Canadian government to fall

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


You need to read what he actually said and not the inflammatory headline. Harper promised some very significant things. First of all, he promised to have a free vote in parliament, including his cabinet, something that the vaunted liberal government was unwilling to do, even given the nature of a the issue. Even if you support gay marraige, then surely you also support the right of parliament to hold a free vote on the issue. However, I strongly suspect that those who support gay marriage, don't believe that there should be any such thing as a free vote, since that means they might lose.

Secondly, he promised that those who have been married, will retain their certificates. No rolling back the clock. I don't see how anyone who believes in a democracy that represents the will of the people should oppose either move by Harper.

You need to read what I posted. I mentioned most of what Harper actually said . . . but the headline was "Gay Marriage is back"

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The media wouldn't let him. Especially not during a 56 day campaign. If he didn't answer, they would go off digging, asking individual candidates (like Randy White) about the subject until they get their gold.

I agree that would happen but couldn't Harper skate by saying that his was an inclusive party that welcomed people with different viewpoints ( and then name a Conservative MP that supported gay marriage)??

Originally posted by notyoueither

I would imagine this was orchestrated by the party. I would hope that all candidates have been asked to say that the leader has already spoken on this issue for this campaign. If that is what happens, it is far better than the media weighing each candidate individually to find the ones that are lighter than a duck and dribbling out reports from their witch hunt all along the campaign trail.

Perhaps-- I'm just thinking of the moderate undercided voters. To them it seems like Harper stresses gay marriage. I can see people thinking "doesn't this guy realize we have more important issues?".

And yes Ben, I know this wasn't his focus . . . in fact I believe the marriage bit wasn't even in his speech .. . But the story tofay is on marriage and the media scarcely reported on what else Harper said. To me this was completely predictable.

Maybe this tactic of defusing the issue will work but personally I think it was the wrong move. There will be a lot of people that will think that Harper's first election campaign move was to come out against gay marriage.

Martin is having a field day implying that Harper will violate people's rights .

[KrazyHorse]

When will the Conservatives get that the SC has already ruled on this? The old marriage law was deemed unconstitutional. There's no going back without some sort of amendment. Luckily we all know what happens when you try to amend the Charter....

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
When will the Conservatives get that the SC has already ruled on this? The old marriage law was deemed unconstitutional. There's no going back without some sort of amendment. Luckily we all know what happens when you try to amend the Charter....

What Martin is stressing is that Harper could do this by invoking the notwithstanding clause.

Remember, government always has the abilities to pass laws that ignore Charter rights. I think it was a concession to Quebec so they could keep stringent language laws and Klein threatened to use it on the same-sex marriage issue but backed off

[KrazyHorse]

The federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause.

Not once.

If Harper even holds a vote to invoke it then he is not only a political moron, but also treading on what I'd consider to be very dangerous ground.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Richelieu


I would very seriously consider voting for the PC of old if it were still around. In fact, i'd do it in a heartbeat.

See... I was right.

Whatever you thought of them, the old PC party was electable. The Day/Harper conservatives just alienate too many Canadians.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Flubber

Remember, government always has the abilities to pass laws that ignore Charter rights. I think it was a concession to Quebec so they could keep stringent language laws and Klein threatened to use it on the same-sex marriage issue but backed off

FWIW, I learned in high school that not-withstanding was put in at the request of western provinces.

Not saying thats my opinion, thats just what I learned.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Uh, the Liberal party has morphed into the Progressive Conservatives? I'm sure Mr. Chretien would have a few words to say about that. The Liberal party is the same ol' same ol' and have in fact been rejected by folks like Mr. MacKay.

The old style PC party has a lot more in common with the liberals than the current CCP. Canada is a liberal country overall. If you don't take account of that political reality, you cannot win... period.

Yes, the western style conservatism of lower taxes, a reformed senate, increased military spending and greater devolution of powers. Reminds me of an old fellow named Ronald Reagan.

Who completely failed. That particular style of government was tried in the US, Canada, Britain and New Zealand. It completely failed to lower government spending. It's yesterday's politics.

If it can work in the US, and in Britain, I can't see why we shouldn't see the same again in Canada. Our taxes are too high, and the fact that we have huge surpluses indicates that the Liberal government is taking too much from Canadians.

No it doesn't indicate that at all. Conservatives simply do not understand why we have taxation. Canada is currently fourth or fifth on the UNHDI: that's a great acheivement for a country that is not particularly populous and which is not particularly rich in natural resources (compared to others).

The reason is that Canada is an extremely efficient society: far more efficient than the US (people who don't understand this do not understand efficiency). Canadians have no objections to allowing the government to provide certain services if it is cheaper, whereas their American counterparts do. This is why Canada can make so much more out of so less - because collective spending can in many cases lead to efficiency gains. Any decent economist agrees with me on this.

It's simply an open question whether the surpluses should be spent on debt reduction, public services or tax cuts. I can think of a couple of things (health care and public transport) that would do a lot more to improve the life of the average Canadian than increased consumer spending.

What platform that alienates the majority of Canadians? Why should fiscal conservatives support the liberals who tax and spend and never provide any relief?

Because this is an inaccurate representation of the situation. "tax and spend"" just means that we pay for certain services through the government and not through the market. The reason we do this is because it is more efficient. Health care is the best example.

Conservatives never really say what they mean. What they want to do is remove certain goods from the public sphere to the private sphere. Sure, everyone will get some money back if this is done. The problem is that it will cost at least 85% of Canadians more to get equivalent services through the private market.

As for the military: there is no need to spend a lot of money on it. Canada has no enemies. All it needs is a force sufficient to contribute to multilateral interventions like peacekeeping. Perhaps an increase in spending is required for that, but to say that it is needed for national defence is just ridiculous. Canada has no enemies. It's like New Zealand: no one wants to attack it, and even if they did, they are not in a position to do so. There is no reason to think that this is going to change such that increased spending is required right now.

Fiscal and social conservatives should be in the party together, there are social conservatives who like increased government spending on their projects who need to be reined in by those who are fiscally conservative.

The problem is that Canadians are a liberal people. I've never lived in a country where the national character was such a political issue. Most Canadians would rather have the Liberals, who have run a pretty good government, than just change and watch the socially liberal ideas the country is based on collapse. There's a reason that Trudeau is so revered: he set down what it means to be Canadian for the majority of Canadians. It took me about a month of living here to realize that. It still hasn't dawned on people out west.

And those who are social conservatives should sit in the back of the bus? I challenge your assertion that the majority of Canadians are so scared of the amazing conservative hidden agenda, when they see their own hard earned dollars squandered.

They are.

And the "squandering" is not particularly bad. Canada has an excellent government and has had so for the past 10 years. Go live in Britain during Thatcher's reign and you will understand what a bad government is like.

Things are pretty good in Canada right now. Why would anyone want to change?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause.

Not once.

If Harper even holds a vote to invoke it then he is not only a political moron, but also treading on what I'd consider to be very dangerous ground.

I agree totally.

But thats the area Martin has raised in his rhetoric

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Max Webster





.. then NYE is full of it, according to you.

The US is a sovereign country, as is Canada. As such, the two are connected, with regards to this election, only as much as the fantasies of some will allow.

If you are still afraid that Canada is turning into the United States, then keep on voting Liberal. I don't know what else to tell you.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Agathon


...that's a great acheivement for a country that is not ... particularly rich in natural resources (compared to others).

Huh? There's only two countries on the planet (Russia and the US) that have more natural resources than we do.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn




If you are still afraid that Canada is turning into the United States,

I don't know why anyone would EVER think that is happening

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Flubber
Well considering Canada is definitely larger and arguably richer , I'm not sure what to make of your comments

He was using numbers in the tens of millions of dollars to describe the US budget.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Max Webster
Canada is hell of alot bigger than the US.

So you're like a dwarf with a nine foot long dick?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


He was using numbers in the tens of millions of dollars to describe the US budget.

Who is "he"?

The US budget can sensibly be talked about in terms of billions. Unfortunately far too may of those billions are in the deficit column