# Gag order



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has imposed central control over all information and comments to the public issued by government officials and even cabinet ministers, directing them to have everything cleared by the Prime Minister's Office, according to an internal e-mail and government sources.





> Government officials and Conservatives confirmed the instructions, including orders that the PMO clear all public communications — including minor comments and letters to local newspapers.
> 
> "PMO will have final approval for all communications products — even Notes to Editors or Letters to the Editor," the e-mail states.


Why so secret? 

Full story here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060317.wxpmo17/BNStory/National/home


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

so that the nano neo cons don't blow a chance for harpo to walk between the raindrops and actually let loose with their "ideas" (aka hidden agenda)

harpo and his handlers (hugh segal) have their eye on the big prize - a majority - and then the electorate will get both barrels - see Baloney and NAFTA


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It was leaked that Gander would get back our Environment Canada Weather Station, which was a Conservative election promise. However, since the district was kept by the Liberals, it was thought that this would be a promise not kept. Now it was leaked that something is coming, and Harper is not happy at the leak. It would have made a much better re-election promise at the next election.


----------



## The Great SNAFU (Jan 12, 2005)

Hidden agenda? What hidden agenda?

all your UnixxxbAse belong to me


SNAFU Please Reply Please


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This is Harper's version of transparency...
Now don't you go questioning the government as we know what's best for you....

And to all apologist, this is different from towing the party line....
and was there not some outcry about centralized government?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Makes sense to me. Harper's got too many green/new MPs in cabinet and he wants to make sure that they don't blab without thinking like a few Liberal MPs tended to - Carol Parish, that Liberal communications person, and I'm sure there were tons of other examples I can't think of right now - and distract the media from the important stuff. I'm no conservative, but it seems like a smart move that maybe the Liberals could have used. Their leaky boat caused more trouble than Martin could handle.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Smells like censorship to me.

I believe (and hope) secrecy will be his downfall. Canadians are a suspicious lot.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Sounds like he's trying to keep his gov't focused, rather than talking about a billion different thing, ala Martin.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> so that the nano neo cons don't blow a chance for harpo to walk between the raindrops and actually let loose with their "ideas" (aka hidden agenda)
> 
> harpo and his handlers (hugh segal) have their eye on the big prize - a majority - and then the electorate will get both barrels - see Baloney and NAFTA


:clap: 
More name calling, and not just the isolated type. The truly empty and immature MacSpec repetitious-type.

Harper does seem to be acting the politician and not the grassroots 'reformer'. Surprise.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> :Harper does seem to be acting the politician and not the grassroots 'reformer'. Surprise.


Sorry Beej, there is a difference between acting the politician and harpocrisy....

Given the that Cons have not been very accessible during and after the elections, wonder how they can even be less accessible to the media?


> Since they were sworn in on Feb. 6, cabinet ministers have, for the most part, refused to grant interviews to reporters, providing only terse and often vague responses to questions outside cabinet meetings.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060317.wxpmo17/BNStory/National/home



> Government officials and Conservatives confirmed the instructions, including orders that the PMO clear all public communications — including minor comments and letters to local newspapers.


I guess our Cons have learnt the Bush lessons very well.... 
Go Spin machine!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Sorry Beej, there is a difference between acting the politician and harpocrisy....
> ...
> Go Spin machine!


Sorry but you made my point! 

Hypocrisy regarding the grassroots 'reformer' claims, playing the politician as in 'Go Spin Machine'. They made their political calculations that the risks of 'Allianceitis' are greater than the bad press from being strictly top-down controlled. A political decision. I don't know if it's the correct vote-getting decision, but it seems to be the one they made, claims about accountability notwithstanding.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Uhhh... yeah...

"*Trust us*... you don't need to know what we're planning for you... we will spare you the agony of involvement with making the decisions and make them for you... you will know what will be done for you when the time is right."

Not the kind of government I want... not in any flavour...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Uhhh... yeah...
> 
> "*Trust us*... you don't need to know what we're planning for you... we will spare you the agony of involvement with making the decisions and make them for you... you will know what will be done for you when the time is right."
> 
> Not the kind of government I want... not in any flavour...


How many cabinet decisions were you involved with in the past?
This is a communications control exercise. The Chretien and Martin governments were known for their consolidation of control into the PMO, and it appears Harper is going another step. I don't know what kind of control the Trudeau and Mulroney governments wielded, but this sort of thing is not new. So blame them all, or blame the media, or blame the voters and their squirrely reactions. Enforcing that the government speaks with one voice is not new. That doesn't make it good, but we'll see how it plays with voters. Politicians act the way they do for a reason: they think it will work. 

...
Mr. Harper's PMO is not the first to want the final say on communications — but it has extended the practice to a level never seen in Ottawa.

The offices of prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin demanded to approve major communications, and asked to be informed when ministers planned announcements or speeches. Now, government officials, and even ministers, must clear every interview or comment, and even the most anodyne pamphlet must get PMO clearance.
...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Whatever... I'm not buying what they're selling...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Whatever... I'm not buying what they're selling...


Me neither.  

A few million more (who vote), and perhaps we can toss Harper, Layton and impress upon the Libs that things must change or they'll have to toss their new leader too.

And now back to reality: spin, new haircuts, kissing babies, shaking hands, righteous indignation, presumed 'values' and so on.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Harper's well publicized distrust/ contempt of anything relating to the media leaves me wondering what he has to hide. This in combination with the complete control of all outgoing information is suspicious to say the least. 

It is not this one action alone. This seems to be just another piece in a large puzzle. When will he eliminate televised debate from The House? How will he attempt to gag the opposition? Will he just claim them to be liars or paranoid? These are tactics used by others who have something to hide.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

It MUST be a conspiracy.

_SHADDAP!_

Too many people jump on the "This government is evil!" bandwagon.

How about the fact the Harper is the boss, and like any other business, he wants to make sure everything runs smoothly, and wants to sign off on communications.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

...and we the shareholders?

Do we wait for an Enron or Worldcom scenario?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> ...and we the shareholders?
> 
> Do we wait for an Enron or Worldcom scenario?


We avoided bankruptcy but did slide into a corruption scandal.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> How about the fact the Harper is the boss, and like any other business, he wants to make sure everything runs smoothly, and wants to sign off on communications.


There is a difference with wanting to make sure everything runs smoothly and muzzling your cabinet ministers. 
Does he not have confidence in his own ministers? What kind of micro-manager is he? What kind of totalitarianism is he trying to pull-off?

His attitude is in contrast with his preaching of accountability, more free votes and open government. Speak your mind and be fired....

His little bullet point list should appeal to the brain dead who need to be told how to act and think....


----------



## ColBalt (May 16, 2005)

I thing because Harper is such a tool that even he does not know what he is saying. Flame me if you like, Just IMO.
Cheers


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

ah, the two interpretation camps – 1) he is just exercising due diligence & making sure things run smoothly as CEO; 2) it's censorship. Must admit, I fall into the latter category. Running a govt is NOT the same as running a business; accountability to the citizens of your country is paramount, and this type of muzzling does not look like accountability by any definition. Harper seems to be trying to run his shift as if he has a majority - well, big surprise, he doesn't!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Personally I think he's keeping it locked down because he's cutting a deal with Quebec and doesn't want it leaked


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Personally I think he's keeping it locked down because he's cutting a deal with Quebec and doesn't want it leaked


Could be. Hopefully it won't be as obvious as prior government deals. National poutine program anyone?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Poutine sounds great to me.
harper gaged his candidates durring the election too. 
There is nothing democratic about this. Thoses who are defending this should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> There is nothing democratic about this. Thoses who are defending this should be ashamed of themselves.


What is undemocratic about this aspect of what our parties do (they all have)? All MPs are completely free to do and say what they want and vote as they wish, but their cabinet posts hold other responsibilities as do their party memberships. A party is meaningless without some degree of unity (I'm not saying this degree is correct), otherwise people just take advantage of the name to boost their chances (thus quite possibly damaging the party) over running as an independent. It's called independent for a reason. Same goes for cabinet responsibilities; recall the same-sex marriage vote.

There's nothing undemocratic about it, although it is quite possibly dumb.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> There's nothing undemocratic about it, although it is quite possibly dumb.


Actually, if you want to be all pedantic about it, it is undemocratic, democracy coming as it does from the Greek for "mob rule". This is, quite explicitly, not allowing for any significant participation in the rule for anyone other than a select few. It IS how our system is structured. 'tis just that the whole system is not terribly democratic.

And I'm with you on the dumb part.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Speaks the knowledgeable scholar who understands why HE'S not elected  :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Some more information:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060318.wxpmo0318/BNStory/National/home

...
Patrick Gossage, a former press secretary to prime minister Pierre Trudeau who coaches politicians on media relations, said the new government's strategy is simply unworkable.

"Every PMO in the history of PMOs since Trudeau's PMO at least have made attempts to control the message centrally, usually without success," he said. "We tried to do it for a little while. It didn't work. . . . They're in a way, dysfunctional, because it makes the team look like it's not a team."

Other governments have successfully used similar strategies, but usually on a smaller scale, he noted.

For instance, Mr. Gossage said all press releases from Ontario ministers must first be approved by the office of Premier Dalton McGuinty. Mr. Gossage said the McGuinty system simply delays press releases for a few hours to screen them for anything "stupid."
...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From the same article:



> An internal e-mail summarizing a briefing given by two of the government's most senior officials to communications managers indicates the Prime Minister's Office has demanded it vet all communications materials from departments, and that ministers and officials seek to avoid events or comments that are not about its top five priorities. It suggests ministers are to reduce contact with the press and "have been told not to speculate on the future direction of government."


Specifically this:



> It suggests ministers are to reduce contact with the press


Only a man with an agenda would care about this. And he does care about this very much from all reports.

I don't read this as being an excercise in editing and infomation control. I see this as a desire to operate without scrutiny.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> From the same article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


exactement
trying to play the "compassionate conservative" until the next election and then say; "look, we never screwed up, we deserve a majority" and then whammo !!! hidden agenda

goodbye abortion rights for women
hello to HMOs in Canada and due to NAFTA (thanks Brian Baloney) once they're in they can never be out
kiss anything to do with Kyoto


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Interesting the poll showing how the public trusts Car Salesmen over Politicians. It's so incredibly defeatist. Why should they bother being accountable or straight forward? It's not like they have anything to lose.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Only a man with an agenda would care about this.


We can all only hope that Harper has an agenda. Would you want somebody leading this country that is making it up on the fly? It's called planning!



> ...the Prime Minister's Office has demanded ... that ministers and officials seek to avoid events or comments that are not about its top five priorities.


What? The Prime Minister wants to FOCUS on the TOP FIVE PRIORITIES?!? Focus? Government? Priorities? What is this world coming to!?!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> We can all only hope that Harper has an agenda. Would you want somebody leading this country that is making it up on the fly? It's called planning!
> 
> 
> 
> What? The Prime Minister wants to FOCUS on the TOP FIVE PRIORITIES?!? Focus? Government? Priorities? What is this world coming to!?!


transparency and accountability
- grewal and emerson - 'nuff said


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> transparency and accountability


Please, screw those - Harper has a plan!  
And he wants to divert... umhhh I mean focus....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Please, screw those - Harper has a plan!
> And he wants to divert... umhhh I mean focus....


Well done, too. Instead of focussing on the inadequacy of the 5 steps to nowhere, people are focussing on him trying to do what every new government does (and fails) to do: control the media agenda.


----------



## CamCanola (Jan 26, 2004)

Let him squeeze the pie-holes shut, 
the truth will out from the other end if necessary...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

HA! Nice line!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

CamCanola said:


> Let him squeeze the pie-holes shut,
> the truth will out from the other end if necessary...



:lmao:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> people are focussing on him trying to do what every new government does (and fails) to do: control the media agenda.


Media agenda's? Seeing a conspiracy there Beej....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Media agenda's? Seeing a conspiracy there Beej....


 Nope, because it just doesn't work. The media's agenda is their ratings (some outlets take a longer view than others) and trying to control that is a risky game. Let Harper try and fail; his opponents should be cheering him on.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Just having a little fun there Beej. 
Of course Harper can't control the media - his take is interesting and will likely fail.

The media itself is another thread...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From Macleans:

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n032863A



> Harper defends right to secret cabinet meetings as 'a constitutional thing'
> 
> BRUCE CHEADLE
> 
> ...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From The London Free Press:

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Editorials/2006/03/29/1510185.html



> When Stephen Harper triples the security force outside his office to keep media from covering a Cancer Society photo-op, it looks as if message control has run amok. If he has to micro-manage the agenda for a motherhood story, how will he handle vital national issues?
> 
> The prime minister's policies on handling the media are proving to be so restrictive that one might be led to fear his next act will be the creation of a ministry of propaganda.
> 
> ...


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Truth and openess and accountability is the enemy


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> From The London Free Press:
> 
> http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/Opinion/Editorials/2006/03/29/1510185.html


As I said before, opponents of Harper should be cheering him on. It may be just a first-session approach, with the fall session being more open after Cabinet gets a little experience and a summer of reflection; Harper's opponents should encourage him to continue this into the fall to give it some real 'legs'. Then the Liberals can run on accountability and doing things 'differently', sort of like '93.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From The Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...l_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News



> Media unions decry Harper tactics
> Mar. 29, 2006. 01:59 PM
> CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...


I believe Harper has 'topped' his Governmental predecessors in silencing the press. 

Public opinion appears to mean nothing to him, hopefully a minority goverment will.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

It just keeps getting better and better.

From The Globe And Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060331.wtorymedia0331/EmailBNStory/National/



> Tory MP suggests jailing bad journalists
> Canadian Press
> Vernon, B.C. — A backbench Conservative MP, blasting the media for its testy relationship with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has suggested reporters who write distorted articles be jailed.
> 
> ...





> While not all media are bad, the Tory backbencher says, “boy, would the public get accurate and true information if a few reporters were hauled away to jail!”
> 
> But it will never happen “because the media would cry ‘censorship' and ‘authoritarian state' ... but the truth is we need ethical leadership from the media too.”
> 
> ...


If it walks like a duck.....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

This one is baffling! What could be the 'official explanation'? It really is time to give Layton a chance!

From The Toronto Star:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home



> Climate change expert muzzled
> Federal scientist told not to speak about his novel
> Government also axes 15 Kyoto research programs
> Apr. 14, 2006. 07:40 AM
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Canadians will not get an explanation...


> In Harper's tightly scripted government, loose lips sink careers
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - Ministers in the new Conservative government have been warned they could be banned from travelling, publicly humiliated or even fired for verbal gaffes.
> 
> ...


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/14042006...ipted-government-loose-lips-sink-careers.html

So why does this behaviour of hiding away ministers make it sound like a game?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

The Prince Harper is a tight-lipped control freak; his gag orders & the article referenced above should come as no surprise whatsoever.










_Gouverner, c'est mettre vos sujets hors d'état de vous nuire et même d'y penser._


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From The Hill Times:

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/april/17/gallery/&c=1



> The Parliamentary Press Gallery is also increasingly up in arms over the Prime Minister's news conferences. His press aide selects which reporters ask the questions, which reporters say allows him to pick favourites and avoid the questions of other journalists.


And then:



> The Press Gallery quickly set up its system of lineups and microphones at the new location, with nearly 130 reporters in the room. When the news conference ended, however, Mr. Harper attempted to pass over the CBC's Julie Van Dusen, in the lineup, to take a question from Tim Naumetz, a reporter for CanWest News Service, who sat among the reporters. When reporters told the Prime Minister that a lineup had formed, he continued to ask Mr. Naumetz if he wanted to ask a question. Ms. Van Dusen continued to press Mr. Harper, to which he finally replied, irritated: "Go ahead, Julie. Ask your question."
> 
> Mr. Harper then ended the news conference, and some reporters mused that he cut it short because he was annoyed, but other reporters said that just before the news conference began, Mr. Harper's press aide said there would be time for two questions only.



_Someone's got a secret...._


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> From The Hill Times:
> 
> http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/april/17/gallery/&c=1
> 
> ...


I think the only part transparent about Harper is his not-so-hidden agenda of making himself emperor.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

What should be transparent to all is his unwillingness to be co-operate with the media, read: the public. 

Emperor almost sounds inconsequential and innocuous. I would say _Americanizer_

His open favourtism towards CanWest versus The CBC scares me. Not to derail my own thread but it won't be long until he tries to tear our National Broadcaster down. 

Why worry about the media if there isn't any?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Yeah, I'd worry less about that if Global "News" weren't so truly terrible. Sadly, it is terrible.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> His open favourtism towards CanWest versus The CBC scares me.


Surprise Surprise!  
I'm sure the PM would favor CanWest. When I think of the CBC, the saying "don't feed the troll" comes to mind. Unless you think the mouthpiece of all things liberal/socialist has no prejudice against a conservative government?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

CanWest, the Canadian Fox equivalent....


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> the mouthpiece of all things liberal/socialist


As compared to all things Corporate and bottom line oriented...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The CBC is actually news, not some corporate sponsored contest that passes as news with commercials thrown in... 

Harper promised an"open" government, one of his first acts was to whisk away the Access to Information regulations....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Kid's got it right 







:clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Reach out and get in touch with the PM?
Grab the bull by the nose?
Childlike behaviour in the face of Harper?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Just a plain old "what the heck is that?"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Kid's got it right
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Given that Harper is ready to go to the polls over child-care allowance (it's not child care people, it a bribe - and not a very good one at that).
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/18/harper-childcare060418.html


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he's willing to risk bringing down his minority government if opposition legislators vote against his plan to give money to parents for child care.
> 
> "What I will say is $1,200 is a lot better than nothing," he said.


But it does look like Harper is in campaign mode.


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper Talks Hockey with Gord Miller during TSN Exclusive
> 
> -- Says Harper: "*I love my job as Prime Minister, but if you could be a
> hockey player, I mean, what could be better than that?*" --
> ...


http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/April2006/18/c5194.html
Well, maybe it's time that you change jobs...
So is Harper afraid of real journalist? Looks that way. I'm sure Mansbridge or any of the French Radio-Can people are available...

Con "child-care" bribe, what it really means:


> Chow’s demonstration featured Caledon’s analysis of a hypothetical couple with one child and a family income of $30,000:
> 
> Annual family allowance: $1,200
> Minus income tax ($362) = $838
> ...


http://www.ndp.ca/page/3637


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Chow’s demonstration featured Caledon’s analysis of a hypothetical couple with one child and a family income of $30,000:
> 
> Annual family allowance: $1,200
> Minus income tax ($362) = $838
> ...


I read this the other day. This word needs to be spread. People with $$$ in their eyes (read $1200.00 allowance) need to see it broken down this way. Are you willing to accept some miniscule lump sum payment in lieu of a social program?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Another way to look at it is how does $199 give "choice in childcare"? Sure the con spinmasters will try to paint this as money to the government or money to parents. What they are doing, if you want to stay with the "choice in childcare" is really removing choice, programs that exist will be removed. 

Harper's own press realease is amusing in it's stupidity


> Time for opposition parties to stand up for universal child care


Welcome to the ministry of double-speak. 


> 18 April 2006
> Burnaby, B.C.
> 
> After meeting with a group of parents and children in Burnaby, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated his commitment to fulfilling a key conservative campaign promise - providing a *universal child care plan* - by asking Parliament to approve the choice in child care allowance.


How does one equate child care *plan* with giving money? Where's the plan?
Here Harpo, I got me two times to give ya, is dat an edication plan?



> "Do the opposition parties support giving parents $1200 per child, per year or do they prefer the status quo which is zero? Our new approach requires no federal-provincial negotiations, no funding for academics, researchers or special interest groups, and it cuts out the political and bureaucratic middlemen. It will provide real support and direct payment, as soon as Parliament approves it," explained the Prime Minister.


Quite a mouthful for the Harpo there... 
He happens to forget that there is already a plan in place with Quebec. And the Cons are gutting whatever plan had been gearing up. 





> During the roundtable with parents and children, the Prime Minister discussed the components of the new government's universal child care plan - an allowance that will deliver a direct payment of $1200 per year, per child under the age of six to parents, and a space creation plan that will seek input from Parliament on how to best produce real spaces for real child care for all Canadians.


Would you not need studies to prove that this will create "real spaces"?
Ahh. look, children were part of a roundtable - lovely marketing... So that's where Harper gets his advice. 



> "The previous government spent a lot of time talking about child care. But after 13 years of rhetoric, no one can find those universally-free, readily-accessibility, federally-created daycare spaces. Where did all the money go? Their national child care program never materialized, and now Canadian parents are waiting for the Opposition parties to stand up for them," explained Prime Minister Harper.


So that the real goal? How does your bribe even achieve that? 
What happened last time Harpo visited Quebec? Forget the photo op at the CPE?
Nice little taught to the opposition. 




> The Prime Minister concluded, "ordinary parents – people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules – do not have a taxpayer-funded lobby group.
> They don’t have the time to hold demonstrations, or make regular trips to Ottawa for news conferences. But they do support our plan. We intend on supporting them by keeping our promise on making choice in child care a reality


How is this choice in child care? PS, I don't support you on this. Nice little attack on "taxpayer-funded lobby group" - I'm sure their funding will get the axe soon.



http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=1111


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

AS, you sure they haven't missed some new tax to make this "plan" completely revenue neutral? 
Meh. $1200/yr was useless for childcare, although it would have been useful in my house for a contribution towards heating. $200/yr? That sounds a lot like a couple cases of beer, to me...

Oh, and some popcorn.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> AS, you sure they haven't missed some new tax to make this "plan" completely revenue neutral?


Well when the cons clawback the Liberal tax cuts and replace it with their GST reduction, it will be revenue negative... 

$200/year is not much beer money.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Let's not forget that the opposition is not against the $1200 its just that it's not a "Childcare Plan". Wonder what other strawmen Harpo is dreaming up....


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> But it does look like Harper is in campaign mode.


You can be sure he is watching this: http://canadawebpages.com/pc-polls.asp very carefully when deciding what concessions he has to offer the opposition parties.

If the Liberals force an election nobody wants while they are rudderless, in debt, and behind in the polls then the Conservatives could well end up with a stronger mandate, if not a majority.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

*oh look more Harpocrisy*

The PM attacks lobby groups....



> The Prime Minister concluded, "*ordinary parents* – people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules – *do not have a taxpayer-funded lobby group*.


http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=1111

and then



> *Conservative government officials have reached out to a coalition of social conservative lobby groups* in an effort to help sway public opinion in the coming battle over the Tory daycare deal.
> 
> Gwen Landolt, vice-president of *REAL Women*, one of the groups in attendance.
> Sources said others at the meeting included Charles McVety, president of the *Canada Family Action Coalition*, and Joseph Ben-Ami, executive director of the* Institute for Canadian Values*, a faith-based public policy think-tank, among others.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060419.wxdaycare19/BNStory/National/home


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Please take the time to examine these "think tanks" and their previous policies...
*REAL Women:*
http://www.realwomenca.com/word_docs/returning_stability.pdf (Brochure)
Their "alert" section outlines what they believe:


> A Statement opposing Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide issued by 100 doctors and lawyers has been sent to all Members of Parliament regarding Bill C-407.
> 
> HOMOSEXUAL EDITORIAL CONFIRMS EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR EFFORTS
> 
> ...


Funny how they describe themselves as: REAL Women of Canada (Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life) is a non-partisan, non-denominational organization of independent women. 

Canada Family Action Coalition: http://www.familyaction.org/


> - YOU paid massive dollars for promotion of Liberal's homosexual agenda!
> - Britain's Promiscuous are Fuelling a 'Sex Crisis'
> - Homosexual activists finally truthful – silence the church and condemn the bible
> - Sex between minors a plan of homosexual activists
> ...


And yes some of their views deserve to be explored in greater detail, if only for comedy relief


> Parents who use day care centers for their children may soon find that their children are going to be exposed to explicit sexuality education, including such topics as homosexuality, cross-dressing, and family "diversity."


http://www.familyaction.org/Articles/issues/sexuality/daycare-CCIE.htm

Amazing that Harpo gets his advice from the clowns... More likely he needs them to spew his propaganda and sell his 1200$ bribe....

Let's not forget:http://www.canadianvalues.ca/
Their facts and fair reporting will astound us all http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=157.... and can easily past for a typical american neo-con publicity machine .....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

part two


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmm late Friday afternooon appointment ..how convenient the timing.


> Tories name EnCana founder to vet appointments
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> Globe and Mail Update
> The federal Conservatives have nominated former Calgary oil executive Gwyn Morgan as head of the public appointments commission.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060421.wmorgan0421/BNStory/National/home

Hmmm $1 year insider and Con party financer from ye olde oil patch......set up to combat......wait for it....*cronyism*

Fox guarding henhouse comes to mind..........now if Harper had nominated Ed Broadbent for the post......THEN ....a well deserved :clap:


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

The nice thing about this parade of business as normal of late is it has freed me from the need to like Harper. For a while there, it was scary. He was almost redeeming himself. Fortunatley, he has dispelled the illusion that he is different from anyone else. All that damned thinking was getting tiring. Now I can just go back to disliking all the colours of cats that run Mouseland.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Welcome to HarperBizarro™ world....
Your like handclap threw me off macdoc...
So the cons appoint an insider crony to oversee the accountability of appointments... makes sense in this government...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Fortunatley, he has dispelled the illusion that he is different from anyone else.


Welcome to Ottawa.


----------



## daBoss (Jun 20, 2003)

Very much like the gag policy in Klein's office here in Alberta. ALL government communications are vetted but an astonishingly large group of people in the premier's office. The communications group for the Premier in in the neighbourhood of 250 people!!!!! This contrasts with about 20 people when Klein took office.

All power resides with the premier.

Cabinet ministers are glorified back-benchers. Emasculation is the standard for cabinet ministers here.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Isn't a neo-con Canadian a neo-Can?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> Isn't a neo-con Canadian a neo-Can?


More like a Neo-cant


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> More like a Neo-cant


Ok, now you've gone too far -- bad jokes.  Three episodes of Flying Circus for penance.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I just saw one of those vans yesterday!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

*Wow!*

It's so Canadian to adopt unpopular policies as they're being phased out stateside. This lets some light into Harper's ugly place:

From The Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home



> Opposition MPs immediately accused the Prime Minister of adopting American-style tactics to limit public exposure to Canada's mounting death toll — now at 16 — in Afghanistan.
> 
> "I can't imagine any other Canadian prime minister trying to manipulate public opinion by hiding the caskets of fallen soldiers," said Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South), the party's defence critic.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Harper will see support for him plummet if he is seen as trying to stifle public debate and expressions of remembrance for the soldiers abroad. There shall be support for the troops with the cry "Support of men and women -- Bring them home NOW". It did not work for LBJ, Nixon or Bush, and it won't work for Harper. We shall see.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm a little dismayed but what used to be web site for Canadians turn into a Con propaganda machine. How long until the Ministry of Truth?
http://www.gc.ca/main_e.html and http://www.conservative.ca/
The top stories use the same pictures in many cases.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I noticed that too. Whenever I used to go to the goverment website for services and information it was strictly a non-political tool. It was services/information oriented. When I go there now to get back information, I get to see politcal-speak and images of the prime minister on the front as if it was his own personal soap box. It's disgraceful. It reminds me of countries that have big banners of their leaders on billboards and buildings all year long.

It's like "Look at me. Worship me." It is wrong when politicians use government money to create their own unfair campaign materials and propaganda.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's incredible- someone perhaps might want to inform the Elections Office - if that's not campaigning with public funds I don't know what is 

It looks exactly like a campaign home page.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> It's like "Look at me. Worship me." It is wrong when politicians use government money to create their own unfair campaign materials and propaganda.


Harper once commented on how wrong that was.... 


Then again, he has been very good at flip-flopping and Harpocrisy..


> PM accused of $500-a-plate 'hypocrisy'
> Harper to attend pricey political dinners while pressing for ban on corporate giving
> 
> OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has repeatedly accused the Liberals of selling access to former prime ministers, will attend two $500-a-plate political fundraisers on the East Coast this weekend.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060425.wxaccountability25


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From the Globe And Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060428.wxmilitary28/BNStory/National/home



> Harper's staff behind media ban, sources say
> 
> MICHAEL DEN TANDT
> 
> ...


A week of bad publicity then we all forget and go back to bumping into each other... I won't forget.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Seems that the gag order is taking hold....


> Minister cancels talk on native government
> Request made to bar media, students say
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060428.PRENTICE28/TPStory/National


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Think about this before you vote in the next election. 

From The Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...205&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154



> PM accused of covering up
> 
> Changes called 'retrograde and dangerous'
> 
> ...


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ahh Stephen,

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home



> The prime minister does not want to hold press conferences unless his staff choose which journalists ask questions from a list they compile. The Ottawa press gallery has refused to play by those rules.





> One prominent media analyst said Wednesday the prime minister was being paranoid, and that his remarks were a strategic error that could backfire.
> "Basically, what he's saying is the regional media can be trusted to be compliant. They will find that insulting," said Chris Dornan, head of Carleton University's journalism school.
> "Just as the national press corps will find insulting the suggestion that they're all paid-up Liberal hacks.
> "He's going out of his way to make enemies — and that's not a good sign."


Backfire away boss :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

He clearly has no understanding of the role of 4th estate in democracy.
I was willing to wait on results - this is a fundamental breach.
That his caucus let him do this just condemns the whole lot of them.
I hope the press tears him and colleagues to shreds.

One time I wish this board allowed colourful language.....consider him roundly cussed.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Rhymes with shmaragant plastered


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

I just hope the voters will remember Harpo's new transparency and accountability come election time.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

We'll have to just keep reminding them. 

Every little bit helps. I think Stevie himself will give the biggest hand :lmao:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The sky is falling!

Get a grip. He's trying to play on his terms, they're trying to play on their terms. Unimpressive.

[Edit: Do people find their local media, as a whole, less diligent than Ottawa media?]


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

> Get a grip.


 :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's pretty fundamental Beej - the press and Opposition have critical roles.....hampering either in fulfilling their roles is contempt.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Ottawa press or 'the press'? There's a difference. Either way, time to watch for leaks. The Ottawa bar scene has a habit of causing them.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Love them or hate them the role of the press is crucial in society. Why do you think they are jailed or killed in less 'Democratic' countries? They are a threat. They are an alternate voice. They may or may not have an agenda and it may or may not be similar to your own.

Harper, the old Reformer, is an odd duck in the Canadian political scene. People are curious and suspicious. He should have understood this when he took office and played the media accordingly. He didn't. He acted as if he has something to hide. Curious will make way for suspicious. It's human nature.

I also believe that his taking the message away from Ottawa to the hinterland is an attempt to outsmart the jaded and saavy reporters on The Hill. He will spread his tightly controlled message to the rosy cheeked small town rubes waiting for their moment in the sun (or The Sun) and expect nothing but glowing folksy praise. 

I think he actually may believe this.


----------

