King of Kensington
Senior Member
They tend to do that when they're desperate.
|
|
|
Canada's next Prime Minister?
- Thread starter Solaris
- Start date
They tend to do that when they're desperate.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Alright, here's the thing....if everyone on here thinks the GST cut is so bad.....shouldn't we be talking about raising it? And why aren't the Liberals running on raising the GST? I'd support that more than the Green Shift.
billonlogan
Active Member
Maybe Chretien should have sent our troops to Iraq instead of Afstan. The Australians sent a brigade and last I heard there have been no reported Australian combat fatalities in the Iraq war and most are back home now. The Americans took great effort to ensure other coalition members, except for the British, not get involved in combat operations. This was the opposite in Afstan, once we finished in Kabul, our troops were sent to Kandahar, the most hostile province. The primary objective now to hunt down the Taliban and ensure the Reconstruction Teams can work in safety. Canada made a committment to the Afghan people and now we're stuck in this quagmire till 2011. Now we have close to 100 combat deaths with more to follow.
afransen
Senior Member
For the same reason Harper cut it. The lowest common denominator of Canadian politics thinks that a GST cut is better than an income tax cut. Sad fact is, most people who have taken university economics courses probably think that, too.
You earlier said that I can't call the Cons irresponsible for lowering the GST because they campaigned on it. That's ridiculous. Just because they conned Canadians (well, 36% of 60% or eligible voters, anyway) into voting for them does not make the policy sound, wise, or credible.
Btw, is the NEP worse than sucking $20 billion annually out of Ontario? The economy of Ontario is suffering, as you say, and yet the Tories told McGuinty to STFU wrt Ontarians being shafted in EI, health, immigration, etc. transfers, in addition to being the largest contributors to equalization. Does Ontario have to slip into have-not status before we start to address how Ontario is shafted beyond what is reasonable or fair? I can tell you that Harper is not at all interested in addressing this problem, as he stated a few days ago.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Well if you run on a platform, people expect you to implement it. They got elected on it. Just because it was 36% of 60% of eligible voters does not make it any less of a valid platform. Or you could use that argument for just about any government in the last 20 years.
Harper's an economist. I am sure he knows the tax cut is stupid. But its the only way they could get over their Mulroney era legacy. And if they hadn't kept their promise you know tons of folks would be complaining about how they were promise breakers...damned if you do....damned if you dont. Now the GST is off the political stage for good. I see nothing wrong with that. You have to play politics to get elected. That's how politics works. You don't see them proposing to cut it further.
You and I both know that its not as simple as that. The equalization formulas aren't designed with a screw Ontario plan in mind. Ontario is more prosperous and hence sends more dollars to Ottawa. The other weaker provinces are the recipients of federal expenditure because they are weak. And that formula is determined by all the provinces providing input not just Ottawa. What's more that sucking sound was just as loud in the 90s when Ontario was booming. That's simply the nature of the socialist paradise we call Canada.
On this point you have a fair argument. But then again, what have the Liberals offered, and what did they do for Ontario and Toronto specifically when they were in office. And that's during a time period when the GTA provided a third of their caucus. The Liberals stayed focused on Quebec.....ingrates. That's why I won't be voting for either of them this time around.... Though, I am not really all that scared of a Conservative majority. If they suck, there's always the next election...that's the wonderful bit about democracy....
I will say this...you can't really win without Ontario. If Harper wants his majority this time and especially the next time around, he will have to cater to Ontario.....
afransen
Senior Member
"Harper's an economist. I am sure he knows the tax cut is stupid. But its the only way they could get over their Mulroney era legacy."
Harper didn't win that election, per se. Martin lost it. Harper did not 'need' to offer the GST cut. If they offered to cut $10 billion in personal income taxes, it would have gone over as well.
I probably could have forgiven the GST cut, to some extent, if Harper hadn't been an economist by training. To me, that says something about the man.
Equalization is only a portion of that $20 billion annually. Quite a large part of it is Ontarians getting significantly less per capita transfers.
I don't like the idea of Harper getting 5 years to do as he pleases. If he gets his majority, it will probably be abundantly clear that this will be the last mandate of the Conservative government. Without much uncertainty as to electoral prospects, I expect much stronger calls from the Conservative base to implement the policies they want to see. I think we've seen that Harper is entirely willing to govern without much regard as to what Canadians want. I can stomach a Conservative minority, as that will at least keep them somewhat honest, though they will essentially have carte blanche for as long as it takes for the Liberals to replace M. Dion.
Harper didn't win that election, per se. Martin lost it. Harper did not 'need' to offer the GST cut. If they offered to cut $10 billion in personal income taxes, it would have gone over as well.
I probably could have forgiven the GST cut, to some extent, if Harper hadn't been an economist by training. To me, that says something about the man.
Equalization is only a portion of that $20 billion annually. Quite a large part of it is Ontarians getting significantly less per capita transfers.
I don't like the idea of Harper getting 5 years to do as he pleases. If he gets his majority, it will probably be abundantly clear that this will be the last mandate of the Conservative government. Without much uncertainty as to electoral prospects, I expect much stronger calls from the Conservative base to implement the policies they want to see. I think we've seen that Harper is entirely willing to govern without much regard as to what Canadians want. I can stomach a Conservative minority, as that will at least keep them somewhat honest, though they will essentially have carte blanche for as long as it takes for the Liberals to replace M. Dion.
kEiThZ
Superstar
To me that says he just as shrewd a tactician and twice as honest as the 90s Liberals who campaigned against the US-Canada FTA and then went on to negotiate NAFTA or promised to axe the GST and then demanded that every province merge their PST into the HST. At least in this case he was honest about his intention. To me that speaks to his integrity. As to playing politics on this issue. Yes, I don't like the cut. But he isn't a one-man show. He had to win his nomination, he had to motivate his base, he had to combat the natural governing party of Canada, etc. Sometimes you do have to compromise on you policies to get elected. That's life. I wouldn't hold it against the Liberals on this front.....
On this I agree wholeheartedly with you. Ontario needs a better deal. And I am glad that McGuinty didn't endorse any party at all. Because the Liberals need to learn not to take Ontario for granted. Too bad he doesn't have as much impact as Danny Williams and his ABC campaign. Then we'd see results!
I'd prefer a Conservative or Liberal minority. It would be good for Canada and good for Harper if he gets it. Good editorial in the globe about this. He gets more time to rid himself of the social conservatives. And he gets to move to the centre. The Liberals meanwhile learn that just because you think you deserve to govern doesn't make it so. In 2012, we'd have some renewed parties coming with lots of fresh ideas.... That being said, I dont think a Conservative majority would be as right wing as you think. They still have to win the election after that. And I am skeptical they want one kick at the can and that's it. Once in power, any party tends to like to stay in power. They start becoming fairly flexible with policies pretty quick. Even today, would you say that this is the same Steven Harper of 3 years ago? It would be challenging if they moved too far to the right. I think they'll learn to like the gooey centre pretty quick.
afransen
Senior Member
Well, the issue of them Conservatives honestly seeking re-election is interesting. It will be abundantly clear by the end of 2008 whether Dion will be turfed. If so, the Liberals will go for strength in their next leader, and almost certainly will get it. Harper isn't terribly popular for someone who is running against the damp towel they've successfully portrayed Dion as. I don't think he'd fair well against a revitalized Liberal party 8 - 9 years out of power.
Harper, and the rest of the Conservative brain trust will probably see this as well. So, given the underlying anti-Ottawa agenda of a large portion of Harper's tent (and caucus), I can well see a systematic attempt to salt the earth by implementing a series of policies that, once implemented, would be legally or politically difficult or impossible to reverse. I think high on this list would be devolving as much of the federal government's overstep into provincial jurisdiction as possible. Maybe this includes getting out of the health care game by transferring the rest of the tax points down to the provincial governments. Perhaps he would allow bulk exports of water or the entry of HMOs, which, once done, would be difficult to undo without exiting NAFTA. Kill the CBC? I do expect him to stay away from any of the juicy hotbutton issues as these aren't really very good 'salt the earth' moves, as any changes would be very easy to reverse, legally and politically.
If he could succeed in significantly decreasing the size and scope of Ottawa's powers, I think that much of the Conservative base could quite happily return to opposition.
It's really the tricky part of majority governments. They are essentially dictatorships, and you have to count on them to be benevolent dictatorships. If they're not, there isn't much you can do besides either the citizens or the military physically removing them or waiting them out. A lot can be done in 5 years.
Harper, and the rest of the Conservative brain trust will probably see this as well. So, given the underlying anti-Ottawa agenda of a large portion of Harper's tent (and caucus), I can well see a systematic attempt to salt the earth by implementing a series of policies that, once implemented, would be legally or politically difficult or impossible to reverse. I think high on this list would be devolving as much of the federal government's overstep into provincial jurisdiction as possible. Maybe this includes getting out of the health care game by transferring the rest of the tax points down to the provincial governments. Perhaps he would allow bulk exports of water or the entry of HMOs, which, once done, would be difficult to undo without exiting NAFTA. Kill the CBC? I do expect him to stay away from any of the juicy hotbutton issues as these aren't really very good 'salt the earth' moves, as any changes would be very easy to reverse, legally and politically.
If he could succeed in significantly decreasing the size and scope of Ottawa's powers, I think that much of the Conservative base could quite happily return to opposition.
It's really the tricky part of majority governments. They are essentially dictatorships, and you have to count on them to be benevolent dictatorships. If they're not, there isn't much you can do besides either the citizens or the military physically removing them or waiting them out. A lot can be done in 5 years.
afransen
Senior Member
Well, the issue of them Conservatives honestly seeking re-election is interesting. It will be abundantly clear by the end of 2008 whether Dion will be turfed. If so, the Liberals will go for strength in their next leader, and almost certainly will get it. Harper isn't terribly popular for someone who is running against the damp towel they've successfully portrayed Dion as. I don't think he'd fair well against a revitalized Liberal party 8 - 9 years out of power.
Harper, and the rest of the Conservative brain trust will probably see this as well. So, given the underlying anti-Ottawa agenda of a large portion of Harper's tent (and caucus), I can well see a systematic attempt to salt the earth by implementing a series of policies that, once implemented, would be legally or politically difficult or impossible to reverse. I think high on this list would be devolving as much of the federal government's overstep into provincial jurisdiction as possible. Maybe this includes getting out of the health care game by transferring the rest of the tax points down to the provincial governments. Perhaps he would allow bulk exports of water or the entry of HMOs, which, once done, would be difficult to undo without exiting NAFTA. Kill the CBC? I do expect him to stay away from any of the juicy hotbutton issues as these aren't really very good 'salt the earth' moves, as any changes would be very easy to reverse, legally and politically.
If he could succeed in significantly decreasing the size and scope of Ottawa's powers, I think that much of the Conservative base could quite happily return to opposition.
It's really the tricky part of majority governments. They are essentially dictatorships, and you have to count on them to be benevolent dictatorships. If they're not, there isn't much you can do besides either the citizens or the military physically removing them or waiting them out. A lot can be done in 5 years.
Harper, and the rest of the Conservative brain trust will probably see this as well. So, given the underlying anti-Ottawa agenda of a large portion of Harper's tent (and caucus), I can well see a systematic attempt to salt the earth by implementing a series of policies that, once implemented, would be legally or politically difficult or impossible to reverse. I think high on this list would be devolving as much of the federal government's overstep into provincial jurisdiction as possible. Maybe this includes getting out of the health care game by transferring the rest of the tax points down to the provincial governments. Perhaps he would allow bulk exports of water or the entry of HMOs, which, once done, would be difficult to undo without exiting NAFTA. Kill the CBC? I do expect him to stay away from any of the juicy hotbutton issues as these aren't really very good 'salt the earth' moves, as any changes would be very easy to reverse, legally and politically.
If he could succeed in significantly decreasing the size and scope of Ottawa's powers, I think that much of the Conservative base could quite happily return to opposition.
It's really the tricky part of majority governments. They are essentially dictatorships, and you have to count on them to be benevolent dictatorships. If they're not, there isn't much you can do besides either the citizens or the military physically removing them or waiting them out. A lot can be done in 5 years.
kEiThZ
Superstar
It would be good for the Liberals to renew...I want to see another Red book. The Green Shift is fairly skimpy by comparison. And I want to see some real change in attitude. I suspect that I am not that far from most mainstream Ontarians....and thats why the Cons are so high in the polls in this province.
1) I am just not as pessimistic as you. I have faith that the Canadian public will hold him to account if he sold out Canada like that.
2) The provinces may well oppose many of those policies and support some of them, that's not clear cut.
3) That's a lot to accomplish in 4 years!
4) Given that none of it is in their platform, running off the script like that would not mean a mere return to the opposition benches....you would see a Kim Campbell style election result and probably the destruction of every Conservative party in the country.
He's running on a platform not asking for a free for all conservative mandate. Will he take the country to the right....sure. But I am skeptical that the Sun will not rise for the next 4 years if we have a Conservative majority in Canada.
I dunno....maybe because I have been fortunate enough to see 8 out of 10 provinces in this country, I happen to appreciate where people from all parts of the political spectrum are coming from. And those travels have also bolstered my faith in the remarkable tolerance of Canadians....but cross their limits (health care, post-secondary, etc.) and they react harshly and strongly.....I'll bet on Canada to keep Stevie in check.
afransen
Senior Member
1) Once Canadians handthem a majority, there is nothing they can do short of storm parliament or convince their MP to leave the party. Not all Canadians would see that as, 'selling out', either. Quite a few Canadians would welcome some or all of these changes.
3) Well, a lot of that could be done in a budget or a handful of bills. They wouldn't even need to use closure or any of those other parliamentary tricks.
4) I think you overstate the political implications for provincial parties (except where CPC MPs parachute into their provincial counterparts). Even a Kim Campbell-esque meltdown wouldn't be so bad... only 13 years out power. It was probably only so long because of the Reform party. That's a mistake they probably won't make again. I think a new set of faces would make them electable within 8 years. More importantly, it won't matter, since all the fun will be at the provincial level, anyway.
3) Well, a lot of that could be done in a budget or a handful of bills. They wouldn't even need to use closure or any of those other parliamentary tricks.
4) I think you overstate the political implications for provincial parties (except where CPC MPs parachute into their provincial counterparts). Even a Kim Campbell-esque meltdown wouldn't be so bad... only 13 years out power. It was probably only so long because of the Reform party. That's a mistake they probably won't make again. I think a new set of faces would make them electable within 8 years. More importantly, it won't matter, since all the fun will be at the provincial level, anyway.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I'd hardly trust Wikipedia as a source for serious analysis. Of course the policy had some impact, but the significant recession was overwhelmingly because of the crash in oil prices, not the small taxes of the NEP that were designed to recover some of the oil companies' windfall in the 1970s and to increase Canadian ownership in then-almost-entirely foreign owned industry.
The simple fact is that Alberta was always paid a flat rate for its energy by Ontario and other provinces to the west, which were forced to buy its oil even though its price was far higher than the world price prior to 1973. It was a subsidy that amounted to tens of billions of 1960s dollars, and the Alberta oil industry wouldn't have existed without it. As I mentioned, it's the highest-cost jurisdiction in the world and remains so, according to a recent article in The Economist. Then, after 1973 when Ontario simply wanted to continue to pay the set price that it had paid before (when the whole point of subsidizing Alberta's industry was to ensure stable domestic supply), Alberta responded hysterically that it was being cheated. Wasn't Ontario then cheated for decades by the Borden Line?
The NEP promised gradual escalation to the world price over a few years. It was simply to protect fellow Canadians from the massive shock of the rapid price increases of the 70s, which were expected to continue into the 80s. The point became moot when, contrary to all expectations, prices declined.
That's the whole point. Trudeau ran up a deficit during the early 80s recession, when revenues plunged as a result of the global recession and the collapse in revenues from the energy sector brought about by the massive and unexpected declines in price. Mulroney continued to run up even more massive deficits through a major economic boom. John Turner was long gone by the early 80s.
When I was talking about the most severe recession since the Great Depression, I was talking about the early 90s recession. My point was simply that during the early 80s recession, we suffered about as badly or even slightly better than our G7 peers. During the early 90s recession, we suffered far worse. That could have something to do with governmental management.
Free trade is a joke of an agreement, as softwood lumber has shown, but we can't just unilaterally abrogate it because, as John Turner said in the 1988 debate, it's not just a commercial agreement. It's our relationship with the United States. There's nothing wrong with free trade, but CAFTA gave us absolutely nothing that the WTO wouldn't have given us anyway, and it cost us our energy independence and much more.
As for the GST, it's a poorly designed tax that costs a fortune to administer, especially after Harper's ridiculous cut down to 5% (with no commensurate drop in administration cost). That being said, a value added tax is a good part of a tax mix and wasn't a bad policy. It was, on the whole, Mulroney's main achievement.
I agree with you. His greatest achievements are certainly not economic. On that front, he was pretty average compared with his G7 contemporaries. A bit better than some (i.e. UK), a bit worse than others (Germany). He had some achievements, like the Canadianization of a lot of industries, and would have had a big success with the NEP if oil prices had continued to rise as all forecasters projected. His policies on immigration are also the foundation of the modern Canadian economy. That being said, you're right that things like the Charter are his more significant accomplishments.
They inherited a large deficit, and did absolutely nothing to fix it despite a huge economic boom. I'm partisan, but I'd say that Chretien/Martin did a remarkable job of reducing the deficit without destroying any of our most valued social programs and even while introducing another one, the Child Tax Benefit. Remember that, at the time, many people were clamouring to dismantle Medicare in order to cut spending. They also stabilized the CPP so that it is now fully funded, unlike the bankrupt Social Security system down south. All of this during mediocre economic times.
On the whole, I agree, though not as successful as the CN privatization which was a massive success. Rather unexpectedly to the government, too! It's amazing how CN, a complete dog of a company that had never broken even was miraculously transformed into by far the most successful railway in North America and the model for all others. I'd say Paul Tellier likely deserves a lot of credit for that.
That's one thing one has to say about the Liberals. They sure didn't do much for the military. You can say it was the right policy, considering our massive financial troubles and the post-Cold War situation. Still, there are a lot of places where more attention should have been paid to maintaining a reasonably equipped force. I'm thinking that getting rid of the CF-5s was a good idea, getting rid of the Chinooks was bad. You're obviously more of an expert than me, but I'm guessing that the post-September 11 world took everybody a bit by surprise, with the sudden shift away from distant bombing campaigns and Tomahawk raids, a la Desert Fox and Kosovo, and to long term ground wars and counter-insurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. I suppose the de-emphasis on the Army in the 90s might have had something to do with that earlier thinking.
What do you think as somebody in the military? Where did we go wrong? Why are we so limited in the force we can deploy? Why do we seem to be stretched so thin? You always hear about us having an army of 50,000 people, but we seem overwhelmed by keeping only 2,500 deployed.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I wasn't including as a final, authoritative source but as a compendium of quick facts....things like the real estate crash in Alberta...etc.
That being said, imposing a policy that aggravates a poor economic situation in one particular province is not exactly fair. You have to admit, that if this were done in Ontario, we'd probably not vote in the party for another decade or two as well. You can't say that the Liberals didn't adopt an adversarial relationship with the West for most of the 80s and 90s. And Dion's Green Shift isn't going to help either.
Now personally, having migrated from the Middle East and observed what happens with oil there, I think its idiotic that provinces own resources....that being said, if they own them then they can pursue whatever policy they wish with them. Just because Ontario negotiated a bad deal, what right did the fed have to step in? I bet that if it was Quebec and the resource was hydro the Feds would have stayed far far away.
Depends on how you define early 80s. Mulroney came in 1984. Just as the economic situation was partly to blame for the deficits, Trudeau chose to run structural deficits to fund his social programs. The deficits of the early 80s don't make sense even if you look at the slight decline in government revenues. If I were a cynic, I'd even say he chose to leave a political landmine for his successor forcing him to either cut spending or sharply increase taxes.
You said early 80s. Anyway, that recession was the result of the onset of a global recession.... And we likely suffered worse because free trade was coming into place at the same time requiring the economy to adjust. You can fault him for timing....and incidentally I don't think any other government would have done better here...but I doubt you can fault him for policy....which were all adopted whole hog by the Chretien/Martin Liberals after. Indeed, fiscally and economically they were more conservative than Mulroney ever was.
There is nothing in the agreement that prevents us from unilaterally withdrawing with the sufficient 6 months or whatever it is notice period. And if its such a joke of an agreement and the WTO is better why didnt the Liberals have the courage to withdraw from the agreement. You have to admit that getting elected on a platform against free trade and then expanding it is not just hypocritical, its downright deception.
Now I am not here defending the guy because I think he was PM of the century. But I do think he gets unfairly slagged.... a lot of Liberals will criticize him for the GST and then support the tax in the next breath. Afransen, Glen and CDL.TO point out that this was better than the Manufacturers Sales Tax and on that I agree. So if that's the case why was it a bad policy? That it cost a fortune to administer does not make it less sound of an economic and fiscal instrument. In fact if more provinces jumped on the HST bandwagon than the tax would be relatively administratively cheap. As for the cut, I have already stated that I don't agree with it. Yet at the same time, the tax is regressive, so you can't argue that cutting it benefited nobody.
I would say that they funded their priorities and passed on the most expensive social programs to the provinces. In my view, they are quite culpable for the decline of health care in this country. Chretien's was the first administration that completely ditched the 50/50 principle. Combining health and social transfers and slashing them to introduce Child tax benefit....effectively screwing the provinces, is not my idea of good social policy.
I really won't discuss military issues too much. It's pretty hard to have an informed discussion here with this audience, where some folks view all military spending as bad.
The running joke in the military was that the only promise the Liberals kept was the cancellation of the EH-101....which sadly was on par with the Avro Arrow for economic impact on our aerospace industry and would have given us ASW and SAR capability bar none. Not to mention the lives that would have been saved from not flying a helicopter that is older than all the aircrew and technicians on the base.
The other line is that when the Conservatives are in power we get equipment and when the Liberals are in power we get pay raises. Sadly it's very very true. Our pay is determined by Treasury Board in proportion to what other civil servants get (a decision that came about after some soldiers started using the food banks in the 90s to feed their families). Unfortunately, in terms of the country, Canada does not need a better paid force (we have become one of the highest paid in the world), we need a better equipped force.
Although Martin was better and had he been in office longer, things would have improved markedly, Chretien was notorious for his adversarial relationship with the military....cancelling the EH-101, never reading intelligence briefs (the only one he probably read was the one on Iraq), forcing the Air Force to spend money on new VIP aircraft and the useless Griffon helicopter (from Bell in Montreal), sending troops to Afghanistan in forest camouflage, etc.
The problem with Martin was that he didnt have the courage to turn things around once he came in. Take the C-17s for example. Canada needed them. We are a large country where its shorter to fly to the Carribean from Trenton than it is to Alert in the Arctic. We needed the aircraft to re-supply the arctic. We needed it to re-supply Afghanistan. Martin dithered because of the price tag....an artificially high one created by Martin's own accounting rules which required the CF to take in to account 20 year life cycle cost. So as a result a 1 billion dollar buy has a project cost of 3 billion and most Canadians are wondering why we need an airplane that costs 750 million apiece. It got so critical that the Air Staff, suggested we rent Russian airlift, which I kid you not had duct tape on parts of their airplane, to re-supply afghanistan. I don't know what would have happened if we hadn't gone sole source on that one. That process is not one I agree with it, but having let the situation degrade to that point, I thought it was rather hypocritical the Liberals came out against the project.
Another great Martin story....Canada was supposed to go to Oruzgan or some other central province not Kandahar. He delayed making a decision so long that our lovely European friends took all the choice spots, and we got stuck with Kandahar. That decision alone probably cost at least 50 Canadian lives. I liked Martin as a PM, dont get me wrong, but when it comes to decision making on defence issues, he had no clue, and his head in the sand approach didnt exactly make the problems go away.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Here's the latest Harper stupidity.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/11/leaders-breakfast.html
Dion's Green Shift threatens national unity: Harper
When Harper talked of firewalls, 'I was fighting to keep my country together,' Dion hits back
Last Updated: Thursday, September 11, 2008 | 1:26 PM ET Comments517Recommend244
CBC News
The battle for Quebec in the federal election campaign heated up on Thursday with Conservative Leader Stephen Harper telling a Montreal audience that Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's carbon tax proposal threatens Canada's national unity.
"The carbon tax will do more than undermine the economy," Harper said to a crowd of business leaders. "By undermining the economy and by re-centralizing money and power in Ottawa, it can only undermine the progress we have been making on national unity."
Harper's comments appear to step up the Tories' relentless attacks on Dion's Green Shift plan, which would balance a carbon tax with income-tax cuts.
New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham, left, federal Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and his wife Janine Krieber listen to a question during a campaign stop in Saint John, N.B., on Thursday. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)An outraged Dion quickly struck back at his rival, calling Harper's comments "irresponsible," and citing his record in taking on Lucien Bouchard as intergovernmental affairs minister and succeeding in drafting and passing the Clarity Act into law.
"While he was busy talking about building firewalls in the West, I was fighting to keep my country together," Dion said in New Brunswick, where he was speaking to the Board of Trade. "I do not need any lessons from Stephen Harper on fighting for the national unity of my country."
Harper said his government has operated on the basis of a strong economy aiding Canada's unity, and that a recession caused by Dion's carbon tax would create "all kinds of political tensions" across the country.
He said his party shared a particular concern with Quebec over the federal government attempting to coalesce more power and money in Ottawa.
"We've gone out of our way in the last few years to get the federal government working on its own jurisdictions, respecting provincial jurisdiction, so I think this would be a step in the wrong direction," Harper told reporters after his speech.
Harper also told the Montreal crowd he is not interested in reopening the issue of Quebec and the Constitution for the moment.
Harper will spend the rest of the day in Quebec in an attempt to appeal to rural voters before he flies to Halifax in the evening, said the CBC's Julie Van Dusen.
"Quebec is the key for [Harper] to win a majority," she said, adding the Tories hope to win 25 seats in the Oct. 14 election. They won 10 in the 2006 vote.
Canada must go greener or face tariffs: Dion
Dion has touted the Green Shift plan by saying a large number of economists and environmentalists have endorsed it, but the Tories have dismissed the proposal as risky and largely based on theory.
On Thursday, Dion argued Canada could face punishment from the international community through tariffs on energy exports if it doesn't shift toward greener policies and cleaner fuels.
He said his plan will prevent this by taxing greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time help companies buy the best green equipment.
New Brunswick Liberal Premier Shawn Graham told reporters he supports Dion's green plan, along with his cabinet and his party's members in the legislature.
NDP 'real environmental leader,' Layton tells Quebecers
Also Thursday, NDP Leader Jack Layton made a direct appeal to voters in his native province of Quebec while announcing his party's environmental plan, saying the New Democrats were the "real environmental leader" in the province.
Layton, who for the most part refrained from targeting Dion during the campaign, also said the Liberal leader "is not going to be a main issue" in this federal election.
Layton pumped his party's green platform — which calls for a cap-and-trade system, an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and a $750-million green-collar jobs fund — over Dion's Green Shift, saying the proposed Liberal carbon-tax plan is wrong-headed and won't work.
But he reserved his harshest words for Harper and the Tories, saying they had no environmental plan at all.
Earlier in the day, the Hudson, Que.-born Layton also brought up former Parti Québécois cabinet minister Jacques Brassard's comment on Wednesday that the Bloc Québécois was becoming a "clone" of the NDP.
He told reporters during a Montreal campaign stop that unlike the Bloc, "we aren't there just to criticize Stephen Harper.
"We're there to replace him," he said. "I am running in this election to replace Stephen Harper and to take his job from him. That's something [Bloc Leader] Gilles Duceppe can't do."
NDP's Quebec ad likens Harper to Bush
Later Thursday, Dion is expected to head to Thunder Bay, Ont., where one of the seats is held by Liberal incumbent Ken Boschoff, while the other was vacated by Joe Comuzzi, who was elected a Liberal, but crossed the floor to the Conservatives in June 2007. Both seats will be closely contested, said Van Dusen.
A day after winning her battle to be included in October's televised leaders debates, Green party Leader Elizabeth May campaigned in Antigonish, N.S.
Layton's Quebec visit coincides with the NDP's launch of an advertising campaign in the province that compares Harper's policies to those of U.S. President George W. Bush, featuring a black-and-white split-screen image of the two leaders.
While the New Democrats scored with Thomas Mulcair's byelection victory in Quebec earlier this year, the party is hoping to break into the province by capturing six to 12 seats in the general election in and around Montreal, Quebec City and the Eastern Townships, the CBC's Rosemary Barton reported from the campaign.
Meanwhile, the Bloc's Duceppe campaigned in the Quebec towns of Huntingdon and Valleyfield before heading to Montreal for an evening speech.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/11/leaders-breakfast.html
Dion's Green Shift threatens national unity: Harper
When Harper talked of firewalls, 'I was fighting to keep my country together,' Dion hits back
Last Updated: Thursday, September 11, 2008 | 1:26 PM ET Comments517Recommend244
CBC News
The battle for Quebec in the federal election campaign heated up on Thursday with Conservative Leader Stephen Harper telling a Montreal audience that Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion's carbon tax proposal threatens Canada's national unity.
"The carbon tax will do more than undermine the economy," Harper said to a crowd of business leaders. "By undermining the economy and by re-centralizing money and power in Ottawa, it can only undermine the progress we have been making on national unity."
Harper's comments appear to step up the Tories' relentless attacks on Dion's Green Shift plan, which would balance a carbon tax with income-tax cuts.
New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham, left, federal Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and his wife Janine Krieber listen to a question during a campaign stop in Saint John, N.B., on Thursday. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)An outraged Dion quickly struck back at his rival, calling Harper's comments "irresponsible," and citing his record in taking on Lucien Bouchard as intergovernmental affairs minister and succeeding in drafting and passing the Clarity Act into law.
"While he was busy talking about building firewalls in the West, I was fighting to keep my country together," Dion said in New Brunswick, where he was speaking to the Board of Trade. "I do not need any lessons from Stephen Harper on fighting for the national unity of my country."
Harper said his government has operated on the basis of a strong economy aiding Canada's unity, and that a recession caused by Dion's carbon tax would create "all kinds of political tensions" across the country.
He said his party shared a particular concern with Quebec over the federal government attempting to coalesce more power and money in Ottawa.
"We've gone out of our way in the last few years to get the federal government working on its own jurisdictions, respecting provincial jurisdiction, so I think this would be a step in the wrong direction," Harper told reporters after his speech.
Harper also told the Montreal crowd he is not interested in reopening the issue of Quebec and the Constitution for the moment.
Harper will spend the rest of the day in Quebec in an attempt to appeal to rural voters before he flies to Halifax in the evening, said the CBC's Julie Van Dusen.
"Quebec is the key for [Harper] to win a majority," she said, adding the Tories hope to win 25 seats in the Oct. 14 election. They won 10 in the 2006 vote.
Canada must go greener or face tariffs: Dion
Dion has touted the Green Shift plan by saying a large number of economists and environmentalists have endorsed it, but the Tories have dismissed the proposal as risky and largely based on theory.
On Thursday, Dion argued Canada could face punishment from the international community through tariffs on energy exports if it doesn't shift toward greener policies and cleaner fuels.
He said his plan will prevent this by taxing greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time help companies buy the best green equipment.
New Brunswick Liberal Premier Shawn Graham told reporters he supports Dion's green plan, along with his cabinet and his party's members in the legislature.
NDP 'real environmental leader,' Layton tells Quebecers
Also Thursday, NDP Leader Jack Layton made a direct appeal to voters in his native province of Quebec while announcing his party's environmental plan, saying the New Democrats were the "real environmental leader" in the province.
Layton, who for the most part refrained from targeting Dion during the campaign, also said the Liberal leader "is not going to be a main issue" in this federal election.
Layton pumped his party's green platform — which calls for a cap-and-trade system, an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and a $750-million green-collar jobs fund — over Dion's Green Shift, saying the proposed Liberal carbon-tax plan is wrong-headed and won't work.
But he reserved his harshest words for Harper and the Tories, saying they had no environmental plan at all.
Earlier in the day, the Hudson, Que.-born Layton also brought up former Parti Québécois cabinet minister Jacques Brassard's comment on Wednesday that the Bloc Québécois was becoming a "clone" of the NDP.
He told reporters during a Montreal campaign stop that unlike the Bloc, "we aren't there just to criticize Stephen Harper.
"We're there to replace him," he said. "I am running in this election to replace Stephen Harper and to take his job from him. That's something [Bloc Leader] Gilles Duceppe can't do."
NDP's Quebec ad likens Harper to Bush
Later Thursday, Dion is expected to head to Thunder Bay, Ont., where one of the seats is held by Liberal incumbent Ken Boschoff, while the other was vacated by Joe Comuzzi, who was elected a Liberal, but crossed the floor to the Conservatives in June 2007. Both seats will be closely contested, said Van Dusen.
A day after winning her battle to be included in October's televised leaders debates, Green party Leader Elizabeth May campaigned in Antigonish, N.S.
Layton's Quebec visit coincides with the NDP's launch of an advertising campaign in the province that compares Harper's policies to those of U.S. President George W. Bush, featuring a black-and-white split-screen image of the two leaders.
While the New Democrats scored with Thomas Mulcair's byelection victory in Quebec earlier this year, the party is hoping to break into the province by capturing six to 12 seats in the general election in and around Montreal, Quebec City and the Eastern Townships, the CBC's Rosemary Barton reported from the campaign.
Meanwhile, the Bloc's Duceppe campaigned in the Quebec towns of Huntingdon and Valleyfield before heading to Montreal for an evening speech.
Brandon716
Senior Member
I hope people in Quebec are really reading between the lines. Harper's reckless comments need to be taken into consideration, he deserves to lose every seat he gained in Quebec and lose this election overall.