NDP Scam in the House

If you want to see a good illustration of how the NDP is doing all in its power to get Harper the majority he needs, and to keep the centre-left divided, as part of tehir pathetic attempt to maybe win another irrelevant seat or two in the coming election, then look no further than today’s QP.

First we have Layton on his feet demanding that Harper match the strict environmental commitments of -- are you ready for this – George Bush! Then another NDP MP rises to loudly demand that the Conservative Treasury Board President report on some awful Liberal who was apparently named in the Gomery report who was given (as is his right) legal funding to try to clear his name.

Can there be any doubt that Harper will eventually end up claiming that he has indeed met the tough environmental standards set by Bush, and that Jack "Party-Before-Country" Layton will call this progress, and claim credit for it?

And does anyone doubt that the Conservatives aren't delighted just about anytime to examine in great detail any muck the NDP might want to throw against the Liberals, just to keep the media limelight trained on scandals that occured in Quebec during the Chretien era?

What is obvious is that deliberate NDP strategy will help Harper win a majority next time. What is less obvious is whether it will get the NDP another seat or two, as it seeks, or whether the NDP will get their asses kicked in a looming Conservative landslide.

If the latter outcome occurs, and the NDP get anihilated, well, at least that would be of some benefit, albeit one that comes at the very high price, what with Canadians having to suffer for the next 6-10 years under a seriously right-wing government, elected by and for canada's right-wing minority.

- B

he gets. I have noticed several other NDP members doing the same. For instance Olivia Chow of Trinity-Spadina (Laytons' wife of course), Libby Davies of Vancouver East and Judy Wasylycia-Leis of Winnipeg North are forever chirping in with a litany of the supposed sins of the Liberals....They are all very short-sighted. Do these people not see the damage the Harper government could do to Canada with a majority government? It's mind-boggling to me.

They've always been dirty, and barring some earth-shattering miracle, they always will be. Or am I just "blaming the victim" here?

All in all, I liked the old Liberal crooks better than the new Alliance crooks. I just prefer not to vote for crooks, period. And why indeed should I?

sanctimonious (which I have heard said) is also silly.

I'm actually a PC from the Stanfield-Clark days, who left the party when Byron Muldoon stabbed Clark in the back. I was involved in the '74 election and I remember Trudeau's "Zap, you're frozen" shortly before he brought in his own wage and price controls, and I've never forgiven the Liberals for that. And then there's all that patronage they like to throw around to their cronies -- that's bred right into the Liberal party bone, and the Liberals I know say "That's just how it's done, and there's nothing wrong with it."

Muldoon also had a free hand in distributing political patronage, of course, but I never liked him. In fact, in those years between when I left the federal PC party and when I rejoined it as an Orchard supporter, I leapt right over the Liberals without so much as a look at them and voted NDP, Green, or Marijuana party. And now that there's no more federal PC party, I'm at a bit of a loss.

If the Liberal party somehow manages to clean itself up, purges its "old boys' club" and the other dirty elements, and becomes a truly progressive party rather than "Neocon Lite", then I'll give them a second look.

You say: "They've always been dirty, and barring some earth-shattering miracle, they always will be."

and somebody pretends you've said that ALL LIBERALS ARE DIRTY, and then pretends to get all outraged that you could say such a thing.

Sigh.

"The Liberals" is one of those collective entities. It's another way of saying "the Liberal Party". (If you'd said "Liberals" instead of "the Liberals", somebody might have had a basis for all that crocodile outrage, but oh look, you didn't.)

Whether any individual wants to associate / identify him/herself with a particular collective entity is up to him/her. As it stands at the moment, anybody who chooses to do so with the Liberals is choosing to be associated with a corrupt entity.

Of course, one could do that and still denounce the corruption of the collective entity one belongs to. USAmericans who denounce their country for what it does aren't calling all USAmericans, let alone themselves, imperialistic or arrogant or just plain evil, after all.

And I guess we might even hear some of that denunciation around here from someone who chooses to associate / identify him/herself with that collective Liberal entity. Some day.

Anybody who wanted to could start with tax havens and finance ministers, maybe, and work their way forward in time, just so's it didn't get too unwieldy.

Glad to see somebody else dredge up wage controls, btw. I certainly wouldn't like to hear anybody talking about Rae Days, just f'r instance, without mentioning them.

I'm not a party person and have never belonged to any party. I just really started paying close attention to politics when Bush got elected and the mess he has created....which led to my watching our political scene more closely. I never thought about parties before, because as far as I was concerned, things were going along pretty well in Canada....Now I'm worried that the extreme right-wing policies of Harper, which he is skillfully hiding right now, will become entrenched in our governance. He is so clever and sneaky, I'm afraid he'll succeed. I have said things against Layton in this forum because I frankly don't give a damn about which party is governing...Liberal or NDP. But it's obvious the NDP will not get enough seats in the near future at least, so it angers me to see Layton (who knows that fact too) is helping the Conservatives by bad-mouthing the Liberals every chance he gets.
P.S...I've voted for all 3 of the main parties at one time or another. I voted for the NDP when Bob Rae was premier of Ontario...And the P.C. before they were poluted by the Reform party etc....

the Canadian record on the environment is worse than the American. And for many years it was the Liberals steering that course. Isn't it a disgrace that Brian Mulroney has been judged the greenest Prime Minister?

And I dont' see a "scam," I see a tactic. It's called politics. The Liberals have been pretty good at it themselves.

they are claiming the percentage of improvement being higher than Canada's...They started from a lower hole!

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/004_2006-04-06/han004_1425-E.htm

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 13 years ago the Liberals promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. Instead, they went up by 24% or more. Even George Bush had a better record in dealing with pollution than the previous government.

In the throne speech the government has stated:

It will take measures to achieve tangible improvements in our environment, including reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

My question for the Prime Minister is simply this. How is cutting the funding for climate change initiatives going to get us toward the commitment that was made in the Speech from the Throne?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was wondering how many questions it would take before the leader of the NDP mentioned George Bush. ...

That's from April 6. Something more recent?

Well, I actually happen to have today's blues. So perhaps it's this, and you were listening to it at 2:30:

(forgive me, I can't find it on the parl.gc.ca site yet)

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto-Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, working families are getting gouged at the pumps at the same time as the oil and gas companies have record profits. Canadians are paying $1 a litre and we learned just yesterday that Petro-Canada's profits are up by over 50%.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is he going to follow the same old Liberal practice of giving massive subsidies to the oil and gas sectors, the most polluting and the most profitable, or is he going to do what Canadians want and what George Bush is now calling for, and direct those funds to energy conservation, to efficiency and renewable energy?

So, is there something untrue there? Something misleading?

I wonder whether Layton might actually have been trying to deliver the point to the listening public / voters that the Harper Conservatives aren't even matching what the Bush Republicans are doing. And I wonder what problem anyone could conceivably have with that ...

Can there be any doubt ... What is obvious is ...

Well, yes; and: is it? Not by me.

Of course, then there's one of those other odious NDP MPs chanting the name of George Bush:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/009_2006-04-25/HAN009-E.htm
(yesterday's Hansard)

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on the tome that we are now debating. I would like him to explore a couple of places where I did not hear much commentary and that is with respect to access to information.

We spent time on the environment committee last year trying to understand the plans of the government of the day around climate change. We are unfortunately in the same scenario now. We are left with no plans whatsoever from the current government other than some George Bush inspired made in Canada plan.

What a cheerleader.


Moving on ...

Then another NDP MP rises to loudly demand that the Conservative Treasury Board President report on some awful Liberal who was apparently named in the Gomery report who was given (as is his right) legal funding to try to clear his name.

Hmm. Could you have been confused?

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville-Wainwright, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on the very day that Canadians were turfing out a corrupt Liberal government, Reg Alcock, a defeated Liberal cabinet minister and former president of the Treasury Board, approved $40,000 to pay Jean Pelletier's lawyer at the Gomery inquiry. This is additional money above and beyond that which had already been paid and this was paid to a Liberal friend.

I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board why Canadian taxpayers are still on the hook for this money paid out by a Liberal cabinet minister?

You'll note the "CPC" behind his name there. And the fact that this was an obvious softball lobbed at the minister by one of his own.

Of course, an odious NDPer did follow up on it:

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are also horrified that in the last twilight moments as the helicopters were airlifting the final evacuees from the Treasury Board, its president was sitting there cutting a big fat cheque to one of his Liberal cronies.

My question is: Were there any others? Did this Liberal largesse go beyond just Jean Pelletier? Did it in fact go to other people who were fingered by the Gomery Commission?

... but that isn't quite as you described it, I don't think.


If the latter outcome occurs, and the NDP get anihilated, well, at least that would be of some benefit, albeit one that comes at the very high price, what with Canadians having to suffer for the next 6-10 years under a seriously right-wing government, elected by and for canada's right-wing minority.

So hmm. I guess you and all your Liberal friends should just keep up this bizarre badmouthing of the NDP (instead of attacking the Conservatives??), and then cry those crocodile tears if your prediction comes to pass.

:applause:

at least you recognize that the NDP is really the Official Opposition.

LOL

and including them in with the Conservatives as not fixing the Softwood Lumber deal....He's pathetic in his attempts at getting a few more seats.
P.S...Incidently, Harper is not in the House to answer any questions. His hacks are actually saying "when the P.M. wants to say something, he will come here and say it." THE GOD DAMNED ARROGANCE!

the Liberals held the folder for more than a decade, and the Conservatives for all of a couple of months. Mentioning the two parties in the same breath is entirely appropriate, as he leads a third party which contends with both.