CanPol: Thread of the Year Edition

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I think the point that KH is making in regards to "protecting" Ontario isn't that Ontario has been taking its lumps, but rather if you're going to "fix" something, do it in a manner that prevents anyone from shafting someone else. Senate reform shouldn't be an "ah ha! Now's our chance to screw Ontario and Quebec!" type situation. And if it's presented as such, guess what the response from the currently most populous area of the country is going to be?

It is impossible for the Senate as constituted to screw either Ontario or Quebec, and together Ontario and Quebec can veto any substantial change.

Or, would electing senators, in and of itself, screw Ontario and, or Quebec?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai


A desire for change? I suppose many Canadians would like to see another liberal party, rather than the Liberals in power.

The problem for the Conservatives is that they are stuck in the same voter support range as they have been for the past five to 10 years.

If the Conservatives had a moderate conservative as a leader, they would be in power.

Your preferences are noted, but they may not coincide with high numbers of undecideds and a majority of Canadians wanting change.

This campaign is there to be won by any of Martin, Harper, and even Layton.

Layton could 'win' by breaking through and putting the NDP in a position it has never enjoyed before (near equal of the Tories or Liberals). That would require a Liberal melt down, but that may be what we are watching.

[notyoueither]

I was a bit surprised to see a big piece of the CBC news tonight devoted to asking why Duceppe (and less Layton) are in the debates.

[notyoueither]

'Only two of these guys can win.'

'Why is a leader with no chance of ever becoming PM on the stage for all the debates?'

I think we in the RoC should get over it. The Bloc are the legitimate representatives of many of the people of Quebec. They will be there long after the threat of sovereignty subsides (most likely).

They need to be counted in the calculations of power in making governments in this country, unless the RoC really wants to drive them away.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I was a bit surprised to see a big piece of the CBC news tonight devoted to asking why Duceppe (and less Layton) are in the debates.

That is odd. Canadian debates have always been inclusive and I don't see why that would need to change at the moment. Although I will admit that a 4 way debate can be tough and if the Greens can break through to the point where they start consistenly winning seats, you are looking at 5

[Flubber]

Harper shows off softer side

Published: Friday, December 16, 2005
A question about the prospect of having gay children gave Stephen Harper a chance to show his human side Thursday as he promised to love his kids unconditionally and not to use the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage.

"It's a duty of parents to always love their children. I love my children and I'm going to love my children all my life," the Conservative leader said in one of the emotional highlights of the leaders' first debate of the election campaign in Vancouver.

Prime Minister Paul Martin, whose Liberals are fighting for their survival in Quebec, came alive when he made a pitch to Quebecers near the end of the French-language debate.

"You want to divide Quebec families but it won't happen," said Martin, shaking his fist toward Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe, his main foe in the province.

Well maybe this will put an end to the gay marriage issue as somethinmg Martin can fall back on

[Kontiki]

I'd almost be more inclined to invite the Greens to the debates than the BQ. I'm a little unsettled by having a leader whose only concern for Canada is how much it can give Quebec so the province can eventually break away from the country participate in a debate about how best to run this country.

[Flubber]

Harper same-sex comments get attention while Martin uses debate to bash Bloc
Alexander Panetta, Canadian Press
Published: Friday, December 16, 2005
VANCOUVER (CP) - A Conservative leader often branded as a right-wing ideologue declared he would love his children even if they were gay, and swore not to use a constitutional loophole to overturn same-sex marriage.

Stephen Harper tried during the first of four campaign debates to shed the intolerance label his opponents have slapped him with on the question of same-sex rights. Liberal Leader Paul Martin spent much of the French-language debate fending off attacks on the sponsorship scandal and urging Quebecers to reject the separatist Bloc Quebecois.

This year's new debate format quickly produced a more memorable moment. Regular citizens are putting videotaped questions to the leaders and a Montreal man directed a deeply personal query at Harper.

How would this staunch opponent of same-sex marriage react if he learned his children were gay? The Conservative leader - and father of a young boy and girl - paused briefly before answering.

"It's a duty of parents to always love their children," Harper replied.

"I love my children and I'm going to love my children all my life."

That personal declaration was followed by a more substantive statement where Harper swore not to use the Constitution's controversial notwithstanding clause on same-sex marriage.

It was as adamant as he has ever been on the issue and left only the slimmest and most legally remote chance that the recent same-sex marriage law will ever be overturned.

"I will never use the notwithstanding clause on that issue," Harper said.

The statement will surely infuriate some of his own supporters who hope to overturn the law.

It would be a long shot without the notwithstanding clause: the Conservatives would need to win a free vote in both houses of Parliament, including the Liberal-controlled Senate, and then the Supreme Court would need to endorse their position despite lower-court rulings that declared traditional marriage laws unconstitutional.

Harper has struggled with the issue for more than a year as Liberals accuse him of harbouring a hidden agenda on same-sex marriage.

He needs to win over moderate voters, particularly in Ontario, if the Conservatives are to have any hope of forming a government. His opposition to same-sex marriage has been cited by pollsters as a position that has driven moderate voters away from the Tories.

Thursday's encounter was civilized but the format did not allow for much in the way of direct debate between the contenders for the Jan. 23 election.

The leaders responded to videotaped questions from voters across the country. None of the politicians knew in advance what they would be asked.

Rather than stymie the flow of the debate, the questions seemed to enhance the exchanges. Each of the four leaders also seemed at ease in French, the language of Thursday's debate. Friday's will be in English.

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe was especially at ease in his mother tongue, and Harper was forced to interject at least twice to say he hadn't understood the videotaped question.

Martin later said his chief opponent's position on same sex made no sense. He said the notwithstanding clause is the only way to overturn the new marriage law.

Unlike Harper and Duceppe, Martin did not directly address the videotaped question about how he would feel if he learned one of his children was gay.

Martin eschewed sugary sentimentalism and stuck to the legal argument.

"To do what Mr. Harper wants to do, there's no choice. He would have to use the notwithstanding clause," said Martin, whose government passed same-sex legislation last June.

"And I assure you that I will defend the Charter of Rights. I accept the charter in its entirety."

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton, eager not to be outflanked by the Liberals on the issue, said his party would do everything it could to protect the rights of homosexuals.

"For a long time, (gays and lesbians) have worked towards this goal to have equality," Layton said. "And I'm very proud that I had the opportunity to stand in the House of Commons and to vote in support for equal rights for everyone."

The first half of the debate was dominated by the sponsorship scandal. Even one of the viewers got in on the act, asking whether Liberals were blind or deaf to have missed the corruption happening under their noses.

It took just seconds for sponsorship to become a cudgel in the hands of the prime minister's political rivals as they took turns pounding Martin on the topic.

Duceppe - speaking in his mother tongue - delivered some of the more potent blows.

A viewer asked whether governments should face class-action lawsuits from citizens when they fail to keep their election promises. While other leaders questioned the legal feasibility of such a measure, Duceppe cleverly turned the question on its head.

"There is already a class-action lawsuit - it's called an election," Duceppe said.

"And on Jan. 23 Quebecers and all Canadians will have the chance to launch a class-action lawsuit against the Martin government that lied."

Martin shot back that Duceppe and the Bloc were interested in capitalizing on the scandal only so long as it serves to tear apart the country.

"They want to put an end to this Canada that generations of Canadians and Quebecers have built, this Canada that is the envy of the world."

Harper rounded out the sponsorship attack, telling Canadians they have a choice on Jan. 23 to turf the Liberals.

"This government needs to be replaced in order to be held accountable," said Harper, who listed the changes to fundraising and lobbying laws that he has proposed.

"The party that stole money from taxpayers deserves to be punished."

He added that Quebecers who want to oust the Liberals must vote Conservative, because the Bloc can never form a government.

The French-language debate was aimed primarily at Quebec. Polls suggest the Bloc holds a commanding lead over the scandal-scarred Liberals.

Duceppe has made it clear he would love nothing more than to pulverize the Liberals in Quebec by winning as many of the province's 75 seats as possible.

The Liberals have acknowledged they face a major challenge holding onto the 21 Quebec seats they won last year.

An internal party e-mail the Liberals' Quebec wing mistakenly sent to some reporters this week indicates the party has already written off 45 ridings and feels confident of success in only 10 others.

Nationally, the Grits still held sizable leads over the Conservatives in recent polls.

[Richelieu]

All in all i'd say that Duceppe consolidated his position, Martin was a bit below average, Harper did a very good job in a lost cause and Layton wasn't as good as i expected him to be.

Harper's declaration on same sex marriage
He got much more from this debate than any of the other candidates IMO. He was candid about asking for explanations when he did not understand the questions and his french is still getting better. It's obvious he's working on it and that will score him some points over here. I would be very surprised if that translated into seats though.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think we in the RoC should get over it. The Bloc are the legitimate representatives of many of the people of Quebec. They will be there long after the threat of sovereignty subsides (most likely).

They need to be counted in the calculations of power in making governments in this country, unless the RoC really wants to drive them away.

the BQ is becoming the party of people who want anyone but the Liberals.

I've heard from the most patriotic of my Canadian-Quebecer friends, who never voted for the Bloc before, that they are considering it now simply to make the Liberals lose more seats here.

While the BQ is a party devoted primarily to seperation, it is also seen locally as the party most representative of all quebecers, seperatist or not.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Flubber


Well maybe this will put an end to the gay marriage issue as somethinmg Martin can fall back on

Not likely.

Harper is saying he will have a free vote on gay marriages in the commons, and then he says that he won't use the notwithstanding clause to ban gay marriages.

So what he is telling conservatives is they can vote to ban gay marriages, but if they do, he won't let them ban gay marriages.

What a two-faced turd.

[Asher]

Harper is saying he will have a free vote on gay marriages in the commons, and then he says that he won't use the notwithstanding clause to ban gay marriages.

So what he is telling conservatives is they can vote to ban gay marriages, but if they do, he won't let them ban gay marriages.

What a two-faced turd.

Errr...no. They can still ban gay marriage without using the notwithstanding clause, it just is a longshot.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Not likely.

Harper is saying he will have a free vote on gay marriages in the commons, and then he says that he won't use the notwithstanding clause to ban gay marriages.

So what he is telling conservatives is they can vote to ban gay marriages, but if they do, he won't let them ban gay marriages.

What a two-faced turd.

I don't necessarily accept the idea that its either status quo or you violate the Charter

The only way he can be consistent here is to try to craft a marraige law that gives all the benfits of marriage to gay couples. Legally this is possible if you crafted a "marriage" law that termed a man-woman union with one term, a man-man with another and woman-woman with another. As longs as ALL the substantive rights were the same, it should pass Charter muster. I can't see the rights violation of having a different defined term for essentially the same thing. (maybe xage and yage)

Imagine if 10 years ago, the marriage leggislation had been changed such that the it was the marriage ,xage and yage act and had deemd that all rights amd responsibilities of marriage would apply equally to xage and yage . . . Who could complain? Is the label as important as the substantive rights?




I really see this whole thing as a non-issue-- Canada has and will have gay marriage and even a conservative majority ( considering the candidate that they would need to elect in Ontario and Atlantic Canada) would be unlikely to change that in a free vote.

I disagree with Harper on the issue but it won't be one that decides my vote

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Flubber

I disagree with Harper on the issue but it won't be one that decides my vote

But it may be one that will swing others towards the PC. It's one more step towards the center. They're starting to occupy some of the ground that Canadians traditionally assign to the Libs: and some of those Canadians do want to get rid of the corrupt Liberals.

[Asher]

It definitely swings me slightly in their favor. It still ain't good enough for me, I don't trust politician promises.