CanPol: Race to the Finish

[KrazyHorse]

Harper defends remarks to U.S. conservative movement
Last Updated Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:09:45 EST
CBC News

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper faced questions over past remarks he made to an American conservative movement, comments the Liberals claim prove his allegiance to a radical right-wing agenda.

The comment is quoted in one of a series of controversial ads the Liberals released earlier this week. One quotes a speech Harper made eight years ago to a conservative American think-tank.

"America, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world," the ad quotes Harper as saying.

Liberal Leader Paul Martin said Harper for years has "been courting and wooing the far right, the U.S. conservative movement."

But Harper defended his comment.

"I was the leader of a conservative organization addressing another conservative organization. And obviously we admire values of freedom and democracy and the promotion of our traditional values and I think we all understand that," Harper told reporters.

In the same speech, Harper also told the group that Canada was "a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term."

Harper said he wasn't serious about that quote.

"The other comment as you know was tongue-in-cheek."

"It was Mr. Martin during that period of our history who was actually cutting the social programs that I was only referring to in my analysis," he added.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/12/harper-quotes060112.html

Reposted, because NYE reposted the Marin article I linked...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I know. I was talking about the specific article I posted where Harper attempted to explain away his ********ing of the American right as nothing more than youthful hijinks...

In that, he was as crappy as Martin during his explanation of the travesty of the "soldiers in our cities" advertisement...

Have you read his speech that several of the quotes come from?

[notyoueither]

The issue isn't Martin's lame explanation. His explanation is just funny.

The issue is that the ad got released when it should never have been made in the first place.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Watch Tobin's comeback.

The bad thing about this is that we're getting the exact opposite of what we wanted: Martin hasn't had the time to replace the Chretien libs - those that are the most corrupted IMO - with his own organization guys.

What kind of la-la land do you live in? Ralph Goodale is under investigation for insider trading, Paul Martin has been - systematically, as finance minister, undermining international efforts against fiscal paradises. And as if that wasn't enough, he has the hypocrisy of presenting himself as a defender of Kyoto, while everyone knows he actively used his influence as a minister of the Chretien cabinet to oppose it.

Not only is Martin a crook, but he has no elegance and no stature to make up for it.

[Richelieu]

Goodale is a Chretien man. He's been a minister without interruption since 1993.

Martin has been cleared by Gomery in THE big scandal that hit the Liberals.

As far as stature and elegance, Martin is a 100% improvement over Chretien.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Harper defends remarks to U.S. conservative movement
Last Updated Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:09:45 EST
CBC News

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper faced questions over past remarks he made to an American conservative movement, comments the Liberals claim prove his allegiance to a radical right-wing agenda.

The comment is quoted in one of a series of controversial ads the Liberals released earlier this week. One quotes a speech Harper made eight years ago to a conservative American think-tank.

"America, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world," the ad quotes Harper as saying.

Liberal Leader Paul Martin said Harper for years has "been courting and wooing the far right, the U.S. conservative movement."

But Harper defended his comment.

"I was the leader of a conservative organization addressing another conservative organization. And obviously we admire values of freedom and democracy and the promotion of our traditional values and I think we all understand that," Harper told reporters.

In the same speech, Harper also told the group that Canada was "a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term."

Harper said he wasn't serious about that quote.

"The other comment as you know was tongue-in-cheek."

"It was Mr. Martin during that period of our history who was actually cutting the social programs that I was only referring to in my analysis," he added.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/12/harper-quotes060112.html

Reposted, because NYE reposted the Marin article I linked...

Your lovely CBC doesnt name the think tank he was addressing. Was it Heritage? AEI? Depending on that, "your conservative movement" may not be a reference to the "radical right"

And of course America itself IS a light to the world

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Goodale is a Chretien man. He's been a minister without interruption since 1993.

False, he was a well known supporter of Martin.

Martin has been cleared by Gomery in THE big scandal that hit the Liberals.

Gomery didn't have the required powers to investigate enough. Do you really believe that the Minister of Finance wouldn't know about 300m flowing out of the State's coffers?
Besides, my example was related to Canada Steamship Lines, not THE scandal.

As far as stature and elegance, Martin is a 100% improvement over Chretien.

100% of 0, granted.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I don't see this privatisation as a bad thing, since it will mean efficient delivery of health care, as opposed to our current system.

Tell that to the people over here who can't afford health insurance.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know. I was talking about the specific article I posted where Harper attempted to explain away his ********ing of the American right as nothing more than youthful hijinks...

Oh, he explained it away?

[Ben Kenobi]

Tell that to the people over here who can't afford health insurance.

How many are there Odin?

[joncha]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Your lovely CBC doesnt name the think tank he was addressing. Was it Heritage? AEI? Depending on that, "your conservative movement" may not be a reference to the "radical right"

And of course America itself IS a light to the world

Heh. Compared to Canadian politics, Bush is "radical right".

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris False, he was a well known supporter of Martin.

If you say so. I'm basing nmy judgement on the fact that Chretien made him a minister when he came to power and he remained a minister throughout Chretien's reign. In my book, that makes him a Chretien man.

Gomery didn't have the required powers to investigate enough. Do you really believe that the Minister of Finance wouldn't know about 300m flowing out of the State's coffers?

Martin knew exactly where the money was: discretionary funds used by the PMO. He was requested to send that money to the PMO and that's what he did. As far as knowing what was being done with it: I think it's a mix of two things:
1 - He kept himself at arms lenght on purpose. Plausible deniability IMO.
2 - He wasn't a part of Chretien's circle and he had no way of getting involved other than going for broke and giving up his career.

Besides, my example was related to Canada Steamship Lines, not THE scandal.

I won't debate you on that: it's ****ty. Still miles away from Chretien though.

100% of 0, granted.

So that's where the infamous 110% comes from?

[joncha]

This election gets better every day.

Liberals axe candidate accused of offering job to opponent
Last Updated Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:03:46 EST
CBC News

The Liberal party has dumped one of its B.C. candidates following allegations he offered an NDP candidate a job to drop out of the race and support the Liberals.

In an affidavit filed with Elections Canada, Jeffrey Hansen-Carlson alleges that Liberal candidate David Oliver and his campaign manager guaranteed him a win in the next municipal election, and offered him a job in Ottawa – if Oliver went on to win the election on Jan. 23.

Hours after the story came to light, the Liberal party issued a statement saying they were dropping Oliver as a candidate.

"Subsequent to consultations with the national campaign, Prime Minister Martin decided that it was in the best interests of the party that Mr. Oliver cease campaigning as a Liberal candidate and that he not sit in the Liberal caucus should he be elected," the Liberal party said in a statement.

Martin has also asked Oliver to no longer publicly identify himself as the Liberal candidate, the statement says, and directed the British Columbia Liberal campaign to repossess any Liberal party promotional material bearing Oliver's name.

In the affidavit, Hansen-Carlson says that Oliver and his campaign manager Gordy Kahlon came to see him on Tuesday night.

"I was shocked when Mr. Khalon spoke, 'I hear you have civic aspirations?' Immediately I knew the meeting was set up to bribe me, but for what I was not sure," he said in the affidavit.

"If I was to sell out the NDP they guaranteed me a win in the next local general election and they also said a job in Ottawa would be waiting for me if Mr. Oliver did in fact win the riding," Hansen-Carlson said.

"They also discussed that I would be a 'hero', that the option to join the Liberal Party would always be there, and that they would be prepared to bill this political move as being my own, to net me even more respect from within the Liberal ranks," he said in the affidavit.

Hansen-Carlson says he listened to what the Liberals had to say, and then immediately went to the NDP to tell them what happened.

Hansen-Carlson said he was in shock after he received the offer.

"Here is a friend of mine – I consider David Oliver to be a friend – here's a friend of mine who has cornered me in the most awkward way, making me to be one of his political pawns."

"I don't care to gain from this. What is important and why I came forward is that what Mr. Oliver and Mr. Kalon did is completely inappropriate, and coming forward was a matter of principle."

The federal Tories dumped a B.C. candidate who faces charges of attempting to smuggle a car and booze across the Canada-U.S. border.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said on Thursday that it's too late to replace Derek Zeisman as a candidate, but that he wouldn't be allowed to join the caucus.

[Ben Kenobi]

Darn. It's Abbotsford.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Your lovely CBC doesnt name the think tank he was addressing. Was it Heritage? AEI? Depending on that, "your conservative movement" may not be a reference to the "radical right"

And of course America itself IS a light to the world

The speech was made to... dig, dig... the 'Council for National Policy, a right-wing U.S. think tank'. In it, Harper was giving a critical analysis about Canada to people who 'know almost nothing except for your own country', although they had found their way to Montreal.

He had unflattering things to say about just about everyone, including the Reform Party (his own before and after the speech). I'm not really sure what his object was. You be the judge.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051213/elxn_harper_speech_text_051214/20051214/

Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech
Updated Wed. Dec. 14 2005 9:20 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — The text from a speech made by Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, to a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing U.S. think tank, and taken from the council's website:

Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a big welcome to Canada. Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. But seriously, your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.

Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.

But in any case, my speech will make that assumption. I'll talk fairly basic stuff. If it seems pedestrian to some of you who do know a lot about Canada, I apologize.

I'm going to look at three things. First of all, just some basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk, facts about the country and its political system, its civics. Second, I want to take a look at the party system that's developed in Canada from a conventional left/right, or liberal/conservative perspective. The third thing I'm going to do is look at the political system again, because it can't be looked at in this country simply from the conventional perspective.

First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

That is beginning to change. There have been some significant changes in our fiscal policies and our social welfare policies in the last three or four years. But nevertheless, they're still very generous compared to your country.

Let me just make a comment on language, which is so important in this country. I want to disabuse you of misimpressions you may have. If you've read any of the official propagandas, you've come over the border and entered a bilingual country. In this particular city, Montreal, you may well get that impression. But this city is extremely atypical of this country.

While it is a French-speaking city -- largely -- it has an enormous English-speaking minority and a large number of what are called ethnics: they who are largely immigrant communities, but who politically and culturally tend to identify with the English community.

This is unusual, because the rest of the province of Quebec is, by and large, almost entirely French-speaking. The English minority present here in Montreal is quite exceptional.

Furthermore, the fact that this province is largely French-speaking, except for Montreal, is quite exceptional with regard to the rest of the country. Outside of Quebec, the total population of francophones, depending on how you measure it, is only three to five per cent of the population. The rest of Canada is English speaking.

Even more important, the French-speaking people outside of Quebec live almost exclusively in the adjacent areas, in northern New Brunswick and in Eastern Ontario.

The rest of Canada is almost entirely English speaking. Where I come from, Western Canada, the population of francophones ranges around one to two per cent in some cases. So it's basically an English-speaking country, just as English-speaking as, I would guess, the northern part of the United States.

But the important point is that Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a country with two languages. And there is a big difference.

As you may know, historically and especially presently, there's been a lot of political tension between these two major language groups, and between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

Let me take a moment for a humorous story. Now, I tell this with some trepidation, knowing that this is a largely Christian organization.

The National Citizens Coalition, by the way, is not. We're on the sort of libertarian side of the conservative spectrum. So I tell this joke with a little bit of trepidation. But nevertheless, this joke works with Canadian audiences of any kind, anywhere in Canada, both official languages, any kind of audience.

It's about a constitutional lawyer who dies and goes to heaven. There, he meets God and gets his questions answered about life. One of his questions is, "God, will this problem between Quebec and the rest of Canada ever be resolved?'' And God thinks very deeply about this, as God is wont to do. God replies, "Yes, but not in my lifetime.''

I'm glad to see you weren't offended by that. I've had the odd religious person who's been offended. I always tell them, "Don't be offended. The joke can't be taken seriously theologically. It is, after all, about a lawyer who goes to heaven.''

In any case. My apologies to Eugene Meyer of the Federalist Society.

Second, the civics, Canada's civics.

On the surface, you can make a comparison between our political system and yours. We have an executive, we have two legislative houses, and we have a Supreme Court.

However, our executive is the Queen, who doesn't live here. Her representative is the Governor General, who is an appointed buddy of the Prime Minister.

Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system.

And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process.

So if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that's described as unpaid checks and political imbalances.

What we have is the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the bastion of the Prime Minister's power, the body that selects the Prime Minister, is an elected body. I really emphasize this to you as an American group: It's not like your House of Representatives. Don't make that comparison.

What the House of Commons is really like is the United States electoral college. Imagine if the electoral college which selects your president once every four years were to continue sitting in Washington for the next four years. And imagine its having the same vote on every issue. That is how our political system operates.

In our election last Monday, the Liberal party won a majority of seats. The four opposition parties divided up the rest, with some very, very rough parity.

But the important thing to know is that this is how it will be until the Prime Minister calls the next election. The same majority vote on every issue. So if you ask me, "What's the vote going to be on gun control?'' or on the budget, we know already.

If any member of these political parties votes differently from his party on a particular issue, well, that will be national headline news. It's really hard to believe. If any one member votes differently, it will be national headline news. I voted differently at least once from my party, and it was national headline news. It's a very different system.

Our party system consists today of five parties. There was a remark made yesterday at your youth conference about the fact that parties come and go in Canada every year. This is rather deceptive. I've written considerably on this subject.