Harper Tests The Mood For An Early Election

Posted on Saturday, April 16 at 17:32 by 4Canada
The swing through Cambridge and Waterloo doubled as a chance to cast the Conservative party to voters in the largely Liberal-held Ontario battleground as one that will rebuild federalism in Quebec — a federalism, Harper said, that Liberal corruption has critically damaged. "The Liberal Party of Canada has turned federal politics in Quebec into a fight between separation and corruption," he said. "Federalism must be rebuilt in Quebec, through principled, democratic alternatives." It was Harper's most direct appeal to Ontario voters in recent weeks, in which he reiterated support for Premier Dalton McGuinty's call on Ottawa to close the $23-billion gap between what Ontarians pay to the federal government and what they receive back in transfer payments. "As prime minister, I will take up this issue," he said. "I will bring the provinces together so we can achieve real, substantial, and I might add final, progress on this matter." The Environics poll also showed that with support at 32 per cent in Ontario, the federal Conservatives lag behind the Liberals at 37 per cent. Harper looked closer still to election-mode yesterday with photo-ops at a shirt factory and a hi-tech firm scheduled between private receptions and meetings with potential Ontario candidates. He ruled out any attempts to form the government without an election, saying that "would be feasible only under extraordinary circumstances." With only 99 of the 308 Commons seats, the Conservatives would need help to defeat the government. The Bloc Québécois has 54 seats, the NDP 19, and there are three independents. The Liberals have 132 seats and one seat is vacant. So what comes next for the federal Tories is a crucial waiting game. MPs will spend the week after next in their ridings, Harper said, reading just how much outrage the Gomery inquiry — and allegations that the Liberal party received kickbacks — is generating. "I want enough evidence out there for Canadians to understand the picture of what really happened here," Harper told reporters. He's confident that they'll come around. "(It) is the biggest corruption scandal in this country if not in any Western democracy and so we'll take our time on that," he said. Gomery hopes to wrap up his public hearings by the end of next month. He is slated to release his findings Nov. 1 and make his recommendations public Dec. 15. In the Conservative-held riding of Cambridge, constituents aren't in election mode yet, said rookie MP Gary Goodyear. "They want us to sit back and listen to the testimony that's coming out," he said. "But we're reading the situation every day or two ... this is worse than Watergate and it hasn't quite sunk in yet." source: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1113601810495&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by RPW
    Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:06 am
    Forget Harper! Here's the next leader of the Conservative party:<br />
    <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20050418_103696_103696">http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20050418_103696_103696</a><p>---<br>RickW

  2. by avatar Spud
    Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:29 am
    Oh shit!
    Her daddy gets $500,000,000 from the Canadian taxpayer courtesy of Mr.Mulroney.He then publicly states that government shouldn`t be involved in business.Lets face it,that is socialism.Now the dipshit daughter is using her inherited fortune by way of the taxpayer,to hound us for deep integration,closer ties to USA,blah blah blah.Good god almighty what the hell is happening?
    Socialism makes the fortune,now they want everyone in Canada to be a capitalist so more jobs can be created.BARF!
    She may have money and glamour,but there is nada for substance.Just another pretty rich person who wants to do more damage to the country.
    She loves the US?Let her go there and do some DEEP integration with Dubya.

  3. by avatar Spud
    Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:32 am
    Sorry about the above post but!
    Anyway is Harper the same guy who ran the National Citizens Coalition?
    And did he not refuse to make public who was financing that organization?

  4. Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:02 am
    Undoubtedly Karl Rove!

  5. by N Say
    Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:53 am
    I for one would much rather have the lazy corrupt Liberals in office than the power-hungry, privatizing Conservatives. In this case, corruption is a good thing. It means they're not out to take over the world, or cut/slash mercilessly, etc etc.

    ---
    "George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

  6. Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:29 pm
    So you'd rather the government waste taxpayers money giving it to friendly ad firms than back to the people it originally collected the money from. Because that's what you seem to be saying. They can siphon off public funds to cronies as much as they like, as long as they don't privatize anything or lower taxes. Beautiful!

    I don't mind laziness on the part of the Liberals, if it means that they're too lazy for their traditional, Trudeau-era interventionism. Governments simply aren't good at solving economic or social problems. What they're very good at is spending money and creating unaccountable bureaucratic empires. So the less ambitious a government is, especially the federal government, the better.

    You nationalists always bash the provinces, but who does the real heavy lifting of the welfare state? The provinces. The federal level is full of Powerpoint jockeys who come up with strategies, principles and frameworks, while the actual work of helping poor people is done by the levels of government closest to them - provinces and municipalities.

    Rather than being truly helpful, all the federal government is concerned with is trying to act like it controls the provinces (and us). It's only real stick in this regard is its disproportionate taxing power, and it uses that stick to keep provinces from trying to innovate in delivery. And yes, involving the private sector is a form of innovation, because, unlike government bureaucracies, you can get rid of a private sector firm that isn't doing its job effectively.

    Preventing privatization isn't about protecting Canadians. It's about protecting public sector unions, which, by ensuring that poorly performing (or even non-performing) employees cannot be demoted or fired, creates the very conditions that make privatization so attractive in the first place.

  7. by avatar Spud
    Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:22 pm
    Garbage.
    Lazy Liberals are better than Cons.
    Privatization solves nothing.
    Cons will replace Harping Harper with Stronach.
    Stronach is Harper in drag.
    How much tax did she pay?:)
    Stronach cannot go to the white house even as PM because she is divorced.Yet she wants closer ties with USA?
    No thanks,Lazy liberals are better,but I am still voting Green.Direct Democracy is better yet.If there is a candidate in my riding for DD,they will get my vote.

  8. Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:30 pm
    Bernard Lord claims he is uninterested, but only Lord could win. Stronach has no substance--Mike Harris is too unpopuoar to win in Ontario.


    -Perturbed.

  9. Sun Apr 17, 2005 7:11 pm
    The 'Lord' is no answer to the conservatives, or the conutry. He`s part of the same club. And let`s not think that there`s much difference between today`s liberals and conservatives. Martin has done enough damage with a minority government. Imagine if sweatship had a majority!

    ---
    Dave Ruston

  10. by N Say
    Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:52 am
    That's precisely what I'm saying! If I had only two options, I'd pick the party that wouldn't:
    -- privatize the CBC
    -- get rid of the CRTC (not just deregulate everything)
    -- get us into a customs union or common market with the US (it's true there has been talk of the Liberals doing that but like I said, they're too lazy)
    -- keep us out of Star Wars
    -- keep us out of Iraq, which is where we'd be if the decision were up to Harper
    -- hire a racist & advocate of assimilation of the natives as a campaign manager

    I would much rather have a party that would do none of those things if only it meant that they could just give tons of cash to their corporate pals. Even if the Cons were saints when it came to corruption I wouldn't vote for them. I don't think the Cons are much better re: corruption though; after all, look at how they've dealt with people like Joe Clark & David Orchard.

    ---
    "George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va

  11. Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:30 am
    You obviously don't understand the concept of corruption if you compare internal power struggles within political parties to the sewer that was the Liberal sponsorship program in Quebec.

    The Conservative Party didn't purge itself of Clark. Clark simply lost a struggle to maintain the PC brand name and its domination by Red Tories. Besides, as decent a man as he is, Clark was a born loser. He blew his one shot at the PM chair, are remained nothing but a cardboard cut-out opponent for the Liberals when he led the PCs. He was never a real threat to anyone.

    And the Conservatives were right to get rid of Orchard. He was a pushy single-issue (anti-Americanism) zealot who tried to ride his own cult of personality and gang of instant-Tories into the PC leadership, despite his complete opposition to everything the Mulroney government had achieved. He was a plague on the conservative house, and was treated with the ruthlessness that such an aggressive trouble-maker deserved.

    I cheered when the knife was plunged into him. He had earned that fate with the pirate-like manner in which he had attempted to impose his left-of-centre views and paranoid, hate-driven agenda on the PCs. Politics is a rough game, and he played it as rough as anyone.

  12. by avatar nutter
    Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:14 am
    Logically, only about 100,000 people in Canada should vote for the conservatives. The rest fall below the $5m financial net worth threshold. No matter, they'll likely win anyway. Big money always does.

    ---
    If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist. Joseph Sobran

  13. Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:26 pm
    Everything the Mulroney government achieved? Mwahahahahaha!!! Oh man, I can't believe you actually typed that! What stellar achievements they are, so much so in fact the Canadian public thanked him by gutting a 100-year-old party so the caucus meetings could be held in a mazda miata at a drive-thru. Spare the logic, buddy - the "new" conservative party was born out of the ultra conservative nuts and a LIE from Mr. Mackay - so, um, I cannot see how vastly superior you seem to feel your beloved party is. I mean, you really expect us to believe there's no bogeman behind the curtain? The fact this site exists clearly should indicate to you that we know when we are fed bullsh#t - no matter what party it comes from. Let the election come - support for the 'conservative agenda' will never top out at more than 30 percent.

  14. Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:01 pm
    So we could eradicate 100,000 real easy like.:)
    Could use em for training snipers in the army,or AIDS drug testing?



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news