CanPol: Thread of the Year Edition

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai
To the Conservatives, thank you for playing and we have some nice parting gifts.

Vancouver — An eight-year-old speech by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper in which he calls Canada a welfare state and says the unemployed are happy to be living off their benefits is being circulated by his critics.

The speech, delivered to a group of Americans in 1997 when Mr. Harper had left politics and was a vice-president of the National Citizen's Coalition, was discovered on the website of the Council for National Policy.

I sincerly hope that eight year old comments are not determinative of anything. Heck Eight years ago, I might have had hopes for the American conservative movement . . .you know before Bush went crazy.
Contrast that against current comments of the Liberals , now repeated several times which show their arrogant belief that people are incapable of managing their own money.

That said, this speech might get some play. Harper should be able to spin it as something he said in representing the views of a different group etc etc although a couple of the quotes are a bit harsh. The bits on gay marriage and bilingualism are no suprise so any major sound bites will likely be on social programs.

Oh and I agree that a million and a half unemployed are far too many. The reality given the economic growth in Canada is that it is going to be increasingly difficult for any able-bodied person to claim to be unemployed as the labour shortages grow.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why is this any surprise to anyone? Haven't we heard about scary Harper's hidden agenda for years now.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
To the Conservatives, thank you for playing and we have some nice parting gifts.

Vancouver — An eight-year-old speech by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper in which he calls Canada a welfare state and says the unemployed are happy to be living off their benefits is being circulated by his critics.

Sounds like desperation smear tactics by terrified Liberals to me.

[Max Webster]

Here is more on that speech.

http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051213/elxn_harper_speech_051214/20051214?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Don't get yourself into the whole mess we have with our Senate. Equal numbers of senators per province = evil.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As opposed to recieving 10 percent of the seats in the commons?

Which is what their population would suggest (actually, they get slightly higher representation per capita than does Ontario or Quebec.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by November Adam
KH, why do you think an equal number of senators for each province is wrong?

I don't know, but this is why I agree with him.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As opposed to recieving 10 percent of the seats in the commons?

I think your opposition is more directed to the fact that the west would get 40%, and poor old Central Canada 20%.

It's related to the fundamental unfairness, little one.

Yes, "Central Canada" has more than half the population of Canada. It therefore deserves more than half the representation. In all chambers of our government.

Just because you've decided that Western Canada needs more say doesn't make it so. As is patently obvious from your attitude, your support for the US and Australian-style senate is motivated by your dislike of Central Canada.

Yeah, that ought to play well.

"How about you 19 million Canadians take 20% of the representation in this new body we're creating and us 12 million Canadians will take 80%. Sounds fair, right?"

How dumb do you think we are, Ben?

[Kuciwalker]

I wouldn't mind our system so much if it were still disproportional but had a scale - the small states get 1 senator, the medium get 2, and the largest get 3.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I wouldn't mind our system so much if it were still disproportional but had a scale - the small states get 1 senator, the medium get 2, and the largest get 3.

Still ridiculous when you have some states with 100 times the population of others.

[Kuciwalker]

Less ridiculous. And it preserves some of the good parts of the nature of the Senate. It reduces the largest disparities by a factor of 6.

[Asher]

Yes, "Central Canada" has more than half the population of Canada. It therefore deserves more than half the representation. In all chambers of our government.

Not everyone agrees that 50.0001% of the country should have absolute say over the other 49.9999% of the country. some people consider that system a bit unfair as well.

[KrazyHorse]

My dislike for the US/Aussie senate system is motivated by its fundamental unfairness (granting more say to certain citizens simply because of their location within a provincial boundary) and by my impression of what goes on due to that system in the US (farm subsidies, other pork barrel projects)

Ontario has 13 million people in it. I don't see why they should get 1/4 the representation of Western Canada which has ~10 million people in it.

Never mind the PEI situation, where that teenie little "province" (with the same population as the single suburb my fiancee lives in) would get the same say as Quebec, which is over a million square kilometers and has 7 million residents.



Yeah, that's a really fair political system.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher


Not everyone agrees that 50.0001% of the country should have absolute say over the other 49.9999% of the country. some people consider that system a bit unfair as well.

And all the US/Aus system is doing is giving a veto to a certain minority, due to their province.

What about rural dwellers? Why shouldn't they get a veto too?

The federal government in Canada doesn't have absolute say. That's the purpose of our Charter and of federalism in general.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Less ridiculous. And it preserves some of the good parts of the nature of the Senate. It reduces the largest disparities by a factor of 6.

Factor of 3.