Later today the Harper Cons will end the funding for political parties. This will decimate political opposition, yet create no jobs or do anything to help Canadians struggling with a sick economy. But it will make Harper more powerful, as it weakens those who disagree with him. In that, it’s a Third World move which strikes at the heart of democracy. It moves Canada inexorably closer to one party rule.
It’s also completely consistent with Harper’s view only right-wing ideology can be allowed to survive, and actions taken to defeat and silence other views are justified. Canadians should be outraged at this, and yet are unlikely to be so, obsessed as they are now with jobs, finances and families.
Shame on the prime minister for this. It diminishes the man immensely.
A year ago I wrote this about Harper’s mentor, Tom Flanagan. We are about to see salt in our field.
Mr. Flanagan has been Stephen Harper’s friend for 16 years, worked for the Reform Party, became Mr. Harper’s top strategist, and ran his campaign for the Canadian Alliance leadership, along with the 2004 and 2006 elections. He taught, then recruited Mr. Harper’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie. Tom Flanagan’s an academic at the University of Calgary. He says of himself, boldly, “I had the privilege of helping to reinvent the forces of conservativism.”
Indeed he did. Stephen Harper is somewhat his creation. I have just read his tell-all book, Harper’s Team. It’s an account of how the two of them came to create a neo-Conservative Party, dominated by the former Reform movement, of which they were both architects, and which is poised, Mr. Flanagan says, to deliver its final assault.
And this brings us, the professor says, to Canada’s Punic Wars.
In case you forgot, Rome and Carthage were bitter rivals, and fought three deadly battles. In the first, Rome took Sicily from Carthage. In the second, Rome took control of North Africa, reducing Carthage to a minor power. In the third, Rome burned Carthage, then plowed salt into the fields to prevent anything from ever growing again. It was total death.
And what of this for Canada?
“The 2004 election,” Mr. Flanagan writes, “was our First Punic War, in which bringing the Liberals down to a minority government constituted modest progress. We fought our Second Punic War in 2005-6, got control of the government, and reduced the Liberals to opposition status, burdened with inadequate funding and seeking a new leader. But what of the coming Third Punic War? Should our slogan be, Liberales delendi sunt (he Liberals must be destroyed), even if that were in our power? Objectiviely, it would probably be more in our interest to beat the Liberals down to about 20% of the vote, where they could duel for year (sic) with the NDP.”
This is of some interest to me for two reasons. First, Mr. Flanagan, like Mr. Harper, sees a world divided into two orbs – “ right and left. They are at war, and the right must win. It is destined to win, because it has a more moral cause. Thus, the leader of the right can justly call down his opponents as sympathetic of terrorists, scornful of police, disdainful of traditional marriage, soft on criminals, unsupportive of the military, and obsessed with fringe causes like literacy, womens rights, first nations, poverty, the regions and climate change.
Second, the war is about ideology, not public service. Mr. Flanagan may speak with eloquence about Rome and Carthage, while being silent on Toronto and Vancouver.
I always thought this was about Canadians – voters, taxpayers and citizens. They, I assumed, wanted us to be politicians to represent them and serve their needs. Give them common sense laws. Manage the economy. Make public policy reflect public opinion, which today seems to demand an endgame to war, serious action on the environment and help for family finances.
But, today, I’d say the die is cast. Stephen Harper, Tom Flanagan, and Doug Finley want war. The goal is to destroy the political opposition, to “reinvent the forces of conservativism” and, in so doing, plow salt.
135 comments ↓
Yes lefties, whine because your entitlement ends.
The nice thing about minorities is that they cant do anything you don’t want them to. Dion has said that he’ll let the party stand up for their ideals instead of strategically voting…
Best thing he can do is push a free vote on the budget and see what happens.
So Garth, is it your contention that it is MORAL for the taxpayers to subsidize political campaigns?
Should political parties not seek the support of active citizens in order to gain donations, not just rely on welfare from the government?
This has nothing to do with campaigns. Educate yourself, then comment. — Garth
I am looking forward to hearing Jack Layton squeal like a pig over the prospect of losing $30 million of taxpayer funding for his on-going comedy routine
No doubt Jack Layton will invoke the importance of “democracy” being at risk as the rationale for this ongoing cost to taxpayers and as his opposition to Harper’s measures to cut funding to political parties.
Meanwhile Layton caused us to lose $35 billion of OUR HARD EARNED SAVINGS, based on the NDP’s support of Harper’s income trust rip off. A rip off that was sold to Canadians on the argument that income trusts cause tax leakage.
Where was Jack Layton’s lofty regard for “democracy” on that draconian measure?
Answer: Totally non existent. Layton was happy to base his support of that enormously damaging policy on the basis that 18 pages of blacked out documents are sufficient and wrote to Canadians with the empty rationale that “we are confident that the government’s estimates of tax leakage are solid”.
Solid? Perhaps the better word would have been “opaque”?
Jack Layton is a hypocrite sham and a embarrassment to democracy.
There is a solution for the opposition parties and that is to agree to form a coalition government and then take the government down. Harper is counting on this not happening.
In the circumstances Harper still has not proven that he has the confidence of the House. This gives the opposition parties a window to bring down the government, form a coalition, and avoid an election. The opposition could then elect a leader from their ranks, not necessarily one of the current leaders but one that can gain all party support.
NONSENSE – GARTH.
I fundamentally do not think taxpayer’s money should be used to fund political parties. The donation limit has effectively eliminated the influence of big business and other such wealthy influences.
The BLOC receives 80% of their funding this way. We basically fund a separatist party.
The Liberals are crying the blues because their supporters don’t support them financially. Why not?
Since this was put in by Chretien in 2003 – the Liberals have received the most money by far!!! and eliminating it – the Conservatives will lose the most money now.
For all those who will whine and paint Harper as Darth Vader – start supporting your party if you believe in it so much.
Finally – hopefully this will reduce the endless negative adds that are worse than sickening to the soul! Maybe it will force our present day politicians to win our vote with a reasonable persuasive argument other than some media gimmick???
Get a civics lesson. This has nothing to do with election financing. — Garth
I sure hope the Liberals do the right thing here and oppose this move every step of the way.
During the last session I thought Mr. Dion was doing the right thing by propping up the government and bidding his time. I think it can be said, now, that that wasn’t such a great strategy (although it is impossible to know — Harper could have gotten a majority government right now).
In any case, it is time for the Liberals to stand up to this rotten government once and for all. If that means we go to an election then so be it, more than likely however the GG will ask the opposition parties to attempt to form a government. A prospect, I think, could yield some sweet results.
anyway, this issue strikes at the heart of democracy
Explain to me this simple fact: If a majority of the Opposition MPs vote against the proposed funding cut, is that enough for Harper to call a new election already? Have we forgotten why this funding was put in place in the first place? Was it not to remove the private interests and lobby groups from the funding of political parties? If something smells rotten, an looks rotten, it probably is!
“I always thought this was about Canadians – voters, taxpayers and citizens.”
Popular belief, this is about winning the next election, always has been as evident by the 24/7/365 electioneering. Without a credible plan politics has no credibility.
little or no work done
the peasants have no credit
Steve Delaflanagan Prince’s Warrior
Garth
I would have thought that the P.M ‘s first salvo would be to sell off the CBC to private interests. This would have heightened his deficit slayer image to his loyal base. I have never understood why Conservatives hate the CBC – perhaps someone could enlighten me.
However, I am sure that eliminating party subsidies makes all Conservatives giggle with delight. This attempt to draw and quarter the left is very serious. A fair playing field seems to be an alien concept to most Conservatives. Funny how they never campaigned on this and yet it is their only placebo for our economic slowdown. It’s just a bitter poison pill that will do nothing but make government and the House look ridiculous and feeds voter cynicism.
And to all those Canadians who did not vote – welcome to the tyranny of Kleptocracy.
All hail the wealthy and down with the middle class.
What about those who cannot afford to make their voice heard by donating to a party? Their only voice is their vote, that’s why we give subsidies and disallow corporate donations. Of course, more and more people are less likely to be able to afford to donate, given the economic downward spiral. That being said, why are we even talking about this right now?
The Bully gets bolder if you are willing to walk away time and time again.
If this isn’t about election financing, then what is it about? Besides the obvious I mean.
who’s going to let this pass?
Yes lefties, whine because your entitlement ends.
By Traciatim on 11.27.08 12:12 pm
Really – Harper didn’t mind accepting it when he needed it. Hypocrite
[...] http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2008/11/27/salt-in-the-field/ [...]
Lessen one, How to get around the corporate donation limit.
Give to each of your executives a “Bonus” of 5000$. with the stipulation that they donate it to the “right” political party.
Then each of them gets a tax exemption. At little cost to each employee.
So simple. Think I invented this? A certain real estate Co. has been doing this for local (Provincial) politicians for years. I doubt that they are the only ones.
So much for honesty. But then look at THEIR leader.
Jack Layton is a hypocrite sham and a embarrassment to democracy.
By Brent Fullard on 11.27.08 12:28 pm
He also threatened Canadians in the pre-election campaign; “I’m running to be your prime minister!”
This will only effect the big parties. The Marijuana party etc. will not have their sibsidies reduced, as they do not get any. Time to level the playing field in my opinion, not leave start up parties on the edge of a cliff.
In the last election less then 60% turned out to vote. My riding was a very very safe Liberal riding, however I got out and voted (and not Liberal) so that the party I thought represented my views would receive some funding to continue with delivering it’s message. All this talk of supporting parties with tax funds is crazy. In effect the $1.75 for my vote can come out of the taxes I pay. I fear that this move will only decrease voter turnout even further. I’d be happy to go out and vote again in 6 weeks if this Government falls.
The Conservative party is the largest beneficiary of the political tax credit, which sees donations to political parties reimbursed at least 50% using public money. I don’t see Flaherty suggesting that that huge subsidy be revoked. Far from being hit the hardest, the Conservative Party will be the best situated party if this change goes through.
Furthermore, campaign expenses at the riding level are also routinely reimbursed for the larger parties with public money.
If the Conservatives really were that concerned about our money, they wouldn’t have wasted $300 million on a useless election.
Having political parties based only on private donations drastically the financial participation of low income persons, and families with dependants to provide for.
Coalition, coalition, coalition, coalition, godammit!!
Harper says Parliament isn’t working again? Tough, that’s his fault. Parliament doesn’t exist to do HIS bidding.
He wants to make every piece of legislation a confidence vote?
Fine. Call his bluff. Every single time.
Then, for chrissake, go to the GG and form a coalition government!
Hang together…or hang separately, as Dear Leader wishes.
Get over yourselves, opposition parties! Get over your Party ambitions, your ideologies and regionalisms and your leaders, each vying to be PM.
You guys don’t have to agree on everything, but you can agree on quite a wide range of issues. Those are all you need to concentrate on…if you can put aside your stupid Party ambitions for a while. (Frankly, I’m not hopeful)
At the bottom of all of this is a question that has gone unanswered for far too long here in Canada, namely, “Who is sovereign?”
It is supposed to be Parliament, but in reality it isn’t. Thanks to Party politics, it’s the PM and his Cabinet who really run the country. Elections are held for show, but when it comes to representing voters and passing legislation, the people can be bypassed.
Until Parliament reasserts its sovereign power, unscrupulous, dictatorial parties will take advantage of the system, and Harper’s doing a splendid job of that.
I want to cry with frustration at the lack of awareness and cooperation among the opposition parties. The enemy is at the gates and all they can see is a threat to their own Party ambitions rather than the threat to the country that Harper’s CRAP presents.
Sad and frustrating times, indeed.
They better not let Harper get away with this–its time call his bluff or our democracy is ruined!An election is a small price to pay to avoid a dictatorship!
One party rule? Seriously? They can’t even get a majority.
I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why this is a terrible move, but I don’t think hyperbole is needed to trash it.
The left-leaning New Democratic Party, the smallest of the three opposition groups, promised to oppose the move and said the Bloc Quebecois, the next-largest party, would also do so.
“They’re going to hit a brick wall with us in the House (of Commons). We’ll never put up with it. I know the Bloc will never put up with it,” Thomas Mulcair, deputy leader of the New Democrats, told CBC television.
“It remains to be seen whether the Liberals are going to take a principled stand here or whether they’re going to be bought off.”—yahoo news ottawa
Thanks for your report today Garth. Scary. God help us.
Although I rarely agree with you, Garth, I think you are right on with this one. That being said, I am extremely pleased that we will be limiting MP pay and benefits as well as Bureaucrats’ benefits. I wish Mcguinty would do the same here in Ontario (22% increase last year).
Did you see Dosanjh’s reaction? He looked like he was going to be sick at the notion of losing his business class privileges. As far as I’m concerned, he can pay for the upgrade out of his own pocket
BCE
An accounting hangup supposedly threatens the BCE deal from going through. A lot of money was lost by shareholders yesterday.
Accounting rules are easily changed, as we have seen. Why can’t KPMG use the accounting schemes that I understand the Banks are adopting?
1. Have the Government, ie. you the taxpayer backstop the loans.
2. Set aside a basket of risky assets that no one wants to buy into a “items for sale” accounting box that is not audited. You can freeze it into forever Bonds.
3. Instead of “mark to market” evaluation of assets use “mark to what we think it’s worth in a better market” accounting to assess value.
Bingo, bango, prestodigitation of value and the company is now solvent an can even walk on water.
Hell, why not? That’s how we run the market these days isn’t it?
Just when I thought Harper’s Rovian tactics couldn’t get any more repulsive, he comes up with this.
From my blog:
This is such an obvious, cynical ploy to screw the opposition parties and gain permanent political advantage that even Stephen Taylor cannot restrain himself from gloating. And yet, the Conservatives are painting this as ‘an austerity measure’; ‘leading by example’; ‘tightening our belts’ – despite the fact that none of this would come into effect for at least a year anyway, by which time the current financial crisis will be well past the point where a lousy $27 million will have the slightest effect.
Just for the record, here are five reasons why public funding of political parties is a good idea:
– Chretien brought this in for the same reason he brought in the donation limits: to reduce the influence of money in politics. That’s a good thing.
– Public funding takes the pressure off MPs and parties from having to spend all their time begging for cash and puts more emphasis on their performance.
– It adds an element of proportionality to the system, allowing smaller parties like the Green Party to participate more fully than they would otherwise be able to.
– It encourages people to vote by making sure that their vote counts for something even if their chosen candidate has no chance of winning.
– As Mark Francis pointed out, the government already subsidizes political donations to the tune of 75% for donations up to $400, and 50% for someone donating the $1275 maximum would get half their money back (how much does that cost?). But that’s only if they could afford to donate that much, and only if they actually made enough money to get this non-refundable credit back. Therefore, relying on donations only gives advantage to parties that appeal to the wealthy. Public funding, on the other hand, allows all voters regardless of income to financially support their party of choice simply by voting for them.
In any case, electoral reform is a debate for another day. Right now, all of the opposition parties must demand that this item be removed from the economic statement. If it is not, they must vote against it and consider approaching the Governor General about forming a new government.
If this is allowed to stand, there will be no end to it.
People don’t get it Mr. Garth. And I’ll have to disagree with you about this being ‘destroy’ the Liberals. They will be destroying the voices of all the parties.
This is an issue that All Canadians should be worried about. How did the Reform get their pennies? Alliance? Green Party? NDP? and so on. Grass root groups will be dead before they even begin. What happens if donors turn against the Conservatives?
This is about giving a voice to all of the people.
BTW: Receive a mailer on heavy card stock. If they were truly interested in saving money they would have put a stop to that.
Tories slammed for $8.8-billion pre-election spending splurge.
Associated Press – OTTAWA
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says the Harper government’s pre-election spending is out of this world.
The group says the Conservatives have doled out a whopping $8.8 billion since June – including a $2,000 grant to commemorate a UFO sighting.
Federation director John Williamson says there have been almost 300 pre-election commitments, adding up to about $94 million a day, or almost $4 million every hour.
Williamson says the spending binge is exactly the kind of pre-election splurge Prime Minister Stephen Harper criticized the Liberals for in the run-up to the 2006 federal election.
Among the big-ticket Tory commitments: $1.1 billion for a so-called “road map for linguistic duality;” $350,000 for an ice cream company in Prince Edward Island; and $297,000 for a ski club in Newfoundland. (Web Talk note: Let’s not forget the bailout of the Ontario Ford plant, something Harpo said he wouldn’t do)
Canada’s faltering economy seems likely to be a dominant issue in a federal election campaign that’s to begin Sunday, and Williamson says Ottawa should be showing the same spending restraint as Canadian families >>>>>>>>>>>>and now Harper is trying to save us money—–DREAM ON! its all for his personal gain and to hell with the taxpayers!!!
“There is a solution for the opposition parties and that is to agree to form a coalition government and then take the government down. Harper is counting on this not happening.
In the circumstances Harper still has not proven that he has the confidence of the House. This gives the opposition parties a window to bring down the government, form a coalition, and avoid an election. The opposition could then elect a leader from their ranks, not necessarily one of the current leaders but one that can gain all party support.
By C. B. Innes on 11.27.08 12:29 pm”
Hi C.B., you have captured my thoughts on this exactly. If the opposition parties can come to an agreement on this issue they can approach the GG with a coalition plan, and do what should be done – focus on the Canadian economy!
Let’s hope that all opposition party leaders have got the guts to do this, form a pact for the good of all Canadians, and focus on getting our economy rolling again.
- It encourages people to vote by making sure that their vote counts for something even if their chosen candidate has no chance of winning.
By Jennifer Smith on 11.27.08 2:31 pm
Only if the party takes in at least 2% of the popular vote. Libertarian party, gets nothing. Marijuana Party likewise. So voters who choose either party, their vote does not count for one penny, while others get $1.75 per vote. Again, time to level the playing field rather then leave these parties on the edge of a financial cliff.
However did the CCF/NDP, the Progressives, the Reform Party, and the Bloc ever survive without federal funding? Parties from both sides of the political spectrum have done just fine without the political welfare.
Get a civics lesson. This has nothing to do with election financing. — Garth
Does anyone on this blog agree with this statement??? Nothing to do with election financing??????
To make it fair – why should it be based on votes. Why not give each party the same amount? Based on votes just makes the strong stronger!! However they must be National Parties which would disqualify the BLOC. Absolutely no money for them!
If Stevo wants to ban public financing of political parties, then 10%ers and pre-election ads should also be banned.
For those of you too stupid to recognize a smoke screen that is what the Campaign financing bill is all about .
Flahertys numbers are gonna piss of Canadians to no end .It is called misdirection . Look at my right hand while my left hand steals your wallet .
The lack of action,on the economy, by these lunatics is breath taking .
Pissed away fourteen billion dollar surplus that would have cushioned the blow .
Two hundred thousand jobs up in smoke .
No work on the EI file that would increase amounts to $660,per week .
No funds for retraining .Zero,zilch , nada epis .
And the idiots in Ontario gave these assholes even more seats Way to go !
Thank God for Quebec .
Hitler-style rise to power, brought to you by the kind folks in Canaduh’s Gnu Goobermint
I swear to the All Mighty… If these DeceptiCons get their way this year, I’m moving to Quebec and voting PQ. To hell with this country if it can’t get it’s head out of it’s ass.
Should political parties not seek the support of active citizens in order to gain donations
BY ANON ON 11.27.08 12:25 PM
The Republican and the new neo-conservative ‘party’ of Canada with Harper as it’s appointed head are the parties of businesses, not the people. They have no interest in the people and have scammed old Tories into voting for them. As you may have noticed, the 1% dominates as businesses and banks have now ultimately positioned themselves to rob the people blind. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class is dying.
So what money do “WE THE PEOPLE” now have left, in order to fight the incredibly stupid Right Wing tyranny in Canada which has no other goals than to destroy the opposition leadership. We have no money. The rich have won. With oil money backing them, the Conservative Leadership will be in power for a long time, and Canadians will grow to hate these neocons with every bone in their bodies, even Leasa will finally figure it out and hate these neocon leaders who mislead her, but we’ll all be helpless to do anything about it. The people’s donations vs slushy corporation and oil money? We lose.
“Have we forgotten why this funding was put in place in the first place? Was it not to remove the private interests and lobby groups from the funding of political parties?”
By Truth B Told on 11.27.08 12:53 pm
—–
Right on, Truth.
The Cons are supported by Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Religion. There are always ways of supporting a party “off the books” – cheap advertising (on the surface of it), “volunteering” legal advice, giving lobbyists (corn-based ethanol, $500 HPV vaccines, etc.) access to government funds to bolster their bottom line, bargain-basement real estate (hey, mister, ya wanna buy the CN tower?). And we STILL don’t know where Harper’s first campaign funding came from.
Just when you thought you couldn’t be more disgusted with the Cons…
—–
By RSandi on 11.27.08 1:38 pm
“Harper didn’t mind accepting it when he needed it. Hypocrite”
Yup. Hypocrisy, thy name is Harper.
—–
So, we march on towards tyranny.
Flanagan has some pretty strange ideas. His writings on aboriginal concerns are so right-wing they are almost horizontal. So all that “sorry” stuff in the HoC was a lot of bullroar as far as the Harpos are concerned. “Sorry” don’t mean diddley unless you do something about it.
Funny how the people who are soooooo supportive of “traditional” marriage often express their enthusiasm for it by entering into the blessed state several times, just lookin’ for perfection, I guess.
So, Flanagan, Harpo and the boys regard history as a plan of action rather than a opportunity to learn something about the mistakes and disasters of the past. History never repeats itself, it only rhymes (as somebody or other once said.)
So Harpo has the uninformed, the greedy, the unethical, the sociopathic, the bigoted and the deluded on his side. Now – that sounds like a bunch you can depend on.
The $1.75/vote comes out to about $3.50 for a family with kids. This works out at somewhere between $.70- $3 a year for a family, depending on how often we have elections. So, to save this paltry sum, parties who advocate universal child care, complete and accessible health care, climate and environmental damage reduction, human rights and all that other good stuff find it hard to find a voice.
Not much of a bargain.
And almost twice as many voters didn’t vote for Harper as did. So he’s running a country (into the ground) where a healthy majority of people don’t trust him.
That’s a victory?
O Canada!
Where the one with the most cash wins.
To my mind the government has one job and one job only-to manage the countries finances .
If you can’t do the job then get lost .
Whether you agree with Garth or not about Harper’s motives for cutting funding of political parties (and many have said before it was unfair to new parties anyway because it gave funding to the bigger parties), the fact is the move is like a business trying to cut costs by counting paper clips and pencils. And I’ve seen it done.
If part of the problem is spending, the Harper needs to look at the bigger ticket items, in particular the size of Cabinet and some of his bloated spending projects.
When Tom Flanagan says he hopes that such-and-such will happen, he means:
Flanagan, it again doing his Harper-appointed, er, self-appointed job (which he brags about). Tommy-gun often fires the first flare signal of “what’s to be”. And as an example, we all know what the code words “reduced government” actually intend.
Gosh, the new fake “Conservative” leaders sure can fool old voters who are just plain blind or delusional! Well, one good thing is that at least their voters are ‘all going down’ along with all the rest of us middle class. Con Voters can kiss the feet of their roman leaders for only so long. Or perhaps, when they say “So long!”
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2008/11/24/7512391-sun.html
Some advertising questions arose in Canada recently after the Harper Administration more than doubled the government’s ad budget in its first fiscal year, increasing it from $41.3 million to $86.9 million.
——- ah yesssssss all those 10 percenters …… what does the Harper government care? We pay for their political advertising anyway (and thats just the first year). Every taxpayer in Canada should be offended by Harper’s political games.Our economy is headed for the toilet and they are spending their time planning moves to further their political sucess!!
Ah so Mr. Flanaghan wants to conpare the battle between right and left as the Punic Wars, eh!
He’d better check his history books and move a few years ahead. Sure Rome plowed salt into Carthage, but the almighty Roman Empire eventually imploded with mass back stabbings as there leaders started to think of themselves as omnipotent.
Got some bad news for Harper and Flanaghan. They might beat the Libs down to 20% and for a few years have control, but it won’t last. Remember, the Roman Empire never returned!
Right on, CM!
By Ken on 11.27.08 3:26 pm,
Garth is right and wrong. There is a strong element of election financing since the use of this money is not restricted. It is also about the on-going financing of opposition to government within a competitive democracy. Much of this money is used in the day to day operations of parties.
There is little doubt that the Conservatives would like to destroy all competition. That is how the free markets operate and the new Conservatives see democracy as nothing more than a “market” free to whoever can purchase it.
It is rarely the small donor who influences the party. Only the relatively affluent could afford the $650-$850 delegate fee to the Winnipeg Conference, air fare, and accommodation.
Personally I have always had mixed feeling about the public funding of the large parties because it is set up to protect the parties that have already established themselves in the past through corporate and union donations making them special interest parties.
That does not change the fact that parties are still controlled by special interests. Hence the theory of trickle down economics has been altered to mean wealth poured in at the top of the economic system, not to create a flow of wealth down the economic pyramid, but a flow of debt.
Wasting so much of our money on 10 percenters, an unnecessary election, and a bloated cabinet, and then using political power to punish opponents does not make them appear fiscally conservative but only mean-spirited and anti-democratic in the current circumstances.
But, just as Jean Chretien’s finance reform, designed to punish Paul Martin had unintended consequences there will no doubt be unintended consequences for them if this idea goes forward.
By Bonnie N BC on 11.27.08 1:05 pm
Quite simple Bonnie, because any dictatorship must shut down public broadcasting to invoke single minded ideals. Why are more journalist killed to-day than any other time in history? … why to rebels take over radio and TV stations first? Steve Harper has controled the media since day one, very view if any journalist are allowed to asked questions and then all questions must be vetted first. Control is key word of the day, if Harper had a majority he would work quickly to shut the media even more. How do they do this you ask, by controlling the sponsors via the government purse strings and yes even the RCMP…. Think and remember Bonnie Steve Harper had the RCMP and security guards about him at every stop, should any even attempt to speak up within ear shot of a mike, Bing bang boom off ya go to who knows where until the event is over (no arrests = no lawyers and no statements) how about that? Remember Bonnie you were all told this many times by others but it is a #’s game and they know power can be had with aprox. 27% of the voting public the less people who take time to vote the easier it is. Barack Obama knew that and that is why he turned record numbers out, even as bad as Bush is/was had they not turned out the numbers McCain and his neocon friends could have pulled it off. I think it is good bye Canada as we know it because Canadian do not care about their country any more and the media has been driven to their hands and knees to beg. CBC is gone that will be the final nail in the coffin. Also Bonnie there are many who are on payroll of the neocon machine and believe they are safe and are natural born followers and not thinkers….. Hold you head high Boonie as you are a thinker.
Well I just read Barb the Proof Reader.
May I suggest you need to do some more reading. It is well documented in many articles in the media that the LIBERALS had become the party of Bay Street and they received much if not most of their financial support from the Corporations and people with money. The reason they have money problems today is because of a contribution limit – first imposed by Jean Chretien no less. Apparently it was his gift to Paul Martin. They now need numerous contributors and can no longer depend on huge sums from a corporation or some fat cat.
The Conservatives on the other hand established funding sources from thousands of people. Read the statistics – it is not just that they get more money -they have thousands more contributors.
I hear this all the time that the Conservatives are the party of big money, big business etc. Simply not true. Plus they have restricted lobbying and other outside influences.
Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were far more connected to Coporate Canada (and still are)than Stephen Harper ever will be.
I wonder for the record – even though this may cause Garth to say something that appears positive about the Conservatives if he would comment on party funding.
Hahaha this is hilarious.
Barack Obama staunchly refused to accept any public financing for his party or campaign.
Stephen Harper agrees.
The NDP fundraises much more than the corrupt Liberal Party of Canada, who used AdScam to further force taxpayers to finance their schemes.
Only the Liberals and the Bloc stand to be hurt by this change. Honestly, who cares?
O Canada!
Where the one with the most cash wins.
BY CMS ON 11.27.08 4:06 PM
Good one.
The childhood game of Monopoly taught us that he who gets to the money first, wins because money buys dominance.
The new Cons simply hitched their wagon to greasy oil money. Slippery Oil won long ago, and they keep beating the people, and now they’ll be even more brutal with Harper in their pocket.
At least with the childhood board game it was all in the open. With the Cons it’s all behind the scenes third party, loophole sleazy and very slushy.
The good news is that Slushies melt, get sticky, and dry up eventually. Especially when things get hotter.
Yes lefties, whine because your entitlement ends.
Yes Harper, whine when your government ends. Sooner rather than later for everyone’s sake
I think the fact that we have to give 50 million dollars a year of our taxes to political parties, including the one that wants to break up the country, is a permanent assault on democracy. If it was up to me none of you politicians would get any subsidies beyond the tax credit people get when they give money to your campaigns. The argument that contributions need to be limited to just a thousand dollars because “special interests” might have too much power is equally b.s. The problem is that the Liberals and the Tories of the past five years have been writing the campaign finance laws mainly to find ways to screw each other, not to do anything for democracy (or our wallets for that matter).
Kind of ironic isn’t it!! The Harper government is under investigation by Elections Canada for their “in and out schemes” and attempted fraud of taxpayers dollars of approx 1.4 million dollars from the very same plan they now want to abolish? If this is sincerity and concern for taxpayers then “there really is a man in the moon”
Goodbye civility, hello election?
Norman Spector, today at 6:44 AM EST
If there were ever any hope for opposition cooperation in dealing with the economic crisis (which I doubt), Prime Minister Stephen Harper will effectively end it by proposing to terminate public financing of political parties. However, one still wonders why he’d be giving up a good opportunity to be seen by Canadians as putting country ahead of party.
According to a report in today’s Globe and Mail, the Conservatives will introduce legislation to implement the plan. Since it would be a money bill, the vote would be a confidence vote on which the government could fall.
For its part, La Presse is reporting this morning that Mr. Harper will demand an early vote on Mr. Flaherty’s economic statement itself, and will make that vote a matter of confidence.
Mr. Harper may be gambling that the opposition parties will bend to his will — in which case this is an example of Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine at work. Though using a crisis to achieve your objectives is ascribed by Ms.
Klein to right-wing politicians, Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama’s chief of staff, recently said: “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste.”
Mr. Harper must have considered the alternative scenario, in which the opposition parties do not back down and we’re into another election. Or perhaps the opposition parties would prevail upon the Governor-General to give them a chance to form a government.
In either case, the question must be asked: Is the economic prognosis for Canada so bad that Mr. Harper has concluded that it’s better to be in opposition than to be in power with a minority government at this time?
UPDATE According to La Presse, the Conservatives plan to bring this matter to a vote prior to the House of Commons rising for Christmas on December 12.
Post a comment Skip to the latest comment Back to the blog
KT Ocean from Canada writes: In either case, the question must be asked: Is the economic prognosis for Canada so bad that Mr. Harper has concluded that it’s better to be in opposition than to be in power with a minority government at this time?
Yes, it has to make one wonder. And it also is a bit frightening that we would have a man in charge who would react in such a way to a crisis. I do not support Harper, but I have to conclude that if he is that irresponsible and immature, I would rather have Dion, who I do support and trust, have to bear the weight of leading our country though tough times even if doing so is considered a political liability for his party. At least with Dion, I know he cares about Canada and Canadians more than he cares about trying to optimize his political situation into the future. I am confident Dion would try to do what he thought best, whereas it is obvious we are simply going to get endless partisan games from Harper.
Posted 27/11/08 at 7:12 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
bob london from Canada writes: Klein is a political hack with an unsubstantiated book using “liberal” Marxist conspiracy theory to justify common sense for those who own a calculator. Stand by the light, you may be able to use yours.
Posted 27/11/08 at 7:42 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:
” In either case, the question must be asked: Is the economic prognosis for Canada so bad that Mr. Harper has concluded that it’s better to be in opposition than to be in power with a minority government at this time?”
I must admit I also thought about that same scenario! When one has information, they have power-but they also have a better sense of reality, and that reality is probably a monster economic disaster on the horizon.
It doesn’t take a genious to figure out that the huge crisis will hit next year regardless of who is in power, and Canada will be looking at record deficits under ANY Party
Who wants that as their political legacy, and maybe Harper knows that.
Given the current situation, perhaps he has decided to put forth his total and complete agenda, throw out every poison pill possible with confidence motions, and let the cards fall where they will.
If no one challenges, his mission is accomplished. If they challenge with a visit to the GG or another election, perhaps also mission accomplished!
Strategically speaking, and looking to perhaps 2010-2011 recovery, whatever polician governing will come away tarnished for life.
.
Posted 27/11/08 at 11:56 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Goodbye civility, hello election?
Norman Spector, today at 6:44 AM EST
Post a comment Skip to the latest comment Back to the blog
If there were ever any hope for opposition cooperation in dealing with the economic crisis (which I doubt), Prime Minister Stephen Harper will effectively end it by proposing to terminate public financing of political parties. However, one still wonders why he’d be giving up a good opportunity to be seen by Canadians as putting country ahead of party.
According to a report in today’s Globe and Mail, the Conservatives will introduce legislation to implement the plan. Since it would be a money bill, the vote would be a confidence vote on which the government could fall.
For its part, La Presse is reporting this morning that Mr. Harper will demand an early vote on Mr. Flaherty’s economic statement itself, and will make that vote a matter of confidence.
Mr. Harper may be gambling that the opposition parties will bend to his will — in which case this is an example of Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine at work. Though using a crisis to achieve your objectives is ascribed by Ms.
Klein to right-wing politicians, Rahm Emanuel, President-elect Barack Obama’s chief of staff, recently said: “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste.”
Mr. Harper must have considered the alternative scenario, in which the opposition parties do not back down and we’re into another election. Or perhaps the opposition parties would prevail upon the Governor-General to give them a chance to form a government.
In either case, the question must be asked: Is the economic prognosis for Canada so bad that Mr. Harper has concluded that it’s better to be in opposition than to be in power with a minority government at this time?
UPDATE According to La Presse, the Conservatives plan to bring this matter to a vote prior to the House of Commons rising for Christmas on December 12.
Post a comment Skip to the latest comment Back to the blog
KT Ocean from Canada writes: In either case, the question must be asked: Is the economic prognosis for Canada so bad that Mr. Harper has concluded that it’s better to be in opposition than to be in power with a minority government at this time?
Yes, it has to make one wonder. And it also is a bit frightening that we would have a man in charge who would react in such a way to a crisis. I do not support Harper, but I have to conclude that if he is that irresponsible and immature, I would rather have Dion, who I do support and trust, have to bear the weight of leading our country though tough times even if doing so is considered a political liability for his party. At least with Dion, I know he cares about Canada and Canadians more than he cares about trying to optimize his political situation into the future. I am confident Dion would try to do what he thought best, whereas it is obvious we are simply going to get endless partisan games from Harper.
Posted 27/11/08 at 7:12 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
bob london from Canada writes: Klein is a political hack with an unsubstantiated book using “liberal” Marxist conspiracy theory to justify common sense for those who own a calculator. Stand by the light, you may be able to use yours.
Posted 27/11/08 at 7:42 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:
” In either case, the question must be asked: Is the economic prognosis for Canada so bad that Mr. Harper has concluded that it’s better to be in opposition than to be in power with a minority government at this time?”
I must admit I also thought about that same scenario! When one has information, they have power-but they also have a better sense of reality, and that reality is probably a monster economic disaster on the horizon.
It doesn’t take a genious to figure out that the huge crisis will hit next year regardless of who is in power, and Canada will be looking at record deficits under ANY Party
Who wants that as their political legacy, and maybe Harper knows that.
Given the current situation, perhaps he has decided to put forth his total and complete agenda, throw out every poison pill possible with confidence motions, and let the cards fall where they will.
If no one challenges, his mission is accomplished. If they challenge with a visit to the GG or another election, perhaps also mission accomplished!
Strategically speaking, and looking to perhaps 2010-2011 recovery, whatever polician governing will come away tarnished for life.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081127.WBSpector20081127064422/WBStory/WBSpector
A possibility?
Check out the comments.
Thought for the holidays from the American Humanistic Association.
“Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”
http://www.whybelieveinagod.org/
Do you think I could get the Cons to order a bunch of their bumper stickers for the fleet of black SUV’s that carry their precious personages everywhere?
OT – Anyone hear any further news on Stevo’s Cadman lawsuit & the RCMP investigation of alleged illegal spending during the ‘06 campaign?
Hey cons, if you want to remove publically financed political parties to save approx $27 million, will you also remove tax rebates for political donations? And, will you eliminate those 12 extra positions you created & the perks that went along with them.
What hypocrits.
Oops – didn’t mean to copy some of the comments in my above post at 5:08 PM
To C.B. Innes – So it is Ok with you that the BLOC gets 86% of their financing from the taxpayers?
When I heard that! – that sealed it for me. I have little control how the politicians spend my tax money BUT I can assure you I support anything that restricts or limits the money they spend on themselves. If I thought they were more honest and worthy of the funds I may think differently.
Personally I think this is good for the parties to be truly dependant on the people. It will force the parties to connect and win the people to their position.
I read somewhere today that this has to go through The Ways & Means Committee (hope I got that right) & be passed by the Senate. Can anyone confirm this?
There is a W&M vote, perhaps tomorrow, which is a confidence motion. — Garth
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” –Albert Einstein
This is absurd.
If the Opposition do not vote this down – even if it forces another election – That is IT!
I will be voting Parti Quebecois in the next provincial election, and encouraging ALL my friends to do the same.
This is no longer the Canada I love, while under the dictatorial CPC party. I know I am not alone, as many “soft separatists”, will finally give up on the Federal “dream”. This was made VERY CLEAR when the vote switched to the Bloc last election.
I am a staunch Federalist. This is not a federalist concept I can support.
My heart breaks for Canada. For the close minded idiots supporting this move, remember, without funding, the Reform, then Alliance, would NEVER have made it.
Enough is enough. Coalition, or change of government. The CPC have to GO!
Grow some gonads LPC. Stand up for democrascy NDP. Stand up for Quebec, Bloc. Your time has come.
BaSt$%ds
By Ken on 11.27.08 5:33 pm
YOU FOOL.
If you want a Canada ruled by the financial elite, then that is what you will get.
If that is what you want, you are a traitor to democracy.
Well as bad as things are i now have hope for our country! >>> The opposition does their job and rids us of this Harper government– an election is a small price to pay (in fact its less than 8 hours of Harper’s pre-election spending spree). Hope your running again Garth -Canada needs you!
By David Bakody on 11.27.08 4:43 pm
Thank you for that explanation of why Conservatives hate the CBC. I too, am seriously alarmed by the bait and switch – no stimulus let’s strike up the band on the Titanic and lock up the steerage class by eliminating the 27 million dollar subsidy to political parties.
It seems to me this rearrangement of the deck chairs is compelled by dogma from the man who has no value for us, the Canadian people other than wealthy Canadians. I have no problem with Canadians possessing wealth but not at the demise of the middle class. I cannot understand how eliminating the middle class benefits Conservatives?
We buy cars (maybe not Big 3), we pay taxes and pay our way if we are employed.
I am worried as a political junkie I know it was a fight with my friends just to get them to vote regardless of party. There is a void of understanding on how serious this assault is on our democracy and fiscal leadership.
But it’s worth the fight. I say, let’s go back to the electorate and you?
I read somewhere today that this has to go through The Ways & Means Committee (hope I got that right) & be passed by the Senate. Can anyone confirm this?
There is a W&M vote, perhaps tomorrow, which is a confidence motion. — Garth
By Go Green on 11.27.08 5:38 pm
Thanks Garth for replying. But would it then have to go through the Senate. If so, could this be all smoke & mirror?
What about those who cannot afford to make their voice heard by donating to a party? By cms on 11.27.08 1:16 pm
so you can’t afford to give the party of your choice $2, but you can afford it if it’s part of your tax bill?
Personally I think this is good for the parties to be truly dependant on the people. It will force the parties to connect and win the people to their position.
By Ken on 11.27.08 5:33 pm,
You mean truly dependent on those individuals/families who can afford to contribute to the parties. That is the problem.
Some families appear to contribute their maximum amount every year which is a considerable amount of money over a mandate. We don’t really know who these people are or who they represent. When corporations contributed at least we knew where the pressure points might be.
For example, in the last year of the Canadian Alliance the top four contributors to the party were major banks. Is the current policy with regard to freeing bank credit by transferring bank mortgage debt to government in order to create more business and personal debt a payback for these banks?
It seems to me that removing the ability of politicians to send out 10 per centers and the ability to get a large portion of their election expenses refunded, and allowing the per vote allowance to remain would be more democratic. At least a person’s vote would mean more.
I don’t know what the answer really is but I do find that whatever party caters to the whims of the affluent usually wins. The Conservatives have simply replaced the Liberals as the party of the power elite.
I think it is interesting that the economic update is geared towards the punishment of groups that neo-conservatives hate: their political opponents and the public service.
Only the Liberals and the Bloc stand to be hurt by this change. Honestly, who cares?
By Truth on 11.27.08 4:47 pm,
You must be one of those Ernest Manning followers who believe that politics should be a constant war between the right and left, with the right always able to buy elections because they appeal to the more affluent.
Probably the biggest loser here will be the Green Party. The “who cares?” says something about you that is disappointing.
But the finance minister said he will save money by selling $2.3 billion in government assets – including property>>>>>> AND REGARDING THEIR LAST SALES>>>>>>NDP asks auditor-general to probe 2007 government-buildings deal
Last Updated: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 | 2:26 PM ET
New Democrat MP Pat Martin has asked Auditor-General Sheila Fraser to investigate the Conservative government’s $1.4-billion sale and lease-back of seven government-owned properties to a Vancouver-based real estate company.
The deal was signed in October 2007 by Public Works Minister Michel Fortier and Larco Investments and allows the company to lease back the buildings — located in Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal — back to Ottawa over 25 years.
Martin called the deal a “real estate dream scenario” for Larco, which owns an extensive portfolio of office buildings, hotels, residential buildings, and other real estate assets across Canada and the United States.
The Winnipeg-area MP said Fortier has put forward “no clear business case” for the deal, DESPITE REPEATED ATTEMPTS.
“Canadians deserve to know whether this transaction had any merit,” Martin
……..lETS GO TO THE POLLS!!!
Enough is enough. Coalition, or change of government. The CPC have to GO!
Grow some gonads LPC. Stand up for democrascy NDP. Stand up for Quebec, Bloc. Your time has come.
BaSt$%ds
By maybe Rhino? on 11.27.08 5:51 pm
I agree that the CPC has to go. Their ideology is to destroy Canada. They don’t give a shit about average Canadians.
wish we were in a position to move to P.Q.
Maybe its time also that the Churches stop receiving tax benefits.
Yeah they’re going to sell government assets to reduce their deficit – but they haven’t identified which ones.
Opposition parties won’t support Tory economic update
Dion says PM must ‘look at his options’ to avoid fall of government
Last Updated: Thursday, November 27, 2008 | 5:29 PM ET
Canada’s opposition parties said Thursday they will vote against the Conservative government’s fiscal update, sparking speculation the country could face another election in the midst of a global economic crisis.
The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois said they would not support the update introduced by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty because it contained no stimulus package to spur Canada’s slumping economy and protect Canadian workers during the crisis.
The update is a confidence vote on Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government and could be voted on as a ways and means motion as early as Friday, the CBC’s Keith Boag reported from outside the House of Commons in Ottawa.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said the parties’ decision to reject Flaherty’s proposals means it’s up to the prime minister “to look at his options.”
“We will vote against this plan,” Dion told reporters outside the Commons.
However, Dion did not respond when asked whether a handful of his MPs might be absent for a vote on the update,
SCREW THE OPTIONS DION AND ALL HIS MPS BETTER STEP UP TO THE PLATE–if not i give up as another poster stated im moving to Quebec!
Flaherty’s update today was an affront to all Canadians.
Not one glimmer of hope for those who have lost, are losing or will lose their jobs. Not one hint of a bold, forward-thinking policy that will stimulate the economy.
Instead he decides to slap the opposition parties–to punish civil servants–did he mention that he would rescind the appointment of those brand new Ministers, etc that Harper decided were necessary in our under-Ministered government? did he tell us how he was going to save our faltering manufacturing industry and soon-to-be-faltering oil industry ( not going so well in the tar sands right now)
No, instead of instilling even a glimmer of hope for our future Flaherty decides to hurl a “gotcha” at his opposition.
What kind of man is this?
Garth,
This is War on the people of Canada.
Let’s pull the plug and call another ELECTION.
This time Harper win be kicked out of 24 Harper Drive.
Liberals will WIN and CANADA will be back on track.
Message to Harper and his CLOWNS
Your HIstory gone forever.
Mad as hell
Hi Garth,
I’m ready to help out again in an election!!!! Sooner would be fine with me, especially after the so-called update today.
You’re on, dude. — Garth
Flaherty said one truth…. allow me to paraphrase, Canadians can and have overcome many challenges and will come out strong….. Yes Jim old buddy, we the 70% who did not vote for Stephen Harper will stand behind the three leaders we choose and let them run this country in her troubled times….now how does that grab you…. I say do it now, no more games (waiting and allowing hard working Canadians to suffer while you wait for all hell to break out to hide your deficit in a multi $ billion dollar bail out package) Dion/Layton/Duceppe unite think three heads are better than one…. this could be just the Canadian tool to hold up as real example of political corporation to the world!
Yeah they’re going to sell government assets to reduce their deficit – but they haven’t identified which ones.
By Go Green on 11.27.08 6:45 pm
Nor will they,it will be done like the last sale when parliament is out–most likely during the christmas break
Maybe its time also that the Churches stop receiving tax benefits.
BY GO GREEN ON 11.27.08 6:41 PM
My thoughts exactly. Why should I, as a taxpayer, support organized religions when I don’t belong to one myself? Why should I, as a taxpayer, support athletics in this country when I have no interest in sports whatsoever? Why should I, as a taxpayer, support sweet tax write offs for political contributions when I can no longer afford to make them?
Most seniors I know were smart enough to pull their RRSPs before they retired and paid the tax in order to avoid the constraints of RIFs. The RIF holders were more than happy to receive the RRSP rebates and tax shelters but when the crunch comes they want a second bite of the pie? Why should I, as a taxpayer, pay for that?
I have absolutely no confidence in this present government to lead us throw the tide that is going to hit us.
Hi Garth,
I’m ready to help out again in an election!!!! Sooner would be fine with me, especially after the so-called update today.
You’re on, dude. — Garth
By Greg W., Oakville on 11.27.08 7:13 pm
Count me in…I will start saving my coffee money now! and we will work this from angles the CONs never dreamed of… honesty for starters!
We should be voting with a toonie. Just drop it into the party ballot box. Count the money in each box and a winner can be declared.. No spoiled ballots. Each party gets to keep what is in their (piggy bank)ballot box.
A simpler way is to give each party $1.75 of my income tax.
Flaherty is right. You have to lead by example. It is time to stop forcing tax payers to fund political party’s election campaigns. Why not force me to give to select charities as well?
If a political party has leadership and policy that the people feel strongly that they can identify with and get behind, they will support them as well.
BTW, in doing this, the CPC has the most money to lose. L
I hope every taxpayer in Canada that cares about democracy will be contacting Mr Dion and telling him to get rid of Harper–screw the options–its time for an election!–I have!
Maybe its time also that the Churches stop receiving tax benefits.
By Go Green on 11.27.08 6:41 pm
I would agree with that. Unless the government will start to fund the Church of Marc, where I am my own God, and 10% donations are being accepted, then no other religious institution should be funded. I am not religious, but I do watch Coaches Corner religously.
Instead of stimulus, the Conservatives offer opportunitistic attacks on a weakened opponent and public servants.
Great Link on this mess.
http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=00169
Why don’t we just end all political tax credits,PERIOD. So you Harper supporters buy this 1.75 entitlement bs eh, ok,… lets end all of it. No, and I mean absolutely zero dollars from the tax payer to political parties, no re-embersement to candidates for election expenses. No 10 percenters anymore. No frank mail. No tax credits for political donations. Put your money where freakng fat mouth are.
A buck seventy-five per vote,… oh that evil entitlement,… rant, rabble, rabble. What cancel all tax beniffits, no that is just silly,…
Oh and while we’re at it, lets axe all those tax gimmes for religious orgs. Why am I funding your choice in make believe sky faires?
You going to run again Garth? Tell Esther to get her battle boots shined up and ready (no way she gets off the hook, we own her arse)
Hi Garth, FYI anyone,
Union of Concerned Scientists: Please join the Union of Concerned Scientists and send message that WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR FOOD SOURCE. SEEDS ARE NOW BEING INJECTED WITH TOXINS of bacteria (Bt anthrax derivative) laced with virus e-coli /.salmonella listeria/ TO KILL BUGS. THE TOXINS ARE GETTING INTO THE POLLEN AND NECTAR AND ARE KILLING BEES AND OTHER POLLINATORS by damaging their digestive system. Write to your legislators and government officials around the world. THE SAME TOXIN OF Bt is used to spray trees for the spruce bud worm or Gypsy Moth, grape vines and other produce.
Hi Garth, anyone here is another,
> IMMEDIATE RELEASE (November 13, 2008)
>
> (Los Angeles, CA.) – A long-term feeding study commissioned by the
Austrian
> Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal
Ministry of
> Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna,
> confirms genetically modified (GM) corn seriously affects reproductive
health
> in mice. Non-GMO advocates, who have warned about this infertility link
along
> with other health risks, now seek an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM
> crops to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around
the
> world.
>
> Feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based
Monsanto
> Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight, according to the study
> conducted by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna. Lead author
of
> the study Professor Zentek said, there was a direct link between the
decrease
> in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn
reproduced
> more efficiently.
>
> In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding
trials
> over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM
variety
> (NK 603 x MON 810), or a closely related non-GE variety used in many
> countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases
were
> found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the
> control group.
>
> The corn is genetically modified with genes that produce a pesticidal
toxin,
> as well as genes that allow it to survive applications of Monsanto¹s
herbicide
> Roundup.
>
> A book by author Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette, distributed to
members of
> congress last year, documents 65 serious health risks of GM products,
> including similar fertility problems with GM soy and GM corn: Offspring of
> rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth
weights,
> and the inability to reproduce. Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young
sperm
> cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA
functioning.
> Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and
> cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months,
> investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions,
> premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among
> buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products.
>
> The principle GM crops are soy, corn, cottonseed and canola. GM sugar from
> sugar beets will also be introduced before year¹s end.
>
> Mr. Smith, who is also the Executive Director of the Institute for
Responsible
> Technology says, ³GM foods are likely responsible for several negative
health
> trends in the US. The government must impose an immediate ban on these
> dangerous crops.² He says, ³Consumers don¹t need to wait for
governmental
> action. They can download a free Non-GMO Shopping Guide at
> http://www.HealthierEating.org.²
>
> Monsanto press offices in the UK and USA were unable to provide a comment
on
> the findings for journalists yesterday.
>
> The Institute for Responsible Technology¹s Campaign for Healthier Eating
in
> America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses, and the media, to
> achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified
foods.
>
> The Institute educates people about the documented health risks of GMOs
and
> provides them with healthier non-GMO product choices.
>
> The Institute also informs policy makers and the public around the world
about
> the impacts of GMOs on health, environment, the economy, and agriculture,
and
> the problems associated with current research, regulation, corporate
> practices, and reporting.
>
Hi Garth and others,
What are you eating?
In a preliminary study at Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, rats fed genetically modified potatoes suffered damaged organs and stunted growth compared with rats eating normal potatoes.
Scottish scientists in 1999 where fired and sit at home even in 2007 re directions from the Blair government on instructions from the USA trade department all documented on film. the potatoes they tested where from the USA in 1999. I am not sure re the potatoes mentioned above maybe contact Rowett.
Re: political party funding cut
What is the Conservative strategy here? This looks even more bone headed then the Quebec culture funding cut.
Tories use fiscal update to hit opposition
29 minutes ago
What’s this
By Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA – The path to Conservative political dominance is to financially bankrupt your opponents.
So wrote Tom Flanagan, one of the deep thinkers of the conservative movement in Canada and a mentor to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Flanagan’s prescient op-ed piece from August appeared to come to fruition in Thursday’s fiscal update when Harper’s Conservatives moved to end public financing of federal political parties under the guise of austerity.
“There will be no free ride for political parties,” Flaherty told the House of Commons in his speech on the update.
“Even during the best of economic times, parties should count primarily on the financial support of their own members and their own donors.”
The move, while hitting the Tories hardest in absolute dollar terms, would gut the opposition parties who are far more dependent on the public subsidy.
Private donations to the Conservative party over the past two years were actually twice the total of all the other parties combined. Stripping the opposition of public funding would put the governing party at an overwhelming advantage.
It’s a reality Flaherty obstinately refused to recognize Thursday.
During a brief news conference, he initially stated that the current $1.95-per-vote subsidy “obliges taxpayers to support political parties that they may not vote for.”
Later in the same news conference, Flaherty noted the public funding is perfectly aligned with voter support.
The $1.95 subsidy, he said, “is per vote, and we got the most votes, so it hurts us the most. It’s not complicated, actually.”
For the opposition parties, some of whom borrowed election campaign financing against the surety of future per-vote payments, the measure is equally uncomplicated.
“It’s an attempt to destroy their opponents, that’s the only way it can be described,” fumed Liberal MP Bob Rae.
“Every country in the western world has public support for the political process and public support for political parties who participate.
“There’s no public-policy benefit at all. It’s just absolute bloody-minded meanness that’s motivating them and it can’t be allowed to stand.”
Flanagan, a University of Calgary professor, compared the ongoing Conservative-Liberal battles to those of Rome and Carthage in the second century B.C., when successive Roman victories eventually resulted in Carthage’s utter destruction.
In the third of these Punic Wars, he wrote, the Romans razed Carthage “and sowed salt in the fields so nothing would ever grow there again.”
Flanagan ended the piece by saying the Liberals, if they’re not careful, “could be pushed into a financial pit they can never climb out of.”
—–Hmmmmmmmm kind of sounds to me that they are reading your blog Garth
Fewer than 20% of eligible voters cast a ballot for the liberals in the last election which is why it seems that just about everyone likes the idea of canceling this welfare program for political parties. Sink or swim. The age of entitlement has come to an end. These are tough times and everyone has to pull back a little.
OK, how about hearing what a REAL conservative has to say?
A real conservative would not socialize $75 billion worth of subprime mortgages.
He would perhaps even scrap the CMHC and allow banks to price risk naturally, sink or swim, cost out the risks and price it into the mortgage.
Bank about to go TU? Too bad, let business Darwinism run it’s course.
Discourage borrowing, and encourage savings.
Increase reserve requirements for banks, to strengthen the system.
Allow more freedom of speech…. ie allow the media to use Imperial units, if that’s what their viewers want…
I have more too, but I’m not seeing it with these guys, so quit calling them conservatives!
No more welfare political parties. Who would disagree with that besides a liberal or a PQ? Sink or swim Garth. The age of entitlements is over. The Prime Minister is going to win a few more votes with this move. That leadership convention for the liberals is going to look small town cheap!
Personally, I think the Libs by saying they won’t support the “Economic Update” is their way of telling Harper he has to live up to his promise of working with the opposition.
The packaged released today does nothing to help the situation, but is opportunistic in sticking ideology to the average Canada. Mrs. Thatcher did exactly the same when she first came to power.
If an election does result, the Libs had better do a better job in explaining to Canadians why Harper needs to go. They will also need to get their riding associations upto speed on how to run an effective campaign. I heard in this riding, they didn’t even have the previous election’s polling data to figure out where their votes came from, where to canvass and the GOTV.
Maybe its time also that the Churches stop receiving tax benefits.
By Go Green on 11.27.08 6:41 pm
Why discriminate against churches? Maybe no contributors to any charitable organization should receive tax benefits if you want to go that far.
No more welfare political parties. Who would disagree with that besides a liberal or a PQ? Sink or swim Garth. The age of entitlements is over. The Prime Minister is going to win a few more votes with this move. That leadership convention for the liberals is going to look small town cheap!
By thank you Harper on 11.27.08 8:48 pm
………“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” –Albert Einstein
Garth, how is taking away the $1.75 per vote undemocratic? Do you agree that some votes are worth $1.75 and some votes are worth zilch to be democratic? Did we not have a democracy prior to 2003 when this subsidy was brought in? Either all votes are worth $1.75, or all votes are worth nothing. Having the 2% requirement is in no way democratic in my opinion.
Go Green: I agree. Why do we allow churches, who are obviously for profit, to claim tax-free status?
How much annual tax revenue is lost to faith-based businesses?
Thank You Harper: Did you blast Harper for increasing the size of his Cabinet and costing us millions of dollars?
I thought Harper was for smaller government–instead he just added to the fleet of limos he needs to chauffeur around his freshly-minted Ministers.
Can someone explain the numbers too me? Gas prices are down so not too much going into the coffers, people have cut back on their spending, additional medical expenditure, oil demand is down in the U.S. and all that additional government expenditure? How are they getting the results that they are regardless of whether they’ve gone into deficit or not?
Am I hearing correctly !!
The Liberals, NDP are planning to join forces with the Bloc to form a government.
The Liberals accused Harper of cosying up to the Bloc to win their support to hold on to government.
I guess political parties do make strange bedfellows.
The age of entitlement has come to an end. These are tough times and everyone has to pull back a little.
In fact, this is a new age of neo-conservative entitlement. Under that concept those who have the most get more and the rest of us pay.
Their policies have nothing to do with dealing with the economic downturn but doing everything to use the crisis to impose their ideological principles on the country.
What they are doing will make most of us much poorer except for those who already control the bulk of the national wealth who will become much wealthier and more powerful.
That is the whole purpose of right wing ideology. It is to make the rich richer and the middle and lower income groups much poorer in order to achieve what they believe is the “natural” hierarchical order of society.
By Judy on 11.27.08 9:24 pm
For the record, Atheism is a non prophet religion.
Here is a case where the birds are coming home. Mr Chretien changed the way cntributions could be made to a political party to shaft Mr Martin when he was trying to take the party away from him. This was the first shot across the bow.
Now Mr Harper is changing the rules again. I know this money goes to the party to fund their activities between elections. It also pays wages to the party operatives. The amount of $30 million per year would go a long way of assisting the poor and needy and that auto worker out of a job. It surely would be better spent. A political donation is a very attractive method of raising funds for parties. All tha is required is an attractive candidate and a positive message. That is democracy.
If the opposition parties are going to bring the government down over this issue I think they will be doing themselves and canadians a disservice.
Political Parties being weened off the government breast. Why should the taxpayer be upset? The only ones who should be upset are those who have difficulty raising thier own funds, they need to ask themselves why?
UNITE THE LEFT – ERASE THE DISGRACE!
Get a civics lesson. This has nothing to do with election financing. — Garth
By Ken on 11.27.08 12:38 pm
Garth, are you telling us that the money the political parties get from the tax p[ayers which is directly tied to the number of votes received in an election is not used by said political parties in election campaigns.? Now tell me Garth, why should my tax dollars go to a support a separatist political party. I wasn’t in favour of this stupid scheme when Chretien introduced it and still not in favour of it. Surely not even the Liberals are so dumb as to bring down the government over this issue.
Get a civics lesson. This has nothing to do with election financing. — Garth
To put it bluntly Garth. BULLSHIT!!!
You have proven your ignorance. Quit while you’re behind. — Garth
This is the most inept, arrogant, slithery government we have ever had.
I think people are finally figuring it out.
Sorry if the grammar was wonky in my last post. What I’m trying to say is the numbers don’t seem to add up.
For C. B. INNES ON 11.27.08 8:58 PM
I think what Go Green and others are trying to say is the influence on policy decision making some of these organized religions have. If they influence policy decisions then they shouldn’t enjoy charity tax free status. An example would be cutting funding to the arts or a more ‘moral’ tone in filmmaking which pleases only one segment of the population but is not a majority sentiment.
Also, I do think some charities should be looked at a little closer. Some of them behave more as corporations with profit as a motivation then helping people in need.
Now tell me Garth, why should my tax dollars go to a support a separatist political party. I wasn’t in favour of this stupid scheme when Chretien introduced it and still not in favour of it. Surely not even the Liberals are so dumb as to bring down the government over this issue.
By Van on 11.27.08 10:15 pm,
For your tax dollars to go to a separatist party you would have to be voting for the candidate of that party. The money that goes to the separatist party comes from those support that party.
A little reminder of one current political problem -
Paul Wells assessing Dion’s stature in his own party:
http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/27/prime-minister-dion/#more-20440
That was unworthy or writing, and certainly unworthy of repeating. Every federal leader contributes more to his or her country in a day than most people do in their lives. — Garth
Is there anything to prevent the supporters of the various parties from stepping up and contributing to their party of choice? Apparently Obama’s very successful campaign in the U.S. was funded by millions of relatively small cotributions. Why wouldn’t that work here, assuming the various parties actually do have the support they claim to have from their supporters.
Yes okay, Harper and Flartley are criminals after the style of the ‘Chicago Boys’.
BUT WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS?
Enough talk, let’s have some action please. I would like some specific details of what I should be doing. What should I tell my friends and family to be doing?
Mr. Turner, you worked for the governemnt no? You know how they ‘work’? Can you advise us, or guide us, or something?
’nuff talk
Go Green: I agree. Why do we allow churches, who are obviously for profit, to claim tax-free status?
How much annual tax revenue is lost to faith-based businesses?
By Judy on 11.27.08 9:24 pm
It amazes me the intolerance of some Liberals.
What “profit” is there in the vast majority of churches? Most churches pay for a minister or priest who earns little for working long hours in often trying circumstances. The rich churches may also be able to afford a paid secretary.
Churches are primarily volunteer organizations run by people who provide their time and labour and whatever money they can afford to provide service to their community. Churches provide a whole range of services to real people especially in rural areas where there are few public services.
It makes me angry that bigots are eager to bankrupt voluntary organizations that is struggling to fulfill the needs of the communities they serve.
By Judy on 11.27.08 9:24 pm
For the record, Atheism is a non prophet religion.
By Marc on 11.27.08 9:36 pm
Wrong, Atheism is the opposite of or lack of religion. Now maybe you could describe Agnosticism as a “prophetless” religion, but then there are those who would also disagree with that!
than Stephen Harper ever will be.
BY KEN ON 11.27.08 4:45 PM
Harper’s CRAP party receives third party funding from the Republicans, Americans and Big Oil as seen in the summer. Fundraising through the Calgary Chamber of Commerce funnels the money to Friends of Science and other lobby groups.
So k k k k Ken, I suggest you read the newspapers about that, it was written up. The Cons use their sister lobby groups to advertise on behalf of the Conservatives, and yet they don’t report that money to Elections Canada… oh, and then there’s the fact that Harper uses all that In & Out Loophole Money. So yes, Harper has plenty of funny money because he’s clearly comfortable with cheating and lying.
Garth,
if Wells’s opinion is based on fact, it is well worth repeating. We are trying to deal with political realities as opposed to wishful thinking on this site.
Wells has hardly been a fool so far, and he has signed his name to this opinion. Therefore, it is worth considering. Caucus and you can easily prove him wrong.
It’s an ignorant, cheap comment. I would not utter it of Harper, Dion, anyone. — Garth
It makes me angry that bigots are eager to bankrupt voluntary organizations that is struggling to fulfill the needs of the communities they serve.
BY C. B. INNES ON 11.27.08 10:59 PM
Churches can run just fine without abusing our tax dollars.
C.B. you have to realize that they churches do abuse our money with their power. They always have “attachments” to what they do. Their so-called ‘good’ work is done to spread their word – that is abusive of the needy and that is exactly the problem.
I much prefer the groups that do not have ‘attachments’ to their good work. I think you have gone too far in not seeing that people who take tax relief, but turn around and superimpose their “beliefs” on innocents, do not deserve our tax dollars.
If a charity is worthwhile, people should donate to it 100% of what they can afford to give. No one should expect tax relief for donating to their CHOICE of a charity. And the religious charities should not be allowed to woo and do mission work on the public dime. There are too many dangerous religions who harm people and that is a problem in this day and age.
We are all better off helping people in need with professional guidance, shelter and a path to a future, and not leaving them in the hands of suspect special interest groups. I think you are out of line and oversensitive in calling Judy or anyone intolerant.
For the record, Atheism is a non prophet religion.
BY MARC ON 11.27.08 9:36 PM
Not so.
Non-religious people are called…… “people”.
Maybe no contributors to any charitable organization should receive tax benefits
BY C. B. INNES ON 11.27.08 8:58 PM
And that’s what I’ve always said. There should be no tax benefits for charities.
If a charity is worthwhile, honest and smartly run, it will receive plenty of donations from those who want to donate to that cause. This funding from the public purse is ridiculous.
No more welfare political parties. Who would disagree with that besides a liberal or a PQ? Sink or swim Garth. The age of entitlements is over. The Prime Minister is going to win a few more votes with this move. That leadership convention for the liberals is going to look small town cheap!
By thank you Harper on 11.27.08 8:48 pm
Blah,blah,blah,blah,blah . Stop by when you have something intelligent to say troll boy .
Typical con-clone rubbish ,
No more welfare political parties. Who would disagree with that besides a liberal or a PQ? Sink or swim Garth. The age of entitlements is over. The Prime Minister is going to win a few more votes with this move. That leadership convention for the liberals is going to look small town cheap!
By thank you Harper on 11.27.08 8:48 pm
Blah,blah,blah,blah,blah . Stop by when you have something intelligent to say troll boy .
Typical con-clone rubbish .
Pucker up buttercup .
Yes, Harper is a bully, and becoming stronger and more bold in his attacks. But take a look at the picture that accompanies the article by Garth. Harper looks like a coach looking up at the clock and scoreboard during the final minutes of a game. His assistant coach is beginning to show the signs of fatigue from a long and tiring game. The coach recognizes, that regardless of how disorganized the other team may may be, time is running out. And he’s scared.
This is the most inept, arrogant, slithery government we have ever had.
I think people are finally figuring it out.
By glen on 11.27.08 10:20 pm
Most everyone on this forum has certainly figured it out. Check the archives and you will find that most had it all figured out years ago. And there is absolutely nothing that Harper and the Cons can do or say to change that view. It’s all lies and secret hidden agenda’s. LOL. The question remains – is the same view shared by everybody else? I somehow doubt it.
This government is a complete DISGRACE! Therefore, Canada is disgraced. Happy now people? You elected them. Yes, YOU! Don’t look over there at someone else. You elected this mean, undemocratic bunch of Right Wing assholes. Enjoy!
Thos who DID NOT VOTE are even more guilty than those who did. You have no right to speak anymore.
Oh, and Liberals, your Dion helped them into office. Now you want to flaunt Ignatieff? You are beyond redemption with this Canadian.
Form a coalition government TODAY and GROW UP. Not one party is worthy of leading this once great nation. Send these Dark Ages Rethuglicans to the dungeon for good.
than Stephen Harper ever will be.
BY KEN ON 11.27.08 4:45 PM
Harper’s CRAP party receives third party funding from the Republicans, Americans and Big Oil as seen in the summer. Fundraising through the Calgary Chamber of Commerce funnels the money to Friends of Science and other lobby groups.
So k k k k Ken, I suggest you read the newspapers about that, it was written up. The Cons use their sister lobby groups to advertise on behalf of the Conservatives, and yet they don’t report that money to Elections Canada… oh, and then there’s the fact that Harper uses all that In & Out Loophole Money. So yes, Harper has plenty of funny money because he’s clearly comfortable with cheating and lying.
Barb,
All political parties have groups whosupport them. How many times have I heard the CAW president slam the Conservatives and go around speaking against them. You need to get out of the Conspiracy circles and get your feet on the ground. Assumption is the most dangerous form of knowledge – because it is almost always not true!
National Post – Today
He has a point, too. An examination of party fundraising numbers shows that the Liberal party raised $24.1-million from 21,830 donors in 2003, the year before Jean Chrétien’s election financing reforms took effect (the reforms eliminated corporate and union contributions and limited individual contributions to $5,000, an amount since reduced to $1,000 by the Conservatives.) In the same year, the Bloc Québécois raised $1-million from 5,277 donors, while the NDP collected $10.1-million from 33,000 people. Fast forward to 2007, and the Liberals raised just $4.4-million from roughly the same number of contributors, while the Bloc’s fundraising efforts had fallen to $429,971 from far fewer donors. The NDP’s revenue tumbled to $3.9-million from 23,000 donors.
The Conservatives did not exist in their current form in 2003, but the Progressive Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance raised a total of $12.6-million from around 100,000 donors. In 2007, the new Conservative Party raised nearly $17-million from 107,000 contributors
By expat on 11.28.08 4:02 am,
You are wrong. I had actually hoped that as a former Progressive Conservative that the new Conservatives has dropped their ideological focus and become more practical.
Unfortunately, they have used the economic update to reinforce their ideological extremism and their attempt to destroy all opposition in order to force their elitism on the public.
They have proven that like a leopard a despot never changes its spots.
For your tax dollars to go to a separatist party you would have to be voting for the candidate of that party. The money that goes to the separatist party comes from those support that party.
By C. B. Innes on 11.27.08 10:39 pm
Who are you trying to kid? You are splitting hairs the money comes out of taxes payed by all Canadians. There is not separate pots for each party. There is only one pot.
The only way the Liberal Party will vote against this move is if they know people support them in doing so! Here’s a sample letter that you can send to the party, feel free to change it if you like, or just copy and paste it.
WRITING EMAILS DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE! Every time an MP gets an email, they make a note of the topic and what side the writer supports. Let’s show the LPC we want them to vote against this misguided policy!!!
I suggest you send this to:
Stephane Dion – DionS@parl.gc.ca
Ralph Goodale (House Leader) – Goodale.R@parl.gc.ca
Marlene Jennings (Deputy House Leader)– Jennings.M@parl.gc.ca
Scott Brison (Finance Critic) – Brison.S@parl.gc.ca
Dear Mr. Dion,
I am a resident of _______________(name of riding) and I am writing to you today to ask you to vote against the elimination of the $1.95 per vote subsidy to political parties, even if it would lead to an election.
A healthy democracy requires many different points of view and an opposition which is capable of representing the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for the Conservative party. If the Conservative government succeeds in cutting the $1.95 per vote subsidy currently awarded to parties, they will succeed only in effectively eliminating their opposition, something we know that Stephen Harper has consciously set out to do.
I am writing you today as a concerned Canadian asking you and the Liberal caucus to vote against any economic update, bill or budget that would cut the public subsidy to political parties. Even if this would trigger an election, it is an issue worth fighting for. No doubt the Liberal Party will be criticized by some for voting against this move, but it will also send a clear message to Canadians that the Liberal Party stands for fairness and democracy.
The Conservatives are playing games with our economy. They’ve been doing so since they cut the GST, against the advice of nearly all economists and they continue to do so today. Please vote against the elimination of the per vote subsidy for parties, even if doing so would lead to an election.
Thank you,
_____________(name)
Van: If you don’t want your $$ going to a political party, don’t vote. Your $$ will stay in the coffers.
For those who can’t afford a private donation ( and there are many thousands) they know that by voting they are financially supporting their party of choice.
There are many of my tax dollars that are supporting groups I don’t agree with: churches, big oil and gas barons, bankers, etc. Why didn’t Harper offer me the chance to direct my tax dollars away from these groups???