Harper, what direction is he running in now?

[econovan64]

any numbers that come out that show the Conservatives in a good light - "The numbers are rigged!!!"
any numbers put out from the CCPA and published in the Globe and Mail- "They must be true!!!"

If Harper is responsible for the small upswing this spring as you suggest then he is also responsible for the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in the past 5 years and the recession we just passed through. What an irresponsible SOB to do that to his countrymen!

[Urbane]

It's funny how some people talk about Harper being so secretive and how the government lacks transparency but how about this:

Liberals held more secret meetings than Tories: analysis

The Canadian Press
Date: Sunday May. 13, 2012

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper's Conservatives have been accused of using their majority to hide too much House of Commons committee business behind closed doors.

But an analysis of Library of Parliament data for the last decade shows the championship title for secretive committee work actually belongs to former prime minister Paul Martin's Liberals.

Harper's Tories aren't even the runners up; that honour goes to another Liberal regime, under Jean Chretien.

The analysis of meetings from which the public was barred -- known as going in camera -- shows MPs deliberated in secret for an average of close to two hours a day during Martin's first and only majority session of Parliament in 2004.

According to figures provided by the Library of Parliament, committees spent close to 215 hours meeting in camera, an average of one hour and 56 minutes a day over the 111 days of that short parliamentary session.

The session, which ran from February to May 2004, is notable for being the last time the Liberals held a majority in Parliament. Martin succeeded Chretien as Grit leader at the end of 2003.

He inherited a scathing report from the auditor general into the sponsorship scandal. Martin appointed Justice John Gomery to head up a public inquiry into how the sponsorship program was handled.

The auditor general's report also triggered an inquiry before the Commons public accounts committee. Figures show public accounts spent 18 hours in camera -- half that of the joint parliamentary committee on national security, which spent more than 36 hours in secret deliberations.

But MPs on the public accounts committee never got to finish their work because the Grits used their majority to shut down hearings weeks before Canadians went to the polls.

The Liberals lost their majority in the federal election of June 2004.

The second-most secretive session for parliamentary committees was the one immediately before Martin's short-lived Grit majority. During Chretien's final 2002-03 parliamentary session, MPs spent an average of one hour and 12 minutes a day in camera over the session's 408 days.

The Conservatives occupy third place on the in-camera list.

During the final 2010-11 session of Harper's minority government, committees spent close to 455 hours meeting behind closed doors during the 388-day session, which averages out to one hour and 10 minutes a day.

The Conservatives won their coveted majority government last May. As of Friday, their first majority session has lasted 343 days and committees have so far spent nearly 328 hours in camera. That averages out to about 57 minutes a day in private meetings.

Put another way, the 57-minute average is seventh on the list of 10 parliamentary sessions since 2001.

"Despite the false claims from the Liberals and the NDP, we know that under our government, committees have functioned according to normal practice," a spokeswoman for Conservative whip Gordon O'Connor said in an email.

But Liberal House leader Marc Garneau called it misleading to simply tally up time spent in camera. He said the Tories are using their majority to move committee business that used to be public behind closed doors.

"It's when you're trying to go in camera because you want to hide something, because you don't want the public to see how individual members vote, or because you don't want the public or the media to see the debate that may be doing on, or because you just don't want to deal with a particular issue," Garneau said.

"That's when it's wrong. And that is something that we have criticized the government for doing since it has obtained its majority.

"So I think that's really more the fact than the specific number of total minutes, which may be perfectly explainable in terms of what activities were going on."

Others have complained the Conservatives are stacking committee witness lists in camera, so opposition MPs can't complain publicly without violating confidentiality. Liberal MP Scott Andrews recently threatened to disclose in-camera discussions outside the committee room.

The public and the media are barred from in-camera meetings.

The House of Commons manual on procedure and practice says in-camera meetings may be held "on occasion" to deal with administrative matters, to consider a draft report or to receive a briefing.

Committees may also meet in camera to deal with confidential documents or other sensitive matters.

The Library of Parliament figures show the most secretive committee is fisheries and oceans. MPs on that committee spent close to 217 hours meeting in camera since 2001.

Second is the public accounts committee, where MPs spent more than 165 hours behind closed doors.

Elected officials spent less time discussing defence and security matters in private. The national defence and national security committees spent close to 131 hours in camera.

Parliamentary procedures expert Ned Franks cautions against reading too much into the individual committee figures.

"There's a correlation between ones that write a lot of reports and decide on witnesses a lot, and the number of in-camera meetings," he says.

"And those who don't have that much of an agenda ... are going to have fewer."



Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201205 ... z1uoneFQ15

[econovan64]

As I recall Harper refuse to answer any questions during the entire election except for 4 that he hand picked and worked on for weeks in advance. Now that in itself describes transparency. The way Harper sees it anyway.

[econovan64]

A few details left out of an earlier posted story.

Liberal House leader Marc Garneau called it misleading to simply tally up time spent in camera. He said the Tories are using their majority to move committee business that used to be public behind closed doors.

"It's when you're trying to go in camera because you want to hide something, because you don't want the public to see how individual members vote, or because you don't want the public or the media to see the debate that may be doing on, or because you just don't want to deal with a particular issue," Garneau said.

"That's when it's wrong. And that is something that we have criticized the government for doing since it has obtained its majority.

"So I think that's really more the fact than the specific number of total minutes, which may be perfectly explainable in terms of what activities were going on."

Others have complained the Conservatives are stacking committee witness lists in camera, so opposition MPs can't complain publicly without violating confidentiality. Liberal MP Scott Andrews recently threatened to disclose in-camera discussions outside the committee room.

The public and the media are barred from in-camera meetings.

Sounds darn crooked to me. Sounds very Harper indeed.

[The Green Barbarian]

As I recall Harper refuse to answer any questions during the entire election except for 4 that he hand picked and worked on for weeks in advance. Now that in itself describes transparency. The way Harper sees it anyway.

the "media" in this country had their chance to be objective, but used every story about Harper to spin some giant negative conspiracy. The entire Conservative party got fed up with this idiotic treatment, especially given the way the media in this country treats the NDP including their poster boy last election Jack Layton, who could have choked someone to death in broad daylight and the media would have either covered it up or said that the guy who was choked "assaulted Layton with his throat". We still see it today, how various media outlets burst out with the latest Harper "scandal", only to have it shown later to be completely manufactured. When the media in this country grow up, and develop a policy of reporting the news, rather than shaping the message, then they can be trusted again to ask questions. The behaviour of Terry Milewski of the CBC last election was just plain reprehensible - not wonder Harper didn't want to talk to that buffoon.

[sooperphreek]

problem with that is that if Harper doesn't have to answer any questions besides what he wants then he is not accountable at all. and the press should have the right to ask those questions. they have a vote and therefore have the right to ask. it shouldn't be about agendas and what Harper wants to get done. its ok though. Harpers legacy and history will be writen and that will be a ringing indictment against him in books for the rest of time. that he wasn't transparent and that he became a dictator after he bamboozled a majority.

[The Green Barbarian]

problem with that is that if Harper doesn't have to answer any questions besides what he wants then he is not accountable at all. and the press should have the right to ask those questions. they have a vote and therefore have the right to ask. it shouldn't be about agendas and what Harper wants to get done. its ok though. Harpers legacy and history will be writen and that will be a ringing indictment against him in books for the rest of time. that he wasn't transparent and that he became a dictator after he bamboozled a majority.

I wouldn't count on the "history will be written" to be accurate though. Look at the mystique that's been built around Trudeau's "legacy", yet anyone who was alive and unfortunate to live in Canada during his reign can tell you what a terrible prime minister he was. There may be "ringing indictments" written about Harper, but they'd no doubt be as believable as the current "ringing indictments" being written by the bozos running the Globe and Mail and the Red Star - not much "truth" - just hyperbole and political agendas on display, which is why both papers are failing miserably, and the CBC continues on its downward spiral as well. Embrace truth, report truth, and stop with the stupid political agendas, especially ones that are damaging and brain-dead like leftist agendas.

[Urbane]

Harper is doing just fine:

Michael Den Tandt: Don’t look now, but Stephen Harper is doing just fine

National Post May 15, 2012

OTTAWA — Time for a resurrection of Stephen Harper, blue-sweater guy — or perhaps a duet with Yo-Yo Ma?

Given the controversies that have plagued Conservatives these past six months, and the recent surge in popularity of the New Democrats under Thomas Mulcair, you could be forgiven for assuming a refurb was in the offing. Indeed, since the Harper majority passed its one-year mark, there has been much speculation a cabinet shuffle was imminent. Failing that, surely there’d be a reset of some sort — a change in tone to shift focus from the F-35 fiasco, the robocalls mess, the omnibus bill, and mini-scandals involving ministers Bev Oda, Christian Paradis and Peter MacKay.

What better, you’d think, in the absence of some long-overdue cabinet demotions, than a return of Soft Harper? Folks inside the beltway are unimpressed by Soft Harper. But folks outside the Ottawa bubble rather like him. Harper has shown time and time again that, when he feels the need, he can turn off his go-for-the-jugular gene and convey avuncular reassurance — if not warmth, quite. Surely now, with the government beset by criticism on all sides, would be a good time to do so?

Not in the cards, say sources familiar with the government’s thinking. There will be no cabinet changes before summer, nor any concerted effort to change the tone. That’s because the listing global economy is about to bring wayward supporters back to the fold, senior Conservatives believe, in a way that government spin could never do. Fear of perceived New Democrat woolliness on kitchen-table issues will do the rest, they reckon. Indeed, the latest Ipsos Reid Poll suggests this may already be happening.

Consider that, despite having weathered six months of unrelentingly negative headlines, with the government accused of everything short of imposing totalitarian rule, nearly half of those polled approved of Harper’s job performance and a clear majority — 56 per cent — said they’re happy with Tory management of the economy. Keep in mind that, in our first-past-the-post electoral system, popular support in the high thirties is all that’s needed to form a majority.

Here’s what that means, in my view: What we say (we being the punditry) doesn’t matter nearly as much as we’d like to think it does. Second, whether Harper and the Conservatives are perceived as nice fellows (answer — not particularly) matters little or not at all. Canadians by and large care about whether the policies put in place by the government serve their economic interests. Full stop.

The renewed crisis in Europe, punctuated by the election of a socialist government in France and more chaos in Greece, is of course bad news for Canada, because we are a trading nation and our fortunes rest on globalization. With Europe in disarray, China entering a mild slowdown and the United States still limping along, burdened by runaway debt, there is precious little room for economic optimism this year.

But that’s good news for the Conservatives, politically — because the core of their brand is economic security. As long as they can keep Canada trending above the rest — which we still are, with core inflation below two per cent and unemployment at about 7.5 per cent — they stand to benefit from a flight to safety.

Mr. Mulcair looks to be unwittingly helping the Tories, with his polarization of the debate around the oilsands, and by extension climate change.

Recall that Canadians were given a sterling opportunity, in 2008, to show our collective commitment to reducing consumer greenhouse-gas emissions. Stephane Dion rolled out a policy called the Green Shift, with which he proceeded to crater.

And that was before the great slowdown of 2009. Even at the height of the last boom, in the late 1990s, the Chretien Liberals were unable to muster more than token support for measures to reduce Canada’s carbon footprint. It’s tough to see how, in the midst of a global economic contraction, Mulcair can win over this same middle class with arguments that mitigate against economic growth.

And that, at root, is what we’re talking about when we debate “Dutch disease.” It’s easy enough to say that high commodity prices contribute to a stronger loonie. That’s not at issue. But what is the remedy? Are we to suppose that Ottawa under the NDP would coerce the oilpatch, either through penalties or subsidies, into reducing its profitability? Are we to further suppose that a slump in resource revenues, followed by a decline in the value of the Canadian dollar, would resurrect Ontario’s ailing auto industry? Tata Motors — of India’s micro-car, the Nano — is expected to land in the United States next year, projected retail price between $7,000 and $8,000 (U.S.). So, good luck with that.

Soft Harper is a secret weapon in the Conservative arsenal. They can wheel him out, Beatles songbook in hand, at any time. If they’re not doing this, it’s because they don’t feel they need to. Improbable though this may seem, events are once again conspiring in the Conservatives’ favour.

mdentandt@postmedia.com

National Post

[The Green Barbarian]

This sums up exactly why Mulc-harper isn't going anywhere but down in the polls from here. He's too far left, with a tired old plan that no one wants to hear. He's playing to his Quebec base with his oil-sands foolishness, and even that will erode soon, as the Quebec voter is not someone you really want to rely on to be there for you - they vote with the shifting tides, and the tide on this NDP surge is already receding, faster than even Mulc-harper knows.

Mr. Mulcair looks to be unwittingly helping the Tories, with his polarization of the debate around the oilsands, and by extension climate change.

Recall that Canadians were given a sterling opportunity, in 2008, to show our collective commitment to reducing consumer greenhouse-gas emissions. Stephane Dion rolled out a policy called the Green Shift, with which he proceeded to crater.

And that was before the great slowdown of 2009. Even at the height of the last boom, in the late 1990s, the Chretien Liberals were unable to muster more than token support for measures to reduce Canada’s carbon footprint. It’s tough to see how, in the midst of a global economic contraction, Mulcair can win over this same middle class with arguments that mitigate against economic growth.

[cutter7]

Like I said when harper was elected,,, The states might as well put another star on their flag harper is an american butt kissing wannabe

[The Green Barbarian]

Like I said when harper was elected,,, The states might as well put another star on their flag harper is an american butt kissing wannabe

so what should we be - a communist dictator butt-kissing wannabe like Trudeau? Talk about a national embarrassment that guy was!





I don't understand why people are so against a good relationship with our biggest trading partner. In terms of "butt-kissing" I'd say that Harper and Obama are pretty much ideological opposites. Not much butt-kissing going on there right now, especially with Obama pandering to the radical leftists and general idiots in the Democratic fold and opposing the Keystone Pipeline.

[Al Czervic]

so what should we be - a communist dictator butt-kissing wannabe like Trudeau? Talk about a national embarrassment that guy was!





I don't understand why people are so against a good relationship with our biggest trading partner. In terms of "butt-kissing" I'd say that Harper and Obama are pretty much ideological opposites. Not much butt-kissing going on there right now, especially with Obama pandering to the radical leftists and general idiots in the Democratic fold and opposing the Keystone Pipeline.

Cutter’s is not even accurate criticism (normal for most leftists) Harper has spent far more time abroad creating new trade deals and trying to increase trade with countries like China then he has done anything in ‘States. If anything his announced objectives to create new trade relationships to make Canada less dependent on the US market have created tensions in the United States.

Many Americans are irate that Obama would rather get oil from countries who sponsor and promote terrorism instead of increasing supply from Canada. If Harper were truly a butt kissing American as uninformed miscreants like Cutter allege this situation would not be occurring.

[sooperphreek]

so if butt kissing is wrong why is harper in cahoots with the chinese telecom company that our allies says is a security risk?

[Al Czervic]

so if butt kissing is wrong why is harper in cahoots with the chinese telecom company that our allies says is a security risk?

Thta is a much better question and more topically accurate as well.

[econovan64]

Canada to help fund Afghan military

http://www.castanet.net/news/Poll/75447/Canada-to-help-fund-Afghan-military

Harper has sent a total of 153 Canadians to their deaths in Afghanistan so far.
He has spent billions and billions on George W bush's oil war to date.

Now he's going to finance the Afghan Army. About as competent as the Swiss Navy.
Maybe he can send them a few dozen F-35s at our expense. Why not? He's given them our sons and daughters.

And all in the name of Oil Company profits, Oil companies that pay less taxes than poor Canadian families whose sons and daughters have died fighting this greedy war.

Personal income taxes will be going up very soon to pay for Harper's indulgences.