No consequence, no accountability

The government’s crime bill will pass Parliament without an accounting of its cost.

Opposition politicians voted to find Prime Minister Harper and his government in contempt of Parliament last March – this was a historic first – for not giving up the full costs of its so-called tough on crime legislation. Now, it is poised to pass the bill and Canadians are still no wiser. “It is a travesty that the Conservatives have told neither the Canadian people nor the provinces what all this is going to cost – with the slowing economy and big financial pressures all ’round this is even more irresponsible,” Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae told The Globe Monday morning. “Both the jets and the jails put the lie to the Conservative line about being the party of ‘fiscal prudence.’ Ridiculous.”




Browse

No consequence, no accountability

  1. Open and accountable, the later years. 

    • When were the early years???

  2. Bring back Preston Manning.

    • Ooooh I like that- sure to tick off the hard-core radicals. 

  3. Always good for a laugh to read Rae harrumphing about fiscal prudence because those of us who lived in Ontario during Rae years have no reason at all to believe Rae would know what fiscal prudence was if it bit him in arse.

    • He’s no Jim Flaherty, for sure.

      • Indeed he isn’t.

        Globe/Mail ~ Is the legacy of Rae’s days in power keeping Jack back? 

        With six days left before election day, one of the big questions of this campaign is whether the federal NDP surge in Quebec will jump the Ottawa River. So far, it hasn’t happened. All these years later, some question whether Bob Rae’s tumultuous five years as an NDP premier could be what’s holding Jack back …. 

        But others say Mr. Rae’s five years in office might be why Ontarians are reluctant to get solidly behind the federal NDP Leader.

        “I’m not sure what else could explain why the NDP numbers aren’t up in Ontario,” said pollster Nik Nanos. “I think it’s completely fair to say that part of the NDP brand in Ontario relates to the experience of the NDP provincial government.”

        • Well if they can remember Rae days i’d imagine they haven’t forgotten Harris either. 

      • And having lived through the Harris years in Ontario (as well as Rae’s), I’m not sure if that’s intended as a shot at Rae or at Flaherty.

        Rae at least tried to soften the blow of an economic downturn (doing much of what the feds are doing now: deficit spending), whereas Harrisites like Flaherty tried to soften the lot of us with body blows.

    • Oh, I’m dying to hear this.  What did Rae do that upset you when he was Premier?  I at least understand why the union folk are down on him, after all he did ask them to pay as well.  What’s your beef–or are you against Rae Days, too?

      • 2Jenn, Thwim

         In 1991, there were 5.31 million people working in Ontario. By June of 1995, there were 5.19 million Ontarians working, a loss of 122,000 jobs. (Source for employment figures and unemployment rates: Statistics Canada, Labour Force Survey).

        Rae’s management of provincial finances led credit rating agencies to downgrade Ontario’s credit rating twice (in 1991 and 1993). (Globe and Mail, Neil Reynolds – September 13, 2006)
        http://www.kitchenercentrecpc.ca/news/bob-rae39s-dreadful-economic-record.html

        • A Reynolds quote…must be gospel. At least you didn’t quote Ezra.

          And those credit rating agencies are just non biased observers cheering on an ndp premier from the sidelines, right? 

          • No, no.  It is just their OPINION, don’t you know, and you cannot hold them to account for it.  I mean, their opinion can be based on anything at all, like perhaps that they are conservatives and this was the NDP, or they don’t like the combination of green and orange, or whatever.  It doesn’t really matter.

        • You do remember that there was a global recession at the time, right? People tend to lose their jobs during a recession.

          Do you have stats or other evidence to show Rae’s actions escalated the job losses? A credit rating downgrade just means we paid more for money borrowed – not a good thing, but if his actions also saved jobs then some may argue it was worth it. Kinda like the CPC bailing out GM and Chrysler…

          • Ontario did worse than everywhere else.

            It’s pretty well common knowledge in Ontario that Rae botched the economy, so much so that he has admitted it himself. Strange you would even think about attempting to dispute this (not!)

          • “It’s pretty well common knowledge…”

            Well who could argue with evidence like that?

          • Is that akin to Mike Harris’ “Common Sense?”

          • Well, having moved to Ontario from NL just before Rae was elected, I’d say your definition of “everywhere else” is rather narrow in scope. At that time, in addition to the recession itself, the primary fisheries had been closed down due to years of mismanagement and overfishing. So NL was suffering a tad more, when scale of economy is taken into account, than ON was at that time.

          • KeithBram:

            Well, I guess you think you’re being clever by recalling the devastating Nfld fisheries closure, but you’re wrong.  Do you ever bother to verify anything you say?  I’ve debunked things you’ve said on several occasions.

            GDP growth during Rae’s tenure (oct 1990 – june 1995):
            90/91/92/93/94/95
            Ontario -1.7 / -3.9  / 0.9 / 1.0 / 5.9 / 3.5
            Nfld 0.1 / 0.4 / -1.5 / 0.8 / 4.3 / 2.3
            Ontario cumulative gdp growth 1990 – 1995: 5.5%
            Nfld cumulative gdp growth 1990 – 1995: 6.4%

            http://www.statcan.gc.ca/ig-gi/sources/GDP-eng.htm

            So I guess the obvious conclusion is that Ontario did worse than Nfld DESPITE the devastating closure of the Nfld fisheries.

        • So when Canada lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in 2009, that was Stephen Harper’s fault, right?

          Or was it the fault of the premiers?

          Whose fault was it?

          • Canada did much better than other jurisdictions in 2009.

            Ontario did much worse than other jurisdictions in the Rae years.

          • Amazing how a person’s standards can shift to accommodate what they want to hear.

          • You might find 1 person in 50 who would think the Ontario NDP  gov`t of the early 90`s was good for the economy. Most would agree that person would have illogical reasons for stating that.

            Because TJCook has flexible standards he is able to shift them to accommodate some illogical reasoning.

          • And of the 1 of 50, 9 out of 10 of those are economists who actually examine the facts of the situation, not the hyperbole put out by the unions and the banks.

            The phrase is “ignorant masses” for a reason.

          • Thwim = Illogical.

          • …and ON is doing “much worse than other [Canadian] jurisdictions” at present too; we’ve fallen into “have not” status, after all.

            This while both the provincial Liberals and the Federal Cons are following a simiar path to Rae’s in the ’90s: deficit spending to stimulate the economy.

            So, as parties of all stripes have taken essentially the same approach to get similar results, why is Rae to be singled out?

          • @4a64130278c80432e4d05477e5ee5a66:disqus Ah. Well. It’s going to be difficult for me to match such a standard of argumentation, but let’s give it a whirl shall we?  Ahem..

            “I know you are, but what am I?”

            Not sure that quite manages it, but I’m afraid I don’t know how to dumb it down far enough for you, Calvin.

          • KeithBram:

            Rae is singled out because he was the worst Ontario premier in the las 50 years.

            As for your mention of today’s Ontario, what the heck that has to do with Bob Rae I don’t know, but it’s certainly been nowhere near as bad as Rae’s tenure.  But I can certainly agree that McGuinty’s handling of the economy has been inept, but it’s nowhere near Rae’s debacle.

          • Thwim:
            In answer to your query about who you are—well, after reading some of your stuff, I think you may be an idiot.

    • Really? So forcing the unions that supported you to take unpaid leave specifically to control the way funds were being spent is not having any idea what fiscal prudence is?

      Hell, that’s not just fiscal prudence, that’s balls of fiscal steel.

      • Talking of balls of steel, I think Frau Merkel should be member of the club. Merkel not for turning, seems content to let euro implode rather than risk Germany’s fiscal soundness. 

        • In my head, I picture you running away from this comment like a scared child.

    • Ironic as it may be for Rae get on a high horse about fiscal prudence, he does have a point.

  4. In fairness, Rae is assuming they have a clue.

    • Wheras I doubt they have even the first clue as to how to go about it…

  5. Interim leader Bob Rae Nov 28, 2011
    ‘“It is a travesty that the Conservatives have told neither the Canadian people nor the provinces what all this is going to cost …’

    Oct 2, 2011
    Tories price their crime bill at $78.6M in first five years
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/06/tories-price-their-crime-bill-at-78-6m-in-first-five-years/

    The Conservatives say their massive new crime bill, which includes nine separate pieces of legislation, will cost $78.5 million over five years, part of bigger justice agenda the government says will cost $2.7 billion.

    • A little selective reading, eh wilson?

      “The figures released Thursday, however, do not take into account
      additional costs the provinces and territories may be forced to bear.

      Or elsewhere: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/06/pol-omnibus-crime-bill.html

      “The government’s figures also indicate that the crime bills already
      passed by Parliament are estimated to cost $2.5 billion over five years.
      Those measures, combined with the omnibus bills, brings the total to
      $2.7 billion over five years.”

      “Let’s recall that these numbers are very, very sketchy estimates at
      best,” he said. “This is the best we can do in terms of looking into the
      future.”

      Toews said officials from different departments came up with the
      numbers and he couldn’t specify the methodology. “I don’t figure out the
      math, I give that to the officials who have all of the available data,”
      said Toews.

      • It’s a good thing that Toews doesn’t do math because most Cons believe that 38% > 62%.

Sign in to comment.