him so far. Look at his inability to movde his poll numbers beyond anaemic. He is not very convincing, especially where being trustworthy is concerned. All you have ot do is look at how he has bastardized his ouw Accountability Act for proof.
As for our trust, he has not earned it. He is definitely found to be wanting when it come to being worthy of even the slightest benefit of the doubt any more.
10 Sep 18:57
13 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
parnel
Not only has Harper failed in the trust department but his bully demeanor can only make for more nasty politics when in fact the politicians should be trying to show us the way to civilized debate of our national goals. That is what he promised.
His fiscal sins are getting dangerous as well because he will again try to buy us with our own money in the new parliament thus endangering many years of fiscal prudence and economic gains.
11 Sep 07:51
This "veil" threat against Elections Canada is just more bullying by Haprer too. He is trying to change the channel away from the Conservacitve version of Ad-scam and his law suit agains Elections Canada. This is the third fiasco and run in he has had with Elections Canada but I am sure it is mere coincidence ;-}
Harper spends like a LIberal and governs like a Republican.
11 Sep 10:51
blossom
Hi Ken,
At last, what a whiff of fresh air ;-) - (Hope that this signifies a smile).
More bullying from Mr. Harper, and straight out of Australia. He really likes to wash his dirty linen on the podium; especially outside the Country.
What I did not like to see today was S. Dion taking all the burden of responsibility for his divided party, and all of the ails within. However, we seem to live in this generation whereby anybody who takes responsibility for mistakes is rewarded...When he chose Jocelyn Coulon, the only mistake was not to introduce him personally on his summer tour, whereby, people might have gotten to know how much of an important background this professor-journalist has on foreign policy. Was he supposed to elect a candidate because of his father's reputation, but without experience? I don't think so. So why did the medias make such a big fuss?
I am just realizing that I am responding rather late to your positive insight.
20 Sep 23:54
hollinm
And Stephane Dion has? You talk about trust. Has Harper stole $250 million from Canadian taxpayers. He made a tough decision on Income Trusts. Do you think he did it just because he wanted to. He knew the political costs but he also knew the impact on the country. That's what leadership is all about.
You say... single social or economic institution from business, to churches and religion to educational institutions to politics and even the judicial system that has not breached or betrayed our trust in the past decade or so. Maybe one - the libraries seem to have not screwed up.
I agree with you on this one but a friendly reminder..who was in power for that period of time. The list of broken promises started with the GST in 1993 and continued up until 2005.
Harper may not be charismatic but he is honest, despite what you say, and like a real prime minister does what he thinks is in the best interest of the country. Would you really want to force a prime minister to never change his mind because of a promise made during an election campaign? This despite the fact that once in power, knowing all the facts, he sticks to the promise even though it is not in the best interest of the country.
11 Sep 13:36
Hollinm - The Cons seem to think because they did not misdirect as much money as the Liberals they should get a pass in the integrity and trust department. It does not work that way. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
Gomery found that nobody stole $25M from taxpayers either. That was an extrapolated figure done by the AG after reviewing only about 100 files. Gomery went into all the files found a much much smaller amount was not properly accounted for and when he traced it he found that it was spent in ways that was a breach of policy that was perpetrated out of the Chrétien PMO and some senior bureaucrats turning a blind eye an letting it happen.
There was some pure fraud with some ad agencies as well. Many have plead guilty or have been convicted. Many of the fraudulent parties are in jail and some funds have been recovered and litigation is on-going for recovery of the rest. Gomery found that not a single politician had acted improperly. The Liberal party returned $1.4M of funds that volunteers took as kickbacks into the Party as part of the fraud.
Can we expect the same from the Cons will they account for the $1.2M of advertising money they funnelled through local campaigns from all over the country to spend in buying Quebec regional advertising?
Will Harper order an inquiry so we can all find out what happened in the CPC that let this Conservative political campaign funding scam happen like Martin did?
I applaud Harper on Income Trusts. It was the right thing to do and it took courage and will to do it. I don't see what relevance there is between institutions betraying our trust and a Liberal government in power. That is a bigger social issue than mere politics.
11 Sep 16:51
hollinm
There is no comparison between the transferring of money between the national party and the regions and the adscam affair. To talk about them in the same breath is disingenous. I am not disputing what may have happened. In the end the worst that could have happened is the Conservatives exceeded the campaign limit. Hardly comparable. However adscam was the disappearance/misuse of almost $250M of taxpayer money to buy votes in Quebec. It is still a question of how much was actually stolen by the Liberals for their own use. Given the way governments operate there is no way this money could have been used in the amounts known without politicians knowing. The ad companies in Quebec did steal the money and there is evidence that some of it was kickbacked to the Liberal party (brown envelopes). You lost me on your last point.
11 Sep 17:17
The fraud in the Liberal Adscam is very different - no doubt but it is not disingenuous to draw comparisons where they are due. The political intent behind the Chretien 1995 post Referendum advertising spending using taxpayer dollars in Quebec and Conservative Party use of taxpayer funds for campaign advertising purchases to influence Quebecers is essentially the same thing.
Do not forget that we taxpayers subsidize the federal parties election campaigns through rebates for allowable campaign costs - including advertising. We also kick in some more cash for every vote a party gets. The Cons were using taxpayer funds to do this Quebec based advertising scheme for their own benefit. The question as to if it was legal will have to await the pending Federal Court decision.
And admittedly there were no frauds alledged in the Cons-scam as there was proven in the Liberal Adscam affair - that said there are parallels that are disturbing.
There are offences under the Canada Elections Act that attract jail time too. Some for up to 3 months, some for 6 months, some for a year and others for 5 years. Not trivial stuff any breaching this legislation.
The Cons are on their way to Federal Court to clarify if they breached the Act. If they are found not to have broken the law - they sure have bent it in terms of an integrity and trust test.
[updated Tue Sep 11 18:03:08 -0400 2007]
11 Sep 18:03
hollinm
The only thing the Conservatives can be found guilty of is exceeding the election spending ceiling. To twist it in comparison to adscam is inappropriate in my judgement. The party is entitled to challenge in the courts what they feel is wrong, just like the other parties if they have a grievance. Remember there is a difference between the party and the government. Harper is the leader of the party but he does not manage the party day to day. You know as well as I do that some of the rules are vague to put it kindly and open to interpretation. So I say let the investigation lead to wherever its going to lead. However, once found innocent to say well they are innocent but they have abused the integrity and trust test is sad.
11 Sep 18:36
Exceeding of the spending limits by doing indirectly what you know you can't do directly and relying on deniability of candidates Official Agents or creating a defence based on an approval tag line in the ad itself is not integrity or trutworthy behaviour.
We do not know yet if the Cons have exceeded the limits. The folks at Elections Canada seem to think so and the Cons are entitled to go to court and plead their case...just as they are doing. Even if the Cons win in court they will not have shown the kind of judgement that is appropriate enough for me to give them my consent to govern me at the next election.
[updated Tue Sep 11 19:20:30 -0400 2007]
11 Sep 19:20
hollinm
Here is an interesting comparison between adscam and the Tory advertising campaign which I read this morning on the Angry in the Great White North blog site.
"That Elections Canada is even involved in passing judgment on whether a particular ad is effective as a local ad is fundamentally insulting. Political advertisements are aimed at me, the voter, and not at Elections Canada. I get to pass judgment on the ad campaign when I vote. Elections Canada ought to butt out once it has confirmed that the money was spent on advertising.
OK, let me get this straight. This business of Conservative advertising is the Tory version of Adscam?
I suppose there are some parallels:
The Liberals took millions of taxpayer dollars to promote the Liberal government.
The Conservatives spent a million dollars of Conservative Party money to promote the Conservative Party.
The Liberals took those taxpayers' millions meant for advertising and gave away much of it to friends, many of whom then stuffed the money back in envelopes and gave the cash back to the Liberals.
The Conservatives took that party's million meant for advertising and bought advertising.
The Liberals created a special ops group inside of the PMO, out of reach of Quebec ministers such as Paul Martin and Stephane Dion, and ran things secretly until Alan Cutler blew the whistle on the scheme.
The Conservatives accurately wrote down all the money spent in neat columns, signed their names to it, and submitted the forms to Elections Canada.
The Sponsorship Scandal revolved around a secret scheme that turned an little-known effort to make Canada more popular in Quebec into a kickback operation that moved millions of tax dollars into Liberal Party coffers via brown envelopes and suitcases stuffed with cash.
The advertising thing hinges on whether a Conservative ad that looks like a national ad but that has the name of a local candidate at the end of the ad counts as local advertising or should be counted as national advertising.
Elections Canada has decided that the ads (national in character but with the local candidate's name at the end) does not count as local advertising. Based on what criteria? Just how much "local" content does there have to be? Is a national-style ad with the name of the local candidate at the end just a crappy local ad? And if Elections Canada starts judging an ad on how effective it is going to be for the local candidate, will it start judging ads on their quality? The use of lighting and colour? Whether the points are made effectively? Is the candidate photogenic?
There are too many bureaucrats in this country who seem to think their job is to be editors instead of merely managers. In their defence, Liberal-style laws force them into this position. The very fact that tax money is used to reimburse some portion of these expenses does legitimately place these bureaucrats in the position of trying to spend our money wisely. But in the end, that decision really belongs to the voters. The ads are effective or they're not. They'll win votes or they won't. The total number of votes won by a party translates into the party subsidy handed out by the government. Bad ads will lower that amount.
The question is settled by the election. Elections Canada ought to make sure that advertising money is spent on advertising and otherwise make sure the election runs smoothly. Forcing Elections Canada into the position of deciding whether an ad is good enough on some measure is insulting to me. I'll make that decision on voting day."
12 Sep 13:57
If a local candidate wants to give money to the national campaign to use for advertising as the national campaign sees fit and that does not exceed spending limits that apply to all parties - I have no problem.
For the national campaign to circumvent the legal spending limits by pushing national money into 67 local campaigns presumably from all over the country that have not raised sufficient local funds to reach legal limits AND then funnel those national monies back into the central campaign to spend on advertising only in Quebec regions that the Cons deemed as winnable AND exceed legislated spending limits - that is not OK!!!
Elections Canada is just doing it job administering the Canada Elections Act is a way that if fair for all concerned. They in fact forewarned the politicians that this would happen. This is nothing to do with Elections Canada's behaviour - it is totally in the hands of the law makers - not the law administrators.
I see from the Globe and Mail today the Cons used delay tactics around the initiaitves for a Comos Committee probe. At least Paul Martin bit the bullet and ordered a Judicial Inquiry on Adscam. What is Harper afraid of? Surely not the truth. He is the avatar of integrity and trust - just read the Accountability Act...especially those key portions he has yet to proclaim.
At the very least I suggest we let the Federal Courts tell us if the Cons have broken the law or not. The Cons have initiatied the action and that needs to be fast tracked.
12 Sep 16:32
hollinm
"At the very least I suggest we let the Federal Courts tell us if the Cons have broken the law or not."
I fully agree with this comment but hopefully you will accept the verdict whatever that may be.
Having a Commons Committee looking at the issue is not appropriate given that the issue is already in the hands of the court.
12 Sep 17:50
Hollinm - I agree with everthing you said in your last post. It is before the Courts - leave it there - unless the Cons abandon the Action - then send it to Committee.
12 Sep 18:07
Desroch
IMr. Harper goal , of building a house of trust, made for good copy at the time, but then again, what can one say of a goal that are only defined as “aspirational”. After all , to aspire is to soar, to hope, to desire, to wish or to fly to great height. I hope that the winds of change do not make the fall from such height to painful.
10 Sep 19:13
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tom Good
Nik---whoever said politics was a clean sport and whoever said the Harper Conservatives, other than themselves, had a corner on the ethics and trust markets? Political memories are notoriously short. Somewhere in the distant past Harper said he would not follow those unethical governments of the past with patronage appointments and brought in the much needed Accountability Act to be proclaimed January 1st, 2007.---BUT Harper did an end run around his own legislation with "Patronage flood pushed through" (newspaper headlines) AFTER the House adjourned for Christmas last. To name a few patronage appointments---Barbara McDougall, Ian McCllenand, Gilles Guenette, John Hamm, all Conservatives ! ! ! A double standard ? You tell me.
On the dust up with Elections Canada over political financing rules, Jean-Pierre Kingsley resigned on February 17 so we assume there is a Conservative appointee at the helm of Elections Canada and the problems for the Conservatives continue.
Trust you say------well, I do not trust this government to give us the truth about Afghanistan and I am suspicious about the awarding of large defence contracts, to name a few. I am suspicious of Harper with his fundamentalist religious leanings and what his government may try to do about supposedly "dead" social issues---abortion, same sex unions---should he gain a majority. The Ontario Conservatives and their "faith based" funding proposals are stirring the political pot and it seems to me a provincial Conservative is a federal Conservative. Our Prime Ministers of the past carefully maintained a gulf between church and state-----what are we heading into today??---a mini theocracy? Scarey.
Harper is very much in control of his caucus and cabinet who all appear to march in "lock step". Cross him and you are politically dead. To me it is surprising how strongly Harper governs almost as a one man government in a minority situation. I believe he can only act this way when the opposition is weak and undirected but I am equally sure the opposition will exploit every flaw in the shining Conservative armor.
As Mulroney said in his CTV interview on Saturday last, once in power, the government will use every device available to them to stay in power as long as possible. I am pleased with the minority position Harper holds in the governance of Canada.
10 Sep 22:07
5 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tim
I think we will never be rid of election funding scandals as long as political parties are constantly trying to raise money. I believe that all elections and leadership campaigns should be publicly funded, and that it should be illegal for any individual or oragnization to contribute to a political party.
A formula would have to be established that was fair to all parties, providing them with realistic funding based on current public support but didn't simply reward the party which won the most support last time, and didn't shut out new or smaller parties either.
One idea I heard was that all parties would be guaranteed a minimum amount, and in addition every taxpayer would be required to pay a small fixed amount (e.g. $20) as a mandatory party contribution on their income tax. No matter what, you have to pay $20, however you can choose the party to whom it goes. This would be the sole income source for all political parties, and there would be no need for private fund raising. Yes, I'm sure better public funding arrangements could be devised - can you suggest one?
Had this been in place, there would have been no "Mr Five Percents" in the Mulroney days, no Quebec Sponsorship Scandal in the Martin days, no five year olds donating their college funds to Joe Volpe's campaign and and no muttering about whether the Conservatives are up to no good today.
In addition, parties who know their funding is to some extent tied to public approval, might strive to respect the voting public more than they frequently seem to.
My $0.02
Tim
11 Sep 07:46
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Elwan Lobo-Pires
TRUST is an issue that resounds for a couple of weeks around election time. The Liberals broke the GST promise, yet Sheila Copps who resigned on that very promise was promptly elected. As you rightly pointed out Harper rightly scores highest on the trust and ethics front. But what about the TRUSTS (I fully support the decision), or David Emerson or Afghanistan. Though a lot of people may agree with some of the things that Harper has done his attitude of "my way or the highway", his tight control of his cabinet, ( after the last reshuffle we did not hear a word from any of the new ministers). He treats them like a bunch of 10 year old players. The coach tells them which position to play and that is it. Like it or lump it. Harper seems genuine in his desire to do the right thing however ideology, expediency and his belief in his omniscience, coupled with a desire, no matter how wrong, to have his own way will prevent Canadians from giving him a majority. Witness the latest change in his stance at APEC. A couple of months ago he talked of a consensus on Afghanistan. Now it appears if he has a majority the Afghan mission will be extended.
11 Sep 11:50
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
wlloydm
With all due respect, I can’t see this as having impact your article suggests. On the scale of impacts, if the sponsorship scandal was a 10 this would be a 2 or perhaps a 3, in my opinion. The RCMP investigation announcement had such a big impact due to a number of unique circumstances – the sponsorship scandal; a very poor first half for the Liberal campaign; and, not least of which was it being made public in the middle of an election campaign. So, to determine the impact one should look at the context. If the Liberals can make it one of the bricks in building a case, then it may be supportive of something that has the type of impact your article suggests. But then would it have the traction to carry over to the next election? Prob not, there will be lots of bigger issues for the voters to sink their teeth into, in my opinion.
I think the biggest impact may very well be that the Conservatives not play it so fast and loose in the next election, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Lloyd MacIlquham
[updated Tue Sep 11 12:41:11 -0400 2007]
11 Sep 12:41
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
canada
How do we find air heads like this Mayrand at Elections Canada, Parliament makes the Laws, not this arrogant fool!
13 Sep 23:51
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
KEN BARCLAY
NIK GET IT RIGHT, DION NEVER, EVER HAD A CHANCE!
THAT HE HAS FAILED IS PARTLY HIS FAULT,FOR ENTERING THE LEADERSHIP
CAMPAIGN AND THEN STAYING IN THE RACE WHEN HE WAS OUTMATCHED. THAT HE WAS AND WILL BE REMEMBERED AS ILL PREPARED.
TO ASSUME HE WAS BETTER SUITED THAN THE OTHER FRONT RUNNERS
PROVES HE LACKS THOSE CHARACTERISTICS SO NECCESARY WHEN
ATTEMPTING TO RUN AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN OR A PARTY FOR THAT
MATTER!
SOMETIMES THOSE IN "T.O.M MIX" ARE FIXATED ON PERSUING THE DECOY
AND THAT THEY START THE PROCESS THE NEXT MORNING SHOULD BE APPARENT.MAKE A STATEMENT,THAT MR DION HAS NO MANAGEMENT SKILLS
HE HAS NEVER BEEN A TACTICIAN, NOT A STRATEGIST, WHY, HE WOULD
NOT BE WORTHY OF A SEAT AT A BOARDROOM, LET ALONE BE CEO.
IT SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE THEN.
THE NEXT ELECTION WILL BE FEBRUARY 2009 !
THE DEACON
23 Sep 00:30
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Hope
It certainly wasn’t a house built on truth. It was built on quick fix, vote-buying retail politics. In fact, it’s looking more and more like a house of cards. On the first day, at the swearing-in ceremony of the “New Government”, the promise breaking began with the appointment of Fortier to the Senate. And so it went on from there. Sure didn’t take long to start smelling like the “Old Government”, the one they ridiculed ad nauseam for the same offense. The CPC would qualify as an item in the Guinness Book of World Records.
Canadians were desperate for change and when the Tories promised they would be different, they took them at their word and voted for them. But, even with the stars aligned in the Party’s favour, the electorate was smart enough to give them minority status only. Now that they realize it was all blather, bluster and B.S., I hope voters will continue to give a resounding “NO” to a majority Conservative government!
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. “TRUST CANADIANS WON’T BE FOOLED AGAIN!
[updated Sun Sep 23 14:05:14 -0400 2007]
23 Sep 14:05
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
SaskKen
Unless they can find some way to regain the political edge they enjoyed two years ago, the Conservatives are in deep trouble if an election is called anytime after this summer. Although Harper's personal numbers remain high, that hasn't translated to his party, which seems to be stuck in the low to mid 30s. Add to that the natural tendency for governments to lose public confidence because they're run by human beings who make mistakes and you have a recipe for a body blow to the Conservatives next time up. And if Flaherty is right and we go into a recession in the next few months, things will not bode well for the Conservatives who will be blamed for mismanaging our finances.
Let's face it. The Conservatives are great strategists and will fight a dirty, to-the-death battle next time up but they aren't overly creative or imaginative. Their big problem right now is they've pretty much played the only hand they had -- Liberals bad, us good -- and they can't seem to find the deck for a new deal.
[updated Mon Feb 25 16:35:54 -0500 2008]
25 Feb 16:35
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
larryl
nik. is there a glitch in your system? why are we reading posts dated 2007 from a lot of people we have never heard from before. there seems to be a lot of tory bashing taking place so are you trying to influence our opinions with all these new people who seem to be very informed about CPC corruption? I hope the right wingers are all seeing the same things I am. they will obviously learn some a lot here.
[updated Wed Sep 03 14:03:03 -0400 2008]
03 Sep 14:03
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Tommies
Where are the 5 byelections coming from?
[updated Fri Apr 02 05:39:41 -0400 2010]
02 Apr 05:39
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.