I figured we needed SOMETHING about the Canadian election around this place. Full disclosure: I live in Bulte's riding, and I am not a registered member of any Canadian political party. posted by GuyZero at 3:28 PM on January 11, 2006
The method of Canuckistans elections will result in this being as big a story as The Globe warrants it to be, eg. nil. I'd bet less than 2 percent of the voters in her riding know about this, and less care.
It's a non story (for pratical purposes, not that I wouldn't find it a fitting end to see her lose). Besides, the recording industry will find a Conservative to take her place should they win the election. posted by Keith Talent at 3:38 PM on January 11, 2006
What if Canada's ruling party was ousted because of copyright reform?
Then we'd get a Conservative government, and way more American-influenced policy in five years than Sam Bulte could come up with in a lifetime.
The best realistic outcome on the Bulte thing is that the Liberals keep their minority without her. posted by mendel at 3:45 PM on January 11, 2006
GOD can the Liberals stop fucking up for ONE ROTTEN MINUTE?! I want them to win this election, dammit! And those latest tv commercials are NOT GOING TO HELP.
What mendel said. posted by furtive at 3:52 PM on January 11, 2006
GOD can the Liberals stop fucking up for ONE ROTTEN MINUTE?! I want them to win this election, dammit! And those latest tv commercials are NOT GOING TO HELP.
If ever there was a sinking ship; pressure from in the party scandal, out of the party with all 3 oppositions ganging up on them and even from former party (cough, Chretien) members causing trouble. Paul Martin just looks tired.
There's no final 10 days that is going to save them; outside of extraditing Stephen Harper, we'll have a non-fiscally conservative conservative prime minister.
Please, dear God, let this not be our Bush. posted by dflemingdotorg at 3:58 PM on January 11, 2006
dflemingdotorg: With any luck, if the Conservatives get a minority, Martin and Layon will conspire to let them hang themselves, and then bring them down in a civil rights and fiscal irresponsibility hellfire, ensuring they don't come into power again in the near future. (Also see: NDP -> PC, Ontario)
I do not want to think of the damage that an effective Conservative government (in the same way that Mike Harris was effective) would do to my country. posted by Jairus at 4:01 PM on January 11, 2006
What hildegarde said. posted by duck at 4:03 PM on January 11, 2006
If the Conservatives get a slight majority, I don't think it'll had mattered if Parkdale-High Park switched from Liberal to NDP. Voting NDP only benefits the Conservatives when it splits the vote against them and gives them a win, right? posted by bobo123 at 4:17 PM on January 11, 2006
Canada sucks more every day. posted by wakko at 4:18 PM on January 11, 2006
Actually the Liberals will lose all by themselves. I haven't seen a party collapse like that since 1993. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of pricks either; it's only too bad that this will give Stephen "Bush Light" Harper his chance to become PM. Hopefully it'll be a minority government, unable to screw things up too much. posted by clevershark at 4:21 PM on January 11, 2006
C-30 C-60 C-90 Go! posted by gimonca at 4:22 PM on January 11, 2006
What Hildegarde said.
I wonder if we can start making t-shirts, or get group flight discounts to move if the Conservitives win... posted by phyrewerx at 4:38 PM on January 11, 2006
Damn. Another reminder that I'm going to be forced to vote for the NDP, for lack of anyone less unappealing. The whole tedious copyright reform process appears in the end to have been something of a joke. Hardly surprising after some statements from the office of the minister in charge sometime last year that sort of gave away the ending.
The leaders' debate was fun. I particularly enjoyed Martin's speech when Duceppe demanded that he refer to Quebec as a "nation". So he says something like "Oh yes, I have no problem with calling that province, of Quebec, a nation. I will use the word, nation, in reference to that particular province, any time without objection. I'll do it willingly, because there's nothing wrong with that, you know, nation being a word that I can see how it might be appropriate there." When he could have more simply said "The nation of Quebec is a necessary part of Canada. Without it, the Canada we know could not exist." What the hell. The local MP talks just the same way, too. Idiots, all of them. posted by sfenders at 4:39 PM on January 11, 2006
...of course, the really sad thing is that the Liberal leader came out sounding much better than two out of three of his opponents, in both languages. You'd think these guys would have some talent for public speaking. You know, given that sensible policy about actual important issues like copyright law certainly isn't what got them elected. posted by sfenders at 4:49 PM on January 11, 2006
It's looking more and more like a Conservative victory, but I don't think they have a prayer of forming a majority government (not without seats in Quebec). Hopefully this limits their right-wing agenda and ultimately their term in office . posted by rocket88 at 4:59 PM on January 11, 2006
I'd say this was like Gore vs Bush, only this seems worse. In G vs B, people couldn't tell the difference between the two, and Nader siphoned off some of Gore's support, you all know the result.
In this election, it was a neck and neck thing initially, but the Libs seem determined now to hand it to the other side on a silver platter.
And while this site is supposed to be tongue and cheek, what scares me is that these are in fact the people in Harper's party and this might not be far wrong as a cabinet prediction goes. posted by Zinger at 5:22 PM on January 11, 2006
What Hildegarde said +
Why do the leaders of all four major parties have to suck? My MP is Jack Layton, but it's almost impossible for me to vote for such a jackass.
It feels like everyone has decided to just let Harper win because Martin is an unlikeable passionless slob. But Harper has the charm and professional demeanor of a monitor lizard and the intelligence of George Bush. And NOBODY IS ASKING HIM ABOUT HIS PLANS VIS A VIS IRAQ, God help us. posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:28 PM on January 11, 2006
The Liberals have a lot worse problems than this to worry about.
What, like right-wing wackjob bloggers trying to understand what's going on up here? posted by 327.ca at 5:28 PM on January 11, 2006
From what little I've seen of the Conservative campaign (I don't pay attention to this stuff, much), their main idea seems to be "Liberals are bad." As long as they just say "Liberals are bad, vote for us" they get that all-important brand exposure, without actually giving away anything about what they're really about. It seems to work. Then they throw in a few of the usual silly campaign promises, as inoffensive as possible (cut the GST!), and it could be a winning formula.
So, if the Conservatives do win the largest minority in the house, how can they form a government? Or do we just go straight to yet another election next month? posted by sfenders at 5:34 PM on January 11, 2006
On the bright side, Harpo has never let us down. He consistently turns certain victory in defeat with shocking regularity. Hell, he can't buy a doughnut without frightening the hell of children and parents alike.
If I were a conservative strategist I'd probably suggest Harpo take a couple of weeks off out of the public eye. The more people see him, the more they will think of Bush. posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:39 PM on January 11, 2006
I think parties should be obligated to do what they promised during the campaign and only what they promised during the campaign. Especially now. Because if all Stephen Harper gets to do for the next 5 years is sit on his ass not being a Liberal, that would be the best possible outcome. posted by jacquilynne at 5:58 PM on January 11, 2006
Finally, the CPC has learned from their previous election disasters and seem to be running a reasonable (by Canadian standards) campaign, and are not simply presenting them as better than the Liberals. Since 1993, I have not seen a Liberal campaign as poor as this one, and I'm starting to think more and more that rather than being impossible (because of Quebec), a Conservative majority (and the first non-Liberal majority since 1988) is now simply a matter of time. I'd vote CPC, except it won't make a lick of difference in my riding. So I'm voting communist! posted by loquax at 6:03 PM on January 11, 2006
Jairus has the better outcome.
Liberals have to be ousted: they have been in power for 12 years and think they own the place. Out-out-out.
The best would be a minority Conservative government, ensuring it doesn't have enough power to do much damage while Martin and his cronies are sent to retirement.
Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois should have candidates in every Canadian riding, like the Rhinoceros Party once did. (This last one is joke.) posted by bru at 6:28 PM on January 11, 2006
"What if bloggers took credit for an election defeat everyone else saw coming a mile away?" posted by Space Coyote at 6:37 PM on January 11, 2006
How about the opinion of a left-wing Canadiancartoonist? (And here.)
By the way, 327.ca, Ed Morissey is the guy who broke open the Liberal "Adscam" embezzlement story last April by violating the Canadian judge's gag order. Since Ed is an American, he could safely ignore the gag order, and people who were attending the hearing kept mailing Ed with info about what was happening, which he posted to his blog. That, in turn, permitted Canadian newspapers to publish the information so that good Canadian voters like you could find out what their government had been doing with their money.
I don't know, Jairus. I think what the Canadian government needs is a good leader. I don't see any uniting forces, any passionate orators, or even any strongly held opinions. Harpo, Martin, Layton and Duceppe are all pathetic. I've met the Green leader three times, and I still can't remember his name. Personally, I don't feel the same way about parliamentarians as a whole. There are many I really respect.
I should feel really good about the Green Party or the NDP, or at least have faith in the Liberals. Afterall, Canada is more prosperous than it's been in years. Nobody I know feels good about his or her party. It's sad. posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:47 PM on January 11, 2006
Would a government sucking american cock be any better on copyright? No. Sorry Canada, you're fucked as bad as your neighbors to the south. Sorry about that. posted by delmoi at 7:05 PM on January 11, 2006
One more and I'll let it go: here's an article from the Christian Science Monitor about how Ed Morrissey (whoose naem I speled worng erliar) defied the publication ban. posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:14 PM on January 11, 2006
gesamtkunstwerk, if you don't think Duceppe is passionate, you're not paying attention.
Canada needs good leadership, but not with bad policy. Again, look to Ontario under Harris. The man was a great leader, but the province will be broken for a long, long time. posted by Jairus at 7:21 PM on January 11, 2006
Can you say, "conflict of interest"? Sure you can! ;) posted by squeak at 7:30 PM on January 11, 2006
Again, look to Ontario under Harris. The man was a great leader, but the province will be broken for a long, long time.
So you're saying that Ontario was better off under Rae and Peterson? And would have benefitted from a few more terms of the chaos that was the NDP? Ontario is far from broken, it is funding (along with Alberta and BC to a lesser extent) the rest of confederation. Not that it's germane to this discussion. posted by loquax at 7:34 PM on January 11, 2006
I'm saying that Harris slashed and burned our health and education to fuel our economy. Now, we have shitty health, and shitty education.
Sure, we contribute to the economy, because we still have skilled and healthy workers.
We'll see how long that lasts. posted by Jairus at 7:42 PM on January 11, 2006
loquax, you're sounding like Paul Martin, saying that the Country is better off, while individuals are collectively worse off. It's small compensation.
And that the Conservatives are the ones pointing this out is the most bizarro part of this whole political system. posted by Space Coyote at 8:13 PM on January 11, 2006
Now, we have shitty health, and shitty education.
I don't have enough time to wade through and cite the Ontario budgets for the last ten years, but suffice it to say that Ontario increased health and education spending in the province between 1995 and 2000 despite the slashing of Federal transfer dollars to the provinces, while also cutting taxes, creating over 800,000 jobs, slashing the deficit, and making Ontario globally competitive after a long period of stagnation. Which shouldn't be easily dismissed. More jobs and fewer taxes means more money in pockets, more RRSP and RESP contributions, more money to spend on post-secondary or private education, and a generally higher standard of living. And Ontario doesn't just contribute to the Canadian economy - we pay out hard cash to the other provinces to the tune of over $6bn a year (most of which goes straight to Quebec). That a handicap that the entire province has dealt with for decades (especially Toronto), and one that isn't going away anytime soon.
In 1995, health spending was at 17.4bn. This was increased to 18.9 bn by 1998 (again, with the cuts from the Federal Liberal government), and again to 25.5 bn in 2002, Harris's last year in office. Both public education and post-secondary institution grants increased by roughly 30% from 1995 to 2002.
You may disagree with the institutional reforms he implemented within the health and education infrastructures (and/or some of the other things he did), but I think it's difficult to argue that he slashed and burned health and education based on the facts. I don't know how you define shitty health and shitty education, but the numbers don't seem to support that assessment.
while individuals are collectively worse off
You mean in Ontario since 1995? How so? I'm certainly open to the argument. I just don't see the stats that prove it. posted by loquax at 8:27 PM on January 11, 2006
Some other economic and spending highlights as of 2002:
In 1995-96, base health care operating spending made up 38 per cent of government program expenditures (excluding capital and Public Debt Interest). Health care's share grew to 45 per cent in 2001-02 and will increase to 47 per cent in 2002-03.
Starting in 1994-95, federal Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) payments to Ontario began a steady decline, dropping to as low as $3.6 billion in 1998-99, down more than $3 billion from $6.6 billion in 1994-95. Federal CHST transfers have been increasing over the last number of years but only in 2002-03 will CHST transfers to Ontario approximate their 1994-95 levels.
Since 1995, the number of people directly employed by the Government of Ontario has declined from over 81,000 to about 60,000 as of March 2001.
Ontario has been the leader in cutting taxes and in economic growth in Canada. Over the 1996 to 2001 period, the Ontario economy, on average, grew by a full percentage point faster than the economy of the rest of Canada. According to private-sector forecasters, Ontario growth is again expected to outpace growth in the rest of Canada over the 2002 to 2003 period.
From the second quarter of 1996, when Ontario income tax cuts began, to the fourth quarter of 2001, Ontario real disposable income increased by 18.5 per cent, stronger than the 15.3 per cent pace for the rest of Canada.
Ontario has a highly competitive and diverse manufacturing sector. Over the 1996 to 2001 period, it created 209,000 jobs-more than any other province or any U.S. state. posted by loquax at 8:45 PM on January 11, 2006
Harris inhereted a growing economy from Bob Rae, so his spending doesn't much impress me. I define 'shitty health' and 'shitty education' as follows:
1994: 1-hour average wait in ER, 1-month wait for surgery.
2004: 8-hour average wait in ER, 18-month wait for surgery
Our education grants may have increased, that's irrelevant in the face of how our per-student resources have been cut. In 1994, Ontario ranked 30th in North America for per-pupil expenditure. By 1998, we were at 55th place out of 63. By the time Harris left office, public spending on elementary and secondary had been cut by almost 15 percent since 1994.
Christ, he cut an entire year out of high school forever. posted by Jairus at 9:00 PM on January 11, 2006
And he disheartened and embittered an entire generation of teachers, whom he used as strawmen whenever his popularity lagged. posted by Hildegarde at 9:12 PM on January 11, 2006
And he disheartened and embittered an entire generation of teachers, whom he used as strawmen whenever his popularity lagged.
...and then he closed their schools. posted by Jairus at 9:13 PM on January 11, 2006
Harris inherited a growing economy from Bob Rae
When I previously made the same argument about Chretien inheriting a growing economy from Mulroney, I was lambasted for it. I agree in part that Harris (and Chretien) inherited growing economies, but in Ontario's case, I believe it was growing despite Rae's governance along with Canadian and more broadly North American upturns in the economy after the problems of the late 80's and early 90's. Rae practically crippled the economy with his labour fights, bizarre legislation, awkward infrastructure investment and, of course, Rae days. Rae cut grants to educational institutions (in some cases, citing "elitism") and only won the 1990 election because of gross arrogance and incompetence on the part of Peterson and the Liberals. He never expected to govern, and had no plan to do so until a few years into his term. His popularity was negligible by 1993, and he reneged on almost every promise he made during the election. He was, as even many NDPers (including the ones that called for his resignation in 1993, and all of the unions) will admit, an abject failure as a premier, and did nothing but hamper what should have been a booming Ontario economy in 1990. And I say this knowing the man and his family personally, and having a great deal of respect for what he's accomplished after his run as Premier.
1994: 1-hour average wait in ER, 1-month wait for surgery.
2004: 8-hour average wait in ER, 18-month wait for surgery
In 1994, Ontario ranked 30th in North America for per-pupil expenditure. By 1998, we were at 55th place out of 63.
Where did you get these numbers from?
By the time Harris left office, public spending on elementary and secondary had been cut by almost 15 percent since 1994.
The 2002 and 1996 Ontario budgets state that spending on elementary and secondary education had increased from roughly $8.4bn to $14.6bn during Harris' time as Premier (roughly). That's an increase of what, 70%?
Christ, he cut an entire year out of high school forever.
It was about time. Ontario's victory lap was absurd when almost no other jurisdictions (as far as I know, in the world, but certainly Canada and the US) had a grade 13. What exactly was the point? Especially when many students headed to university fast-tracked anyways? The elimination of grade 13 combined with a vastly increased commitment to community colleges, trade schools and other non-university post-secondary institutions was one of the best things Harris did, if you ask me.
And he disheartened and embittered an entire generation of teachers, whom he used as strawmen whenever his popularity lagged.
...and then he closed their schools.
He antagonized teachers, that's for sure, but I don't see any harm done to the profession. The teacher's pension is still in place and immensely wealthy. There were no major layoffs. There were no major pay freezes or cuts (at least none compared to the paring down of the rest of the civil service. You could almost say that Rae had fewer friends among the teachers in some quarters. I saw a tightening of professional requirements, improvement and standardization of the curriculum and testing, and a lot of entrenched education interests that resisted any modicum of change that they were presented with. What schools were closed? What was the tangible impact of Harris' government on the education system? I see greatly increased funding, reducing the power of unions, expansion of Ontario's universities, and a better basket of educational services and options since 1995. posted by loquax at 9:30 PM on January 11, 2006
Where did you get these numbers from?
University research notes. I don't have references handy, but googling "ontario per pupil expenditure" turns up a fewstats.
There were no major layoffs. What schools were closed?
Are you serious? posted by Jairus at 9:43 PM on January 11, 2006
You know, there's no possible answer to my "Are you serious" question which would make me want to continue a discussion with someone who says 'there were no major layoffs' and asks what schools were closed. I'm done. posted by Jairus at 9:55 PM on January 11, 2006
but googling "ontario per pupil expenditure" turns up a few stats.
Those numbers refer to the period up to 1996 or have no date (that I could see) attached.
Are you serious?
Quite, and I wasn't being entirely rhetorical. I don't remember major school closings (perhaps a few consolidations) and while I do remember teacher layoffs, as far as I recall they were along the lines of early retirement packages and exemptions to that Ontario civil service "80 year rule" (time served plus age, right?). The only numbers I could google are "projected" closings and layoffs from the unions, no hard facts. I acknowledge, however, that I could be misremembering the details. Doesn't seem to change the fact that Harris increased public funding of schools by 70% over the course of his time as Premier.
Here's an article that discusses the subject at least partially, indicating that a comparison with the US is ineffective as the US spends more per student that almost any other country, yet is less efficient than many, sort of like their health care spending (which is higher than ours).
Here's another I stumbled across that purports to deal with how the OSSTF lies about such matters. (which should probably be taken with a similar sized grain of salt one should take when reading the OSSTF's own figures.
On preview, OK then. posted by loquax at 9:59 PM on January 11, 2006
Did anyone hear Nash mention her stance on TPMs?
She agreed to take Geist's pledge, to not become the Minister of Heritage or Secretary thereto. Which I'm sure crushed her dreams ;)
But Bulte's been moving towards the
job for a while.. the "Junction Art's Festival" was supported by her, and Toronto got a bunch of cash for the ROM and COH (Across the street from Osgoode Hall).
Is this the election where we finally, for all time, get to decide that we don't want our elected representatives to be corrupt? posted by ecco at 10:12 PM on January 11, 2006
During Harris' term, the number of elementary schools dropped by 9% (students accommodated primarily with the use of portable classrooms) and the number of secondary schools grew by 5% while the number of students enrolled grew by 5%. The number of teachers decreased by 10%, almost exclusively due to attrition as opposed to layoff.
Certainly there were closings (mea culpa, I certainly don't recall any closings in my area, and wouldn't remember elementary school closings and consolidations, which comprised the bulk), and certainly there was a reduction in the number of teachers, but to say that in itself that is a bad thing presupposes that there were either just enough or not enough teachers and schools prior to Harris' arrival. Which I'm not sure is true. We went from 17.8 students per teacher to 20.7, and from about 400 students per school to 450 (but no increase in secondary school student:school numbers). Hardly the end of education in Ontario as we know it.
Before McGunity took power, the number of Secondary schools went up to 870, and elementary schools increased above 4000. The number of teachers also increased to levels just below the figures in 1995, lowering all of the ratios mentioned above. posted by loquax at 10:43 PM on January 11, 2006
Politics, Facts and Civil Discourse. I love my country. This round of Poutine is on me. posted by srboisvert at 3:38 AM on January 12, 2006
Voting NDP only benefits the Conservatives when it splits the vote against them and gives them a win, right?
Right. You may as well stay home and not vote. posted by zarah at 4:27 AM on January 12, 2006
Poor Loquax, weeping over the loss of the wonderful, popular, constructive Harris government. How did we ever loose him? He was clearly such a boon for our province. We should elect more dopey golf stars. I can't wait for the Harper regime! Goody goody! Milkshakes and strawberry shortcakes for children everywhere!
I don't know about you, but I love it when my income tax goes up! Won't we have FUN with Stephen Harper! At least we'll get 5% off the GST, which we'll really feel when we buy those cars and washing machines every single income family buys each month! And we can stop those dirty gays from pretending they can get "married". Yeah, we can turn this place into somewhere Republicans Canadians can be proud of. posted by Hildegarde at 5:26 AM on January 12, 2006
...2% off the GST. Dammit. You know what I meant. posted by Hildegarde at 5:27 AM on January 12, 2006
*wipes tear from eyes*
I love you guys. posted by GuyZero at 5:48 AM on January 12, 2006
How did we ever loose him?
Well, after two consecutive majority governments, it was time for him to go. I won't argue that. But it wasn't because of a lack of popular support, like, say, Bob Rae.
He was clearly such a boon for our province.
Given the evidence I've provided and a lack of any referenced, non-partisan numbers to the contrary, I'd say you were right about that. Or do you only oppose him on the basis of a vague feeling?
Milkshakes and strawberry shortcakes for children everywhere!
No no, that was the Liberals under Chretien and Martin. Well, replace "milkshakes and strawberry shortcakes" with cash and favours and replace "children everywhere" for friends of the government and Quebec.
I don't know about you, but I love it when my income tax goes up! Won't we have FUN with Stephen Harper! At least we'll get 5% off the GST, which we'll really feel when we buy those cars and washing machines every single income family buys each month! And we can stop those dirty gays from pretending they can get "married". Yeah, we can turn this place into somewhere Republicans Canadians can be proud of.
So have you actually read Harper's and the CPC's positions on the issues you reference or do you get all your information from OP/EDs in the Star and Liberal campaign ads? posted by loquax at 6:45 AM on January 12, 2006
Harris slashed and burned our health and education to fuel our economy.
No, he tried to slash and burn health and education, and cut taxes, to reduce the size of government. He thought himself some kind of government minimalist, thought it should be starved and reduced, and where possible sold off to private interests at low low prices. He didn't do a very good job of it. I'm not sure if Harper has similar tendancies, but not if you believe what he promises. posted by sfenders at 6:59 AM on January 12, 2006
Hopefully it'll be a minority [Conservative] government, unable to screw things up too much. - clevershark
I don't want a Conservative government at all. But if it's going to happen it better damn well be a minority. If Harper gets a majority, I'll cry.
I wonder if we can start making t-shirts, or get group flight discounts to move if the Conservitives win... - phyrewerx
But to where? posted by raedyn at 7:00 AM on January 12, 2006
I never thought I'd meet a Harris apologist. How curious. How old were you when Mike Harris first got into office, Loquax? posted by Hildegarde at 7:23 AM on January 12, 2006
You never thought you'd meet a Harris apologist? He was an extremely popular premier (as premiers go)! He won two overwhelming majorities! 44% of Ontarians voted for him in 1995 and 45% in 1999. Bob Rae only had 37% when he won in 1990. I never thought I'd hear someone claim that Harris inherited a booming economy from him. Granted there was vote splitting between the NDP and the Liberals, but Harris had (and still has) many supporters in the province. In 1995 I was in the late stages of high school, smack dab in the middle of the education debates of the day. I don't know how public high schools are doing now, but from my (relatively limited experience with them), they couldn't be much worse then they were then from a curriculum and a staffing perspective. At the very least, Harris opened a debate about education in Ontario, and even if everything he did didn't turn out well, he broke some of the taboos that existed regarding direct political interference in public education. Understandably the education bureaucracy was upset, but that in itself doesn't mean that it was a bad thing to do. posted by loquax at 7:37 AM on January 12, 2006
Is Hildegarde the Canadian ParisParamus?!? posted by angrybeaver at 8:03 AM on January 12, 2006
Hildegarde? Are you sure you don't mean me? posted by loquax at 8:07 AM on January 12, 2006
Mindless ideological blindness towards one's chosen political party. Nope. posted by angrybeaver at 8:13 AM on January 12, 2006
He was an extremely popular premier (as premiers go)! He won two overwhelming majorities! 44% of Ontarians voted for him in 1995 and 45% in 1999
Ontarians are famous for being the stupidest voters in the nation, partially because they "revenge" vote. The GTA aside, all the older white Ontarians are easily stirred up by the conservatives' convenient bogeymen. During Harris' reign it was welfare mothers, and for Harper it's the nasty gays & a scandal that those most outraged over don't even understand: People I speak to think the Liberals stole 100's of billions of dollars from them for god's sake. Simple minded revenge voting, it's what Ontarians do best. They always live to regret it, and somehow never learn their lesson. posted by zarah at 8:38 AM on January 12, 2006
Yeah, I'm the only one in the province who didn't like Mike Harris. That's my mindless ideological blindness for you. posted by Hildegarde at 8:46 AM on January 12, 2006
It's not Mike Harris. I don't know much about him, but if he's anything like Gordon Campbell in B.C., I wouldn't like him either.
It's the Liberal Party of Canada. And not just you, it is everyone in this thread who said " What Hildegarde said. "
Honestly, given Paul Martin's record over the past 18 months and the past 30 days, and the Liberal Party's record over the past 13 years, I can't comprehend how anyone could support them.
There's plenty of alternatives out there. NDP, Conservative, Bloc, Green. The Liberals are unfit to govern. posted by angrybeaver at 8:59 AM on January 12, 2006
I'm an NDP voter. So stop with the accusations already, Jesus.
But I know the NDP aren't going to win, so I'd prefer to have a Liberal government with a strong NDP in opposition. The Conversatives make my skin crawl. I don't think this is ideological blindness. Stephen Harper considers me, as a lesbian, a second class citizen. There is no way in hell I will support a party that wants to treat me that way. I would consider resting at ease with a Progressive Conservative government led by someone like Joe Clark. There's a man with integrity. But this party? No way. If get a majority I will have to start looking at my options and join the brain drain out of here. posted by Hildegarde at 9:15 AM on January 12, 2006
given [...] Liberal Party's record over the past 13 years, I can't comprehend how anyone could support them. [...] The Liberals are unfit to govern.
I have yet to see evidence of this, to be honest. I don't like the Liberal party, but we have the lowest unemployment in three decades, we went from having the second worst G7 debt-to-GDP ratio to the best debt-to-GDP -- that's staggering. They paid it down from 68.4% to 38.7% -- in addition to being the only G7 nation to post a surplus last year.
That is the very definition of a fit governance record. posted by Jairus at 9:52 AM on January 12, 2006
...for the sake of comparison -- if the Liberal Government was our accountant, and they saved us $63,000 over the past dozen years, Adscam would be equivalent to them charging us $100 for work they didn't actually do. posted by Jairus at 10:10 AM on January 12, 2006
If [the Conservatives] get a majority I will have to start looking at my options and join the brain drain out of here. - Hildegarde
Again, I hear this idea and I wonder where you're planning to escape to. Bush's US of A? Castro's Cuba? posted by raedyn at 10:20 AM on January 12, 2006
I wish I had more time to reply, but alas I must earn my paycheque. But I will return to this thread around 6pm PST.
But before I leave, a little bit of gasoline:
Hildegard, I strongly believe that the Charter will protect your rights, no matter who forms the government. Having said that, the Liberals should have invoked the notwithstanding clause when the Supreme Court made their decision on gay marriage. That would have given the country time to take a step back and decide the best route of action to protect the interests of all Canadians.
Jairus, the Liberals reduced the deficit on the back of the provinces. That is why Mike Harris had to do the things that he did. And Adscam is only the tip of the iceburg - it's not just $250 million that was stolen - the true amount is in the billions of dollars. posted by angrybeaver at 10:23 AM on January 12, 2006
angrybeaver: It wasn't $250 million. It was $100 million of a $250 sponsorship budget. Additionally, the provinces are doing fine:
If you have evidence that the Liberals stole billions of dollars, I can put you in touch with a judge who would be very interested to hear it. posted by Jairus at 10:26 AM on January 12, 2006
Also: Harris had to do what he did because he promised 14 BILLION DOLLARS in tax cuts to get elected, and didn't have the money to back it up when he took power. Not because of the big bad federal government. posted by Jairus at 10:29 AM on January 12, 2006
Yeah, for me, the graphs say it all. Someone in the Liberal party knows how to put togetehr a budget and do the right things for the economy. That person is probably Paul Martin.
This is why the original topic of my post pains me so... I'd be happy to vote for Paul Martin, but vote for Sam Bulte? Ugh. No. And she keeps digging her hole bigger every day. posted by GuyZero at 10:32 AM on January 12, 2006
Hildegard, I strongly believe that the Charter will protect your rights, no matter who forms the government. Having said that, the Liberals should have invoked the notwithstanding clause when the Supreme Court made their decision on gay marriage. That would have given the country time to take a step back and decide the best route of action to protect the interests of all Canadians. - angrybeaver
This doesn't make any sense. How can the charter be said to protect someone's rights if those rights are set aside under the notwithstanding clause? posted by raedyn at 11:05 AM on January 12, 2006
Mindless ideological blindness towards one's chosen political party. Nope.
Touchée!
Ontarians are famous for being the stupidest voters in the nation
According to who? Quebecers who vote for separatist parties federally and federalist parties provincially? I don't like this kind of statement. Revenge vote? What does that mean? The Harris platform was about a lot more than "welfare mothers", as the press liked to frame his welfare reforms. For instance, health and education, as has been discussed here, and job creation, fiscal responsibility, debt reduction, tax cuts, infrastructure improvement and government reform. Harper's platform is similarly about a lot more that gay marriage. Check their website (or the links I provided). I can understand why one wouldn't want to vote for them on the strength (or lack thereof) of their platform - I'm no huge fan, but I cannot understand why one would be "terrified" of them or want to "flee the country". The are not Republicans. Not even close. Most democratic senators are much further to the right than Harper and his gang. Everyone needs to relax a little and stop buying into the Liberal scare tactics concerning the CPC and start judging their platform and policies on their own merits. The CPC is not suggesting anything other than not allowing the use of the word "marriage" in conjunction with same-sex unions. The benefits and rights enjoyed by same-sex couples would be identical to those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. You can agree or disagree with this (and I happen to disagree), however it's a far cry from the subtle implied threats of a reduction in civil rights for gay people, or the conservative hatred for gays. Show me where the CPC has identified gaymen, lesbians or anyone as a "second class citizen".
What do people think about proposed CPC tax legislation encouraging the construction of low-income housing? What about the child care credit to all families? What about the proposed revamping of the immigrant education recognition system? What about their proposed cuts to the GST and the capital gains tax? What about their support of parents adopting foreign children and making them automatic citizens, or cutting the right of landing fee in half? What about their fisheries plans? What about their plans to strengthen Canadian presence in the Arctic? What about their proposed democratic reforms?
Does none of this matter when it comes to federal elections anymore, just the leader's out of context quotes about gay marriage and the US?
How can the charter be said to protect someone's rights if those rights are set aside under the notwithstanding clause?
There are a great many "rights" that the charter "grants" us that are stripped away by law or court decision without the use of the notwithstanding clause. All that needs to be shown is that the abrogation of a given right is for the greater good, to put it simply. Like the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure - anybody been stopped by RIDE lately? The notwithstanding clause isn't going anywhere until the process for amending the constitution is actually realistic, rather than the absolute disaster that it is today. posted by loquax at 11:16 AM on January 12, 2006
An interesting take on the election as a whole from the Toronto Star:
So Liberals who foolishly believed they could fight and win this election the way they fought and won the last must now stop the erosion of core support and find the energy to soldier through 11 difficult days.
How else to explain the sudden preoccupation with Toronto and what should be safe Liberal seats? By spending time where they are strongest, Liberals are repeating the Conservatives' damaging 2004 retreat to rock solid Alberta. posted by loquax at 11:46 AM on January 12, 2006
What do people think about proposed CPC tax legislation encouraging the construction of low-income housing?
Weak, especially compared to the active and sustainable stance taken by the NDP. Passive incentive for the free market is not enough.
What about the child care credit to all families?
Worthless. $1200 to each child is a waste of money. The government has the capacity to make much better use of money to provide bulk services than any consumer does. Throwing billions of dollars in $1200 parcels will not have nearly the positive effect that using billions of dollars to provide sustainable child care would.
What about the proposed revamping of the immigrant education recognition system?
Perhaps the single positive light in the policy. The NDP also promise reforms.
What about their proposed cuts to the GST and the capital gains tax?
Horrible ideas which primarily benefit financially secure citizens with large disposable incomes.
What about their support of parents adopting foreign children and making them automatic citizens, or cutting the right of landing fee in half?
The NDP and Liberals will cut the landing fee entirely. The NDP will also allow sponsorship for automatic citizenship.
What about their fisheries plans?
Weak. Their capital gains deferral program affects only commercial fishermen, and pales in comparison to the Liberal's capital gains tax exemption extended to all fishers.
What about their plans to strengthen Canadian presence in the Arctic?
Any potential benefits are outweighed by the proposed "Canada First" defence policy.
What about their proposed democratic reforms?
Weak. They promised to "consider" STV and proportional representation, while the NDP promise to implement. posted by Jairus at 12:10 PM on January 12, 2006
Jairus, I have a pretty graph too:
It's easy to hack away at the debt when one offloads spending onto the provinces and increases the tax burden through tax bracket creep.
Also, which judge would be interested in the theft of taxpayer money? Justice Gomery would not be interested as the terms of his inquiry were restricted to a very narrow time frame that conveniently excluded Paul Martin and Earnscliffe.
Once again, Adscam is only the tip of a very very large iceberg. If you think only $100m was stolen from the taxpayer, you are sadly deluded. The auditor-general, Sheila Fraser reported that the government violated just about every rule in the book in the HRDC scandal which has not been investigated. The gun registry had a $2b cost overrun, and there is some funny stuff going on there too.
The Liberals have also squirrelled away over $10b of taxpayer in multiple foundations such as Technology Partnerships Canada. That itself is not an issue, but I find it very disturbing that the monies are beyond the oversight of Parliament and the auditor-general. posted by angrybeaver at 12:36 PM on January 12, 2006
Jarius: I don't entirely disagree with you (especially about the GST cut, which I strongly oppose) - I'm just sorry that these issues are generally not discussed and voted upon while image and trivialities generally are. Like scary pictures, vague accusations, weapons in space, and proposed changes to the charter that are impossible to implement.
I don't think many people in Canada would have been as well prepared as you to contrast CPC proposals with those of the other parties or even comment at all - not a good thing at all for our country, no matter who wins the election. posted by loquax at 12:39 PM on January 12, 2006
Jarius: $1200 to each child is a waste of money. The government has the capacity to make much better use of money to provide bulk services than any consumer does. Throwing billions of dollars in $1200 parcels will not have nearly the positive effect that using billions of dollars to provide sustainable child care would.
Yeah, those parents are just going to waste it on beer and popcorn.
If a parent is unable to find a job that earns enough money to pay for daycare, then he/she is better off staying home and taking care of the kids. posted by angrybeaver at 12:40 PM on January 12, 2006
I agree with angrybeaver about that though - creating another giant federal program is not the answer. Why government would be in the business of providing daycare is beyond me. posted by loquax at 12:43 PM on January 12, 2006
Why the government would be in the busines of providing educationpensionshealthcare daycare is beyond me.
... While I would much rather have a national discussion on why families need two incomes to provide what used to be attainable with one, as it stands with our current economy this is something that would benefit Canadian families enough that it's worth doing.
$1200, on the other hand, won't pay for a babysitter for one day a week. It's not enough for families who can't afford childcare, and is a lovely little bribe for those that don't need the money for their kids' care.
I thought social credit died long ago .What gives? posted by Space Coyote at 12:54 PM on January 12, 2006
Yeah, those parents are just going to waste it on beer and popcorn.
If a parent is unable to find a job that earns enough money to pay for daycare, then he/she is better off staying home and taking care of the kids
I agree. Hence why I think the government should create a program to subsidize stay-at-home parents instead of blowing it on credits. posted by Jairus at 12:55 PM on January 12, 2006
If the Conservatives get a slight majority, I don't think it'll had mattered if Parkdale-High Park switched from Liberal to NDP. Voting NDP only benefits the Conservatives when it splits the vote against them and gives them a win, right?
Actually I'd like to second what clevershark said.
The Liberals are falling apart, full stop. The more NDPers in there the better, because I'd rather see a stillborn Conservative minority taken down after a year (it happened to Joe Clark) by the NDP and the Liberals than just the Liberals, who are slowly becoming indistinguishable from the Tories anyway.
Harper can't govern. Has anyone actually heard any realistic policy come from this man's mouth? If he wins it's not because people want him, but because they don't want Martin.
I figure two things can happen. The Conservatives will actually manage to get their shit together (seems unlikely) in which case, worried Canadians will get their shit together in response. On the other hand, they will crumble under their own weight. Either way, things are looking up for the NDP, a fact which might push the Liberals who are in power to run to the left.
Why the government would be in the business of providing education pensions healthcare daycare is beyond me.
Now we're talking! Well, except for maybe pre-university education and some healthcare. If the government is going to run daycare, why not an airline? Or a chain of gas stations? Or beer and liquor stores?
The price of nationalized child care will be paid, one way or another. Is it really better to (yet again) increase or maintain an unnecessary tax burden to fund (another) bloated federal program in order to provide a service that the private sector can provide more efficiently, given perhaps government aid, tax credits, subsidies, or regulation? I'm not saying the CPC plan is flawless, but I'm sure the Liberal plan is a) never going to happen as it's an empty election promise, b) a huge mistake if it does, and one we'll pay for for generations. posted by loquax at 1:10 PM on January 12, 2006
I also live in her riding and it's the primary reason why I'm not voting Liberal in this election. As much as a minority Conservative government scares me, this is one issue that I will not waiver on and my vote is (like usual) going NDP.
I will also be informing Sam tonight as to why am I not voting for her party.
The second debate for that riding is tonight. posted by purephase at 1:13 PM on January 12, 2006
RUHHH?? Beer and popcorn is not a strawman. People make much better choices for themselves than any government ever could. posted by angrybeaver at 1:18 PM on January 12, 2006
Something new to add to the Bulte saga: A bouncy video where Bulte says her actions are transparent, she is fighting for the rights of artists and she "I will not allow Michael Geist and his pro-user zealots, and Electronic Frontier Foundation members to intimidate me into silencing my voice."*
btw, GuyZero the issue of Sam Bulte's campaign contributions has been covered by the CTV, CBC, Maclean's and a google news search brings up some more (mostly from the usual suspects: p2pnet and digitalcopyright.ca but there are others)
*what the american eff.org is doing in Canada's copyright reform playground, I haven't a clue. posted by squeak at 1:23 PM on January 12, 2006
It's the literal definition of a strawman.
You took my argument (government has greater purchasing power), distorted it (families make poor choices), and then attacked it ("People make much better choices for themselves than any government ever could.")
The most amazing part is you don't even see it. posted by Jairus at 1:24 PM on January 12, 2006
to provide a service that the private sector can provide more efficiently, given perhaps government aid, tax credits, subsidies, or regulation?
Anything can be more efficient if you offload externalites like inspections and regulation onto governments.
RUHHH?? Beer and popcorn is not a strawman. People make much better choices for themselves than any government ever could.
Except for the ones that don't. posted by Space Coyote at 1:26 PM on January 12, 2006
Except for the ones that don't.
Zing! posted by Jairus at 1:30 PM on January 12, 2006
Apologies to GuyZero for continuing to derail his thread.
Every one of us needs to make our Members of Parliament accountable to their constituents and to the country. Their expenses and campaign donations need to be scrutinized.
We should not have to trust our MPs. I don't trust my Member of Parliament. I don't trust Harper. I don't trust Martin. We need strong laws and transparency so that we don't need to trust them.
When Bulte accepts donations from entities with a vested interest, when the finance minister meets with brokers over income trusts, when Paul Martin's CSL blind trust is not so blind, democracy is damaged.
On preview: Space Coyote - yes people also make bad decisions. That is their choice - it is a free country. But don't force me to pay for their bad decisions. posted by angrybeaver at 1:31 PM on January 12, 2006
But don't force me to pay for their bad decisions.
Great, you're also coming out against social credit bribes instead of a useful solution, good to see you've come around. posted by Space Coyote at 1:33 PM on January 12, 2006
Jairus, just because the government has economies of scale does not mean that they know what is best for our kids.
I would love to continue the debate, but work beckons. Regards. posted by angrybeaver at 1:34 PM on January 12, 2006
Space coyote, it is a tough balancing act. The social credit bribe is cheaper than nationalized daycare, so I do prefer that. We shouldn't be paying people to have kids.
On the other hand, there is a benefit to society to encourage reproduction to fight our declining birth rates, so yeah, maybe we do need those social credit bribes. posted by angrybeaver at 1:37 PM on January 12, 2006
... A bribe that isn't enough money to realisticalyly help anyone pay for childcare. Ideology aside, a useless program is a useless program. posted by Space Coyote at 1:43 PM on January 12, 2006
Now we're talking! Well, except for maybe pre-university education and some healthcare. If the government is going to run daycare, why not an airline? Or a chain of gas stations? Or beer and liquor stores?
Because the government is there to supply goods and services for which the supply is low, even when the demand is high. Or to reduce the cost of goods or services by spreading their cost across the largest possible user base (the whole country). Plus the government runs services not-for-profit, presumably further lowering the cost.
But the issue with child care has little to do with the most economically efficient way to deliver a service. The program is an incentive to get more people into the workforce. Many, many government programs try to incent people to do higher-productivity activity. We subsidize university so we have more high-productivity white collar workers instead of low-productivity miners. Taxes favour working couples over couples where one partner stays at home (deductibility of child care expenses, etc) because it's supposed to be an incentive to get more people in the workforce.
If 5% of stay-at-home parents go back to work because of a government childcare program, I imagine the program would be considered a success, regardless of whether it's more or less efficient than private childcare.
And angrybeaver, the point of my post was to derail MeFi from the usual flood of tedious, US-centric political wrangling. I'd have twenty posts like this on the front page if I could get away with it. posted by GuyZero at 1:46 PM on January 12, 2006
Is the incentive to get more stay at home parents into the workforce really that straightforwardly seen as universally good?
I think I'm turning into a conservative, but that sounds kind of creepily institutional. posted by Space Coyote at 1:57 PM on January 12, 2006
The point of childcare is not to get more people into the workforce. Most parents have no choice but to work for a living, and a thousand bucks is not going to change that. Even a subsidy for stay-at-home parents isn't going to help a single mother pay her rent and buy groceries, unless we call this subsidy "welfare".
We need a national childcare program to give people some basic choices.
And excuse me, angrybeaver, I'm not really happy to sit around and wait for a bunch of homophobic fucks to decide whether or not they want me to have the same rights they have. Unless you don't mind waiting through another 12 years of Liberal rule while we decide what's best for you. posted by Hildegarde at 2:30 PM on January 12, 2006
I'm sorry to bring this up again but you keep referencing it - why do you call the CPC "a bunch of homophobic fucks"?. What evidence do you have to support your assertion? I can tell you that I am a member of the party and I am the furthest thing from homophobic. I also have worked on various PC, Reform, CA and CPC campaigns, as well as provincial PC campaigns alongside many gay and lesbian volunteers. Are there people in the party that may be privately "homophobic"? Probably. Are there CPC voters that are "homophobic"? Certainly. I think you could say the same for all parties. Show me in the party platform where the CPC indicates its consideration of homosexuals as "second-class citizens" and where it expresses its homophobia. Show me when and where Harper has done something similar. Until then you're disparaging a great number of people, straight and gay who support the party despite their stance on the "marriage vs. civil union" debate. After all, I wouldn't call NDP supporters a bunch of theives because of the actions of Svend Robinson, or Liberal supporters Marxist-Leninists because of their intention to nationalize a private business in a narrow area of their policy intentions. posted by loquax at 2:53 PM on January 12, 2006
How about "A bunch of panderers to homophobic fucks."
What the hell is CPC? posted by Hildegarde at 3:10 PM on January 12, 2006
Stephen Harper is the only one who wants to revisit gay marriage. And why? Because he's a homophobic fuck, and the conservative party supporters wanted him as their leader. I have no problem calling the entire party homophobic. If you're not prepared to stand up for my civil rights, I'm going to call'em like I see'em. posted by Hildegarde at 3:13 PM on January 12, 2006
Most parents have no choice but to work for a living, and a thousand bucks is not going to change that. - Hildegarde
Ding! Exactly. posted by raedyn at 3:34 PM on January 12, 2006
What the hell is CPC? - Hildegarde
Conservative Party of Canada. posted by raedyn at 3:42 PM on January 12, 2006
To judge from this video of an alleged Conservative candidate linked in the latest entry on Rick Mercer's blog, Hildegarde might not be all that far off. It may seem unfair, but I do have trouble imagining a reason that could motivate anyone, if not for their being a "homophobic fuck", to feel so strongly against gay marriage as to make it an election issue.
"We cannot change the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage has been
in place since Adam and Eve. That's about 6000 years ago for those who might not
be aware." - Rondo Thomas, Conservative candidate (Ajax-Pickering) posted by sfenders at 3:45 PM on January 12, 2006
Everything else aside, there is a world of difference between defining "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman while supporting full and equal rights for same sex couples without the title, and "homophobia", "suppression of civil rights" and "treating homosexuals as second class citizens". If there is to be a serious political dialogue on this subject, both sides will have to be mature about it and not ascribe motivations to the opposite side that do not exist. I see your comments, Hildegarde, as the exact opposite of the kind of rhetoric from some (not, as far as I know, in the CPC) that allege a vast "gay agenda" that somehow intends to subvert "traditional values". Both trains of thought are destructive. The last I'll say on the subject. posted by loquax at 4:11 PM on January 12, 2006
When Harper announced a $1k/year subsidy for daycare, I thought he must have been tripping hard. One thousand dollars a year. For a child who'll require over 200 days of the year in daycare. Even in the heavily-subsidized Quebec system ($7 a day daycare) that would only cover 142 days. For people who have only two weeks' vacation a year (common) that barely clears the mid-year mark.
This must be the Harper "golden formula" -- make sure it still costs the taxpayers something, and yet make nobody happy.
Given a majority I fully expect Harper and the Cons to invoke the notwithstanding clause to forbid gay marriages once more, because that's exactly the sort of progressive thinking you'd expect from the likes of Rondo Thomas, Art Hanger and Myron Thompson. posted by clevershark at 4:16 PM on January 12, 2006
there is a world of difference between defining "marriage" as the union between a man and a woman while supporting full and equal rights for same sex couples without the title, and "homophobia", "suppression of civil rights" and "treating homosexuals as second class citizens".
Straight people may marry. When gay people may not, that's a textbook example of treating homosexuals as second class citizens.
I don't know how you can *not* see that. posted by clevershark at 4:18 PM on January 12, 2006
the kind of rhetoric from some (not, as far as I know, in the CPC) that allege a vast "gay agenda" that somehow intends to subvert "traditional values".
Not in the CPC? So, you didn't watch the video, then. That he isn't kicked out of the party for that kind of talk is just ridiculous. The "homosexuality is evil" vibe isn't even the worst thing about it. The "6000 years" remark puts him beyond homophobia and well into insanity. Not even my extremely conservative grandmother would think this guy was anything but a raving lunatic. Very sad indeed that Harper and the CPC are trying to placate people like this with promises to revisit the gay marriage thing, rather than completely disowning them as decency would demand. posted by sfenders at 4:23 PM on January 12, 2006
Clevershark, what is marriage? Is it not a set of rights a legal obligations and privileges bestowed upon two people? Is the CPC suggesting a difference in those rights and obligations depending on the sexual preferences of those entering into a union? Not as far as I know. The only difference is the terminology. Straight people marry, gay people enter into an identical civil union. I disagree with this, and would prefer that marriage be extended (if only to end the debate), but I cannot understand how this can be viewed as a "gay rights" issue. All of the rights and privileges of marriage will be available to same-sex couples under a CPC government, as far as I know. If this is not the case, I will publicly retract my support of the party. Live. On Metafilter.
sfenders, I can't watch the video - is that all he says about it? Does he say that homosexuals should not be able to enter into identical civil unions? Does he say that homosexuality is a sin and should be illegal? Does he say that he hates gay people for the second class citizens they are? If he does, he should be banned from the party, and if not, I will again, reconsider my support. If he is expressing his honest belief, even if it comes from his religion (which is a protected right under the charter, under which he cannot be discriminated against), that the word "marriage" should be reserved for men and women, then I will respectfully disagree with his opinion and not let it cloud my opinion of the rest of the party and their platform, though I personally would likely not vote for him. posted by loquax at 4:39 PM on January 12, 2006
For the benefit of those that don't click through to the article:
"The Liberal government signed an international agreement that touches on provincial jurisdiction — without consulting the provinces," he said.
"The result is that the government was incapable — and remains incapable — of meeting its obligations."
While Kyoto calls for a six per cent cut in emissions by 2012, Canada's have actually risen about 24 per cent since 1990. The country's record is even worse than the U.S., which never ratified the agreement.
Environmentalists have harshly criticized Canada's performance on climate change. But many still believe the country still has a slim hope of meeting its commitment — especially if it purchases clean-air credits from other countries.
"The government of Canada has never had a plan to achieve the objectives under this accord. What we're going to do is obviously proceed with what we can do in developing a real plan in collaboration with our provinces," Harper said.
"That's the only realistic way of proceeding." posted by loquax at 4:42 PM on January 12, 2006
If it's exactly the same thing, why does it need a special term? posted by Hildegarde at 4:44 PM on January 12, 2006
loquax - no, he never specifically mentions homosexuality at all, in fact. He just goes on about the war he's waging on behalf of Righteousness against "immorality". Suggests that homosexual marriage would lead to the end of procreation, and constitution.some unspecified future things that would be even worse.
Anyway, if gay marriage wasn't an issue of civil rights, then it wouldn't involve the charter. posted by sfenders at 4:45 PM on January 12, 2006
Sorry, here it is:
"We are committed to this war, to win it,
and we're going to win it for righteousness and for morality in our society
There is going to be a clash of morality view between those who believe in
righteousness, and those who believe in immorality, and when they collide, there
is going to be conflict.
We are engaging the enemy today. We are going to win this battle. It doesn't
matter what the media says, it doesn't matter what the government says. The facts
don't count. We are going to win this conflict.
We cannot change the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage has been
in place since Adam and Eve. That's about 6000 years ago for those who might not
be aware." posted by sfenders at 4:47 PM on January 12, 2006
If it's exactly the same thing, why does it need a special term?
Tradition? The same reason we have separate washrooms for males and females? The same reason common-law marriage has a different designation from marriage? Religious reasons? I don't know, a combination of the above? Like I said, I don't agree with it either, but I can understand how people have a particular association with a word and what it entails, and the word marriage has always been associated with the union between a man and a woman. Stupid and silly, if you ask me, but I would say the same about the fixation on the word from the other side on the issue. 10-1 that within 10-20 years, no matter what the legal designation is, everyone will be calling it marriage anyways. I do it now.
Anyway, if gay marriage wasn't an issue of civil rights, then it wouldn't involve the charter.
As far as I know, the only reason it involves the charter is because of religion, not as a individual rights issue. There is no mention in the charter of homosexual rights, or even defining sexual preference as a prohibited ground of discrimination - although it has been read in by the SCC. The issue as I recall with gay marriage is that there was a theoretical challenge brought against gay marriage legislation that claimed that the government was trampling on religious rights by forcing churches to marry same-sex couples. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that this is a straightforward charter issue, only a roundabout attempt to block gay marriage. posted by loquax at 4:56 PM on January 12, 2006
Um, I've no idea about the legal issues really, but it was my understanding that they would need to invoke the "notwithstanding clause" to put an end to same-sex marriage, which would imply that there is more to it than that. Personally, I think you're right that it's stupid and silly to spend time fighting about it as a political issue. Marriage is not something the government should be involved in at all. They may as well be debating whether the catholic church is right about transubstantiation. It's bizarre. posted by sfenders at 5:08 PM on January 12, 2006
I agree. It's completely bizarre. And it gives me hives that it's coming up again. posted by Hildegarde at 5:13 PM on January 12, 2006
loquax: Paul Martin states very clearly that it is a charter issue:
"The second argument ventured by opponents of the [same-sex marriage] bill is that government ought to hold a national referendum on this issue. I reject this - not out of a disregard for the view of the people, but because it offends the very purpose of the Charter.
The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.
[...]
Third, some have counseled the government to extend to gays and lesbians the right to "civil union." This would give same-sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, but their relationships would not legally be considered marriage. In other words, they would be equal, but not quite as equal as the rest of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the courts have clearly and consistently ruled that this option would offend the equality provisions of the Charter. For instance, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that, and I quote "Marriage is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships ...falls short of true equality.
[...]
Will you use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the definition of civil marriage and deny to Canadiansa right guaranteed under the Charter?
[...]
But much has changed since that day. We've heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We've come to the realization that instituting civil unions - adopting a "separate but equal" approach - would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We've confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms.
And so where does that leave us? It leaves us staring in the face of the Charter of Rights with but a single decision to make Do we abide by the Charter and protect minority rights, or do we not? posted by Jairus at 5:14 PM on January 12, 2006
Rondo Thomas sucks. But that video was shot before he was an official candidate for the CPC. And there are a lot of distasteful candidates (like the corrupt Liberal that we started discussing here, or for that matter, the smuggling conservative in BC). The US evangelical movement has been spending a lot of time and money in Canada trying to elect both Liberal and CPC candidates. I don't like it. I don't like Thomas. But he won the nomination. And his individual opinions don't reflect in any way the position of the party, or the policies that the party would put in place. For what it's worth, among the people I work with, I can tell you that there would be a revolt if the party were elected and did anything to abrogate gay rights or limit the extent of same sex partnerships the way I described. If they tried, count on never seeing a CPC government again (at least until this issue is dead and buried).
I was not aware of this though, and how forceful he was in pushing his (single issue) agenda. I'll talk to some people and see if I can find anything else out about what the party line is about him. Without knowing more, I don't like him, and I don't want him in my party or representing me in government, but I don't know what one can do in a situation like this without totally subverting grassroots democracy.
As for the notwithstanding clause, to be honest, I have no idea how it's proposed to be used with respect to gay marriage. As far as I know, the SCC has ruled that the definition of marriage falls under the domain of the federal government, invalidating any provincial legislation that sought to define same-sex and straight marriages differently (like in Alberta, but the two were still equal). Therefore it's on the federal parliament to make law defining marriage however they like, or repealing past legislation and creating a new definition - remember, there is no charter right to marriage, and no charter rights specifically for homosexuals. If they have the power to do so, then the use of the notwithstanding clause is unnecessary, unless it is intended to insulate the legislation against future theoretical charter challenges. So it would serve to pass legislation notwithstanding a charter right that doesn't yet exist, if that makes sense. Unless I misunderstand, but I don't think I do. posted by loquax at 5:19 PM on January 12, 2006
...and on the topic of conservative wackos:
Darrel Reid, the party's candidate in Richmond, B.C., is a past president of Focus on the Family.
Cindy Silver, who will run for the Tories in North Vancouver, was the executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship for two years in the 1990s.
Dr. Thomas (Ajax) is a top official with the Canada Christian College, which is run by Charles McVety, a senior director of the Defend Marriage Coalition.
David Sweet, candidate for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, is the former President & CEO of Promise Keepers Canada,
"Rondo Thomas beat former Conservative MP René Soetens for the nomination in Ajax, on the eastern edge of Toronto.
"The Defend Marriage Coalition engaged in a concerted effort to help pro-marriage candidates become nominated," Dr. McVety said.
"There is a desire to see pro-marriage nominees as candidates right across the country. We know that we have 141 pro-marriage MPs now and our hope is to achieve a pro-marriage Parliament."
The Conservative Policy Convention in 2005 stated "A Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion."
The Globe and Mail, however, reports "A backbench member of Parliament would likely introduce anti-abortion legislation if the Conservatives form the next government, the party's president said.
"When we form a government, we can be rest assured that there will be a private member's bill on this," Don Plett wrote in an e-mail in November to a Conservative Party member in Quebec.
They make me sick. posted by Jairus at 5:20 PM on January 12, 2006
I posted before seeing what you wrote Jarius, I think Martin is overstating the case. The BC Court of Appeals in not the Supreme Court, and the Alberta courts have disagreed consistently. Martin is reading in a lot of undefined rights into the charter that as far as I know, are certainly not settled law. Defending the rights of minorities is certainly part of the spirit of the charter, but again, how does that extend to the terminology of two equal legal relationships?
We've come to the realization that instituting civil unions - adopting a "separate but equal" approach - would violate the equality provisions of the Charter.
I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about here. Maybe he's come to that realization, but the Supreme Court hasn't, as far as I'm aware. The equality provisions don't even recognize homosexuality as a prohibited ground of discrimination, to our shame. This is really campaign rhetoric, and not a legal argument. posted by loquax at 5:26 PM on January 12, 2006
Paul Martin has been saying the same thing the whole time. This isn't election rhetoric. That's the Liberal platform in and out of an election. posted by Hildegarde at 5:27 PM on January 12, 2006
This is really campaign rhetoric, and not a legal argument.
Christ. This is a parliamentary speech from February 2005. posted by Jairus at 5:28 PM on January 12, 2006
Fine, then it's just plain rhetoric. Sorry. Sheesh. posted by loquax at 5:29 PM on January 12, 2006
Also: It's spelled Jairus. I can take a misspelling or two, but three a thread is where I draw the line. posted by Jairus at 5:29 PM on January 12, 2006
Sorry. posted by loquax at 5:30 PM on January 12, 2006
It's really good rhetoric, anyway. That was about the best speech I've heard from any Canadian politician. Thanks for the reminder, Jairus, that they do occasionally get things right. posted by sfenders at 5:37 PM on January 12, 2006
I was enjoying this thread until the "homophobic fuck" comment. That kind of gutter language is uncalled for.
I originally said:
Hildegard, I strongly believe that the Charter will protect your rights, no matter who forms the government. Having said that, the Liberals should have invoked the notwithstanding clause when the Supreme Court made their decision on gay marriage. That would have given the country time to take a step back and decide the best route of action to protect the interests of all Canadians.
It was cowardly of Paul Martin to ask the Supreme Court for a reference on gay marriage. We voted for and elected 308 MPs to debate and write legislation. It is not up to nine unelected justices to come up with new laws; their duty is to rule on the constitutionality of such legislation when and if it appears on their bench.
I fully agree that civil unions for gays and marriage for men and women is totally and blatantly unconstitutional. But we should have had the national debate about the definition of marriage and different options that would have satisified Canadians. Gay marriage is a fairly radical change in our society and it is extremely upsetting for some people. Those people should not be ignored.
But that debate was short-circuited because a cowardly Prime Minister did not want to stir up any controversy.
And it was not a free vote on the legislation. The vote was whipped. It should have been a free vote.
Subscribe
posted by GuyZero at 3:28 PM on January 11, 2006