The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

[KJK]

But after Bush is gone, who will Canadians blame for everything ?

My thoughts exactly only maybe you should substitute 'liberals' for 'Canadians'.

KJK

 

[armyvern]

But after Bush is gone, who will Canadians blame for eveything ?

The next gal; like normal. 

 

[ModlrMike]

Quite an assumption there. How should the Government or the Opposition be prepared to respond to a McCain Administration then?

Frankly, I don't know. It will certainly throw the Opposition for a spin, as I feel they are expecting a Democrat as the next president.

 

[ModlrMike]

Gee what a marvelous idea we decide who is our government on the basis of who the Americans elect.  NOT.

I didn't say that. I said that the US election could have bearing on when our election is. If Mr Harper is able to defuse the Liberal's preocupation with painting him as a GWB clone, then they will have lost their primary line of attack.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Given that Ontario appears, to me to be rock-ribbed Liberal for some time to come, I think Lysiane Gagnon may have the right idea here, in a column reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080505.COGAGNON05/TPStory/specialComment/columnists

Losers in Quebec

LYSIANE GAGNON

May 5, 2008

The next federal election - whenever there is one, and it won't be soon - might very well open the exit door for Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe. His party is losing ground. The sovereigntist option is in such decline that even the province's Parti Québécois hardly talks about it. Mr. Duceppe hinted recently that he was thinking about retirement, and there is a handsome pension awaiting him when he resigns from the Parliament he didn't recognize as his own.

Last week's survey by the Quebec polling firm CROP says it all. For the first time since its birth in 1993, the Bloc's support has dropped below 30 per cent. It is now at 28 per cent - a long way from the 42 per cent of the vote it garnered in the 2006 election. In the homogeneously francophone suburbs around Montreal, the Conservative Party and the Bloc are neck and neck, and in the Quebec City region, the Bloc trails the Tories by 21 points.

One out of every three people who voted Bloc in 2006 is now poised to vote for a federalist party, with most choosing to support either the NDP or the Conservatives. Don't look for many to support the Liberals - they could be campaigning on the moon; they're completely out of the game.

The NDP, traditionally absent from Quebec, is now polling stronger than the Dion Liberals among francophones. With only 13 per cent support from francophone voters, the Liberal party is five points behind the NDP.

The numbers by regions are devastating for the Liberals. In the Quebec City region, Stéphane Dion's hometown, only one voter in 10 supports the Liberals. The party can't even count on its provincial cousins for help; 38 per cent of those who support the Quebec Liberal Party plan to vote for the Conservatives federally. One surprising finding of the poll is that a quarter of the supporters of the Association Démocratique du Québec, the ADQ, a right-wing provincial party, would rather vote for the socialists than for the Liberals.

The black cherry on the melting sundae is that no more than half of the Liberal supporters consider that Mr. Dion would be the best prime minister. If an election was held now, the Liberals would end up with about 10 seats (out of 75), all of them in predominantly anglophone areas. This showing reflects the weakness of the opposition rather than the strength of the government, which has a satisfaction rate hovering around 50 per cent (except in the Tory blue Quebec City area, where voter satisfaction reaches 63 per cent).

Stephen Harper is a very lucky man. His record in government is far from stellar. There is no substantial project on his agenda except immigration reform. His diplomatic skills are almost laughable. His secretive ways and obsessive need to control everything make this government akin to a soft personal dictatorship.

My guess is that most Canadians would be unable to name more than three or four cabinet ministers in the Conservative government, and with good reason: The ministers are mute and invisible, and when they escape from the tight leash of the Prime Minister's Office, they make huge blunders, the latest cases in point being Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn's musings on the Constitution and Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier's indiscretion about Canada wanting to replace Kandahar's governor.

But Mr. Harper is blessed with an inefficient Opposition Leader, and he benefits from a rather disturbing trend: Voters seem happy with minority governments. This is especially true in Quebec, where Premier Jean Charest has gained in popularity since he's been heading a minority government. Never mind that minority governments never really govern - they just surf along, afraid of tackling anything that would be mildly controversial. One is forced to conclude that voters like impotent governments, which means that they are pretty happy with the status quo - or just too indolent to face change.

I think she is right in these insights:

• ”The next federal election - whenever there is one, and it won't be soon;”

• ”The numbers by regions are devastating for the Liberals;” and

• ”Voters like impotent governments, which means that they are pretty happy with the status quo.”

If she’s right then Harper has time to repair the damage his own PMO has been doing to his own government and he has an opportunity to win successive majorities based on strength in Québec – just as the Liberals used to do back in he ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s. It means excessive pandering to Québec – just as the Liberals did in the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s and as Mulroney did in the ‘80s – but that’s acceptable doable if he can keep the West onside.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

When I go visit the in laws in the Quebec City area and the talk gets to politics, it was always the same thing,....the rise of the Bloc was because the voters were tired of the Quebec Liberal Mafia, but had no alternative as the provincial Tories were pathetic and most couldn't even tell ya what an NDP was.

At least a vote for the Bloc could mean the decades old feed trough might get cleaned up, but now, I think monetary reality has sunk in for a lot of people and even talk of independence hurts the pocketbook. So......

 

[geo]

When Brian Mulroney came to power, he brought in a majority Progressive Conservative government.  That election saw a large number of dissatisfied Quebec Liberals who, motivated by Lucien Bouchard & Brian Mulroney's Quebec roots - threw their lot in with the PCs.
It is these same dissatisfied Liberals who voted PC - that are at the root of the Bloc.  When Lucien decided that Brian wasn't going to provide him with what he wanted - he struck off on his own with his Quebec based PCs.....

 

[a_majoor]

When Brian Mulroney came to power, he brought in a majority Progressive Conservative government.  That election saw a large number of dissatisfied Quebec Liberals who, motivated by Lucien Bouchard & Brian Mulroney's Quebec roots - threw their lot in with the PCs.
It is these same dissatisfied Liberals who voted PC - that are at the root of the Bloc.  When Lucien decided that Brian wasn't going to provide him with what he wanted - he struck off on his own with his Quebec based PCs.....

I'm not sure I agree. The Progressive Conservative Party of the day was "Red Tory" (i.e. a very soft form of social democratic party), and hardly different from the Liberals in terms of many policies. While Bouchard led the defection away from the Progressive Conservatives, I doubt that it was made up of dissatisfied Liberals. A look at the policies of the BQ (and the PQ for that matter) shows this is a "Social Democratic" party more closely aligned with the ideas of the NDP, although it also carries a strain of Nationalism as well (and we know how well Nationalism and Socialism mix.....).

Their overriding goal seems to be draining the pond so they can seem to be bigger fish, rather than finding ways to grow in the larger pond of Canada. Recent polls seem to indicate this strategy is no longer resonating, the CPC and the NDP have made very signifigent gains in Quebec at the expense of the BQ and Liberals.

At any rate, demographics and economics are rewriting the rules and redrawing the political map of Canada, people and power is flowing to the West so we need to change our Ontario and Quebec centric views on "what is best for Canada".

 

[a_majoor]

While the Liberals have gone into a ditch, the CPC has issues of their own to deal with:

http://www.petercsillag.com/2008/05/10-things-conservatives-need-to-face.html

10 things Conservatives need to face, ideally soon

Although Stephen Harper's Conservatives seem to be running a careful show in Ottawa, they need to overcome ten (count'em, ten) problems before they can move beyond being a minority government. Basically speaking, I really think the governing party needs to overcome the majority of these problems before anything better can happen come the next election.

1. The stereotype of a far right agenda - It still exists and votes are still being lost. Although the minority Conservative government is with accomplishment, don't expect radical capitalism. But some people are and they're voting against it, despite there not being an "it".

2. The stereotype of being "too obedient" to the United States - The whole "tight" relationship had been idealized on both sides, but is only a few decades young for most Canadians. Despite much cultural assimilation, a lot of Canadians have a friendly bitter attitude towards the southern neighbors and are hesitant about any government that's too friendly.

3. The stereotype of catering to corporate interests - This one exists despite there being noticeable action from this government against corporations doing as they please, the stereotype thrives. Proposals to regulate natural "medicines" have their perks but are seen too much as catering to pharmaceutical corporations. This stuff gets misinterpreted and it wounds in the ballot box.

4. The environment - This issue could have been faced early on, but was neglected somewhat in 2006. Generally, the Harper government mis-valued this one and still needs to do damage control quickly.

5. Inspiration from atop - The best way to secure votes is to be inspirational to Canadians. Stephen Harper is inspirational, but in a "look what an ordinary Canadian can accomplish" sort of way. Aside from the neo-socialist/commie flirtation, there may be a need for a few references and ideas from people like Obama and Trudeau when it comes to inspiring the public.

6. Accountability - Albeit not directly related to the government, the bad news brought up by the quarrel of sorts with Elections Canada and the resurrected Brian Mulroney have caused some bad impressions to be given.

7. Privacy Issues - Canadians are concerned about their privacy and security, probably more than the partisan bickering in Ottawa. A successful government needs to address such concerns.

8. The West still wants in! - There's been more talk than action on this one, and all of the Quebec leniencies aren't being taken well, no sir.

9. The 'religious right' stereotype - Enough said.

10. Liberal loyalty - It seems inconceivable that 30% of voters would vote for Stephane Dion's Liberals because they actually think they're performing exceptionally. The opposition has a history and many are loyal to their past achievements. People are voting Liberal because that is what they know, if that makes sense.

If Stephen Harper's Conservatives deal with a majority of these, in addition to our question-marked economy, then the next federal election will be a good one.

 

[a_majoor]

The Liberals have (to date) only one plank in their platform; a "Carbon Tax". Why such a seemingly self destructive platform is being warmed up might have to do with the behaviour of voters.......

http://voterick.com/wordpress/?p=98

Will Dion Respect me Next Morning?

The two  most recent Liberal dynasties owed a great deal, for their existence, to world class lies.

Pierre Trudeau lied to Canadians about a made-in-Canada price for oil and was able to defeat Joe Clark and his eighteen cent gas tax. At that time Canada was a net importer and was unable to produce sufficient oil, because the Liberal- decreed wellhead price was too low to entice oil extraction. Trudeau knew this but played politics with it. Once he was re-elected the price was allowed to rise by more than a dollar.

Chretien had similar disrespect for Canadians, and lied to them emphatically about removing the unpopular GST. Once elected on this promise he was eventually called on it. In response he exhibited probably the most gall in Canadian history, by lying about having made the promise. Rather than being turfed out of office at the first opportunity, he was re-elected twice. The indifference of voters to such abuse, probably had a lot to do with the development of a culture in which adscam politics was acceptable behaviour.

The reason I have reviewed these is because of Dion’s latest ruminations about energy taxes. It is tempting to think that this guy has a political death wish, but then these previous incidents show that perhaps Canadians, and especially Ontario, exhibit one as well. Both these men were obvious one night stand con-artists, and yet we fell for them. To emphasize the point, we re-elected McGuinty, whose abuse of our trust made us feel like battered partners.

Before wading further into this wonderland, consider the absurdity of this proposal at this time. If new energy taxes ever see the light, they might arrive about the time gas hits two dollars a litre. Evidently Mr. Dion thinks that the Canadian driver will do nothing in self-defense while these prices rise inexorably, and must be wacked with a new tax to make him see the light. Which tax, by then, will be about as popular as a social disease.

But wait, this tax will be revenue neutral, a promise made in the memory of all past Liberals. And if you believe that, you are still in the subservient position we left you in during the Chretien dark ages. No less an authority than the TD bank, reported at the end of that period, that all wage gains made by Canadian workers in that time, were taxed away by the ever ready hand in your pocket. After all there were brown envelopes to stuff, people to pay.

Let me conclude by wondering… does no one see anything strange about a platform which contains nothing but a potentially devastating new tax? A tax which in spite of its potential to devastate our economy, is founded on an illusory goal. I just read that China is projected to build almost 600 new coal-fired generating plants. Whatever you think about the truth of global warming, it is obvious that we may be jeopardizing our economy and the wealth of future generations, for nothing. The one sure thing that appears endangered in a Canada with Mr. Dion and the Liberals at the helm, is disposable income.

 

[stegner]

Canada is both a net importer and a net exporter of oil and gas.  West of the Ottawa Valley it is an importer, west it is an exporter.

This Conservative blogger and all Conservatives should look to Germany as a model.  They have an economy that makes ours, which is practically solely reliant on primary resource extraction making us technically pre-Industrial, look like a 90 pound weakling and they do so with having a very sound environmental plan.  I am sick and tired of people using the spectre of Canada going into bankruptcy to justify destructive and wasteful practices of industry.  Why can't industry realize that if you produce less waste you are more efficient?  If German can be environmental friendly and have one of the most powerful economies in the world why can't we?  Could it be that Mr. Harper is beholden to oil companies?   

 

[Edward Campbell]

We can only sell what people are willing to buy.

Germany, any European country for that matter, is a useless model because the European Union is, primarily, a huge protectionist collective acting, usually improperly - according to the agreement EU members have signed, to restrain trade. The EU improperly restrains trade through tariff barriers, protectionist standards and regulations - closing the European market to foreign competitors, export subsidies disguised as domestic support programmes and internal price fixing. Any of these would get a Canadian company hauled into a European court but the EU has become a major economic power: too powerful to punish. Thus, Germany, like the all the Europeans, thrives within a highly protected, closed trade and commerce system – as the old Gershwin song said: ”It’s nice work if you can get it.”

Our manufactured goods are, broadly, excluded from the European market – as are American, Australian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese and Korean goods - not wholly excluded, of course, but the data with which I am familiar shows that Europe is much more self sufficient (closed) than the NAFTA or ASEAN+China+Japan blocks.

With most of the rest of the world (Australia, (closed) West Europe and USA excepted) we face a steep cost disadvantage for our manufactured goods relative to e.g. China, India, Indonesia and Philippines.

Others want, indeed need our resources and food. We produce and they will buy. They are less inclined to buy manufactured or even processed goods – witness our ‘finished’ lumber trade problems with Japan.

Canadians are, always, fascinated by the ”Third Option” myth. “Most favoured nation” status does not cut the mustard in world trade and that’s all Trudeau ever accomplished with his “Third Option” plan. Our established trade patterns are not matters of intellectual laziness on the part of Canadian industrialists and entrepreneurs; they represent the optimal risk/reward equilibrium for businesses – companies can only sell the goods and services others want or need. Governments have proven one thing, consistently: they cannot run businesses. Trade strategies developed by politicians and bureaucrats almost always fail – when they succeed it is by happenstance, not good planning.

Now, friend stegner, environmentalism should be encouraged, even demanded in all of our commercial endeavours. The costs need to be borne in one of two ways:

1. By the end user, when that end user is a Canadian – there is no alternative, as Maggie Thatcher used to say, because taxes or fees imposed on the manufacturer or vendor are, always and without fail, passed on to the consumer, just disguised; or

2. By all Canadians through export subsidies paid with tax dollars.

That’s good public policy and has nothing more to do with good industry, trade and commerce policy than it does with good health policy or even defence policy.

 

[stegner]

Or the state could stop subsidizing the polluting companies.   The oil companies in Alberta are subsidized by billions from the federal government and even more billions from the provincial government.  And yet those in Alberta have to experience inflation because these subsidized companies can afford to outspend the citizenry.  These companies are pleading poverty though they are experiencing record profits and building huge skyscrapers in Calgary with majestic views of the rockies.   This program amounts to corporate welfare and needs to be stopped.  Take the billions from these price gougers and invest heavily in R & D and subsidize companies that do things greener.   I bet you that would motivate these abusers to reform.   

 

[Edward Campbell]

I have no problems with withdrawing subsidies, but:

1. Withdraw them for ALL subsidies - to energy, food production, autos and aviation, pharmaceuticals and so on and so forth, ad infinitum; and

2. Withdraw them just as soon as the Americans, Belgians, Chileans, Danes and so on and so forth do - not quite infinitely, but you get the idea.

Subsidies for products are wasteful and are never earned back by the subsidizer - you and I, through our taxes - but they are, also, part of the international trade landscape.

 

[stegner]

Indeed. 

 

[a_majoor]

Another strong factor against an election in the near future. What is the penalty for illegal campaign contributions, and will Elections Canada be raiding Dion's office with the RCMP and press Wednesday morning? If there is not wall to wall press coverage I would write your media outlets and ask why not?

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2008/06/deadline-for-grits-june-3.html

Monday, June 02, 2008
The deadline for the grits June 3

The grits "leadership" candidates will have to .come clean on their loans on June 3. Iggy is still begging Dion is forlorn and many of the others have paid little on their debt.

We will now see the grits at elections Canada now given their grit masters a break and either prolong the deadline or forgive the debt. The optics will not be good. At the same time elections Canad is persecuting the Tories, they will be seen as bending over backwards for their grit masters. We'll have to wait until June 3 to see what elections Canada does. I wonder is the grit MSM will be at all interested


While estimates of who owes what vary widely, Dion appears to be carrying the heaviest debt load. His office won't comment on specific sums, but he could still owe well over $800,000, an amount his supporters say privately is due to his constant campaigning for the party at the expense of his own debt.

In contrast, MPs Bob Rae (Toronto Centre) and Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's) have paid off their leadership campaign debts in full. Thanks to the refund to each candidate of the $50,000 registration fee, both are slightly in the black.

Sachin Aggarwal, financial agent for deputy leader Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) said he hoped the most recent fundraiser was enough to pay the last of a debt that once topped $770,000. The total won't be clear until closer to the June 3 deadline, and he noted the campaign could still be out about $100,000.

Other former candidates with varying amounts to pay include: Former Ontario cabinet minister Gerald Kennedy and MPs Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale), Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan), Scott Brison (Kings-Hants), Ken Dryden (York Centre), Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre) and Joe Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence).

Duff Conacher, co-ordinator of Democracy Watch, a non-partisan group based in Ottawa, argues there shouldn't be loopholes allowing candidates to get around paying back loans by June 3.

"Elections Canada will be acting unethically and undemocratically if it lets any of the Liberal leadership candidates extend their loans past the 18-month deadline," said Conacher.

"This will let the candidates off the hook for essentially using loans to raise money for their campaigns in excess of the legal donations limits."

Conacher also says he would be angry if he were a Liberal watching money going to fundraising to pay down leadership debts when the party itself needs money. The latest financial returns filed with Elections Canada for the first quarter of 2008 show the Conservatives raised almost $5 million, while the NDP took in $1.1 million and the Liberals $846,000.

The rules put a limit of $1,100 on contributions, but a person can give that amount to a leadership candidate, as well as to a by-election race, as well as making a yearly donation of the same amount to the party.

 

[geo]

Oik... the Liberals fortunes have dwindled & "members" have elected to not send in their $$$ in the light of Mr Dion doing a commendable impression of a weather cock (up).... spinning to all 4 corners of the electoral map, you can,t nail him down to taking one firm position.....

If that,s all ya can offer, I would suggest they give the job to someone else.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Liberals have long been the party of big business, that is where the lions share of their donations used to come from.  Well the teat has been removed from suckling lips.

Of course the other side of the coin is that when your platform is socialist, i.e. taking more in taxes to "provide essential services" like crack pipes, safe injection sites and protecting the human right to not be offended, the people who the party naturally attracts are those people who want something for nothing and want everyone to pay for it.  And that does not logically lead to them opening their wallets to personally ante up.

 

[a_majoor]

Tic, Tock, Tick..........

Will Elections Canada come down hard on Liberals and their unpaid campaign loans?

Today is June 3, meaning all Liberal leadership debts must be paid off according to the rules set out by Elections Canada. Will there be a raid at Liberal headquarters in Ottawa today to obtain documentation related to these debts? How will Elections Canada deal with the majority of leadership candidates who still have balances outstanding in violation of the rules? According to the Star, Stephane Dion owes somewhere around $400,000. Martha Hall Findlay $200,000. Ken Dryden $375,000. Scott Brison owes somewhere around $40,000. Gerard Kennedy owed $400,000 a couple months ago. Joe Volpe owed around $135,000; Maurizio Bevilacqua owed about $243,000 and Hedy Fry owed about $107,000. Bob Rae and Carolyn Bennett have paid off their debts already. It will be interesting to see how Elections Canada deals with this situation. Ultimately I am sure the candidates will be granted extensions and a lesson will be learned for future leadership races. In granting that extension, Elections Canada will have to explain why they are showing preferential treatment to Liberals after organizing an RCMP raid at Conservative headquarters only a few months ago on the so called “in and out” scandal.

Outside of the potential double standard with regards to Elections Canada, these leadership debts raise some serious questions about the ability of Liberals to raise money under the accountability act and rules brought in by Jean Chrétien. Why are individual Liberal members not donating to the cause? Are Liberals financially prepared to fight an election? Can Liberals compete when large donations from the wealthy, unions and corporations are no longer legal? What does this say about Dion’s leadership and the morale of grassroots Liberals?

"I'm working to pay this debt and I will and it's part of my duty,"

-Stephane Dion


"Over an eight-month campaign for the leadership of our party in 2006, in the second biggest country in the world, I spent a little over $2 million. (U.S. Democratic presidential contender) Barack Obama spends that amount on his national campaign every day! So I feel – as do all the leadership candidates – that we gave the party and the country a great race, at a very competitive price,"

-Michael Ignatieff


****

The Law:

435.38 (1) The Chief Electoral Officer, on the written application of a leadership contestant or his or her financial agent, may authorize

(a) the extension of a period provided in subsection 435.3(4) or 435.35(3); or

(b) the correction, within a specified period, of a document referred to in subsection 435.3(1) or updated document referred to in subsection 435.35(1).

(2) An application may be made (a) under paragraph (1)(a), within the period provided in subsection 435.3(4) or 435.35(3), as the case may be; and

(b) under paragraph (1)(b), as soon as the applicant becomes aware of the need for correction.

(3) The Chief Electoral Officer may not authorize an extension or correction unless he or she is satisfied by the evidence submitted by the applicant that the circumstances giving rise to the application arose by reason of

(a) the illness of the applicant;

(b) the absence, death, illness or misconduct of the financial agent or a predecessor;

(c) the absence, death, illness or misconduct of a clerk or an officer of the financial agent, or a predecessor of one of them; or

(d) inadvertence or an honest mistake of fact.


****

Michael Ignatieff

Dear Friends,

Over an eight month campaign for the leadership of our party in 2006, in the second biggest country in the world, I spent a little over $2million dollars. Barack Obama spends that amount on his national campaign every day! So I feel - as do all the leadership candidates - that we gave the party and the country a great race, at a very competitive price.

We raised the money on the old rules limiting donations to $5400.00. Now we’re repaying debt following the new rules, which limit contributions to $1100. So it hasn’t been easy, but we’re getting there.

I’ve held fund-raisers across the country and I’m incredibly grateful to all the generous people who contributed sums large and small to enable me to pay off my debt, and to the campaign workers and suppliers who put their faith in me as a candidate. I’ve also raised money for Liberal candidates and MP’s right across the country, as have the other leadership candidates.

My debt started at about $800,000. On June 3, when Elections Canada requires all of the leadership candidates to file returns, I will be reporting the significant progress that I have made with your help. I don’t quite know where I’ll be on that day - some contributions are still in the pipeline or are being processed by the party - but I will not be fully paid off by the deadline. I am within striking distance and expect to pay off the debt completely by the end of the summer.

So, dear friends, if you have not given your maximum of $1100 and still have a generous thought towards me or the other candidates, think of contributing online. Any amount large and small would be appreciated, and remember that you are helping us to keep our promises to all the people who put their faith in us and the party.

Thank you,

Michael

****


Thanks for reading…


Darryl

****

Dion under fire for debts
Nine former candidates for leadership will tell Elections Canada they need more time to pay

Jun 03, 2008 04:30 AM
Susan Delacourt
Ottawa Bureau


OTTAWA–Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and eight other former candidates for his job will be telling Elections Canada today that they need more time to pay off an estimated $2 million or more in leftover loans and debt from the 2006 leadership campaign.

"I'm working to pay this debt and I will and it's part of my duty," Dion told reporters yesterday.

Conservatives are seizing on the extended-payment request as yet more evidence that Dion isn't fit to be prime minister and proof that Elections Canada is playing favourites with Liberals in the midst of its ongoing dispute with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's party over election finances.

 

[stegner]

Harper campaigned for leadership without these rules that were brought in by Jean Chretien.  So he can hardly claim some superiority over Mr. Dion.  Apples and Oranges I say.  If he wants to talk about leadership campaign I am all for him opening up the books for his leadership election, something he has never done, though he claims otherwise.  Are the allegations of American money true?  Harper has never proved otherwise.  The difference between this scandal and the in and out is that in the allegation of the later, the Conservatives allegedly defrauded or allegedly attempted to defraud the Canadian taxpayer and exceeded election spending limits by allegedly money laundering.  In this case the Liberals have failed to repay loans for a leadership election, not a general election.  The parties who have loaned the Liberals money are welcome to sue to recover funds.  Canada does not have a debtors prison-so I am not sure what actual coercive force they or Elections Canada can impose in this instance.  In any event I think the Liberals are covered under 435.38 3 (d).  They are the first to experience these new rules.  If Harper is strong on enforcing these rules I will propose him voluntary and retroactively applying them to his leadership campaign.  After all he is more accountable than the Liberals no?  Will he agree to that?  Not a snowball's chance in hell.  So perhaps the Conservatives can stop with all the drama and count their blessings that they got off easy. 

Btw.  Thanks to Prime Minister Chretien for bravely changing the law in the first place and taking big business out of the electoral process in a big way.