NationStates Jolt Archive

WHY CANADIANS MUST REJECT HARPER:

On June 28, 2004, Canadians face a starker choice than in any election
in our lifetimes. Dissatisfaction with the years of Liberal government
is driving voters toward the "Conservative Party" and its new and
telegenic leader, Stephen Harper. With only weeks to go until election day,
we fear many members of the public will not have time to adequately assess the sharp and clear differences between the major parties.

In fact, the "Conservative Party" is not a known and trusted
alternative.

The Right Honourable Joe Clark, former Prime Minister and a life-long
member of the Progressive Conservative Party, made this clear when he
urged the Canadian public to choose Paul Martin over Harper. The
Harper agenda scares him. Many leading former Progressive Conservatives feel the same.

The party Harper leads has little in common with the former
Progressive Conservative Party. But there is a way that Canadians can learn more about Harper's mysterious party: We can look South, to George Bush and the U.S. Republican Party.

Like the Bush Republicans, the Harper Conservatives would take Canada
into dangerous territory:

Bush and Harper favour Canadian involvement in the illegal U.S.
attack on Iraq.

Bush and Harper would take Canada to deficits in order to pour
billions into the military. Bush has already taken the U.S. into trillions
of dollars of debt to fund militarism.

Bush and Harper deny the reality of climate change and the threat to
the whole planet, and especially Canada, from our continued reliance on
fossil fuels.

Bush and Harper reject the Kyoto Protocol. Harper has said he would
not implement this international treaty which Canada has already ratified.

Bush and Harper would change the protection of human rights enshrined
in our respective Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights. Harper has said
he would use the notwithstanding clause to prevent the equal application
of the marriage laws as they effect single-sex couples.

Bush and Harper would challenge a woman's right to choose. Harper
has said he would allow the issue of access to legal abortions to be
re-opened through an open vote in the House of Commons.

Bush was responsible for more executions than any other U.S. Governor
of recent times. Harper has suggested the prohibition of capital
punishment would be re-opened in Canada.

We must not sleep walk into electing a Canadian version of George W.
Bush.

Challenge Stephen Harper on these positions.

Harper tells Canadians we should "Demand Better." First, Canadians
must "Demand the truth" about the new Canadian Republican Party,
masquerading as the Conservative Party of Canada.

We do not have much time.

If they wanted to learn about this "mysterious" party, all they would have to do is simply read about Canadian politics in the last decade and pick up on something called the Canadian Alliance.

I completely agree. And yet, I dont want four more years of Liberal Party corruption. I might well do something I never would have done before: vote Bloc Quebecois, even if, in my mind, it is the same as not voting at all.

They named themselves the Conservative Party of Canada, people aren't voting based on a name, they are voting based on the issues.

Left wing crap like this serves no purpose, and has nothing important in it. The conservative's don't lie about their platform, their stances on various issues is quite clear. There is no attempt at deception. The CPC is still far more left wing than the Republican party, so comparisons to the U.S. Republican party are either made out of desperation or ignorance.

The CPC does not claim to share the same policies as the old conservative party, so why do you make it seem like they do?

So what if Joe Clark and certain former members of the Conservative party dislike the CPC? They were left leaning conservative's clearly, so it only makes sense they would oppose a shift to more right wing politics.

Canadian troops have been in Iraq this whole time, but the Liberal government refuses to give them the proper funding or equipment necessary. Harper would fix that.

If you had any clue of what you were talking about rather than just reading liberal biased media, you would realize that Harper's spending plan on the military is far from "take Canada to deficits in order to pour billions into the military"

I suggest you try actually reading the platforms, perhaps watched the English debate (or French if you are in Quebec), AND ACTUALLY LEARN WHAT EACH OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR LEADERS STANDS FOR.

I won't touch the environmental issues, because I'm relatively leftist on environmental issues, however I still support the right, after all it's rare that one would agree with EVERY stance of a party.

Harper has stated that he would be willing to use the notwithstanding clause yes, but you have to realize something, IT WOULD BE OPEN TO A FREE VOTE IN PARLIAMENT. If a democratically elected parliament votes in a free vote within parliament to support or not to support it. If you would refuse this, then you do not support democracy, and I suggest you move to another nation where there is no democracy. A free vote also means that if gay marriage is given the thumbs up by parliament, Harper will not stop it. Capisci?

As to a woman's right to choose, why should a woman have the right to choose what happens to the child, and will affect the father? Remember the father has no say in an abortion case. So basically you're saying it's okay to sacrifice a child's right to life, and a father's right to choose in regards to his child, solely for the sake of the woman? Do you really believe that a woman's choice is more important than a man's choice and a child's life?

What's wrong with capitol punishment?

Harper is not George Bush. They are both right wing politicians, true, but if that is all you're going by, you must theoretically believe ALL right wing politicians are nothing but versions of each other. Do you realize how ignorant that sounds?

Bush is an idiot, he knows nothing about foreign policy, he is stupid too, I mean he didn't even know the name of the Canadian prime minister (during the 2000 presidential election). That's the problem with Bush.

I'd to see you draw parallels theres to Harper (that wouldn't apply to Martin/Layton)

WHY CANADIANS MUST REJECT HARPER:

On June 28, 2004, Canadians face a starker choice than in any election
in our lifetimes. Dissatisfaction with the years of Liberal government
is driving voters toward the "Conservative Party" and its new and
telegenic leader, Stephen Harper. With only weeks to go until election day,
we fear many members of the public will not have time to adequately assess the sharp and clear differences between the major parties.

In fact, the "Conservative Party" is not a known and trusted
alternative.

The Right Honourable Joe Clark, former Prime Minister and a life-long
member of the Progressive Conservative Party, made this clear when he
urged the Canadian public to choose Paul Martin over Harper. The
Harper agenda scares him. Many leading former Progressive Conservatives feel the same.

The party Harper leads has little in common with the former
Progressive Conservative Party. But there is a way that Canadians can learn more about Harper's mysterious party: We can look South, to George Bush and the U.S. Republican Party.

Like the Bush Republicans, the Harper Conservatives would take Canada
into dangerous territory:

Bush and Harper favour Canadian involvement in the illegal U.S.
attack on Iraq.

Bush and Harper would take Canada to deficits in order to pour
billions into the military. Bush has already taken the U.S. into trillions
of dollars of debt to fund militarism.

Bush and Harper deny the reality of climate change and the threat to
the whole planet, and especially Canada, from our continued reliance on
fossil fuels.

Bush and Harper reject the Kyoto Protocol. Harper has said he would
not implement this international treaty which Canada has already ratified.

Bush and Harper would change the protection of human rights enshrined
in our respective Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights. Harper has said
he would use the notwithstanding clause to prevent the equal application
of the marriage laws as they effect single-sex couples.

Bush and Harper would challenge a woman's right to choose. Harper
has said he would allow the issue of access to legal abortions to be
re-opened through an open vote in the House of Commons.

Bush was responsible for more executions than any other U.S. Governor
of recent times. Harper has suggested the prohibition of capital
punishment would be re-opened in Canada.

We must not sleep walk into electing a Canadian version of George W.
Bush.

Challenge Stephen Harper on these positions.

Harper tells Canadians we should "Demand Better." First, Canadians
must "Demand the truth" about the new Canadian Republican Party,
masquerading as the Conservative Party of Canada.

We do not have much time.
I think you forgot some very important issues that should be mentioned:

1. Separatists will feel a huge disassociation from the rest of Canada as a result of a Harper win.

2. Multiculturalism will suffer greatly.

3. Eastern Canada will be minimalized even further.

4. Our health care will move towards the highly unacceptable American standard with multi-tiered levels of health care dependent upon ability to pay.

It appears that Harper is headed for a least a minority government, and if that happens, he might pull a Joe Clark.

However, he is appealing for a majority and that would be a sad day for Canadians.

What gets me, is the many people in Ontario that are going to vote Conservative because of the Provincial Liberals budget. This kind of narrow thinking is scary and dangerous. But what the heck....que sera, sera.

NOTE: Harper said the "tax cut" would be a MODEST one which means DIDDLY SQUAT!!!!

We must vote Liberal despite our dismay with them, because for all their faults, at this time they are the only real choice.

To vote for Harper would be going into the abyss of the unknown, this party has never won any thing.. it is not smart to vote for a party with no time tested policy. Lets remember this is not the old conservative party, this is a new party who has not been tested at all. I don't want us walking into an un-tested time, not at this time in history, it's way too dangerous.

According to the article you posted, it seems like you know exactly what they're going to do. At least if you believe what the article says.

What's wrong with capitol punishment?

I suppose you are too self important or have never heard of Steven Truscott or Donald Marshall?

Reluctant Hero: The Donald Marshall Story

http://www.cbc.ca/lifeandtimes/marshall.html

The name Donald Marshall is almost synonymous with "wrongful conviction" and the fight for native justice in Canada. But few people know the man behind the name. Marshall was just 17 years old when he received a life sentence for a murder he did not commit. His ordeal in prison and beyond turned him into a reluctant hero. From a Royal Commission to the Supreme Court, Marshall has lent his name to further the cause of his people. But in return, who has Donald Marshall become? This is the deeply personal story of a man struggling to find out.

Marshall served 11 years in prison before the truth finally came to light. In the end, a Royal Commission concluded that the criminal justice system had failed Donald Marshall Jr. at every turn. Reluctant Hero: The Donald Marshall Story examines the life of a man who finds himself still at the mercy of that system, even today.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

Vote against capital punishment...........any party but Harper Conservatives.

According to the article you posted, it seems like you know exactly what they're going to do. At least if you believe what the article says.

The question Canadians need to ask themselves is do we want a Canadian verion of GW Bush in this country.. I say that the majority if they knew, we sound a resounding NO!

Like thoughtless lemmings, Ontarians are rushing to vote for Harper without serious thoughts of the consequences.

Ontarians' only thought seems to be "Let's spank The Liberals" - nothing else. This is just so short-sighted and stupid.

No matter how "corrupt" the Liberals might have been in the past, their government is truly going to seem like The Good Old Days after a couple of years of Harper's slash & burn.

If the Conservatives get elected, guaranteed it will be only for one term. But why do we want to put ourselves through 4 years of national wreckage, then a couple more when the Liberals come back and have to give us all tough medicine to clean up the certain Harper mess?

I hope & pray that Ontarians will soon wake up and realize what a silly mistake they're about to make - like they did with Mulroney 20 years ago.

Give the Conservatives a go. You'll like 'em.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

That is what's wrong with the Canadian criminal justice system, not capital punishment.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

That is what's wrong with the Canadian criminal justice system, not capital punishment.
This is coming from an American? The US has the highest per capita jail population in the world, and has routinely put innocents to death. I think the Canadian system is great just the way it is.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

That is what's wrong with the Canadian criminal justice system, not capital punishment.

You seem to be unaware that the United States is one of the last "civilized" countries in the world to still embrace this obvious breach of human rights.

...

Maybe someday we'll annex you guys and all this tiresome squabbling will become meaningless.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

That is what's wrong with the Canadian criminal justice system, not capital punishment.
This is coming from an American? The US has the highest per capita jail population in the world, and has routinely put innocents to death. I think the Canadian system is great just the way it is.
So because one country has a worse system means that you can excuse your own country's fault?

Thats almost as bad as saying that we shouldn't have taken our Saddam because there were other guys doing bad stuff, too. Bad things don't excuse more bad things.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

That is what's wrong with the Canadian criminal justice system, not capital punishment.

You seem to be unaware that the United States is one of the last "civilized" countries in the world to still embrace this obvious breach of human rights.
If your definition comes from Amnesty Libernational, your right.

Some of us don't think that death penalty = no human rights, though.

Like thoughtless lemmings, Ontarians are rushing to vote for Harper without serious thoughts of the consequences.

Ontarians' only thought seems to be "Let's spank The Liberals" - nothing else. This is just so short-sighted and stupid.

No matter how "corrupt" the Liberals might have been in the past, their government is truly going to seem like The Good Old Days after a couple of years of Harper's slash & burn.

If the Conservatives get elected, guaranteed it will be only for one term. But why do we want to put ourselves through 4 years of national wreckage, then a couple more when the Liberals come back and have to give us all tough medicine to clean up the certain Harper mess?

I hope & pray that Ontarians will soon wake up and realize what a silly mistake they're about to make - like they did with Mulroney 20 years ago.
I would take Muldoon over this sorry lot of Harper lead Alliance Party hacks, and believe you me that is saying a lot.

Just over a year ago, they fully backed the leader of the day STOCKWELL DAY!! The NEW Conservative party is really the Reform Conservative Alliance.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

That is what's wrong with the Canadian criminal justice system, not capital punishment.
This is coming from an American? The US has the highest per capita jail population in the world, and has routinely put innocents to death. I think the Canadian system is great just the way it is.
So because one country has a worse system means that you can excuse your own country's fault?

Thats almost as bad as saying that we shouldn't have taken our Saddam because there were other guys doing bad stuff, too. Bad things don't excuse more bad things.

Well, not unlike your elections coming up in Nov. is it not a case of voting for the lessor evil? I believe it is.. so is the case in Canada.. I think I'll stick to the devil I know, then the one I don't.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

That is what's wrong with the Canadian criminal justice system, not capital punishment.
This is coming from an American? The US has the highest per capita jail population in the world, and has routinely put innocents to death. I think the Canadian system is great just the way it is.
So because one country has a worse system means that you can excuse your own country's fault?

Thats almost as bad as saying that we shouldn't have taken our Saddam because there were other guys doing bad stuff, too. Bad things don't excuse more bad things.

I think you clearly missed the point. While the Canadian justice system is not perfect, it does ok. The good thing is that when we do make mistakes, at least we don't make another mistake and execute the wrong person.

IMHO the US justice system is also badly flawed and as a result innocent people are put to death. Clean up your own backyard before you throw your junk in ours.

Don't get me started on Iraq....another fine example of US mistakes.

Wow.. so much Liberal fear mongering.. so little time to refute it all.

Simply put the answer to your questions lies in a few short explanations

1. Harper has never opened the issue of a woman's right to choose, bilingualism, capital punishment, gay marriage, etc... He proposes that instead of having a clear government stance on any social issue, that instead the individual MPs would be allowed to vote their conscience on the issue (horror! MPs being allowed to vote the way they think is right? unthinkable!).

The comments you refer to are comments either embellished by left wing news sources or are from Conservative candidates.

Oh and by the way, Mr. Martin said that he felt women should have to undergo third party counselling, which is the same thing that the media accuses Harper's team of saying. see www.globeandmail.com or www.cbc.ca or www.nationalpost.ca

2. Martin wants to override our Constitution and have the federal government take control of our health care system. Such an action violates the basic tenets of our society. Would you also complain if Harper used the notwithstanding clause to ban pornography hiding as art, just like he promised to do. Again, refer to the news sources.

3. What is wrong with having a military? Do Canadians not like being able to protect their own shorelines? Our navy is needed to enforce the fishing bans from poachers. Do Canadians not see the importance of being able to militarily intervene in cases of genocide (ie Rwanda, Kosovo, etc..). The Canadian military is an important tool in our foreign affairs and should be treated as such, not as a liability.

4. A recent study showed that the US has done more to cut harmful CO2 emissions than Canada has. Even though Canada/Martin is a signatory to the Kyoto protocol and Bush/US is not. I trust actions not words.

Moreover, Harper has stated his support for a reduction in smog-causing emissions, which would benefit us (and our health system) greatly.

First off, I'll say I don't think there should be mistakes made at all with the judicial system in either country.

However, capital punishment dosen't make mistakes, people do.

I don't have in-depth information about Harper's stance on how often the death penalty should be applied, and I'll look it up. But if it is only applied in major cases of absolute certainty, then no one would be executed wrongly.

First off, I'll say I don't think there should be mistakes made at all with the judicial system in either country.

However, capital punishment dosen't make mistakes, people do.

I don't have in-depth information about Harper's stance on how often the death penalty should be applied, and I'll look it up. But if it is only applied in major cases of absolute certainty, then no one would be executed wrongly.

It's a proven fact that the death penalty does NOT help crime rates. So, while it's an obvious breach of human rights.. why would or should we subscribe to a system that doesn't work?

First off, I'll say I don't think there should be mistakes made at all with the judicial system in either country.

However, capital punishment dosen't make mistakes, people do.

I don't have in-depth information about Harper's stance on how often the death penalty should be applied, and I'll look it up. But if it is only applied in major cases of absolute certainty, then no one would be executed wrongly.

It's a proven fact that the death penalty does NOT help crime rates. So, while it's an obvious breach of human rights.. why would or should we subscribe to a system that doesn't work?

Because, some people don't think its an "obvious breach of human rights".

Wow.. so much Liberal fear mongering.. so little time to refute it all.

Simply put the answer to your questions lies in a few short explanations

1. Harper has never opened the issue of a woman's right to choose, bilingualism, capital punishment, gay marriage, etc... He proposes that instead of having a clear government stance on any social issue, that instead the individual MPs would be allowed to vote their conscience on the issue (horror! MPs being allowed to vote the way they think is right? unthinkable!).

Yes individual MPs should vote. But what's to stop MPs to vote for the ban of gay marriages even thoug the Supreme Court stated that it's against the charter. Mr. Harper clearly said he would not oppose a private bill if it passed in the house. Sometimes, the Prime Minister has to go against public opinion and do what's right. Same thing goes with capital punishment, bilingualism and woman's right to choose.

2. Martin wants to override our Constitution and have the federal government take control of our health care system. Such an action violates the basic tenets of our society. Would you also complain if Harper used the notwithstanding clause to ban pornography hiding as art, just like he promised to do. Again, refer to the news sources.

He wants to do no such thing. He simply stated that the province would have to agrre to certain principles like actually spending the money given for healthcare on healthcare. The last time the federal government gave the Quebec government money to put on roads, the Quebec government spent it on anything but raods and, five years later complained to the federal that the roads were in bad shape.

3. What is wrong with having a military? Do Canadians not like being able to protect their own shorelines? Our navy is needed to enforce the fishing bans from poachers. Do Canadians not see the importance of being able to militarily intervene in cases of genocide (ie Rwanda, Kosovo, etc..). The Canadian military is an important tool in our foreign affairs and should be treated as such, not as a liability.

Nothing! I fully agree with you on that. I do not want a return to big deficit to pay for the army, though. That's what I fear the most from the CPC.

4. A recent study showed that the US has done more to cut harmful CO2 emissions than Canada has. Even though Canada/Martin is a signatory to the Kyoto protocol and Bush/US is not. I trust actions not words.

Moreover, Harper has stated his support for a reduction in smog-causing emissions, which would benefit us (and our health system) greatly.
And yet the US government lowered their regulations while the Canadian governement signed Kyoto.

For those defending the CPC, you realize that your party has yet to have a policy convention. Say what you will about the Liberals, Bloc or NDP but they at least have discussed their policy projections.


Within the CPC itself, the Alliance majority has been running its nominees under the platform of using the notwithstanding clause if same-sex marriages was allowed under the Supreme Court, challenging a womans choice, gutting hate crimes legislation and cutting back on immigration. I know this because I served as the CRO in a nomination vote in Alberta. They are not the secular conservatives that their junior partner was, they are motivated by evangelical religious beliefs and not sound fiscal policy.

Now call me a "fear mongering liberal" but as a former Progressive Conservative I am ashamed that the CPC is using elements of our name and image to convey their false moderate stand. Many PC'ers are sickened to be associated with a party that is so obsessed with "Western Alienation" and overt hostility to central Canada that they will disembowel the government out of spite.

Barbarians are at the gate, and they are wearing wranglers.

.. so much Liberal fear mongering...

I recall that anyone objecting to the Mulroney agenda was also accused of "Liberal fear mongering".

Well, Mulroney's government turned out to be far worse than either the Liberals or NDP predicted. And Harper's would also turn out worse than all the warnings today being voiced about him.

Should Harper be elected, all his opponents will later be able to say "We told you so". But we won't take any satisfaction from that - we'll all be too busy trying to survive the "New Canada" that Harper is going to inflict on everyone.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

That is what's wrong with the Canadian criminal justice system, not capital punishment.
This is coming from an American? The US has the highest per capita jail population in the world, and has routinely put innocents to death. I think the Canadian system is great just the way it is.
So because one country has a worse system means that you can excuse your own country's fault?

Thats almost as bad as saying that we shouldn't have taken our Saddam because there were other guys doing bad stuff, too. Bad things don't excuse more bad things.

I think you clearly missed the point. While the Canadian justice system is not perfect, it does ok. The good thing is that when we do make mistakes, at least we don't make another mistake and execute the wrong person.

IMHO the US justice system is also badly flawed and as a result innocent people are put to death. Clean up your own backyard before you throw your junk in ours.

Don't get me started on Iraq....another fine example of US mistakes.

The US is crap (im from NY). im gonna move to Canada....eventually

--The Cheese Farmer--

Wouldn't this just be lovely? An alliance between the Conservatives and the Bloc Quebecquois. The last time the Separatists tried this kind of alliance it was as members of Mulroney's Government. Mulroney couldn't deliver so Lucien Bouchard went and formed the Bloc Quebecquois, and the Conservatives further fractured the party which resulted in the creation of the Reform Party, which became the Alliance party, which became ......vola....the Conservative Party of Canada.

If you want a divisive Canada, just vote for the most divisive party running....the Conservative Party of Canada.

That is not liberal fear mongering ...that is the truth!!!

Tory support has climbed steadily since the election was called on May 23, a trend that has senior party members such as Peter MacKay openly speculating about co-operation in the House of Commons with the separatist Bloc.

But Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, while not ruling out an agreement with the Conservatives, said he would not discuss such arrangement until after the vote.

"For us, there is no question of beginning discussions before the 28th. After the 28th, we'll see the results," he said in Quebec City yesterday.

What's wrong with capitol punishment?

I suppose you are too self important or have never heard of Steven Truscott or Donald Marshall?

Reluctant Hero: The Donald Marshall Story

http://www.cbc.ca/lifeandtimes/marshall.html

The name Donald Marshall is almost synonymous with "wrongful conviction" and the fight for native justice in Canada. But few people know the man behind the name. Marshall was just 17 years old when he received a life sentence for a murder he did not commit. His ordeal in prison and beyond turned him into a reluctant hero. From a Royal Commission to the Supreme Court, Marshall has lent his name to further the cause of his people. But in return, who has Donald Marshall become? This is the deeply personal story of a man struggling to find out.

Marshall served 11 years in prison before the truth finally came to light. In the end, a Royal Commission concluded that the criminal justice system had failed Donald Marshall Jr. at every turn. Reluctant Hero: The Donald Marshall Story examines the life of a man who finds himself still at the mercy of that system, even today.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

Vote against capital punishment...........any party but Harper Conservatives.

Allow me to point out the EXTREME ignorance of your post.

You don't appear to know what capitol punishment IS. Don't post about it when you don't know. Capitol punishment is the death penalty, that article about that guy doesn't even ONCE mention the death penalty. He was sentenced to life for a murder he did not commit. How is that related to the death penalty?

I love the way all you left wing supporters sit around and say Harper will turn Canada into America, Harper will ruin Canada, you will regret voting Conservative, blahblahblah. Funny how NOT ONE FACT IS ACTUALLY STATED?

The right argues with facts, statistics, things that WILL work and are REAL. The left argues by stating biased opinions with no facts behind them.

Oh, what's with all the America-bashing too? It's pretty sad when your parties platform is basically, don't vote for them, they are too much like another country.

If you hate America so much, and don't want to be a hypocrite, boycott all American products, don't watch American T.V, don't read American magazines, don't watch American movies, etc. I think you'll find your quality of life MUCH lower. Canadians seem to love bashing America but then turn around and gladly embrace products and entertainment from America.

It is true that if the conservatives win, there will be division, in that the supporters of the other parties will be mad. So what? This will happen no matter what party wins. If the Liberals win, you'll have what? 30-40% of the population divided from the rest as conservative supporters?

As I said in my previous post, I'm really sick of people talking about their parties name. I think that's a pretty clear indication you have nothing real or important to say when you have to resort to talking about the NAME of their party? If you vote based on a parties name without looking at the issues, you don't deserve to vote.

I haven't the time to read all the posts right now, as I have 2 exams tomorrow to study for, I'll leave it at that for now. I'll be back later to read responses/the other posts and answer them.

What's wrong with capitol punishment?

I suppose you are too self important or have never heard of Steven Truscott or Donald Marshall?

Reluctant Hero: The Donald Marshall Story

http://www.cbc.ca/lifeandtimes/marshall.html

The name Donald Marshall is almost synonymous with "wrongful conviction" and the fight for native justice in Canada. But few people know the man behind the name. Marshall was just 17 years old when he received a life sentence for a murder he did not commit. His ordeal in prison and beyond turned him into a reluctant hero. From a Royal Commission to the Supreme Court, Marshall has lent his name to further the cause of his people. But in return, who has Donald Marshall become? This is the deeply personal story of a man struggling to find out.

Marshall served 11 years in prison before the truth finally came to light. In the end, a Royal Commission concluded that the criminal justice system had failed Donald Marshall Jr. at every turn. Reluctant Hero: The Donald Marshall Story examines the life of a man who finds himself still at the mercy of that system, even today.

That is what is WRONG with capital punishment.

Vote against capital punishment...........any party but Harper Conservatives.


Allow me to point out the EXTREME ignorance of your post.
You mean my post is not just extreme but ignorant too? If you insist, but I do believe I have some knowledge on this subject.



You don't appear to know what capitol punishment IS. Don't post about it when you don't know.
Well first of all, capital is spelt with an “a”, not an “o”. Capitol is a building or law making body. I assume that you are not a Canadian, or a very young one at least?

Secondly, capital punishment is a barbaric method whereby an uncivilized society puts to death citizens that have been found guilty of severe crimes, usually 1st Degree murder.

Thirdly, I was a young boy when the last executions took place in Toronto, Canada. Two murderers were hung by the neck until dead and I remember there was quite a controversy about it at the time.

Fourthly, in the late 1970’s, probably before you were even a gleam in your dad’s eye, I was called upon by this great Province to do my civic duty. I ended up being a juror on a murder trial, shortly after the death penalty was abolished here in Canada (1976). IF the death penalty had still been in effect, there were two jurors who definitely would not have voted “guilty”. The jury would have been a “hung jury”.

Up until my time sitting on this jury, I had been a proponent of the death penalty. After this trial was concluded, I changed my mind.


Capitol punishment is the death penalty, that article about that guy doesn't even ONCE mention the death penalty. He was sentenced to life for a murder he did not commit. How is that related to the death penalty?
Now if you take the time to understand this, perhaps you will understand why I brought these instances forward.

Wrongful convictions happen far too frequently and if there was a death penalty in this country, some of these people would have been executed in error. I find that inexcusable.

Here is a link to some other high profile Canadian murder cases where the suspects were found guilty and later exonerated. Two of them were found guilty TWICE, and one was tried THREE times.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/facts/wrong_convicted.html


I have done a fair amount of research on this subject and posted at length in many of the threads on these boards. All of my research pointed to one undeniable FACT. The existence of the death penalty does NOT prove to be a deterrent to the commission of murder and in fact, jurisdictions in the US that have maintained the death penalty, actually have a higher rate of murders.

Here is an excellent link about the futility of the death penalty:

http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html

So perhaps you can go and do some research on your own and IF you reply, perhaps you can tell me why the death penalty should be re-instated here in Canada?

Fourthly, in the late 1970’s, probably before you were even a gleam in your dad’s eye, I was called upon by this great Province to do my civic duty. I ended up being a juror on a murder trial, shortly after the death penalty was abolished here in Canada (1976). IF the death penalty had still been in effect, there were two jurors who definitely would not have voted “guilty”. The jury would have been a “hung jury”.

Up until my time sitting on this jury, I had been a proponent of the death penalty. After this trial was concluded, I changed my mind.
So you participated in pronouncing a verdict against a man which led to a lengthy imprisonment? That's barbaric and uncivilized. I'd rather die. :?

Fourthly, in the late 1970’s, probably before you were even a gleam in your dad’s eye, I was called upon by this great Province to do my civic duty. I ended up being a juror on a murder trial, shortly after the death penalty was abolished here in Canada (1976). IF the death penalty had still been in effect, there were two jurors who definitely would not have voted “guilty”. The jury would have been a “hung jury”.

Up until my time sitting on this jury, I had been a proponent of the death penalty. After this trial was concluded, I changed my mind.
So you participated in pronouncing a verdict against a man which led to a lengthy imprisonment? That's barbaric and uncivilized. I'd rather die. :?
I wouldn't expect you to understand, and you missed the point completely. Read it again then answer. BTW the man was guilty on his own admission.

Fourthly, in the late 1970’s, probably before you were even a gleam in your dad’s eye, I was called upon by this great Province to do my civic duty. I ended up being a juror on a murder trial, shortly after the death penalty was abolished here in Canada (1976). IF the death penalty had still been in effect, there were two jurors who definitely would not have voted “guilty”. The jury would have been a “hung jury”.

Up until my time sitting on this jury, I had been a proponent of the death penalty. After this trial was concluded, I changed my mind.
So you participated in pronouncing a verdict against a man which led to a lengthy imprisonment? That's barbaric and uncivilized. I'd rather die. :?
I wouldn't expect you to understand, and you missed the point completely. Read it again then answer. BTW the man was guilty on his own admission. That is justice served.

Hello. My name is Alan Robberstad. I am a Canadian. One voter out of
millions of Canadian voters.

Paul Martin is no friend of mine.

Liberal governments have not made my life any better.

Liberal governments have made the future worse for my children.

Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party became Prime Minister many years ago.

Guess who was the Liberal Finance Minister.....Paul Martin...LEST WE
FORGET

Since 1993:

(1) My taxes have increased.

(2) My family's share of the national debt has increased.

(3) My personal expenses have increased.

(4) My waiting time to see a doctor has increased.

(5) My concerns for my family's safety have increased.

(6) My costs to educate my children have increased.

(7) Government interference in my life has increased.

(8) My personal debt has increased.

(9) My income has stayed more or less the same.

(10) My savings have decreased.

(11) The buying power of my dollar, in Canada, has decreased.

(12) The value of my dollar, in the U.S., has decreased.

(13) My trust of elected officials has decreased.

(14) My trust in the justice system has decreased.

(15) My trust in the immigration system has decreased.

(16) My hope that a Liberal won't waste my tax dollars has decreased.

(17) My dreams for a better future for my kids, in Canada, have disappeared.

That is my story since the Liberals came to power.

I am not voting for Paul Martin's Liberals.

I am voting against Paul Martin and his Liberal Party on June 28, 2004.

I am voting for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

Do I like the Conservatives?

Not particularly......I don't really like Politics.

I am not political by nature.

I am not passionate about politics.

I am a middle age guy (48).

I live in a small house on a fairly quiet street in Edmonton.

I have a wife, Kathy, and two children (ages 19 and 17).

I have no pets.

I am a middle class man.

I don't usually say too much.

Until now.

Now I am going to say something!

In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by:

(1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? - a
multi-millionaire
lawyer from Quebec???

The leader of the Conservative party, Stephen Harper, is:

(1) Not a lawyer.

(2) Not a multi-millionaire.

(3) Not from Quebec.

Stephen Harper says that the Conservative party will:

(1) Reduce my taxes.

(2) Pay off the national debt as fast as they can.

(3) Shrink the size and influence of the federal government.

That's good enough for me.

I'm going to give the Conservative party a chance with my vote. But wait
Paul Martin is now saying the same thing.

My mother told me forty years ago:

"Fool me once - shame on you.

Fool me twice - shame on me!"


The Liberals have had 34 years to be financially responsible.

Remember, Jean Chretien was Trudeau's Finance Minister.

Remember also, Paul Martin was Jean Chretien's Finance Minister

These people have been raising my taxes for thirty four years.

They have been mis-spending my tax dollars for 34 years.

34 years!

And now Paul Martin says he'll stop taxing and spending.

No way.

Thank you for reading my story so far!

Why am I telling my story to you?

Although I feel alone, I know that I am not alone.

Your story may be similar to mine.

And you may also feel alone.

One small voter in the midst of millions of voters.

What can you and I do together to change things?

How can you and I fight a huge political machine?

You and I have two things that we can use:

(1) Our individual personal connections.

(2) The Internet.

The Internet is supposed to be this global zing tool, right?

Let's put it to use.

I have 27 Canadians in my personal e-mail address book.

I am sending this e-mail to each of them.



I'm asking you to do two things:

(1) Forward this e-mail to every Canadian in your own address book.

(2) Vote against Paul Martin and the Liberal Party on June 28.

Vote for the Conservative candidate in your riding.

I have probably written this e-mail too late.

As I said I am not politically adroit.

I feel like Peter Finch, in the 1976 movie "Network", when he shouted: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

As I type these last few words the voting begins in less than 18 days.

432 hours till voting begins.

I hope the Internet is as fast as some people claim it is.

This may not work.

This e-mail may "fizzle out" and go nowhere.

But you and I will have tried, won't we have?

My best wishes to you.

My thanks to David Stokes from Toronto

He actually wrote this just (5) days before the last federal

election in 2000.

Fool me once - shame on you.

Fool me twice - shame on me!"

Alan Robberstad

Edmonton, Alberta June 10, 2004@ 3:00 p.m.

_____

Well Wolfish my old pal, looks like "Alan Robberstad" doesn't have a clue what he's talking about huh? ;)

Hi all.

I just feel compelled to note that we do not have a two-party system here in Canada... Believe it or not, there are alternatives other than the Liberals and Conservatives. I agree that voting for the Conservatives is certainly a big mistake, but I am not sure that the Liberals are the solution we need for them.

The obvious third choice is the NDP (New Democratic Party). Personally, I am not as enthusiastic about Jack Layton as I was about Alexa McDonough, but there is more to a party than its leader.

There is also the Green Party. I know they have never been elected in here before, but Europe is covered in successful Green Parties. I do not think that they should be discounted as crazy environmentalists who only stand for one issue, which I am afraid happens too often.

Someone did mention the Bloc. I am not in Quebec, so I cannot really say too much about the Bloc, but I have to admit that in both the recent debate and the one before the last election, Gilles Duceppe has always struck me as the most Prime-Ministerly choice. That said, I like having Quebec in the country, so the Bloc really is not for me.

There are other parties too, of course, but I am afraid this post is already getting boring. I just wanted to highlight that it is not all Liberals and Conservatives.

P.S.: I might have actually voted for the Liberals, if Copps had won the party (I know it was never going to happen, but it was nice to dream). As far as I am concerned, Paul Martin is a conservative in a red tie. I really do not think that Canada has to copy the U.S.A. by electing someone who is in politics because his Daddy was.

P.P.S.: My vote is still undecided. It will either be NDP or Green, though.

Breathe Deep, Seek Peace, God Bless!
Kie T.
Near Halifax

Vote for the Conservative candidate in your riding.

If you give a damn about Canada, you'll vote for anything *except* a Conservative.

I'd stick red-hot pokers in my eyes before I'd ever vote Conservative. No way, not now, not ever.

Good day to you all!

Let's try to straighten things out here:

EDUCATION and HEALTH are provincial responsibilities. Harper says he'll respect that, Gilles Duceppe demands it. Martin says he'll respect it, but will require respect of minimum standards. Jack Layton says he'll respect it, but will demand respect of minimum standards. IF your healthcare or education has become more expensive or of an inferior quality, most of the blame still lies at the feet of your provincial government.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT; is this an actual issue? I think it has been shown to be ineffective, but regardless, conservatives don't have this issue in their platform, do they?

GAY MARRIAGE seems to be an actual issue, although i don't know why. We have a Charter of Human Rights that guarantees no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, do we not? If you want to use the not-withstanding clause on the Charter, you are really going down a slippery slope.

DEMOCRACY is not simply the primary-school definition of majority rules. At least, it shouldn't be. THere are fundamental freedoms that should not be put in question with a simple parliamentary vote. Even a national refrendum would be wrong on certain issues.

WHERE IS THE INSTITUTIONAL REFORM that the reformers used to desire? It was one of their good points i thought. Having MPs recalled if they didn't respect their electoral promises would be a wonderful thing. Liberals could be a good choice if they respected their promises, but right now i don't believe much of what they say. If we could be guaranteed of each party's promises then it would make our choices much easier. Right now it's like we're playing lie-detector. However, I haven't heard mention of such reforms.

FREE PARLIAMENTARY VOTES on important issues is SCARY. If it is important, why can't there be a nation-wide referendum? At the very least, we need to have reforms like above to require MPs to present their position before being elected and to maintain that position. Lying politicians really suck.

CANADIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT has not increased in the past ten years. It hasn't decreased either, just basically about the same as it was. Does anyone here actually know what this debt is? I'll let you in on something that should be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS: it's not the same as personal debt! You can't just pay it off at will. Most of it is owed to Canadian citizens who posess bonds, T-bills, or other government-issued securities. If some bonds are not cashed in, the government can't pay it. I own Canadian government bonds in my retirement fund, and it will be a long time before i retire and use that all up.

ENVIRONMENT is important to everyone. I think (i hope) the conservatives recognize this, i believe the liberals think this (although you never can tell), and I am certain the NDP would.

TAX-CUTS are promised by all the parties. Conservatives are going to cut for big corporations and for the average middle-class Canadian. Liberals will sprinkle tax cuts everywhere, although nowhere very significantly. And even the NDP has promised tax-cuts: in fact, for those making less than $40,000 annually, the NDP offers the largest tax-cuts. The counterpart to this is that business and individuals that make more than $250,000 annually will pay more taxes. BUT NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THE GST? Why the hell not? I'd rather pay more in income tax than the dam sales tax.

SUBSIDIES are going to be cut by the Conservatives, which would be nice, I'm just not certain that they'll be able to keep this promise. Liberals and NDP believe that they have to use subsidies to make Canadian industry competitive, which does have some legitimacy, but i don't like it too much.

ATLANTIC CANADA will be screwed again by every major political party because we have no power and it has become tradition for everyone in the rest of canada to ignore us except to occassionally dump on us or tell a cutesy story about our little hick 'Canadian' ways.

And now if i continue any longer i will start to say nasty things from a pent-up political aggression i have, so i will leave. Thanks for reading!

You know what is funny... I hear so much about how the Conservatives are willing to form a coalition with the Bloc and how it is such an awful thing... however, to people who immediately knock the idea think about this.

The people of Quebec are going to vote BQ in overwhelming numbers. Such a public outcry should not (and can not) be ignored. One way or another, the BQ will have to be listened to and reckoned with because the people of Quebec are voting for them.

Would you like it if your MPs were disregarded by the government because they did not vote the 'right' way. (and I didn't mean that as a pun). Actually, my NDP MPs down here in Windsor were given the short end of the stick recently and denied access to inter-governmental talks about the cross-border crisis here.

I didn't vote NDP last time, but I was royally pissed when the mayor, and nearby Lib MP Susan Whelan were invited but the two city MPs, Comartin and Masse were not.

We voted for our MPs and they deserve to be respected. Windsor, Martin's hometown ironically, is not going to go Liberal anytime soon. Whelan is going down to defeat against the Conservatives, Masse will retain his seat and Comartin may lose to the Conservatives as well (unfortunately maybe).

Martin has not respected the right of Canadians to choose who they want to represent them. I would have voted for him initially, but not after that episode.

Oh and a note on "Liberal fear mongering".

Fear mongering involves exaggerating another's position to make it seem like a bad idea.

For example:
____________________________________
Reality : A conservative candidate suggests that women who want an abortion should have third party counselling.

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to make abortion illegal and roll back women's rights.
_____________________________________
Reality : A conservative candidate suggests that bilingualism shouldn't apply to all places in Canada, places where no one speaks French.

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to destroy bilingualism in Canada.
_____________________________________
Reality : Harper wants to allow Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause if they desire, to pass bills. (the Notwithstanding Clause is an integral part of our Constitution and Charter)

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to destroy the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and wants to roll back minority rights.

In any case, it sounds to me that Martin is being intolerant of other's views when it comes to all these issues. Many people in Canada are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc... they have a right to their views as much as Martin does. And they deserve not to have their views demonized on public TV.

Misguided liberals. The wheels won't fall off the wagon after the election is LOST.

Think sponsorship, Gun registry, waste waste waste.

Give it up. It's time for CHANGE.

Oh and a note on "Liberal fear mongering".

Fear mongering involves exaggerating another's position to make it seem like a bad idea.

For example:
____________________________________
Reality : A conservative candidate suggests that women who want an abortion should have third party counselling.

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to make abortion illegal and roll back women's rights.
_____________________________________
Reality : A conservative candidate suggests that bilingualism shouldn't apply to all places in Canada, places where no one speaks French.

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to destroy bilingualism in Canada.
_____________________________________
Reality : Harper wants to allow Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause if they desire, to pass bills. (the Notwithstanding Clause is an integral part of our Constitution and Charter)

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to destroy the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and wants to roll back minority rights.

In any case, it sounds to me that Martin is being intolerant of other's views when it comes to all these issues. Many people in Canada are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc... they have a right to their views as much as Martin does. And they deserve not to have their views demonized on public TV.

Hate to say this, but this Marin Character sounds like half of the Democratic Left against Bush. Sorry for my intrusion here but its true.

Half the stuff in this post is almost exactly the same as the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party have said here in America About the Republican Party.

Oh and a note on "Liberal fear mongering".

Fear mongering involves exaggerating another's position to make it seem like a bad idea.

For example:
____________________________________
Reality : A conservative candidate suggests that women who want an abortion should have third party counselling.

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to make abortion illegal and roll back women's rights.
_____________________________________
Reality : A conservative candidate suggests that bilingualism shouldn't apply to all places in Canada, places where no one speaks French.

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to destroy bilingualism in Canada.
_____________________________________
Reality : Harper wants to allow Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause if they desire, to pass bills. (the Notwithstanding Clause is an integral part of our Constitution and Charter)

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to destroy the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and wants to roll back minority rights.

In any case, it sounds to me that Martin is being intolerant of other's views when it comes to all these issues. Many people in Canada are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc... they have a right to their views as much as Martin does. And they deserve not to have their views demonized on public TV.

Hate to say this, but this Marin Character sounds like half of the Democratic Left against Bush. Sorry for my intrusion here but its true.

Half the stuff in this post is almost exactly the same as the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party have said here in America About the Republican Party.

The name of the party is misleading.. They are not liberals.. The Liberal Party of Canada are centrist. The "new" conservative party in Canada is more like neo-cons.. "extremists" the NDP party in Canada are the real left-wing. Just thought I'd point out the differences in the parties here in Canada. We do of course have some fringe parties not worth mentioning.

I could go on for days, so feel lucky that i have restrained myself as much as i have. :P

I don't care if people have different opinions than me, but i really hate when people are weasling their way around just to gain some popularity. For this reason, of all the major leaders, Gilles Duceppe is the man. I don't agree with him on the major issues of Quebec separation or Canada being a dual-nation state, but i do like what he says on a lot of the other issues.

More importantly, I appreciate that the guy is consistent and direct. He doesn't downplay his views to tailor to one audience or another, he doesn't waffle on issues, and he is not rude about expressing his beliefs; he just states what he thinks.

ALL the other leaders are playing to different regions. Admittedly, Duceppe really only has to please one region, whereas the others have to solicit voters across the country. Their views do come across different in different regions and that is what really sucks. What's the truth?

Anyway, Layton and Harper seem to be OK, as in not horrible in changing their tone. Harper actually has done a great job of making the conservatives seem more focused on the country as a whole than the Alliance-Reform predecessors. Government waste cutting gets more play in richer areas though, and western alienation is a card that is still played. Layton sounds the same most everywhere, except Quebec where he seems to want to pretend the NDP would be very decentralizing (honestly Jack...).

Paul Martin...uh...I'm not sure. I just don't know. He tells everyone what they want to hear, doesn't mind stepping back and saying virtually the opposite somewhere else, and i get confused. I would like to think that he just has such a big heart that he doesn't want to disappoint anyone, but somewhere in his term he'll have to do just that. Let us know in advance Paul.

Ultimately, all four are big players in this election. I think it is safe to say that there will be a minority government, and i have to agree with you Hudecia, the idea of a Bloc-Conservative government is getting unfairly knocked. The result of such a union may be impossible on some issues, but on others they could work well together. More importantly, demonizing the Bloc for being separatist is, to say the least, unconstructive. Only problem is just that i heard Stephen Harper distinctly say in an interview that he would not form an alliance with a seperatist party. I think he will regret that.

NDP-Liberals could easily happen if the numbers are there.

NDP-Conservatives especially unlikely, but if the numbers are there, who knows, they might find some common ground.

Bloc-Liberals could happen. Like i said, Duceppe has things straight in his mind. He knows what he wants so it'll make it easier for him to struck a deal than people think. Just the seperatist fear-mongering that could play negatively.

And guess what: I wouldn't be surprised to see a Liberal-Conservative alliance. They both might have to eat their pants to get that done, but i woudn't exclude it from the realm of possiblity.

WHY CANADIANS MUST REJECT HARPER:

On June 28, 2004, Canadians face a starker choice than in any election
in our lifetimes. Dissatisfaction with the years of Liberal government
is driving voters toward the "Conservative Party" and its new and
telegenic leader, Stephen Harper. With only weeks to go until election day,
we fear many members of the public will not have time to adequately assess the sharp and clear differences between the major parties.

In fact, the "Conservative Party" is not a known and trusted
alternative.

The Right Honourable Joe Clark, former Prime Minister and a life-long
member of the Progressive Conservative Party, made this clear when he
urged the Canadian public to choose Paul Martin over Harper. The
Harper agenda scares him. Many leading former Progressive Conservatives feel the same.

The party Harper leads has little in common with the former
Progressive Conservative Party. But there is a way that Canadians can learn more about Harper's mysterious party: We can look South, to George Bush and the U.S. Republican Party.

Like the Bush Republicans, the Harper Conservatives would take Canada
into dangerous territory:

Bush and Harper favour Canadian involvement in the illegal U.S.
attack on Iraq.

Bush and Harper would take Canada to deficits in order to pour
billions into the military. Bush has already taken the U.S. into trillions
of dollars of debt to fund militarism.

Bush and Harper deny the reality of climate change and the threat to
the whole planet, and especially Canada, from our continued reliance on
fossil fuels.

Bush and Harper reject the Kyoto Protocol. Harper has said he would
not implement this international treaty which Canada has already ratified.

Bush and Harper would change the protection of human rights enshrined
in our respective Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights. Harper has said
he would use the notwithstanding clause to prevent the equal application
of the marriage laws as they effect single-sex couples.

Bush and Harper would challenge a woman's right to choose. Harper
has said he would allow the issue of access to legal abortions to be
re-opened through an open vote in the House of Commons.

Bush was responsible for more executions than any other U.S. Governor
of recent times. Harper has suggested the prohibition of capital
punishment would be re-opened in Canada.

We must not sleep walk into electing a Canadian version of George W.
Bush.

Challenge Stephen Harper on these positions.

Harper tells Canadians we should "Demand Better." First, Canadians
must "Demand the truth" about the new Canadian Republican Party,
masquerading as the Conservative Party of Canada.

We do not have much time.

Stephistan you wouldn't happen to work for the Liberal campaign team would you? A nicely constructed attempted to induce fear into people. I'm going to take apart this piece of drivel piece by piece.

Joe Clark? Joe "Jurassic" Clark. A political has-been, angered and stunned by the fact that the party no longer wants him. I've spoken to PC members who don't like him, good riddance to rubbish. He wasn't a conservative, never has and never will be. His political intuition is also subpar. We have nothing to learn from this individual.

The link between the CPC and the Republicans is a lie. An abject lie in fact. I'm calling you out on it. The war in Iraq wasn't illegal, wars are not "made" legal by the U.N.. He favored involvement, but not necessarily by sending in troops en masse. And by the way, Steph, Canadian troops served in Iraq under British command. :roll:

More funding for the military? Oh NO! Not fund them adequately and pay them a fair amount! Heaven forbid we should provide the necessary funds for our men and women in uniform. He has also said he refuses to allow deficits with the increased spending on the military. And Steph, ALL of the leaders are promising more funds. Nearly ALL of them are suggesting the same amounts.

Harper has never denied the science. He has propose a "Made in Canada" approach. The U.S. has refused to sign it. Russia has refused to ratify it. China has refused to ratify it. India has refused to implement necessary laws. Thus, the world's primary economy, production center and greatest benefactor of Kyoto have ALL pulled out. Kyoto is useless. And by the way, were an independent nation when I last checked, we can dump treaties we no longer like by virtue of it. The world can take it up the rear end if they don't like it. Its OUR choice.

Non-withstanding clause use? Distorting the truth as usual Steph. He said he would use it IF the courts attempted to impose a definition without parliament first having a say in it. What is wrong with the people's parliament deciding on a certain issue rather than appointed judges?

Harper has said time and time again his government will NOT introduce any amendments or bills limiting a woman's right to abortion. He HAS said that private members can try, he personnally will not support such a bill.

Capital punishment? I haven't heard him say anything about it. I hope you know the case surrounding the reason why Canada took it down, and how it was the incompetence of the Supreme Court rather than the law itself which was at fault.

The CPC hasn't scaremongered, hasn't gone down the path of negative adds...the Liberals have. They have slandered and lied in an attempt to stick something unto the CPC. Canadians seem to be ignoring the rhetoric and want a change of government.

We must vote Liberal despite our dismay with them, because for all their faults, at this time they are the only real choice.

To vote for Harper would be going into the abyss of the unknown, this party has never won any thing.. it is not smart to vote for a party with no time tested policy. Lets remember this is not the old conservative party, this is a new party who has not been tested at all. I don't want us walking into an un-tested time, not at this time in history, it's way too dangerous.

So by your logic we should stick with the Liberals forever?

I get it, the Liberals should change their campaign theme to;

Yes were crooked and were liars, but were not Harper. Another four years of waste please!


I think you forgot some very important issues that should be mentioned:

1. Separatists will feel a huge disassociation from the rest of Canada as a result of a Harper win.

2. Multiculturalism will suffer greatly.

3. Eastern Canada will be minimalized even further.

4. Our health care will move towards the highly unacceptable American standard with multi-tiered levels of health care dependent upon ability to pay.

It appears that Harper is headed for a least a minority government, and if that happens, he might pull a Joe Clark.

However, he is appealing for a majority and that would be a sad day for Canadians.

What gets me, is the many people in Ontario that are going to vote Conservative because of the Provincial Liberals budget. This kind of narrow thinking is scary and dangerous. But what the heck....que sera, sera.

NOTE: Harper said the "tax cut" would be a MODEST one which means DIDDLY SQUAT!!!!

1. Seperatists already feel a huge disassociation from Canada. I live in "La Belle Province", I've lived here for almost 20 years. It hasn't changed this Mulroney.

2. How so? More fearmongering?

3. Eastern Canada minimized? Again how so? The East is formed of more than just Quebec. The CPC will win seats in the Maritimes, and possibly one in Quebec.

4. Healthcare is a provincial issue. If people in Quebec decide we want private clinics then the rest of you can scream at us from across the territorial lines. How a province runs healthcare is its business. This includes the transfer payments that Ottawa keeps downgrading and augmenting its surplus with. It rightfully belongs to the provinces.

Harper won't pull a Joe Clark, who is so stupid as to call a Budget vote without warning your own MPs? Wait, Joe Clark...nevermind...

For those defending the CPC, you realize that your party has yet to have a policy convention. Say what you will about the Liberals, Bloc or NDP but they at least have discussed their policy projections.


Within the CPC itself, the Alliance majority has been running its nominees under the platform of using the notwithstanding clause if same-sex marriages was allowed under the Supreme Court, challenging a womans choice, gutting hate crimes legislation and cutting back on immigration. I know this because I served as the CRO in a nomination vote in Alberta. They are not the secular conservatives that their junior partner was, they are motivated by evangelical religious beliefs and not sound fiscal policy.

Now call me a "fear mongering liberal" but as a former Progressive Conservative I am ashamed that the CPC is using elements of our name and image to convey their false moderate stand. Many PC'ers are sickened to be associated with a party that is so obsessed with "Western Alienation" and overt hostility to central Canada that they will disembowel the government out of spite.

Barbarians are at the gate, and they are wearing wranglers.

We've had policy discussions. Don't know where you got that, we haven't had any official gatherings. But some of us have been asked for our ideas and opinions. I should know, I'm currently on the executive of my riding association. As for the "many" PC'ers being dissatisfied; I've seen only two types of people. Those who have decided its for the best and agreed to work in the new system and the others who have left the party. I say good riddance to the latter.

If you refuse to vote for the CPC on principle. I can appreciate a principled stance. However, voting for the Liberals because of that is ridiculous. They have stolen YOUR money, raised YOUR taxes, lied to YOU. Vote for the CPC if you want a change, if you don't like the ideas proposed then vote for the NDP, Green, Marxist-Leninist, Communist, or Marijuana Party.

Yes this is the man (Harper) I want running my country.....

Conservatives withdraw claim Martin supports porn

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper didn't like the headline, but he isn't backing down from the substance of a party news release attacking Paul Martin and the Liberals on child pornography.

"I'm not going to, in any way, give the Liberal Party any break in its record on child pornography," Harper told reporters at a campaign stop in Drummondville, Que. Friday. "It is disgraceful, they have had multiple opportunities to do something about it, and they have refused."

Asked about the 'taste' of the headline, Harper said: "What's in bad taste is the Liberal Party's record on child pornography.

" I will not make excuses on it, I will attack them on it, and if (the Liberals) want to fight the rest of the election on it, good luck to them," he heatedly said before stepping back on his campaign bus.

This is so tacky, it is disgusting. Trying to associate the Liberals with this while there is a high profile murder trial going on. Harper also had this headline:

"The NDP Caucus Supports Child Pornography?"

Amazing what some people will do to try and gain a few votes. I hope the electorate sees through this crap and sends Harper a clear message back....thanks but no thanks.

In regards to health care, Canadians need to be concerned about a Conservative Government....

Klein told delegates at his party's annual convention he was resolved to reform the health system "even if it means in some cases violation of the Canada Health Act." .............

This week, with the Liberals and Conservatives in an electoral dead heat, Martin unexpectedly threw down the gauntlet.

He accused Klein of deliberately withholding Alberta's plan for health reform until June 30, two days after the election, in hopes of having an accommodating "silent partner," Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, in office in Ottawa.

Harper favours universal medicare, but has refrained from saying he would uphold the Canada Health Act, which sets the rules for medicare. Martin said he would not permit violations of the act.

Keep Canada healthy....vote Liberal

To use your own words Vorringia, “I'm going to take apart this piece of drivel piece by piece.”


Joe Clark? Joe "Jurassic" Clark. A political has-been, angered and stunned by the fact that the party no longer wants him. I've spoken to PC members who don't like him, good riddance to rubbish. He wasn't a conservative, never has and never will be. His political intuition is also subpar. We have nothing to learn from this individual.
This man was a former Prime Minister. You never hear Liberals speaking badly about former Liberal Prime Ministers.

So what did this “rubbish” former Prime Minister have to say about the NEW Conservatives?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/26/canada/clark040426

Clark says Harper would be 'dangerous' leader

Clark said Harper wants to pull the government away from such issues as women's rights, the environment and bilingualism.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/25/canada/clark040425

"I am that concerned with the imprint of Stephen Harper, not only what he stood for in the past, but the way he has led this party."
Clark said Harper and the new party will not get away with the "masquerade" that it is the Progressive Conservative party of the past. The old PC party offered Canadians a "broad, national alternative," he said.

But "I've seen nothing in the Stephen Harper-led party that on issues of human rights, issues like the environment, issues like bilingualism, issues like the nature of the country, this is anything like the governments (Brian) Mulroney or I led."

Clark said members of the Canadian Alliance dominate the new party while most of the Progressive Conservatives have been relegated to the sidelines.

I know you may not have much respect for this statesman Vorringia but Clark did have many discussions as Leader of the Progressive Conservatives with Harper in regards to “uniting the right”, so I will take him at his word. After all, he has been in politics far longer than Harper. It is painfully obvious that Joe Clark did not like what he saw from this NEW breed of Conservative.

BTW, Joe is not alone in his opposition to the NEW Conservatives. Apparently a couple of high profile former Progressive Conservatives have launched a lawsuit….

http://www.davidorchard.com/online/nomerger/hearnpeckford-cbcweb-20040517.html

St. John's West MP Loyola Hearn says he's baffled by the support former Premier Brian Peckford is throwing behind a law suit that challenges the validity of the merger of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties.

The suit was filed by former federal PC cabinet Minister Sinclair Stevens last week.

"Why he suddenly got involved in this, I have no idea," says Hearn, who was a minister in Peckford's cabinet.

Peckford says the merger that created the Conservative Party of Canada violated the constitution of the Progressive Conservative party. He also says the chief electoral officer shouldn't have approved the union.

"We're saying we want an order quashing the decision to register the Conservative Party as a merged party, and restoring the Progressive Conservative party to a registered political party pursuant to the Canada Elections Act," Peckford says.

Then of course there is also the matter of a few MP’s (Andre Bachand, and Scott Brison), and of course David Orchard etc.

I suppose these people have no credibility either?

Yaknow Steph, sometimes you come across really ignorant...

Not everyone agrees with you.

A lot of people do, though.

Not everyone agrees with President Bush.

A lot of people do, though.

Not everyone agrees with Harper.

A lot of people do, though.

You come across constantly as trying to paint your political opposition as morally wrong for believing the things they believe. Guess what? Their beliefs are just as moral as yours.

"Challenge him on the issues"? Perhaps you need to actually address the issues before you challenge anyone on them. All I hear coming from you is moralistic rhetoric, something you criticize the Bush Administration for using.

Oh and a note on "Liberal fear mongering".

Fear mongering involves exaggerating another's position to make it seem like a bad idea.

For example:
____________________________________
Reality : A conservative candidate suggests that women who want an abortion should have third party counselling.

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to make abortion illegal and roll back women's rights.
_____________________________________
Reality : A conservative candidate suggests that bilingualism shouldn't apply to all places in Canada, places where no one speaks French.

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to destroy bilingualism in Canada.
_____________________________________
Reality : Harper wants to allow Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause if they desire, to pass bills. (the Notwithstanding Clause is an integral part of our Constitution and Charter)

Liberal fear mongering : Harper wants to destroy the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and wants to roll back minority rights.

In any case, it sounds to me that Martin is being intolerant of other's views when it comes to all these issues. Many people in Canada are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc... they have a right to their views as much as Martin does. And they deserve not to have their views demonized on public TV.

Hate to say this, but this Marin Character sounds like half of the Democratic Left against Bush. Sorry for my intrusion here but its true.

Half the stuff in this post is almost exactly the same as the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party have said here in America About the Republican Party.

The name of the party is misleading.. They are not liberals.. The Liberal Party of Canada are centrist. The "new" conservative party in Canada is more like neo-cons.. "extremists" the NDP party in Canada are the real left-wing. Just thought I'd point out the differences in the parties here in Canada. We do of course have some fringe parties not worth mentioning.

You maybe right Steph, but half of what I'm hearing on hear about Martin's Liberal Party, is almost exactly what the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party is saying about Our Republican party. I know you said that Haper will turn Canada into the USA. Do you have proof of that? Seems to me this Liberal Party of Canada has already decided to run a US Liberal Election style campaign.

To use your own words Vorringia, “I'm going to take apart this piece of drivel piece by piece.”


Joe Clark? Joe "Jurassic" Clark. A political has-been, angered and stunned by the fact that the party no longer wants him. I've spoken to PC members who don't like him, good riddance to rubbish. He wasn't a conservative, never has and never will be. His political intuition is also subpar. We have nothing to learn from this individual.
This man was a former Prime Minister. You never hear Liberals speaking badly about former Liberal Prime Ministers.

So what did this “rubbish” former Prime Minister have to say about the NEW Conservatives?

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/26/canada/clark040426

Clark says Harper would be 'dangerous' leader

Clark said Harper wants to pull the government away from such issues as women's rights, the environment and bilingualism.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/04/25/canada/clark040425

"I am that concerned with the imprint of Stephen Harper, not only what he stood for in the past, but the way he has led this party."
Clark said Harper and the new party will not get away with the "masquerade" that it is the Progressive Conservative party of the past. The old PC party offered Canadians a "broad, national alternative," he said.

But "I've seen nothing in the Stephen Harper-led party that on issues of human rights, issues like the environment, issues like bilingualism, issues like the nature of the country, this is anything like the governments (Brian) Mulroney or I led."

Clark said members of the Canadian Alliance dominate the new party while most of the Progressive Conservatives have been relegated to the sidelines.

I know you may not have much respect for this statesman Vorringia but Clark did have many discussions as Leader of the Progressive Conservatives with Harper in regards to “uniting the right”, so I will take him at his word. After all, he has been in politics far longer than Harper. It is painfully obvious that Joe Clark did not like what he saw from this NEW breed of Conservative.

BTW, Joe is not alone in his opposition to the NEW Conservatives. Apparently a couple of high profile former Progressive Conservatives have launched a lawsuit….

http://www.davidorchard.com/online/nomerger/hearnpeckford-cbcweb-20040517.html

St. John's West MP Loyola Hearn says he's baffled by the support former Premier Brian Peckford is throwing behind a law suit that challenges the validity of the merger of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties.

The suit was filed by former federal PC cabinet Minister Sinclair Stevens last week.

"Why he suddenly got involved in this, I have no idea," says Hearn, who was a minister in Peckford's cabinet.

Peckford says the merger that created the Conservative Party of Canada violated the constitution of the Progressive Conservative party. He also says the chief electoral officer shouldn't have approved the union.

"We're saying we want an order quashing the decision to register the Conservative Party as a merged party, and restoring the Progressive Conservative party to a registered political party pursuant to the Canada Elections Act," Peckford says.

Then of course there is also the matter of a few MP’s (Andre Bachand, and Scott Brison), and of course David Orchard etc.

I suppose these people have no credibility either?

Let me state it in a way you could understand, Joe Clark has become irrelevant. He was PM for a few short months and squandered his tenure through a dumb political move. He has neither sympathy nor backing left in the Conservative party in Quebec. From the people I speak with, nobody cares anymore about old party lines EXCEPT for people who are leaving, have left or were part of former executives.

David Orchard was a left winger in what was supposed to be a right wing party. He didn't belong and his stances on NAFTA for instance were something that belonged in the Liberal party. The fact that MacKay knifed him so spectacularly and outmaneuvered him is astounding. He is irrelevant.

Mr.Bryson I have met in person. He's a great guy and very likeable, but the fact is he couldn't get along with some of the Westerners in the party. Some say it was because he was homosexual, I doubt it, but hey everyone is entitled to his opinion. He left the party with more class than anyone else.

The former PC members who have filed lawsuits, defected to the Liberals or admonished the new Conservative party are mostly sour grapes. They were pushed out of the way and no longer hold the reigns of power. They are people who were not interested in the merger and when it occured, because of massive party support (Quebec, CA members 94% vote for, PC 98% voted for), they felt insulted. They hated the fact that people have moved on and now ignore their advice. I routinely snub those PC and CA members who have refused, belittled or worked against the merger AFTER the fact. They neither deserve my respect nor my time. I was against the merger, but I accepted it, and now I work to make sure it all works. I can't stand people who get in the way after the majority of the party has accepted a new course of action.

Lastly, Canuck, all the issues you bring up Harper has said in plain english what he would do. There will be no changes proposed by his government, however, private members of ALL parties can contribute whatever bills they want. Its up to them to try and get it through.

On healthcare. Firstly, healthcare is a provincial matter. Point final. The money that goes to Ottawa in taxes is supposed to return to the provinces so they can provide the services without Federal interference. The system itself is getting worse. In the Montreal Gazette on the 12-13 of June there was an article stating that by 2015 British-Columbia will only have 2 government ministries if the levels of funding keep going at the current rate: Education and Healthcare. In Quebec, we have a chronic shortage of doctors and nurses. It should be possible for us to choose to hire private doctors to make them work at hospitals or allow them to open clinics. Otherwise you will see healthcare steadily decline, even under the Liberals, to something were piece by piece, procedure after procedure is taken out of healthcare because it isn't considered basic. Provinces have a right and the duty to ensure access to healthcare for ALL of its citizens, whether private or public.

Voting for the Liberals is saying yes to another four years of wasteful spending. Its allowing the SPC to decide on nearly all issues of public concern. Its accepting that lying and being crooked are facts of life. Its accepting that millions can be wasted in the name of unity, but penny pinching when it comes to fund the military. Its accepting that to be Canadian you need to vote Liberal. Its accepting a corrupt government.

Why do people think they only have the choice between the Liberals and the Conservatives? Why are people so scared of the NDP?

Why do people think they only have the choice between the Liberals and the Conservatives? Why are people so scared of the NDP?

Same reason people think there is only 2 choices between Republics and Democrats here in America. They are the only 2 that are big enough to do something.

Temme... I am not scared of the NDP... I feel more betrayed.

As you might remember I have said before that my grandfather ran for the NDP during the 70s. The party has changed a lot since then and has abandoned the unions which my grandfather was a leader of. So, I feel very betrayed.

On some issues I strongly disagree with the NDP. On some issues I still agree with them.

However, I find my opinions being listened to more by the Conservative party.

I once wrote a letter to Stephen Harper asking him to clarify a certain policy of the Conservative Party. In return, I received a detailed and personalized letter answering my concern. This showed me that he actually cared enough to either write me a letter back, or get someone to write me back. And not one of those generalized letters or responses neither.

Same reason people think there is only 2 choices between Republics and Democrats here in America. They are the only 2 that are big enough to do something.

Well, there's no excuse for this in Canadians. Jack Layton was there in the debate and everyone knows he exists. He's also considered good with the media.

Temme... I am not scared of the NDP... I feel more betrayed.

As you might remember I have said before that my grandfather ran for the NDP during the 70s. The party has changed a lot since then and has abandoned the unions which my grandfather was a leader of. So, I feel very betrayed.

On some issues I strongly disagree with the NDP. On some issues I still agree with them.

However, I find my opinions being listened to more by the Conservative party.

I once wrote a letter to Stephen Harper asking him to clarify a certain policy of the Conservative Party. In return, I received a detailed and personalized letter answering my concern. This showed me that he actually cared enough to either write me a letter back, or get someone to write me back. And not one of those generalized letters or responses neither.

sounds like something Reagan did. Answered a certain number of letter himself during his tenure.

I wish the Canadians luck with their elections. Hope it turns out to help your nation.

Why should we trust what you say Vorringia, especially when you totally ignore the FACTS. Lets look at the Kyoto Protocol to start with.


Bush and Harper deny the reality of climate change and the threat to
the whole planet, and especially Canada, from our continued reliance on
fossil fuels.

Bush and Harper reject the Kyoto Protocol. Harper has said he would
not implement this international treaty which Canada has already ratified.



Harper has never denied the science. He has propose a "Made in Canada" approach. The U.S. has refused to sign it. Russia has refused to ratify it. China has refused to ratify it. India has refused to implement necessary laws. Thus, the world's primary economy, production center and greatest benefactor of Kyoto have ALL pulled out. Kyoto is useless. And by the way, were an independent nation when I last checked, we can dump treaties we no longer like by virtue of it. The world can take it up the rear end if they don't like it. Its OUR choice.

Now for the FACTS:


Harper has never denied the science. He has propose a "Made in Canada" approach.

His "Made in Canada" approach would be a flat out NO?

This Protocol has been in the works for years and now he wants to make changes or go it alone? Amazing. We owe it to our children and the world to prevent the world from suffocating, or is money the most important aspect of life?

Canada signed it 29/04/98, and ratified it 17/12/02

The U.S. has refused to sign it.

USA has signed it on 12/11/98

Russia has refused to ratify it.

http://www.agonist.org/archives/015847.html

The European Union on Friday confirmed its backing for Russia to join the World Trade Organization, and Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow in turn would speed up ratification of the troubled Kyoto accord on global warming.

China has refused to ratify it.

Another major global polluter, China, said earlier that it had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, even though it was not bound to because it is considered a developing nation.

India has refused to implement necessary laws.

Accession 26/08/02


Thus, the world's primary economy, production center and greatest benefactor of Kyoto have ALL pulled out. Kyoto is useless.

Obviously most of what you have posted as fact, is in fact, NOT factual.


And by the way, were an independent nation when I last checked, we can dump treaties we no longer like by virtue of it. The world can take it up the rear end if they don't like it. Its OUR choice.

So Canada should opt out of its’ commitment to the environment and to the UN? After all we were a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

I think Canadians will "take it up the rear end" IF they vote Conservative.

Yea we did sign it in 98 BUT NEVER RATIFIED BY THE SENATE! Hence, it was rejected. It would cost the companies to much money. Our emmissions are down anyway without us RATIFYING IT!

Russia Never Ratified it! I don't think they will either. For one thing, it'll cost them to much to do so in the long run! (same reason US never Ratified it)

China might have ratified it but then, they bought the global warming lines much like some people here did. Luckily, we got spared by the US Senate that has to ratify it before ever taking effect here.

Besides, Global Warming doesn't exist! We may have cause a very very very very small change (not much that anyone has actually noticed) on our planet but NOT THE BIG CHANGE as purported by LIBERAL THINKERS.

(braces herself for being flamed)

David Orchard was a left winger in what was supposed to be a right wing party. He didn't belong and his stances on NAFTA for instance were something that belonged in the Liberal party. The fact that MacKay knifed him so spectacularly and outmaneuvered him is astounding. He is irrelevant.

WOW, you admit that MacKay stabbed him in the back, and you agree with it. Yup we need people like that in Parliament. If he is willing to “knife” his own kind, what is he likely to do to others?

David Orchard backed MacKay for the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives, IF and only IF, MacKay promised NOT to seek an alliance with the Alliance Party. You can view the written document between the two men at the site listed here:

http://www.davidorchard.com/online/campaign-2003/orchard-mckay.html

Of course we all know that MacKay reneged on that promise. And now you say that Orchard is “irrelevant”, even though he had about 25% of the PC Party backing him for the leadership. I hope his “irrelevance” comes back to haunt the Conservatives at the ballot box on Monday!!

What IS relevant here is that we CANNOT trust the NEW Conservatives, especially when they lie to their own people, in the above fashion!!

Besides, Global Warming doesn't exist! We may have cause a very very very very small change (not much that anyone has actually noticed) on our planet but NOT THE BIG CHANGE as purported by LIBERAL THINKERS.

(braces herself for being flamed)
Of course you have a scientific degree to support your Conservative dogma? This isn't about political parties, it is about the survival of our planet, and yes it is going to cost money, and it is going to force us to make necessary changes in the way we treat the environment.

We owe it to those who follow behind us to work co-operatively.

Besides, Global Warming doesn't exist! We may have cause a very very very very small change (not much that anyone has actually noticed) on our planet but NOT THE BIG CHANGE as purported by LIBERAL THINKERS.

(braces herself for being flamed)
Of course you have a scientific degree to support your Conservative dogma? This isn't about political parties, it is about the survival of our planet, and yes it is going to cost money, and it is going to force us to make necessary changes in the way we treat the environment.

We owe it to those who follow behind us to work co-operatively.

Have you noticed that ours has gone down and we never ratify kyoto? What proof do you have that Global Warming actually exists! I have seen none of it. What I've seen is a weather cycle. Some years will be more extreme than others, that a fact. We get a blizzard EVERY 10 YEARS around here. I got into a fight with my Environment Teacher about global warming over the President's day one from LAST YEAR! Ten years since the last major snow storm here, I might add.

Before you tout global warming, look at past weather phenomenons. I don't believe in Global Warming! Unless I see HARD EVIDENCE that we are doing more harm than what Mother nature has done, then I might consider it more. Until then, I just don't buy it. Its still a THEORY anyway.

On healthcare. Firstly, healthcare is a provincial matter. Point final. The money that goes to Ottawa in taxes is supposed to return to the provinces so they can provide the services without Federal interference.
From the Canada Health Act web site:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/medicare/home.htm

A health services review was undertaken in 1979 by Justice Emmett Hall. He reported that health care in Canada ranked among the best in the world, but warned that extra-billing by doctors and user fees levied by hospitals were creating a two-tiered system that threatened the accessibility of care.

In response to these concerns, Parliament passed the Canada Health Act in 1984 to discourage hospital user charges and extra-billing by physicians. The Act provides for an automatic dollar-for-dollar penalty if any province permits such charges for insured health services.

So while the Provinces are responsible for delivery of health care, it must do so within the confines of the Canada Health Act. The penalties for non compliance are huge and rightly so.

One only has to look to the US to notice that while their health care is relatively on par with ours, the fact is that the US Government pays approximately 3 times more per capita for coverages. Is this what we want to happen in Canada?

Per Capita U.S. Health Care Costs Triple Canada's

http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Savings gleaned from a national health insurance system like Canada's would be enough to provide medical insurance for the 41 million Americans who now lack coverage, the researchers said.

The study puts the administrative cost of the U.S. system at $294 billion per year, compared to about $9.4 billion in Canada. That translates to a per-person cost of $1,059 in the U.S. and $307 in Canada. A similar study, conducted in 1991, put per-capita costs in the U.S. at $450 and Canadian costs at one-third of that.

Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote Liberal!!

. . .Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote Liberal!!

The Liberals. . .do you think they'll keep their promises? Under their watch, private MRI clinics came into being in Calgary. Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote NDP!!

Liberals like to tout how Peter stabbed Orchard in the back...

How easily Libs like to forget how Martin stabbed Chretien in the back to get to the top. Or, how Dalton broke all his promises... of course.. it's ok to be unethical when its for the 'greater' good....

If 'Americanizing' our health care increases affordability, reduces waiting lines, gets me a family doc, and gives me access to timely medical care, then I say why shouldn't we?

I'd much rather have a public health care system, but I'd also like to have a family doc too.

In any case, WHY IS THIS A FEDERAL ISSUE? It isn't, it's a provincial issue, for the federal gov't to become so involved in a provincial area of responsiblity is a clear breach of the Constitution. Anyway, the solution is not to just pour more money into our health care system (which all the parties support). Nor is it to create more doctors (because they all go to the US anyway). We need new ideas to fix the health care system, not just a rehashing of old ideas (glares at NDP platform).

. . .Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote Liberal!!

The Liberals. . .do you think they'll keep their promises? Under their watch, private MRI clinics came into being in Calgary. Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote NDP!!
Firstly, Paul Martin has stated that the Liberals will make Canada's health care the "best in the world", and yes I do believe they will keep that promise.

In regards to the point you made, I came up with the following:

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/articles/article356.html

The first obvious point is that, over the last decade, the number of for-profit MRIs in Canada has grown, as has access for Canadians to private clinics in the U.S., yet waiting lines have also increased. This indicates that increasing access to private-pay MRIs and CTs does not, by itself, solve the waiting line problem.

In Calgary, in 1999/2000, with five private MRI clinics operating, the wait time for an elective MRI was 202 days. To increase the scan rate, the government decided to contract publicly-paid scans to the for-profit clinics. Within three months of contracting out these services, the wait time dropped to around 70 days. In late 2001, Calgary hospitals acquired three new public MRIs and stopped contracting-out. The waiting time has stayed in the 70-day range, with the system only using the new public MRI capacity.

The Calgary example shows that, while the private clinics had the capacity to handle more patients and significantly affect waiting times, they were not able to do so until the cost of the procedure was covered by public Medicare. Subsequently, the decrease in waiting times was maintained by simply adding capacity to the public system.

The fact is that only a small number of people take advantage of private clinics unless their costs are covered by insurance. A 2002 study in Health Affairs estimates that in 1998-99 only 640 Canadians went to Buffalo, Detroit, and Seattle for diagnostic radiology services. Compared to the more than 480,000 MRI procedures performed each year in Ontario's public hospitals, this figure is minuscule.

Most for-profit clinics make their money providing services to patients who are covered by the Workers' Compensation system and accident insurance. In Ontario, the WSIB and insurance cases are currently done in hospital facilities, with the revenue going to help fund hospital operations. If private facilities are opened, this revenue stream to hospitals will be lost, subjecting them to even more financial pressure.

This move by the Provincial Conservatives in Alberta did not negate the Canada Health Act. What it does prove is that "for profit" clinics fail the test and gives even more reason to abandon the Conservatives failed reasoning, in regards to gutting the Act.

Well, I agree, something needs to be done. But privatization is not the answer.

"You shouldn't need a Visa to find out if you have cancer"--Jack Layton.

The answer is to implement Romanow. Yes, we need more money. We also need to create more doctors (pay them comprable salaries.) One thing I do know--privatization is not the answer. (glares at Conservative platform)

DP

Liberals like to tout how Peter stabbed Orchard in the back...
Ummmm that was a quote by Vorringa, and yeah it did happen. What is your point?

How easily Libs like to forget how Martin stabbed Chretien in the back to get to the top.
Sure they had their differences but Chretien did step down on his own. He could have stayed on but he decided to move on in the best interest of the party.

Or, how Dalton broke all his promises... of course.. it's ok to be unethical when its for the 'greater' good....
Dalton McGuinty has absolutely NOTHING to do with this federal election. Please don't get me started on the ineptitude of the Provincial Conservatives, who lied about the budget being balanced, when in fact it was $6 Billion in the red!!

If 'Americanizing' our health care increases affordability, reduces waiting lines, gets me a family doc, and gives me access to timely medical care, then I say why shouldn't we?
Because it doesn't do all of that, especially the affordability aspect. The US per capita health care cost is 3 times greater than Canada's. Is that what you want?

I'd much rather have a public health care system, but I'd also like to have a family doc too.
I have a family doctor....you don't?

In any case, WHY IS THIS A FEDERAL ISSUE? It isn't, it's a provincial issue, for the federal gov't to become so involved in a provincial area of responsiblity is a clear breach of the Constitution. Anyway, the solution is not to just pour more money into our health care system (which all the parties support). Nor is it to create more doctors (because they all go to the US anyway). We need new ideas to fix the health care system, not just a rehashing of old ideas (glares at NDP platform).
It is a FEDERAL ISSUE. Read the Canada Health Act.

BTW the doctors don't all go to the US, our life expectancy is higher than the US, and our infant mortality rate is lower.

And get your flame retardent suit on too!

Global Warming is not some made up liberal scheme to gain them points....er....hold on now....I mean....what can be gained from making up a theory like this? I don't understand.

The science behind Global Warming is not perfect, and we can only speculate on it, but it is not something that we can actually risk waiting for proof to come true. By that time, it will be too late.

We do KNOW that the average temperature of the planet has been increasing. We also KNOW that even a few degrees increase could dramatically affect water levels and weather patterns. In addition, we KNOW that CO2 gasses cause warming. What we don't know is how much of this global warming is a natural increase based on normal patterns of environmental change, and how much is a direct result of human activities.
(i quickly found the following site, but there is likely something more informative out there: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/observe/surftemp/)

As such, taking the attitude of "better safe than sorry", scientists have looked at ways we can adjust our patterns to decrease our impact. I find nothing unreasonable about this at all. I do find it unreasonable that we would for some reason ignore this very REAL possiblity of global warming.

NOw i can't seem to find them, but there was an oil company in Calgary that actually conformed to the Kyoto accords demands and guess what: they saved money as a result of the gained efficiencies! The related costs of the implementation of Kyoto is the only thing that is being fearmongered.

Vorringia, I have combined a couple of your quotes from different parts of this thread but they address the same issues.


Non-withstanding clause use? Distorting the truth as usual Steph. He said he would use it IF the courts attempted to impose a definition without parliament first having a say in it. What is wrong with the people's parliament deciding on a certain issue rather than appointed judges?

Harper has said time and time again his government will NOT introduce any amendments or bills limiting a woman's right to abortion. He HAS said that private members can try, he personnally will not support such a bill.

Lastly, Canuck, all the issues you bring up Harper has said in plain english what he would do. There will be no changes proposed by his government, however, private members of ALL parties can contribute whatever bills they want. Its up to them to try and get it through.

Well if anyone should have a little more insight into Stephen Harper's agenda, it would be David Orchard......

http://www.davidorchard.com/online/nomerger/focusharper-winnipegfreepress-russell-20040430.html

Mr. Harper's views on everything from the need to build a firewall around Alberta to protect it from a hostile federal government to his contempt for "second-tier, socialistic" Canada, are all over the nation's news pages, and have been for years. So, too, has been his opposition to bilingualism, employment equity, regional development, multiculturalism and aboriginal and minority rights. He has said MPs "have to be free to express their moral and religious opinions" on issues like abortion and capital punishment.

Mr. Harper is at odds with Canadian mainstream opinion. So, too, increasingly, is Alberta, Mr. Harper's home province and the genesis of this new U.S. Republican, as opposed to Conservative, party. Alberta's ethos is becoming ever more American.

Mr. Harper has called private health care "a natural development," derided multilateralism as "a weak nation strategy," and advocated complete continental integration with the U.S. In 1994, as president of the National Citizens' Coalition, Mr. Harper mused that whether Canada ended up with one government, two, or 10, "the Canadian people will require less government."

This is the "hidden" agenda that Harper will not speak of during this campaign because he knows that it would cost him the election if he clearly stated these views publically. BTW, this "hidden agenda" isn't just Harperesque, it was part of the Alliance agenda when Stockwell Day was the leader in the last election campaign.

Speaking of Stockwell Day, you Conservatives are always at odds with each other....how can you expect to run Canada? Poorly, I would surmise.

I'm sorry. Never did say that the temps weren't increasing.

Just that there is so much of a coincedence (sp?) that tells me it has been blown clear out of proportion.

Until I see hard evidence of what they are saying is happening, I'll continue with what I believe. We all have our opinions on this.

I do believe that Kyoto was a bad idea. There are other options. US has LOWERED emissions without ratifying it. Other nations can too.

I don't know if you're still following this thread, but in case you are, here is my reply. I didn't read the posts in between, so again, if I'm repeating something already said, my apologies.

Well first of all, capital is spelt with an “a”, not an “o”. Capitol is a building or law making body. I assume that you are not a Canadian, or a very young one at least?

Sorry I didn't take the time to make sure all the spelling and grammar were correct, because I wasn't aware you were planning on picking on it, but since you insist I will. I hold a dual citizenship, American-Canadian, and I live in Canada

Secondly, capital punishment is a barbaric method whereby an uncivilized society puts to death citizens that have been found guilty of severe crimes, usually 1st Degree murder.

Why do you find it "barbaric"? If it's simply a matter of personal opinion, then fine, however I don't find it barbaric whatsoever. It is hardly uncivilized for a society to exact just punishment upon a guilty individual.

Thirdly, I was a young boy when the last executions took place in Toronto, Canada. Two murderers were hung by the neck until dead and I remember there was quite a controversy about it at the time.

Okay, I don't exactly know what cases you are referring to, so I won't comment on whether or not I think it was justified

Fourthly, in the late 1970’s, probably before you were even a gleam in your dad’s eye, I was called upon by this great Province to do my civic duty. I ended up being a juror on a murder trial, shortly after the death penalty was abolished here in Canada (1976). IF the death penalty had still been in effect, there were two jurors who definitely would not have voted “guilty”. The jury would have been a “hung jury”.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, so correct me if I'm wrong, but what I got out of that was that there were two jurors would have decided whether a man (or woman I suppose) was guilty based on what the sentence would have been? If this is so, then do you not find something WRONG with those two jurors?


As to the rest of what you said about wrongful convictions, I never denied that wrongful convictions happen. However, wrongful convictions are the fault of the legal system's failure to prove the guilt of the individual properly, the failure of the accused to defend him or herself properly, or some other flaw in the legal system. However, despite all of this, you have ignored one key thing, what if it is CLEAR that the defendant IS in fact guilty of the murders? Let us say he was caught right in the act of comitting the crime and arrested on the spot, there isn't much question who is guilty. If that crime were bad enough to warrant the death penalty, then your entire argument about possible wrongful convictions is moot for such cases.

IF in fact that is the main basis of why you would not support the death penalty, then am I to assume that in cases where there is no question as to the defendant's guilt that you WOULD support the death penalty?

Oh, and the idea of the death penalty isn't really to deter criminals. From what I know, it seems to me that most crimes are either committed in anger, moments of irrationality or by someone who believes they won't get caught. The idea behind the death penalty is to deliver just punishment for the guilty.

. . .Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote Liberal!!

The Liberals. . .do you think they'll keep their promises? Under their watch, private MRI clinics came into being in Calgary. Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote NDP!!

I'm with you. The NDP know what we need. Here's just SOME of their good promises:

1. Better healthcare.
2. Gay marriage is legal.
3. Abortion is legal (it will help a LOT of pregnant teens out there; NOT SAYING I LIKE THE IDEA).
4. Tuition will go down.
5. Interest on student loans will stop.

I rest my case. Vote NDP-- Vote for a better Canada

. . .Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote Liberal!!

The Liberals. . .do you think they'll keep their promises? Under their watch, private MRI clinics came into being in Calgary. Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote NDP!!

I'm with you. The NDP know what we need. Here's just SOME of their good promises:

1. Better healthcare.
2. Gay marriage is legal.
3. Abortion is legal (it will help a LOT of pregnant teens out there; NOT SAYING I LIKE THE IDEA).
4. Tuition will go down.
5. Interest on student loans will stop.

I rest my case. Vote NDP-- Vote for a better Canada

Well if they get power and they don't then you know you made the wrong choice. Just because they promise those things doesn't mean they will do it.

I do not support the death penalty in any way shape or form because it is barbaric, and runs counter to a truly civilized society.

Since the death penalty was abolished in Canada, the murder rate has declined, and no wrongful executions have taken place.

Here are some web sites that are interesting, and re-inforces my beliefs in regards to not having capital punishment:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0812-01.htm

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110

http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/fiveRs4.html

http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate/jan00/dppotter.html

http://pages.ivillage.com/mia420/christophercoleman/id10.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html

Hopefully, this information may help someone out.

Why should we trust what you say Vorringia, especially when you totally ignore the FACTS. Lets look at the Kyoto Protocol to start with.


Bush and Harper deny the reality of climate change and the threat to
the whole planet, and especially Canada, from our continued reliance on
fossil fuels.

Bush and Harper reject the Kyoto Protocol. Harper has said he would
not implement this international treaty which Canada has already ratified.





Harper has never denied the science. He has propose a "Made in Canada" approach. The U.S. has refused to sign it. Russia has refused to ratify it. China has refused to ratify it. India has refused to implement necessary laws. Thus, the world's primary economy, production center and greatest benefactor of Kyoto have ALL pulled out. Kyoto is useless. And by the way, were an independent nation when I last checked, we can dump treaties we no longer like by virtue of it. The world can take it up the rear end if they don't like it. Its OUR choice.

Now for the FACTS:


Harper has never denied the science. He has propose a "Made in Canada" approach.

His "Made in Canada" approach would be a flat out NO?

This Protocol has been in the works for years and now he wants to make changes or go it alone? Amazing. We owe it to our children and the world to prevent the world from suffocating, or is money the most important aspect of life?

Canada signed it 29/04/98, and ratified it 17/12/02

The U.S. has refused to sign it.

USA has signed it on 12/11/98

Russia has refused to ratify it.

http://www.agonist.org/archives/015847.html

The European Union on Friday confirmed its backing for Russia to join the World Trade Organization, and Russian President Vladimir Putin said Moscow in turn would speed up ratification of the troubled Kyoto accord on global warming.

China has refused to ratify it.

Another major global polluter, China, said earlier that it had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, even though it was not bound to because it is considered a developing nation.

India has refused to implement necessary laws.

Accession 26/08/02


Thus, the world's primary economy, production center and greatest benefactor of Kyoto have ALL pulled out. Kyoto is useless.

Obviously most of what you have posted as fact, is in fact, NOT factual.


And by the way, were an independent nation when I last checked, we can dump treaties we no longer like by virtue of it. The world can take it up the rear end if they don't like it. Its OUR choice.

So Canada should opt out of its’ commitment to the environment and to the UN? After all we were a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

I think Canadians will "take it up the rear end" IF they vote Conservative.


Canuck you seem to misunderstand between agreeing to speed it up (not yet done) and actually doing it. It certainly is news to me that they finally said they would. Even though they havent' yet, and bureaucrats continue their anti-Kyoto talk. China doesn't have to sign it. Yet China pollutes like crazy, if you believe any of their laws are actually respected when it comes to pollution controls you are dillusional. India same story. India is also not forced to sign it, HOWEVER, it will benefit from the signing by being allowed energy credits which it can sell off. A net bonus to the government, any actual environmental changes will be accidental. So India doesn't have to reduce GHG, what is the point? As for the U.S.A. I should have said ratified, my bad, although Bush has essentially retracted the signature.

My only mistake was a typo of ratify vs sign and on the India stance. Everything else was factual. All your willing to do, is tow the Liberal line, misquote and provide soundbites. Canuck how about getting your facts straight.

Harper's approach to Kyoto is providing a Canadian approach tailored to our needs. One of the biggest polluters in the world is on our doorstep, how can anything that we do improve our local environment? He hasn't said there will be NO changes. He has said there will be some changes produced for the Canadian condition. The fact that we have ratified it is irrelevant. We are sovereign and NOT bound to dumb decisions. Like Formal Dances said our Senate hasn't approved it yet so DENIED!

Not everyone agrees on the Global Warming theories; read Lomborg "Skeptical Environmentalist".

We're an independent nation. We can do things our way if we choose to do so. If Canadians want their politiciens to consider a more Canadian approach rather than bandwagon the they should consider the CPC.


David Orchard was a left winger in what was supposed to be a right wing party. He didn't belong and his stances on NAFTA for instance were something that belonged in the Liberal party. The fact that MacKay knifed him so spectacularly and outmaneuvered him is astounding. He is irrelevant.

WOW, you admit that MacKay stabbed him in the back, and you agree with it. Yup we need people like that in Parliament. If he is willing to “knife” his own kind, what is he likely to do to others?

David Orchard backed MacKay for the leadership of the Progressive Conservatives, IF and only IF, MacKay promised NOT to seek an alliance with the Alliance Party. You can view the written document between the two men at the site listed here:

http://www.davidorchard.com/online/campaign-2003/orchard-mckay.html

Of course we all know that MacKay reneged on that promise. And now you say that Orchard is “irrelevant”, even though he had about 25% of the PC Party backing him for the leadership. I hope his “irrelevance” comes back to haunt the Conservatives at the ballot box on Monday!!

What IS relevant here is that we CANNOT trust the NEW Conservatives, especially when they lie to their own people, in the above fashion!!

When did I say that I liked what Mackay did? I don't particularly like either individual. Don't put words into my mouth. :lol: Fact is Orchard was completely outsmarted by Mackay. I know the deal, I know the inside story and frankly I don't care. Orchard is irrelevant, because most of the people who supported him are now GONE from the CPC. They didn't belong, they weren't right-wingers, they weren't real tories. Red Tories are not real Tories, their political sell-outs to a more liberal stance in order to appeal to more people.

As far as backstabbing and lying goes; the Liberals have perfected the practice. Martin said he would breath a fresh new life into his party. He promised that each riding association would pick its candidate...instead he has chosen many candidates. He has also pushed to the party periphery Sheila Copps and Allan Rock. Martin kicked and kicked until he knocked Chretien down. He has lied to the people when he promised to get to the bottom of the scandal before the election.


On healthcare. Firstly, healthcare is a provincial matter. Point final. The money that goes to Ottawa in taxes is supposed to return to the provinces so they can provide the services without Federal interference.
From the Canada Health Act web site:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/medicare/home.htm

A health services review was undertaken in 1979 by Justice Emmett Hall. He reported that health care in Canada ranked among the best in the world, but warned that extra-billing by doctors and user fees levied by hospitals were creating a two-tiered system that threatened the accessibility of care.

In response to these concerns, Parliament passed the Canada Health Act in 1984 to discourage hospital user charges and extra-billing by physicians. The Act provides for an automatic dollar-for-dollar penalty if any province permits such charges for insured health services.

So while the Provinces are responsible for delivery of health care, it must do so within the confines of the Canada Health Act. The penalties for non compliance are huge and rightly so.

One only has to look to the US to notice that while their health care is relatively on par with ours, the fact is that the US Government pays approximately 3 times more per capita for coverages. Is this what we want to happen in Canada?

Per Capita U.S. Health Care Costs Triple Canada's

http://consumeraffairs.com/news03/health_costs.html

The overhead cost of operating the United States health-care system is more than three times that of running Canada's on a per capita basis, and the gap is getting bigger, according to a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Savings gleaned from a national health insurance system like Canada's would be enough to provide medical insurance for the 41 million Americans who now lack coverage, the researchers said.

The study puts the administrative cost of the U.S. system at $294 billion per year, compared to about $9.4 billion in Canada. That translates to a per-person cost of $1,059 in the U.S. and $307 in Canada. A similar study, conducted in 1991, put per-capita costs in the U.S. at $450 and Canadian costs at one-third of that.

Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote Liberal!!

Ah yes the Canada Health Act. The Federal government has overstepped its bounds. The Act cannot override our constitution, and thus, our FIRST Act of Constitution supercedes it. Healthcare is a provincial matter, not Federal.

Its not about what WE want as Canadians. Its about what WE want as a Quebecer, Albertan, British-Columbian, Ontarian, etc...Its about how our provinces determine what is the best source of healthcare. People of other provinces got NO business telling my province how to run its own affairs. And MY province has no business telling other provinces how to run theirs. Section 92 of the constitution makes it explicitly clear.

Liberals like to tout how Peter stabbed Orchard in the back...
Ummmm that was a quote by Vorringa, and yeah it did happen. What is your point?

How easily Libs like to forget how Martin stabbed Chretien in the back to get to the top.
Sure they had their differences but Chretien did step down on his own. He could have stayed on but he decided to move on in the best interest of the party.

Or, how Dalton broke all his promises... of course.. it's ok to be unethical when its for the 'greater' good....
Dalton McGuinty has absolutely NOTHING to do with this federal election. Please don't get me started on the ineptitude of the Provincial Conservatives, who lied about the budget being balanced, when in fact it was $6 Billion in the red!!

If 'Americanizing' our health care increases affordability, reduces waiting lines, gets me a family doc, and gives me access to timely medical care, then I say why shouldn't we?
Because it doesn't do all of that, especially the affordability aspect. The US per capita health care cost is 3 times greater than Canada's. Is that what you want?

I'd much rather have a public health care system, but I'd also like to have a family doc too.
I have a family doctor....you don't?

In any case, WHY IS THIS A FEDERAL ISSUE? It isn't, it's a provincial issue, for the federal gov't to become so involved in a provincial area of responsiblity is a clear breach of the Constitution. Anyway, the solution is not to just pour more money into our health care system (which all the parties support). Nor is it to create more doctors (because they all go to the US anyway). We need new ideas to fix the health care system, not just a rehashing of old ideas (glares at NDP platform).
It is a FEDERAL ISSUE. Read the Canada Health Act.

BTW the doctors don't all go to the US, our life expectancy is higher than the US, and our infant mortality rate is lower.

Chretien only stepped down AFTER it was obvious that Martin had him surrounded and would soundly trounce him a Leadership convention. Rather than go down in flames, he stepped down.

As for Healthcare, its a PROVINCIAL ISSUE Canuck. Any university professor on Canadian politics will tell you this exact same thing. Its supposed to be run by the provinces. The Canada Health Act does NOT supercede the constitution. The Act gives the Federal government some measure of administrative powers, hence money in return for certain programs. It can only be termed as blackmail.

As for family doctor, I don't have one either. My region has one of the lowest rates of doctors taking in new people. This is the problem, lack of doctors and lack of people who are taking more clients.

Vorringia, I have combined a couple of your quotes from different parts of this thread but they address the same issues.

Well if anyone should have a little more insight into Stephen Harper's agenda, it would be David Orchard......

http://www.davidorchard.com/online/nomerger/focusharper-winnipegfreepress-russell-20040430.html

Mr. Harper's views on everything from the need to build a firewall around Alberta to protect it from a hostile federal government to his contempt for "second-tier, socialistic" Canada, are all over the nation's news pages, and have been for years. So, too, has been his opposition to bilingualism, employment equity, regional development, multiculturalism and aboriginal and minority rights. He has said MPs "have to be free to express their moral and religious opinions" on issues like abortion and capital punishment.

Mr. Harper is at odds with Canadian mainstream opinion. So, too, increasingly, is Alberta, Mr. Harper's home province and the genesis of this new U.S. Republican, as opposed to Conservative, party. Alberta's ethos is becoming ever more American.

Mr. Harper has called private health care "a natural development," derided multilateralism as "a weak nation strategy," and advocated complete continental integration with the U.S. In 1994, as president of the National Citizens' Coalition, Mr. Harper mused that whether Canada ended up with one government, two, or 10, "the Canadian people will require less government."

This is the "hidden" agenda that Harper will not speak of during this campaign because he knows that it would cost him the election if he clearly stated these views publically. BTW, this "hidden agenda" isn't just Harperesque, it was part of the Alliance agenda when Stockwell Day was the leader in the last election campaign.

Speaking of Stockwell Day, you Conservatives are always at odds with each other....how can you expect to run Canada? Poorly, I would surmise.

Orchard has nothing to say, again irrelevant. He is not a member. All the remarks about hidden agendas seems to be from former members, mostly disgruntled.

You have brought up the classic attacks formulated by the Liberals in order to discredit Harper. Canuck you wouldn't happen to be a party strategist?

Harper was opposed to the rabid bilingualism in government positions which did not require it. He was angry at the fact that so many French Quebecers are employed in the Federal government. Its a problem when it fails to provide equal access to Federal job opportunities. And before you paint as somehow evil for not blindly lovin bilingualism. I speak French and I live in Quebec. I'm on the front and I see all of this.

MPs are supposed to be free to state what their opinions are. Unlike the NDP and Liberals the CPC doesn't force party line voting on issues of conscience. I'm sorry we're not trained seals.

Alberta is different from the rest of Canada, but wait, I thought we were supposed to accept everyone the way we are? Aren't Liberals supposed to accept the differences? Canuck if you don't like the fact that Alberta doesn't agree with the mainstream then tough for you.

As far as hidden agenda goes, nice smoke screen Canuck. Nothing people don't have access to, nothing people haven't heard. Stockwell Day is not the party leader. As far as getting along with him goes, yes we do, what's the problem? I don't see anyone within our ranks stating that our party is making poor choices or doing something wrong.

As for being at odds with one another, The Libs are pretty good at it too:

-Toronto MP Tom Wappel and Sarnia MP Roger Gallaway also say that Liberals are deeply divided over gay rights. They went on to say that a motion to allow for Same-Sex marriage would be defeated.

-Liberals in the riding of Brampton-Springdale were outraged when Martin overruled their nomination vote. The executive has instead withdrawn support for Dhalla (Martin's chosen candidate) and putting it instead behind Mrs. Pounder, an NDP candidate.

-Mr.Pelletier was angry over the allegations that he directed the sponsorship scandal.He's angry at comments made by Public Works Minister Stephen Owen.

-Liberal Senator Cools jumped to the Conservative camp. Too many broken promises she said.

-Carolyn Parrish, Ontario MP, said its time for a new Plan. She said that the current campaign was not working.

Canuck, get your facts straight and realize that your blowing smoke into the Canadian voters faces; they're not going to take it anymore.

And now sorry for the length of the post. :shock:

Very nice post Vorringia! I applaud it! I don't know crap about Canadian politics but I do respect you for how you go about your posts. Very informative to this American and for that I thank you.

Canuk has said things that we also good but its so full of hatred that its hard to decifer it. thank you for making your point clear and consice.

. . .Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote Liberal!!

The Liberals. . .do you think they'll keep their promises? Under their watch, private MRI clinics came into being in Calgary. Please don't Americanize OUR health care system.....vote NDP!!

I'm with you. The NDP know what we need. Here's just SOME of their good promises:

1. Better healthcare.
2. Gay marriage is legal.
3. Abortion is legal (it will help a LOT of pregnant teens out there; NOT SAYING I LIKE THE IDEA).
4. Tuition will go down.
5. Interest on student loans will stop.

I rest my case. Vote NDP-- Vote for a better Canada

Well, I don't actually agree with 2 and 3, but I love Jack Layton's ideas for a green, prosperous economy. Vote NDP for a country we can all be proud of.

Unfortunately I am one of the 3 million Canadians who can not find a family doctor. That is 10% of all Canadians. That is the effect of the Canadian health care system. I have to travel over 100 km to get to my old family doctor (I moved about 4 yrs ago).

Oh, I live in a border city, so I hear lots about how Canadian nurses and doctors move across the border. It makes me sick, especially when as many as half the people in my city don't have a family doctor. And those docs that live here are underpaid, overworked, and stressed out. One actually simply walked out of his clinic a week ago and has decided not to go back.

Canuck heaven, you attacked Peter for betraying Orchard. Vorringia simply stated that it happened and that he supported it.

Vorringia, thank you for taking the time to make such a long post, it is refreshing to know that there are others who share similar (if not exact) beliefs.

As for everyone else, perhaps now is a good time to congratulate everyone on being so politically active. Like it or not, without dissenting views Canada would not be the country it is today.

as much as I hate to say this, but without dissenting opinion, government will be left unchecked and the populace will get hurt.

It is good to get politically active. I'm trying to get active with politics now and I'm only 15 and unable to vote for another 3 years. However, I'm following the presidential election we are having, listening to both sides and making my own opinions. Though I can't vote, I'm getting an idea on how both sides, both parties, and the people stand on the issues.

Following what is going on in Canada is also helping me understand another political system. Thank you for the Education.

I agree. We do need dissenting opinion.

Thanks for your interest in our political system. BTW, how much do you know about the structure and stuff?

I agree. We do need dissenting opinion.

Thanks for your interest in our political system. BTW, how much do you know about the structure and stuff?

all I know is that you have a parliment and a Prime Minister! Other than that, Not much

This caught my eye so I started reading it. Posted a couple of times! It is very interesting.

Ok, the way our government works is this:

We have the Queen of England as our official Head of State. Of course, she's much too busy with English affairs to worry about Canada, so we have a Governor-General to handle those duties.

We have a House of Commons made up of what will be 308 seats in the next election. They are elected via first-past-the-post. What it basically is is every seat has about 100 000 people in it, and they vote. Whoever has the most votes in that "riding" gets the seat. The party with the most seats becomes the government, and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.

We also have a Senate, which is appointed by the Prime Minister. They're considered the house of "sober second thought." They're considered to be above politics because of the fact that they're not elected.

Ok, the way our government works is this:

We have the Queen of England as our official Head of State. Of course, she's much too busy with English affairs to worry about Canada, so we have a Governor-General to handle those duties.

We have a House of Commons made up of what will be 308 seats in the next election. They are elected via first-past-the-post. What it basically is is every seat has about 100 000 people in it, and they vote. Whoever has the most votes in that "riding" gets the seat. The party with the most seats becomes the government, and the leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.

We also have a Senate, which is appointed by the Prime Minister. They're considered the house of "sober second thought." They're considered to be above politics because of the fact that they're not elected.

Forgot about Her Majesty :oops:

Sounds like a sensible system to me! I doubt it'll work in the US though! The courts will always be involved because of challenged votes from hanging and pregnant chads to disenfrancised voters. (Thanks a heap florida)

Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me! Its nice to meet people that are willing to help people understand their politics, political systems, and culture.

Very nice post Vorringia! I applaud it! I don't know crap about Canadian politics but I do respect you for how you go about your posts. Very informative to this American and for that I thank you.

Canuk has said things that we also good but its so full of hatred that its hard to decifer it. thank you for making your point clear and consice.
Excuse me? Hatred? I hate no one.

Dislike? Yes I dislike the hidden agenda of the Conservative Party. I dislike Stephen Harper especially when he comes out an states that Paul Martin is in favour of child pornography. That has to be the most disgusting non factual comment I have ever heard in a political election campaign.

Shame on Harper and the Conservatives for even allowing such trash to ever see the light of day. I hope it costs him at the polls, big time.

Very nice post Vorringia! I applaud it! I don't know crap about Canadian politics but I do respect you for how you go about your posts. Very informative to this American and for that I thank you.

Canuk has said things that we also good but its so full of hatred that its hard to decifer it. thank you for making your point clear and consice.
Excuse me? Hatred? I hate no one.

Dislike? Yes I dislike the hidden agenda of the Conservative Party. I dislike Stephen Harper especially when he comes out an states that Paul Martin is in favour of child pornography. That has to be the most disgusting non factual comment I have ever heard in a political election campaign.

Shame on Harper and the Conservatives for even allowing such trash to ever see the light of day. I hope it costs him at the polls, big time.

Prove that this conservative Party has a hidden agenda. I think everyone has a hidden agenda anyway. I hate to break it but you definitely sound like an American Liberal!

As for hatred, I guess you don't read your own posts. I have and I detect anger in them. Tone down the rehtoric abit then I might consider your view points. However, from what i'm reading, all your spouting sir is a party line. I have heard to much of that from both parties here but more so from Liberal Democrats than Radical Republicans. If you believe that this liberal party is better for the country, the God Save Canada because from what i'm seeing here in this thread and what has filtered down to my ears have me screaming for a (giggles at this next phrase) 'Regime Change in Canda' (sorry had to say it. it fit perfectly here GIGGLES)

Now if you can explain to me nicely and without the party line, why I should vote Liberal (If I was canadian and a voter) I will read it very carefully. You have my word on it!

Thank you for taking the time to read what I had to say.

Unfortunately I am one of the 3 million Canadians who can not find a family doctor. That is 10% of all Canadians. That is the effect of the Canadian health care system. I have to travel over 100 km to get to my old family doctor (I moved about 4 yrs ago).

Oh, I live in a border city, so I hear lots about how Canadian nurses and doctors move across the border. It makes me sick, especially when as many as half the people in my city don't have a family doctor. And those docs that live here are underpaid, overworked, and stressed out. One actually simply walked out of his clinic a week ago and has decided not to go back.

Canuck heaven, you attacked Peter for betraying Orchard. Vorringia simply stated that it happened and that he supported it.

Vorringia, thank you for taking the time to make such a long post, it is refreshing to know that there are others who share similar (if not exact) beliefs.

As for everyone else, perhaps now is a good time to congratulate everyone on being so politically active. Like it or not, without dissenting views Canada would not be the country it is today.
If I am not mistaken, Hudecia, you stated you live in Windsor. You cannot blame the Federal Liberals for a shortage of doctors.

You might want to consider that when the Conservatives took over Ontario in 1995, they implimented huge cutbacks in funding to the health care system which resulted in hospital closings and emergency rooms turning away ambulances. They wrongly tried to blame the Federal Liberals for cutbacks in health care funding. What did the Conservatives do with the money they cut from health care, education, and funding for cities? They gave everyone a tax cut, that cost billions of dollars. So focus on the real cause, and not the imaginary one.

Very nice post Vorringia! I applaud it! I don't know crap about Canadian politics but I do respect you for how you go about your posts. Very informative to this American and for that I thank you.

Canuk has said things that we also good but its so full of hatred that its hard to decifer it. thank you for making your point clear and consice.
Excuse me? Hatred? I hate no one.

Dislike? Yes I dislike the hidden agenda of the Conservative Party. I dislike Stephen Harper especially when he comes out an states that Paul Martin is in favour of child pornography. That has to be the most disgusting non factual comment I have ever heard in a political election campaign.

Shame on Harper and the Conservatives for even allowing such trash to ever see the light of day. I hope it costs him at the polls, big time.

Your posts make it seem as if you "hate" conservatism. As for the child pornography things, I don't agree with everything the leader does, but if something about issues can come out then I'm all for it.

As for putting out "trash". The Liberals have an unqualified advantage over the CPC in this area; their last two commercials have been HUGE compositions of trash.

Very nice post Vorringia! I applaud it! I don't know crap about Canadian politics but I do respect you for how you go about your posts. Very informative to this American and for that I thank you.

Canuk has said things that we also good but its so full of hatred that its hard to decifer it. thank you for making your point clear and consice.

Thanks. I try and its not easy and I do get some things wrong or their not clear enough.

Unfortunately I am one of the 3 million Canadians who can not find a family doctor. That is 10% of all Canadians. That is the effect of the Canadian health care system. I have to travel over 100 km to get to my old family doctor (I moved about 4 yrs ago).

Oh, I live in a border city, so I hear lots about how Canadian nurses and doctors move across the border. It makes me sick, especially when as many as half the people in my city don't have a family doctor. And those docs that live here are underpaid, overworked, and stressed out. One actually simply walked out of his clinic a week ago and has decided not to go back.

Canuck heaven, you attacked Peter for betraying Orchard. Vorringia simply stated that it happened and that he supported it.

Vorringia, thank you for taking the time to make such a long post, it is refreshing to know that there are others who share similar (if not exact) beliefs.

As for everyone else, perhaps now is a good time to congratulate everyone on being so politically active. Like it or not, without dissenting views Canada would not be the country it is today.

Thanks Hudecia. This has been, in my opinion, one of the dirtiest campaigns in Canadian history. Their has been alot of mud slinging from either side. In the last election it worked miracles against Stockwell Day who wasn't as able to deal with it. Harper on the other hand is perfectly calm in the face of criticism and is solid when speaking with journalists.

When the campaign started, the CPC thought that we would be trounced. As the campaign progressed we continued to gain support and soon it became obvious that the Liberals would no longer get a majority of seats. Now it seems we will have a minority Conservative government and hopefully at the end of this week; a majority Conservative government. My personal goal is to get my local candidate to win since a win in Quebec would be absolutely HUGE for the party.

For the most part this discussion has been quite civil.

Unfortunately I am one of the 3 million Canadians who can not find a family doctor. That is 10% of all Canadians. That is the effect of the Canadian health care system. I have to travel over 100 km to get to my old family doctor (I moved about 4 yrs ago).

Oh, I live in a border city, so I hear lots about how Canadian nurses and doctors move across the border. It makes me sick, especially when as many as half the people in my city don't have a family doctor. And those docs that live here are underpaid, overworked, and stressed out. One actually simply walked out of his clinic a week ago and has decided not to go back.

Canuck heaven, you attacked Peter for betraying Orchard. Vorringia simply stated that it happened and that he supported it.

Vorringia, thank you for taking the time to make such a long post, it is refreshing to know that there are others who share similar (if not exact) beliefs.

As for everyone else, perhaps now is a good time to congratulate everyone on being so politically active. Like it or not, without dissenting views Canada would not be the country it is today.
If I am not mistaken, Hudecia, you stated you live in Windsor. You cannot blame the Federal Liberals for a shortage of doctors.

You might want to consider that when the Conservatives took over Ontario in 1995, they implimented huge cutbacks in funding to the health care system which resulted in hospital closings and emergency rooms turning away ambulances. They wrongly tried to blame the Federal Liberals for cutbacks in health care funding. What did the Conservatives do with the money they cut from health care, education, and funding for cities? They gave everyone a tax cut, that cost billions of dollars. So focus on the real cause, and not the imaginary one.

There you go again. Off on another tirade against those "hateful Conservatives" Now you definitely sound like an American Liberal! Against giving people back money to invest. Our Tax cuts have enable our Economy to BOOM!!!!!

Come out of the rafter will ya.

Why Canada should give Paul Martin and the Liberals another 4 years in office:

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2004/11/c3861.html

Paul Martin: An Unprecedented Record of Economic Prosperity

OTTAWA, June 11 /CNW/ - First as Finance Minister, now as Prime Minister, Paul Martin engineered an unprecedented turnaround in Canada's economy.

Thanks to the Liberal Government's sound fiscal approach, Canada has gone from a $42-billion deficit in 1993 to seven consecutive balanced budgets, the best record of any country in the G7.

As a result, Canadians now enjoy lower taxes, more job opportunities, low-interest rates that benefit first-time homeowners and entrepreneurs, and an improved quality of life.

Since the Liberals took office in 1993, the Canadian economy has created more than 3 million jobs, the deficit has been replaced by balanced budgets or better, and the largest tax cut in Canadian history - $100 billion - has been implemented.

As a result, interest rates are at their lowest levels in 40 years, providing benefits to families and business alike, as well as encouraging
investment.

This week, Canada's economic prosperity prompted World Bank President James Wolfensohn to call Canada an economic model for the rest of the world during his June 7 visit to Montreal.

"Not only is Canada a model in terms of economic development. Canada is also a model from the standpoint of its values," he told reporters recently.

This is a dramatic turnaround from the Mulroney years when Canada's
skyrocketing national debt prompted the Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page to label Canada "an honorary member of the Third World."

Under Mulroney's Conservatives' leadership, Canada debt increased 151%, or $294 billion, between 1984 and 1993.

With the advent of Martin and the Liberals, and the implementation of
sound, responsible fiscal management, Canada's economic record has become the envy of the G7 nations.

This is a proven track record that makes Canada one of the best countries in the world in which to live. I love this country. Can a NEW edition of Alliance/Conservatives make this a better place to live. I seriously doubt it.

Also from the same article:

Renowned economist Arthur Donner told CBC News that, "In order to finance (Harper's plan), they're going to have to cut program spending in other areas, particularly the environment, heritage, human resources development, the civil service, and so on." (CBC News and Current Affairs, June 7, 2004)

The Liberals' $27-billion, five-year platform is progressive and fiscally
responsible. It provides significant investments to fix health care for a
generation and offers substantial increases for day care, seniors, aboriginals and peace-building initiatives without going into deficit.

A vote for the NEW Alliance/Conservatives is a vote for the unknown.

Vote Liberal and keep Canada on track.

There you go again. Off on another tirade against those "hateful Conservatives" Now you definitely sound like an American Liberal! Against giving people back money to invest. Our Tax cuts have enable our Economy to BOOM!!!!!

Come out of the rafter will ya.

Ummmm Bush has increased the US Debt $1.5 Trillion, and the unemployment rate remains stuck at 5.6% since Dec. 2003. Definitely fiscal irresponsibility. Shame on the Republicans. Bush has a NET loss of over 1 million jobs since taking office.

Thanks to the Liberal Government's sound fiscal approach, Canada has gone from a $42-billion deficit in 1993 to seven consecutive balanced budgets, the best record of any country in the G7.


Well for one thing, its the G8 not the G7! (again thanks mom) I can believe the balanced budget type thing only because your not 1)a powerful nation militarily (or is it still defunct?) and number 2)no one cares what canada has to say.

Not saying that to be mean just observing.

However, what exactly have they really accomplished? sounds like things are falling down around the Liberal Party? Can you please explain this to me since I am at a loss.

There you go again. Off on another tirade against those "hateful Conservatives" Now you definitely sound like an American Liberal! Against giving people back money to invest. Our Tax cuts have enable our Economy to BOOM!!!!!

Come out of the rafter will ya.

Ummmm Bush has increased the US Debt $1.5 Trillion, and the unemployment rate remains stuck at 5.6% since Dec. 2003. Definitely fiscal irresponsibility. Shame on the Republicans. Bush has a NET loss of over 1 million jobs since taking office.

I guess you haven't read the economic numbers lately then or the news

WE'RE IN A WAR HEAVEN and a war COST MONEY! We had a CRASH IN THE STOCK MARKET after 911 then the CORPORATE SCANDALS! That cost us jobs too.

Now our economy is REBOUNDING FASTER THAN EXPECTED! JOBS are being CREATED! (1 million in 3 months. 1.4 since August 03)

Before you hammer something get your facts straight.

Well Formal Dances, I don't want to get into a protracted discussion with you on the American economy in this thread, but I would be more than happy to oblige you on another thread. I have been involved in many so far, and I do believe I have some facts for you.

Before theProgressive Conservatives came to power in Ontario, the Liberals began the health care cut backs. I didn't support Harris much since I saw his ideas as too radical. But then again, I support Conservatives, not PCs...

Windsor (my hometown) is a border city that is currently undergoing a crisis several sorts. Despite the Liberal propaganda about our 'booming' economy, many small companies here are still struggling to stay in the black. Most giving to social causes has stopped (for example, several school robotic teams failed to raise enough money this year)

The economy boomed, not as a result of the Liberals, but as a result of a global economic boom that occured.

Should we blame Trudeau (Liberal) for the economic mess of the 70s and early 80s?

Before theProgressive Conservatives came to power in Ontario, the Liberals began the health care cut backs. I didn't support Harris much since I saw his ideas as too radical. But then again, I support Conservatives, not PCs...

Windsor (my hometown) is a border city that is currently undergoing a crisis several sorts. Despite the Liberal propaganda about our 'booming' economy, many small companies here are still struggling to stay in the black. Most giving to social causes has stopped (for example, several school robotic teams failed to raise enough money this year)

The economy boomed, not as a result of the Liberals, but as a result of a global economic boom that occured.

Should we blame Trudeau (Liberal) for the economic mess of the 70s and early 80s?
Well you can't blame the Federal Liberals for every job that opens up or closes down, that is just nonsense,

Here are the latest figures regarding unemployment:

http://www.lfpress.ca/perl-bin/niveau2.cgi?s=careers&p=84272.html&a=1

Statistics Canada reported yesterday the seasonally adjusted national unemployment rate has fallen to 7.3 per cent from 7.5 per cent, with the creation of 50,000 full-time jobs in April.

It was the lowest unemployment rate since September 2001.

The Ontario rate was 6.8 per cent, down from 7.1 per cent

Still looking to blame Trudeau? :shock: Mulroney had 9 years to fix it and he made it much worse. The point is Paul Martin has been instumental in getting it under control. Please give credit where it is due.

Check out this web site:

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/docs/PressRoom/Speeches/20031205TorontoTableaux_e.pdf

That should help you answer some questions regarding Canada's strong economy.

Now i'll have to get long-winded and fanatical....everyone blame Formal Dances if this annoys you! :twisted:

The Canadian system is a parliamentary one, which has been explained a bit. As hard as it may seem to believe, it is even worse than the screwy two-party system of the US with its electoral votes for the presidency.

In my view, and i am definitely not alone, the Candian system should be revamped in a major way. As was mentioned, we get to elect representatives from our local area to represent us in a 308 seat parliament. Other than that, we elect on our provincial level and the municpal level in a similar fashion. Everything else is named by the ruling party. Elections for sheriffs, judges, senators, or anything else you might have in the US does not exist here. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau said of the parliamentary system, "We live in a democracy for but one day every five years". (If you don't know Rousseau, you should read him; you will probably have to if you go to university. :) )

The political party that gets the most seats forms the government, however, a simple majority is necessary (155 seats this year). The hick is that we in Canada don't have just two major parties, we have four of them. Admittedly, on a realistic level, only two of these four will form a government, but the other two are very important.

The reason is because of what is known as a minority government. This upcoming election is very interesting because the chances of there being a minority government are very high. At this moment polls are wavering between liberal and conservative minority governments (I think conservatives have the edge right now, but who knows what will happen in this final week.) which means one of these two will get the most seats in parliament but will not have the simple majority necessary to form the government.

In order for the government to be formed, the party with the most seats must form an alliance with another party (or parties) to get that majority of seats. As a result you can have some very interesting negotiations between parties that may have substantially different views. As long as an alliance can be worked out, the government will remain in power for the remainder of its term which is technically five years, but traditionally only four years long.

Most of the time minority governments will collapse beffore the end of the term. One case was the conservative Joe Clark who was prime minister for 8 months back in 1979. He had a proposed budget law to vote on and budgets, because of their importance, are considered votes of confidence. If the law fails to pass then the government is deemed to lack the confidence of the house and elections are called immediately. Joe screwed up on this particular budget, but i won't get into that (for more reasons than just my memory is failing me :wink: ).

Anyhow, i'm going to keep going...but i'll start a new message detailing the major parties and the Canadian dynamic (or why it sucks to be Canadian if you don't live in Ontario or Quebec),

Ok, to continue, Canada, as i have said, has four main parties: The Liberals (lib), The Conservatives (CPC), The Bloc Quebecois (BQ), and The New Democratic Party (NDP).

LIB:
The liberals have had the most time as ruling party in the histroy of Canada. They are centralist, leaning left or right depending on the mood of Canadians; typically it is more left. They have enjoyed three straight mandates as ruling party (with a majority) with Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Jean Chretien retired back in December and the party elected the new leader to be Paul Martin.

There has actually been a lot of in-fighting between liberals who supported Chrétien and those who supported Martin. As far as the public goes, nobody likes the fact that Paul Marin has become Prime Minister without the entire Canadian electorate getting a chance to vote, but that's the way the parliamentary system goes.

Because they like to please everyone in the country, the liberals have enjoyed great success. They will tell one group one thing and another group another thing. Eventually though, this does catch up to them. Many of their eletoral promises have been unfulfilled. I will give them credit though, they managed to half-fill promises enough to make it look good enough to win three elections in a row.

The big thing this election is that unfulfilled election promises ended up being revealed as minor as far as lies go. There was a scandal whereby liberal friendly companies got huge checks to perform the smallest of tasks. People are really pissed off about it all, but the most annoying is that the extent of the problem is still entirely unclear. It may not be too too bad, but it may also be a lot worse.

CPC:
Thsi is the only other party in Canada to form a government in the history of our country. Typically they have been in opposition more often than government but we can consider them one of the two big players in Canadian politics.

To be more accurate, this is a new party that resulted as a merger of two other parties: the progressive consevatives and the alliance party. The conservatives are more on the right side both economically and socially, but not nearly as right-wing as the more radical Republicans of the US.

IN fact, before the founding of the Reform party (which then more or less became the Alliance party) back in the late eighties, the progressive conservatives were the main corps of the right. The progressive conservatives were actually formed form a union of the conservatives and the progressists back in the 30's (anyone, please feel free to correct me if dates or facts are a bit off here). The progressists were more left-leaning, so the progressive conservatives were quite leftist for a so-called right-wing party. This is one of the main reasons the Reform party was born.

Anway, this election has the conservatives strong again for two reasons:
1. The Liberals have pissed off a lot of people.
2. Vote and seat-splitting between the two parties that make up the conservative party is no longer a factor.

One of their weaknesses, played-up by what some whould call Liberal fear-mongering, is that the conservatives as they stand today are still untested as a government party. Some are concerned that a radically right turn may be taken, far too right for most. This gets some backing by the words of otherwise insignificant conservative candidates that say some things like "I think abortion is wrong, i'll fight to get rid of it." (That's not an exact quote, i'm just giving a strong example to help clarify things)

Leadership has been clear that such things will not be brought up, but it still worries many that anyone within the party could be thinking about it. Nobody trusts politicians to just take them on their word.

THe BLOC AND NDP will be touched in my next message. (sorry for the length, but i'm having fun blabbing like this)

Both the BQ and the NDP are more left-wing. Ultimatley this is of secondary importance in the case of the BQ whose main goal is to separate the majoritarily French-speaking province of Quebec from the rest of Canada to form their own country.

These two parties both strongly opposed such Liberal government actions as the cutting of social benefits like Employment Insurance (cheques for those that lost their job), and transfer payments to provinces for health care. Ironically, these actions are what the Liberals say we should be wary of from the Conservative party.

Both of the parties support gay rights (including homosexual marriage), no war in Iraq, greater involvement in the UN, implementation of the Kyoto accord, lower taxes for those making below aveage salaries, higher taxes for wealthier individuals and corporations, and other more typically left-wing positions.

Although it is highly unlikely these two could have enough combined seats to form the government, they differ on one major issue so strongly that it could destroy such a possiblity anyway: the BQ demands strong respect of provincial competencies while the NDP likes everything to be covered in a nice centralized blanket of minimal (and some would say not so minimal) national norms.

Both parties could have potential partnerships with the Liberals or Conservatives to form the government. The Liberals have always been willing to be more leftist in their approach than the conservatives so they'd likely try to form a governemtn with the NDP, assuming the New Democrats elect enough MPs to make this a possiblity.

Neither the liberals nor the conservatives want to be know as a paryt that allied itself with a "separatist party" like the BQ, and their leftist approach may make it tough for the conservatives to join sides with them anyway. However, unlike the NDP, the conservatists could work with the Bloc on the strength of decentralizing power from the federal government to the provincial governemtns.

It is expected that of the 75 seats in Quebec, the BQ will get more than 50. This does not mean that Quebec will try to separate from Canada because such a referendum is held at the provincial level when the ruling provinicial party is the separtist party. Right now, the provinical liberals are in power in Quebec. About ten years ago though, there was a referendum in Quebec that voted 49.6% in favour of separating. Despite the loss, the issue will remain an important one, especially considering how close it was to being in favour.

For these and other reasons, Quebeckers have been particularily demanding voters. With 75 of 308 seats, Quebec is a place that is important to please. Not, however, as important as Ontario where 106 of the seats are found. If you do the math you'll see that to win a majoritary government in Canada requires only pleasing these two provinces where a proportional 65% of the Canadian population lives. Their history together, geographical proximity, industrial links, and economic bases are very similar so they frequently have the same vision of things despite the so called "English-French" divide.

This leaves a wealthy western Canada (everthing west of Ontario, whcih actually covers a very large and diverse area) pissed that the West's views are not taken seriously. They do, however, have enough economic power and demographic growth to at least get people in Ottawa looking west, if not actually listening to concerns being voiced. The three major parties will all get support here, but the conservative appeal of leaving the rich alone and letting provinces take care of their own backyard will give them the edge.

Atlantic Canada, the four smallest provinces in Canada all found east of Quebec, are economically miserable. They have NO political clout. They have the same sort of political status as the Queen, meaning they symbolically represent the country's history and traditions, and consequently get some attention, but it's all, in substance, a show. Nobody in Ottawa or anywhere in Canada gives a flying f--- about these provinces or their people. They may as well just be wiped out by a nice North Atlantic wave, nobody in the rest of Canada would really notice or care(except the many thousands of Atlantic Canadians who, like myself, have for econmic reasons moved to other parts of the country).

As is often the case with the desperate, in-fighting for the scraps of benefits that can be gained is common in Atlantic Canada. The region is infamous for its "old-school" politics of "you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours" type thing. All of them will grovel at the federal government's feet for help of any kind, and they don't mind backstabbing each other in this dirty game. The NDP theoretically has the only platform that could appeal to them, but the conservatives and especially the liberals are good and experienced at the "old-school" game that unfortunately still reigns in this region. As a result, expect a mixed bag, but more red (liberal) than anything else.

Have you bothered to read my postings? They were largely intended for you Formal Dances. I hope it did not bore you, or anyone else, to death. I think i was pretty objective, and fairly balanced in my coverage.

This is, in fact, what i would hope that a young person such as yourself would hold as an ideal. I fear you have already concluded things to be straight in your head: strong republican repect of individual rights instead of those crazy left-wingers that want to interfere too much. Yeah, yeah, it's a label that might not fit you but hear me out.

Politicians of all stripes have this nasty tendency to be self-interested and largely self-absorbed. Careful about railing strongly against one group in favour of the other, they're not quite as different as they might let on. The US has, i think, a better opportunity to evaluate candidates on individual merit than Canada with its parliamentary system. Free votes are quite common in the Hose of Representatives, not in the House of Commons.

Try to look for that individual coherence of argument rather than the same played-out rhetoric of left vs. right. I know if i were American i would not want George Bush as my president, nor would i want John Kerry. They both sit deeply in the pockets of some pretty powerful groups.

I would like to see a President John McCain, or even Howard Dean, both of whom seem more honest in what they stand for. But i sidetrack, this forum is on the Canadian election. If such things interest you, just keep in mind that it may be misleading to make any comparison between the US and Canada for political possiblities. The system, as i hope i have made clear, is quite different for a variety of reasons.

Hey, Canadians,
What happened to Action democratique du Quebec? Or were they a one hit wonder?

Thank you, Proudhonistes! I didn't find it boring at all but very informative. I just can't help but think about my own political system. Your right, yours sounds more screwed up than ours. Hence why W is called smothing else since he only won the Electoral vote and not both the Electoral and Popular vote.

Sounds like both of our systems could use a bit of revamping. You have the same problem that our Founding Fathers feared, hence why we have an electoral vote and not a popular vote system. (giggles) They feared exactly what is happening in your country. Only major Centers having the power to get people elected.

Alot of my views are my own. Alot of what is said on here by the Liberal Party does seem to me to be almost Carbon Copies of what our Liberal Democrats are saying. I just have that impression.

I hope and pray that Canada can come through this alright. US and Canada are linked pretty much and what effects one does effect the other. Though we are bigger and stronger than Canada, and your effects are minimal to some extent, we are still linked together.

Thanks again sir and I hope we can have a good friendship on here.

L'Action Democratique du Quebec is still the third most powerful party in Quebec but has waned in strength because of their right wing views. (Quebec is extremely liberal socially). Depending on the next little while it may make a resurgence.

As I am going through the various campaign promises by each party, in particular, that of the Liberals and Conservatives, it has become extremely clear that the Conservatives are offering very little substance compared to the Liberals.

It appears that the Conservatives are going to make it up as they go, IF they are elected. Demand better, ask the questions, and see where the candidates stand.

I will post some of the major differences between the two parties as per this web site:

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/static/issues/issues.html

EDUCATION

Canadians place great importance on learning, and have developed a first-rate education system with high standards. The country spends more on education (as a percentage of GDP) compared to the OECD average, and is highest among G-7 countries.

LIBERALS

· Provide assistance to children from low-income families with a new Canada Learning Bond worth up to $2,000

· Provide new grant of $3,000 for first-year post-secondary students from low-income families

· Up-front annual grant of up to $2,000 for students with disabilities

· Enhance the Canada Education Savings Grant from 20 to 40 per cent for families from low-income families and from 20 to 30 per cent for families from middle-income families

· Raise the weekly loan ceiling in the Canada Students Loans to $210 from $165

· Income thresholds for determining eligibility for student loan interest relief will be increased by five per cent

· Increase the maximum amount of debt reduction for students facing financial difficulty to $26,000, from 20,000

· Implement a Canada Graduate Scholarships Program to support 2,000 master students and 2,000 doctoral students annually

· A $5 billion, five-year spending commitment to kickstart a national affordable child-care program inspired by the $7 a day child-care system pioneered in Quebec

· Invest $125 million over five years for the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy

· Improve education for aboriginals by providing incentives to create comprehensive kindergarten-to-Grade 12 First nations education systems
· $137 million for second language instruction to double the number of bilingual high school students in 2013

· Extend education tax credit to employees who take courses related to their career

CONSERVATIVES

· Work with the provinces to reduce financial barriers to post-secondary education and training

· Improve the Canada Student Loans Program

On education, as a voter, I would be concerned about the Conservatives' lack of commitment to education, and/or their lack of policy on this vital issue.

EDUCATION IS A PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Less policy is better for a federal party.

Get your hands off!

As I am going through the various campaign promises by each party, in particular, that of the Liberals and Conservatives, it has become extremely clear that the Conservatives are offering very little substance compared to the Liberals.

It appears that the Conservatives are going to make it up as they go, IF they are elected. Demand better, ask the questions, and see where the candidates stand.

I will post some of the major differences between the two parties as per this web site:

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/static/issues/issues.html

MUNICIPALITIES

Almost 80% of Canadians live in urban areas, so naturally, municipalities are a very integral part of our society. Let’s see the differences between the Liberal and Conservative platforms:

LIBERALS

· Recognize municipal governments in implementing Canada's national agenda

· Use as models agreements with Winnipeg and Vancouver to extend cooperate partnerships among all levels of government across Canada

· Decide by the end of the year on sharing a portion of the federal gas tax, or its financial equivalent

· Beginning in 2005, the amount will be ramped up within the next five years to five cents per litre, or at least $2 billion

· Stimulate assisted housing by providing a further $1 to $1.5 billion over the next five years

· The budget included a new deal for cities that will provide municipalities with GST relief that will mean up to $7 billion over the next 10 years

· Accelerate the $1-billion Municipal Rural Infrastructure fund for spending over five years, instead of 10

· The Liberals announced it would be giving $350 million over five years to help fund public transit upgrades in Toronto

· New funding of $4 billion over 10 years to clean up federal contaminated sites


CONSERVATIVES

· Transfer at least 3 cents of the gas tax to the provinces to be invested in infrastructure

Once again, as a voter, I would be concerned about the Conservatives' lack of commitment to our cities and towns, and/or their lack of policy on this vital issue.

A void does seem worrisome when you want to know where your money is going to go, however, this is for the provinces to decide where education is concerned. Ideally the conservatives might offer at least a figure on how much will be transferred to the provinces, but maybe they aren't even sure how much money will be left for that.

As for the liberal promises, whether you like them or not doesn't really matter. In the past: I wanted to get rid of the GST, Liberals promised me to do that. I wanted more in Health Care spending, Liberals promised me to that, I wanted more in Education, Liberals promised me to do that, and I wanted a little compassion for seasonal workers in economically depressed areas of the country, Liberals promised that too. Now there may been many promises kept by the Liberals, but all of these unkept ones don't give me much confidence to believe anything new.

Basically by not promising anything the Conservatives are presenting the same platform as the Liberals: You'lll get what you get when you get it.

Municipalities have been getting along just fine with a "national vision", thanks. Maybe if people weren't taxed so much by the federal government the municipalities could make up their own mind about things.

National defence, foreign policy, and a limited federal police and court system is pretty much all we need the federal government for.

Unfortunately, I'm just slightly to young to vote this time (I turn 18 in August). I like the liberals and I would probably vote for them. But, the Tories are not all bad.

First of all, an unborn child's right to LIFE should come before a woman's right to "CHOOSE". After all, we don't have the right to "choose" to murder people and the fetus does not have the right to choose on a life or death matter! And definately, the government should not give public funding to abortions. This is a cosmetic procedure and taxpayers who find it immoral (which it is) do not have the right to "choose" whether or not to pay for other people's abortions. It is just like someone coming to your house and stealing $100 so he can hire a hitman on his wife!

I also like the idea of lower taxes and a smaller government. Paul Martin keeps on trying to remind us that we can't have Canadian-style government with medicare, welfare, etc. with US style taxes. True enough, but this is a PROVINCIAL responsability, so why are the feds charging us so much for it. My province (Québec) charges its own taxes, federal taxes go only to federal government services and that's the way it should be.

Furthermore, if we allow innocent fetus's to die with abortion, why should we allow GUILTY criminals to live by not having the Death Penalty. What a backwards society we have! I'm not necessarily for capital punishment but I wouldn't mind a government that re-legalized it.

HOWEVER...
Paul Martin has a reputation for balancing the budget and the conservatives, ironically, have a reputation for going into debt (and introducing GST). The war in Iraq was a bad idea: it costed too much money, too many lives and it did not bring peace to the country, just chaos. Furthermore, the government could make a lot of money by legalizing marijuana so they can tax it, but the Conservatives ignore this worthy source of revenue for stupid paternalistic reasons or something.
:evil: :evil:

As I am going through the various campaign promises by each party, in particular, that of the Liberals and Conservatives, it has become extremely clear that the Conservatives are offering very little substance compared to the Liberals.

It appears that the Conservatives are going to make it up as they go, IF they are elected. Demand better, ask the questions, and see where the candidates stand.

I will post some of the major differences between the two parties as per this web site:

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/static/issues/issues.html

ENVIRONMENT

By committing Canada to the Kyoto Protocol, the Liberals are demonstrating world class leadership on controlling the runaway environment that threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that feeds our families, and ultimately controlling the greenhouse gases that are contributing to global warming. A total of 189 countries have signed this Protocol that started back in 1992. Russia has signified its’ intent to ratify this Protocol which would make the agreement take effect.

The Conservatives on the other hand would renege on Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol by pursuing a “made in Canada” solution. However, they have not spelled out that commitment.

LIBERALS

· The Liberals plan to boost the use of wind energy under a three-part plan

· Boost the number of wind power projects under the Wind Power Production Incentive (WPPI) from its current 1,000 megawatts to a target of 4,000 megawatts; promote the benefits and cost-effectiveness of wind power; and increase support for research and development on this type of clean energy

· The Liberals also vow to create a Canadian National Wind Atlas to determine the best place for wind farms

· The government will work with the provinces and territories to modernize standards for wind turbines and create common rules and guidelines for wind power policies

· The budget pledged funding of $4 billion over 10 years to clean up contaminated sites

· Additional $500 million to clean up non-federal sites, such as the Sydney tar ponds

· New funding, amounting to $1 billion over seven years, to support the development of new environmental technologies, reflecting the sale of Petro-Canada

· Respect Kyoto agreements by working with provinces and territories to develop a climate change plan that respects regional differences

· Pursue the "one-tonne challenge" to help Canadians reduce their emissions by 20 per cent


CONSERVATIVES

· Harper will scrap the Kyoto Protocol in favour of a new clean-air bill that would include mandatory limits on emissions with targeted levels to be achieved by 2010

· The Conservative Party vows to become an "environmental world leader by focusing on clean air, clean water, clean land, and clean energy"

Once again, as a voter, I would be concerned about the Conservatives' lack of commitment to OUR environment, and/or their lack of policy on this vital issue.

I do think that the NDP may end up becoming the socially conservative party. It won't happen this election, maybe not next election, but the election after that it may happen. Monia Mazigh is a Muslim, and her views on this are very so-con. Svend Robinson, a possible dissenter to keep things the way they are, is gone. Her views will take over, and in time, dominate. They'll never become Christian Heritage Party so-con, but maybe Stephen Harper so-con, with a free vote.

This is not officially endorsed by the NDP.

Canada is stuck in a rut. The federal government is ineffective as it stands, as the provinces tend to ignore any federal legislature they don't like. Provincial politics are rife with petty squabbling, shady alliances and they sure have no care about any demographic with the exception of the ones that will win them the most voters, basically, education, social programs and health care have suffered as baby boomers protect the wealth they have acquired by indebting future generations of Canada, and politicians are all to willing to sell out the up and coming generations. Votes are marginalized across ridings, and thus are racist by their very nature but nobody seems to care that 90% of the power has been held by 30% of the population.

Face it, Canada is doomed. We have not, and will not make any social progress with the current governmental system until the baby boomer generation has died off. By then, it will be too late.

Peak oil will have become a reality (google it and crap your pants) and Canada will have no choice but to become part of the United States, as we cannot maintain our lifestyle while being the second worst conuntry in the world at energy used per GDP while maintaining our standing commitment to sell 65% of our oil to the US.

Our only hope is to implement a centralized federal governmental system that is obliagted by law to protect its citizens from provincial demographic favoritisim. The riding systems must be done away with and votes must be counted proportinately to determine seats, so all demographics play a key role in having their voices heard. (Just look at Ontario's last provincial election, the NDP had more votes than ever before, but lost all their power since those votes were spread across the ridings)

Other things that would be nice, in a specific policy kinda way.

1)Canada must maintain a nuclear arsenal to prevent the US or the CIS from encroaching on our vast natural resources during the "peak oil" crisis. (Yeah, that's right, we are right between 2 of the most powerful nations on earth, all firendship aside, if push comes to shove during a resource crunch, we cannot afford to get pushed as we are now)

2)Canada MUST increase it's energy efficiency to prevent the bottom of our ecnomy falling out beneath us during the peak oil crisis. With our current energy efficiency, there will be a threshold crossed during the "peak oil" crisis that will annihilate our way of life if things continue as they are now.

3)It would be nice if student loans are repaid as a proportion of income while you are working. As it stands now, the defaul rate is as high as 50% in economically depressed areas (gee who whould have though that kids right out of school with no experience with managing credit and no jobs have a high chance of not paying loans back?)

4)Soical Assistance must become a federal program much like unemployment insurance. Rent rates must be pro rated on rental costs of the region (just compare the cost of living of urban to subruban, and figure who which citizens are getting the shaft). As well, You only need to look at BC's and Alberta's social programs to see how provincial politicians pass the buck and take no responsibility whatsoever for any demographic outside of the middle class and babyboomer populations.

But this will not happen, and in 20 years we will all be reciting the pledge of allegiance. But it's OK, my father was stationed at the Candian detachment in Ramstein germany, where I attended US school from grades 1-3. So I already know it and thus have 1 advntage over you hopeless individuals who have no idea we've completely screwed ourselves.

L'Action Democratique du Quebec is still the third most powerful party in Quebec but has waned in strength because of their right wing views. (Quebec is extremely liberal socially). Depending on the next little while it may make a resurgence.
Thanks for the info. -- But I understood that ADQ was pretty libertarian both on economic AND social issues. Or did you mean that Quebecois are lukewarm to ADQ for fear that they'd cut back Quebec's cushy welfare state?

1)Canada must maintain a nuclear arsenal to prevent the US or the CIS from encroaching on our vast natural resources during the "peak oil" crisis. (Yeah, that's right, we are right between 2 of the most powerful nations on earth, all firendship aside, if push comes to shove during a resource crunch, we cannot afford to get pushed as we are now)
I say, you shouldn't limit your national salvation programme to a mere crash nuclear armament course. Here are a few suggested additions to your platform that I think you will appreciate:
1. A blue-water navy to fend off those pesky Danish invaders (they've recently attempted to lay their dirty hand on a little islet somewhere between your frozen wastelands and their frozen wastelands (Greenland), and to patrol the Straights of Molucca. -- I bet the locals have never seen a maple leaf: they'll look on in amasement.
2. Amass mad cows all along the US-Canadian frontier -- as an ADDITIONAL strategic deterrent to possible yankee provocations. They'll never dare laugh at "aboot" again
3. Beef up the air defences to shoot down planes carrying Canadian hockey players off to places like Tampa and Fort Lauderdale. -- These guys should play in the Faterland, and a welfare cheque from the 'centralized federal governmental system" is plenty for their trouble.
4. HOARD THE BLUDGEONED SEALS! If the forriners demand that 65% of those seals be exported, JUST SAY NO!
Besides, should the energy crisis really dawn on a nation that is #1 or #2 in terms of hydroelectrical capacity, those fatty seals can be burned to generate heat and power. Nor should it be terribly challenging to build an internal combustion engine running on seal fat.
5. Build a bunker for every Canadian -- it worked for Albania. Not only would such an undertaking put the Maginot Line to shame, but the afordable housing issue would be resolved in one fell swoop well. Some defeatists eager to surrender to Denmark or the US would, of course, claim that concrete wall are a tad austere, but in truth it would look JUST FINE if you pile up some of them, bludgeoned seals 'round the inside.

http://albania.curtprins.com/popups/images/11-Big_Bunker.jpg

I do think that the NDP may end up becoming the socially conservative party. It won't happen this election, maybe not next election, but the election after that it may happen. Monia Mazigh is a Muslim, and her views on this are very so-con. Svend Robinson, a possible dissenter to keep things the way they are, is gone. Her views will take over, and in time, dominate. They'll never become Christian Heritage Party so-con, but maybe Stephen Harper so-con, with a free vote.

This is not officially endorsed by the NDP.

I don't think it will occur. I think a more likely scenario would go this way, Monia Mazigh is elected. On the contentious gay marriage issue, Layton will try (unsuccesfully) to get her to vote in favour of it. He'll threaten to boot her from the party if she doesn't (he did this last time the bill came around). I personnally think she will bite the bullet and vote against her party on it.

Layton will promptly boot her from the NDP. From there, she'll probably join the CPC because most of them hold similar social views or remain an independent.

Canada is stuck in a rut. The federal government is ineffective as it stands, as the provinces tend to ignore any federal legislature they don't like. Provincial politics are rife with petty squabbling, shady alliances and they sure have no care about any demographic with the exception of the ones that will win them the most voters, basically, education, social programs and health care have suffered as baby boomers protect the wealth they have acquired by indebting future generations of Canada, and politicians are all to willing to sell out the up and coming generations. Votes are marginalized across ridings, and thus are racist by their very nature but nobody seems to care that 90% of the power has been held by 30% of the population.

Face it, Canada is doomed. We have not, and will not make any social progress with the current governmental system until the baby boomer generation has died off. By then, it will be too late.

Peak oil will have become a reality (google it and crap your pants) and Canada will have no choice but to become part of the United States, as we cannot maintain our lifestyle while being the second worst conuntry in the world at energy used per GDP while maintaining our standing commitment to sell 65% of our oil to the US.

Our only hope is to implement a centralized federal governmental system that is obliagted by law to protect its citizens from provincial demographic favoritisim. The riding systems must be done away with and votes must be counted proportinately to determine seats, so all demographics play a key role in having their voices heard. (Just look at Ontario's last provincial election, the NDP had more votes than ever before, but lost all their power since those votes were spread across the ridings)

Other things that would be nice, in a specific policy kinda way.

1)Canada must maintain a nuclear arsenal to prevent the US or the CIS from encroaching on our vast natural resources during the "peak oil" crisis. (Yeah, that's right, we are right between 2 of the most powerful nations on earth, all firendship aside, if push comes to shove during a resource crunch, we cannot afford to get pushed as we are now)

2)Canada MUST increase it's energy efficiency to prevent the bottom of our ecnomy falling out beneath us during the peak oil crisis. With our current energy efficiency, there will be a threshold crossed during the "peak oil" crisis that will annihilate our way of life if things continue as they are now.

3)It would be nice if student loans are repaid as a proportion of income while you are working. As it stands now, the defaul rate is as high as 50% in economically depressed areas (gee who whould have though that kids right out of school with no experience with managing credit and no jobs have a high chance of not paying loans back?)

4)Soical Assistance must become a federal program much like unemployment insurance. Rent rates must be pro rated on rental costs of the region (just compare the cost of living of urban to subruban, and figure who which citizens are getting the shaft). As well, You only need to look at BC's and Alberta's social programs to see how provincial politicians pass the buck and take no responsibility whatsoever for any demographic outside of the middle class and babyboomer populations.

But this will not happen, and in 20 years we will all be reciting the pledge of allegiance. But it's OK, my father was stationed at the Candian detachment in Ramstein germany, where I attended US school from grades 1-3. So I already know it and thus have 1 advntage over you hopeless individuals who have no idea we've completely screwed ourselves.

Real Democracy, the voting system isn't racist...it doesn't discriminate based on race. Its first past the post and an ancient system, but not racist. Poor choice of words. People are self-interested and the Baby-Boomers are well, the most numerous and hence their concerns come first. As they should since they are the majority. Your figures are also without backup, have any? I believe our future looks good, with some tweaking to the system, Canada can continue to be the great place to live that it is.

I hear so many people we will "have" to become part of the U.S.. Well ever thought they would never want us? Second, we're doing just fine on our own up here.

As for the voting system, I believe we need a mixed system like in new Zealand. 100 or so seats determined by national proportional representation and the rest by larger ridings.All of this would require massive constitutional changes.

And your points:

1) We can't afford a nuclear arsenal. We don't have the means nor the political will. In any case, our neighbor to the south is the repository for the world's second largest Nuclear warhead depots.

2) Lets start by exploitation of our northern territories, the land between Newfoundland and Nove Scotia AND activating the Alberta Tar sands.

3) Agreed. Student loans are also much to easy to acquire.

4) The government should stay out of the cost/rents apartment business. It doesn't work, it causes problems and bureaucratic manipulations.

Canada's future is in its provinces. The powers their supposed to wield will make this country better if the central governments STOPS meddling in their affairs. We're not screwed, we're not doomed, we just need to start making the system work the way its supposed to.

Canuckheaven:

Education is the business of provinces. Answer to Federal government: Take nose and stick it elsewhere. Section 93 guaranteed denominational education, as well as education in general to be the jurisdiction of the provinces. Section 92 lays out the powers of the Provinces, and section 91 those of the Federal government. Canuck, read the constitution, and lets start respecting our founding document.

On the environment:

That's all the Conservatives have. I don't believe we need more. If the environment is your principle issue in this election, then you should vote for the Green Party which offers FAR more than either the CPC or the Liberals in terms of change. The CPC is making promises it can keep, meaning we don't blow alot of wind and we'll do what we propose.


On the municipalities:

Same as before, municipalities are the sole responsability of the provincial government. Federal government has NO business there.

The CPC is making the promises it KNOWS it can keep. Unlike the Liberals, we do not make promises we cannot keep, we make those we are confident are feasible.

I don't think it will occur. I think a more likely scenario would go this way, Monia Mazigh is elected. On the contentious gay marriage issue, Layton will try (unsuccesfully) to get her to vote in favour of it. He'll threaten to boot her from the party if she doesn't (he did this last time the bill came around). I personnally think she will bite the bullet and vote against her party on it.

Layton will promptly boot her from the NDP. From there, she'll probably join the CPC because most of them hold similar social views or remain an independent.

Maybe that's what would have happened if Svend Robinson was still around. I think that she'll go up to Jack Layton and say, "You know, I really can't do this." He'll complain a bit, then she'll pull out her minority-woman card and Jack Layton will give in. Remember, she was asked to join the party. Jack Layton fully knew what he was getting into.

Very interesting Vorringia. It is amazing on how well thought out your posts are. I'm also glad that your one of the few on here that don't resort to personal insults or get angry. It is refreshing

I find what you say very informative and helpful to me though I"m an American. Please keep it up.

you know what i find funny, they've done polls and people want the liberal party stances. they just don't want the liberal party.

the majority of canadians are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-kyoto and anti-death penalty. yet all these people are willing to vote conservative to spite the liberals.

i myself am going ndp i think.

you know what i find funny, they've done polls and people want the liberal party stances. they just don't want the liberal party.

the majority of canadians are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-kyoto and anti-death penalty. yet all these people are willing to vote conservative to spite the liberals.

i myself am going ndp i think.

Yeah, no kidding. It's like they're scared of the NDP or something. I don't know why.

i don't know why people are afraid of the ndp. they're the only ones who don't want in on bush's retarded missile defense program.

i don't know why people are afraid of the ndp. they're the only ones who don't want in on bush's retarded missile defense program.

It's an irrational fear. They're afraid that Jack Layton can't pull it off. Well, he actually has done it as a city councillor in Toronto.

DP

As I am going through the various campaign promises by each party, in particular, that of the Liberals and Conservatives, it has become extremely clear that the Conservatives are offering very little substance compared to the Liberals.

It appears that the Conservatives are going to make it up as they go, IF they are elected. Demand better, ask the questions, and see where the candidates stand.

I will post some of the major differences between the two parties as per this web site:

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/static/issues/issues.html

SAME SEX MARRIAGES

While this is a contentious subject, at least the Liberals are recognizing what the courts have been saying in regards to same sex couple benefits, and although the Liberals are not coming out defending the rights of gays and lesbians to get married, they are not prepared to legislate against them, if such would conflict with the Charter of Rights.

The Conservatives would NOT allow the courts to rule on this subject, rather they would hold a “free” vote on the issue. Since the leader, Stephen Harper, has stated his opposition to same sex marriages, one can very well imagine the outcome of such a “free” vote if the Conservatives held a majority of seats. It would appear that the Conservatives would like to control the outcome, rather than letting the courts decide what is in the realm of the Charter of Rights.

LIBERALS

· Government under Jean Chretien submitted three questions on same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court

· Paul Martin added a fourth question regarding whether the traditional definition of marriage contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

· In their platform, Martin says the Liberals will not invoke the "notwithstanding clause" of the Charter to deny equal rights

· It will also not obligate religious institutions to conduct marriage ceremonies that contravene their own beliefs and practices.


CONSERVATIVES

· Stephen Harper believes marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals

· A Conservative government would withdraw the four questions put to the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage and would instead hold a free vote in Parliament

· Harper believes the Supreme Court would likely not overturn Parliament's decision

Once again, as a voter, I would be concerned about the Conservatives' lack of commitment to uphold the Charter of Rights in regards to gay and lesbian couples.

Majority of Canadians are not pro-gay marriage. Actually they found that majority are pro-civil unions, but a slim majority opposes gay marriage.

The two are highly divisive issues that vary from one day to another. But I'll give you that there are probably more pro-choice and pro-Kyoto.

And what is with the capital punishment argument? That isn't part of the COnservative platform?

On same-sex marriage. . .

I am very strongly against that, however, I think Stephen Harper's idea of a free vote is a wise one.

However, if you talk social programs, then neither party has what you want. The Conservatives will slash them a la Mike Harris, and the Liberals won't keep them, a la Jean Chretien/Paul Martin.

Who will keep the programs? Do I really need to tell you?

As I am going through the various campaign promises by each party, in particular, that of the Liberals and Conservatives, it has become extremely clear that the Conservatives are offering very little substance compared to the Liberals.

It appears that the Conservatives are going to make it up as they go, IF they are elected. Demand better, ask the questions, and see where the candidates stand.

I will post some of the major differences between the two parties as per this web site:

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/static/issues/issues.html

SAME SEX MARRIAGES

While this is a contentious subject, at least the Liberals are recognizing what the courts have been saying in regards to same sex couple benefits, and although the Liberals are not coming out defending the rights of gays and lesbians to get married, they are not prepared to legislate against them, if such would conflict with the Charter of Rights.

The Conservatives would NOT allow the courts to rule on this subject, rather they would hold a “free” vote on the issue. Since the leader, Stephen Harper, has stated his opposition to same sex marriages, one can very well imagine the outcome of such a “free” vote if the Conservatives held a majority of seats. It would appear that the Conservatives would like to control the outcome, rather than letting the courts decide what is in the realm of the Charter of Rights.

LIBERALS

· Government under Jean Chretien submitted three questions on same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court

· Paul Martin added a fourth question regarding whether the traditional definition of marriage contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

· In their platform, Martin says the Liberals will not invoke the "notwithstanding clause" of the Charter to deny equal rights

· It will also not obligate religious institutions to conduct marriage ceremonies that contravene their own beliefs and practices.


CONSERVATIVES

· Stephen Harper believes marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals

· A Conservative government would withdraw the four questions put to the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage and would instead hold a free vote in Parliament

· Harper believes the Supreme Court would likely not overturn Parliament's decision

Once again, as a voter, I would be concerned about the Conservatives' lack of commitment to uphold the Charter of Rights in regards to gay and lesbian couples.

STOP POSTING THIS! Its annoying.

Majority of Canadians are not pro-gay marriage. Actually they found that majority are pro-civil unions, but a slim majority opposes gay marriage.

The two are highly divisive issues that vary from one day to another. But I'll give you that there are probably more pro-choice and pro-Kyoto.

And what is with the capital punishment argument? That isn't part of the COnservative platform?
Because the majority are not "pro-gay marriage", does that mean that the Charter of Rights is exclusive of gays and lesbians?

No employer can discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, and the courts have already ruled in favour of same sex benefits, why would anyone object to same sex marriages, as long as religious organizations are forced to perform the ceremony?

DP

STOP POSTING THIS! Its annoying.
Do you have something against freedom of speech?

I never said that CanuckHeaven. You are putting words in my mouth.

I said that the majority of Canadians do not support gay marriage. I did not give my opinion on it, but since you are pushing me, I will.

It is my opinion that gay marriage should not be allowed. I do view marriage as a solely heterosexual thing. And there is no Charter 'right' to be able to marry. In fact, the Charter doesn't mention marriage at all. So, homosexuals have no basis to accuse others of violating their 'rights'.

I am all for the protection of homosexuals. I think it is a lifestyle choice and that their choice should be respected even if I disagree with it. What I fear however, is that religions will be attacked for disagreeing with homosexuality.

The recent bill C-36 (I think that is the one) does not protect religions from being classified as promoting hatred when they say that homosexuality is wrong. Which is a violation of the separation of church and state since the state is trying to control what religion says.

DP

On same-sex marriage. . .

I am very strongly against that, however, I think Stephen Harper's idea of a free vote is a wise one.

However, if you talk social programs, then neither party has what you want. The Conservatives will slash them a la Mike Harris, and the Liberals won't keep them, a la Jean Chretien/Paul Martin.

Who will keep the programs? Do I really need to tell you?
You have stated that you are voting NDP, who:

"supports same-sex marriage, while respecting the rights of each religion to determine its own definition of marriage".

Why are you "strongly" against that? You do not need to reply if you wish.

I never said that CanuckHeaven. You are putting words in my mouth.

I said that the majority of Canadians do not support gay marriage. I did not give my opinion on it, but since you are pushing me, I will.

It is my opinion that gay marriage should not be allowed. I do view marriage as a solely heterosexual thing. And there is no Charter 'right' to be able to marry. In fact, the Charter doesn't mention marriage at all. So, homosexuals have no basis to accuse others of violating their 'rights'.

I am all for the protection of homosexuals. I think it is a lifestyle choice and that their choice should be respected even if I disagree with it. What I fear however, is that religions will be attacked for disagreeing with homosexuality.

The recent bill C-36 (I think that is the one) does not protect religions from being classified as promoting hatred when they say that homosexuality is wrong. Which is a violation of the separation of church and state since the state is trying to control what religion says.
Firstly, I only quoted what in fact you said.

Secondly, since they have a "lifestyle choice" that is different than yours, and you support their choice, why give into the "fear" that religions will be attacked. Do gays and lesbians demand a marriage in a church? However there is a church that will support gay marriages. Will this affect your "heterosexual" existence? Of course not.

CanuckHeaven... the NDP do NOT support the rights of religions to determine their own views on homosexuality. Svend Robinson's recent bill demonstrates this as did Layton's actions on the homosexuality debate.

He forced all NDP MPs to vote in favour of the motion under threat of expulsion from the party.

CanuckHeaven... the NDP do NOT support the rights of religions to determine their own views on homosexuality. Svend Robinson's recent bill demonstrates this as did Layton's actions on the homosexuality debate.

He forced all NDP MPs to vote in favour of the motion under threat of expulsion from the party.
According to this web site, they do, unless there is an error?

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/static/issues/issues_same_sex.html

The NDP have always been supportive of gay and lesbian issues, as a matter of fact, and probably are the strongest promoters of their "choices".

CanuckHeaven... the NDP do NOT support the rights of religions to determine their own views on homosexuality. Svend Robinson's recent bill demonstrates this as did Layton's actions on the homosexuality debate.

He forced all NDP MPs to vote in favour of the motion under threat of expulsion from the party.
Do you have sources that back up your contention? If this is the case than Layton is way off the mark.

As I am going through the various campaign promises by each party, in particular, that of the Liberals and Conservatives, it has become extremely clear that the Conservatives are offering very little substance compared to the Liberals.

It appears that the Conservatives are going to make it up as they go, IF they are elected. Demand better, ask the questions, and see where the candidates stand.

I will post some of the major differences between the two parties as per this web site:

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/static/issues/issues.html

SAME SEX MARRIAGES

While this is a contentious subject, at least the Liberals are recognizing what the courts have been saying in regards to same sex couple benefits, and although the Liberals are not coming out defending the rights of gays and lesbians to get married, they are not prepared to legislate against them, if such would conflict with the Charter of Rights.

The Conservatives would NOT allow the courts to rule on this subject, rather they would hold a “free” vote on the issue. Since the leader, Stephen Harper, has stated his opposition to same sex marriages, one can very well imagine the outcome of such a “free” vote if the Conservatives held a majority of seats. It would appear that the Conservatives would like to control the outcome, rather than letting the courts decide what is in the realm of the Charter of Rights.

LIBERALS

· Government under Jean Chretien submitted three questions on same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court

· Paul Martin added a fourth question regarding whether the traditional definition of marriage contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

· In their platform, Martin says the Liberals will not invoke the "notwithstanding clause" of the Charter to deny equal rights

· It will also not obligate religious institutions to conduct marriage ceremonies that contravene their own beliefs and practices.


CONSERVATIVES

· Stephen Harper believes marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals

· A Conservative government would withdraw the four questions put to the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage and would instead hold a free vote in Parliament

· Harper believes the Supreme Court would likely not overturn Parliament's decision

Once again, as a voter, I would be concerned about the Conservatives' lack of commitment to uphold the Charter of Rights in regards to gay and lesbian couples.

A favorite issue that the Liberals like to bring up.

The Liberals have time and time again let the Supreme Court decide on issues that parliament should deal with. Thus allowing another body to choose a definition and choose a meaning rather than parliament appointed by the people. An unelected body gets to choose if a particular social issue should go in a certain direction. How is this fair or democratic? This is an important issue and should be dealt by parliament and NOT by an unelected body of judges.

The CPC's stance is that the government will not propose legislation. Private members as always are freely allowed to bring up such legislation and attempt to get it accepted by parliament. It is the RIGHT of all MPs to propose legislation on ANY issue. Therefore the CPC is not trying to control anything, the MPs of all parties will choose based on their conscience and their constituencies.

Might I remind Canuckheaven that when the Canadian Alliance proposed a motion to preserve the traditional notion of marriage it was rejected by a 137-132 margin. There were about 72 Conservatives in parliament at the time; thus the rest was made up of opposition parties and mostly Liberals. This isn't a party issue, this is an issue of conscience.

While the Liberals may be content with letting an unelected body decide since it takes away any type of responsability from them, the CPC does not. Its parliaments role to define how these issues will be dealt with. The Liberals are satisfied with letting the judges decide while they legislate accordingly and FORCE their MPs to vote based on party lines.

The majority of Canadians are not pro-same sex marriage. It is an even split with a slight bend toward allowing it. Abortion and Kyoto may have more people for it. Personnally, I am pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage. So is my local candidate and I'm glad that we can choose how we vote instead of being forced to accept a party line on issues of conscience.

I should also mention that Stephen Harper's personal beliefs are not "party issues". Harper has also stated he would use the non-withstanding clause if the courts attempted to outdo parliament. Parliament is to be the supreme arbiter of the law. Not the other way around. Why would anyone prefer that an unelected body chosen by the Prime Minister overrule parliament?

Check with your local CPC candidate to see their personal view on the matter and how they would vote. Tell them it would affect your vote and they will tell you.

STOP POSTING THIS! Its annoying.
Do you have something against freedom of speech?

No I don't but that is about the fifth time you posted it. It is redundent now. The more you post it the more people your going to annoy. Please stop.

TP

STOP POSTING THIS! Its annoying.
Do you have something against freedom of speech?

No I don't but that is about the fifth time you posted it. It is redundent now. The more you post it the more people your going to annoy. Please stop.
If you took the time to READ the posts, you would notice that they are ALL different covering different election issues.

You are only annoyed because you choose to be?

I don't understand the basis of some conclusions that people make....

Why on earth would anyone CHOOSE to be homosexual? The idea is patently absurd. People are born with certain traits and i, for one, have long since known that i find members of the opposite sex to be attractive. That someone could choose against their nature falls short as a sustainable position in so many ways...

This is why I support the right of homosexuals, and by extension the right to marry. They aren't choosing anything, they are just people like us all that should enjoy rights like us all. The supreme court agreed with this based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which delineates a clear foundation upon which all our rights are drawn. It makes no specific mention of the right to marriage, nor does it mention the right to eat, sleep, or breathe. To make argument of the fact that marriage is not included in the charter is not tenable as justificaition for the denial of said right.

As for the NDP, they have it right on this issue. They strongly support this liberty and DO NOT TRAMPLE on the rights of religions to make their own decisions. If a church refuses to marry a gay couple, the NDP has unequivocallystated that they do not object. That they insist that their members tow the party line is entirely another matter, and one that I once again see no problem in backing.

Finally, concerning the idea that such issues should be held to an open vote, I can only say that the cart is being put before the ox. Any such open votes are an absolute danger to our democratic rights if they are not encompassed by the obligation of candidates to speak their mind on the issue BEFORE they are elected. Any party that has clearly stated they would put such an issue to an open vote should, at the very least, require their own candidates to publicly state their stance on the issue. Ideally other party candidates would also do the same.

I think i shoudl stay away for a while. I'm frightened.

...the NDP do NOT support the rights of religions to determine their own views on homosexuality. Svend Robinson's recent bill demonstrates this as did Layton's actions on the homosexuality debate.

Robinson's bill did not abrogate the rights of churches or anyone else to form their own views on homosexuality. The bill is meant only to deter extremists from making hateful public speech against an identifiable group. To make hateful speech against people for their inborn sexual orientation is no different from speaking against their race or culture, and Robinson's bill addresses that. Nothing more.

Reading my last message, it would appear that i was stating something i did not intend to state. I believe that democracies are formed to guarantee the rights of all its citizens. Issues that concern government decisions shoudl, as much as possible, be put to the population in the form of referendum.

However, certain fundamental rights should never be risked before the whims of an often fickle and/or uneducated populace. Even if 99% of the population were to believe, as was the case in the past, that women or members of certain ethnic groups (natives, blacks, etc...) were not people, I do not think this should be considered acceptable. Ask yourself, would you consider it acceptable if whatever group you are a part of was not deemed fit to be considered as human beings?

STOP POSTING THIS! Its annoying.
Do you have something against freedom of speech?

No I don't but that is about the fifth time you posted it. It is redundent now. The more you post it the more people your going to annoy. Please stop.
If you took the time to READ the posts, you would notice that they are ALL different covering different election issues.

You are only annoyed because you choose to be?

Sorry if I am however, they all appear to be the same thing to me. Remember, you need to keep things simple for those of us that don't understand the Canadian Issues. Most everyone here is but you.

Garaj... no where in Svend's bill are there any protections for religious institutions.

MPs have the responsibility not only to consider how 'they want' the bill to be used but also how the bill may be used by others.

This is a similar argument to those that were presented against the anti-terrorism legislation. Even though the measures were intended for good purposes, they could still be potentially used for bad ones.

If there is no protection in the bill for religious institutions then in the future, ministers, imams, bishops or whoever, who preach that homosexuality is wrong may end up in jail. Worse still, the Bible (or Torah, or Koran) could be declared 'hate literature' and thus banned from the country.

So much for tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

Proudhistes.

The Conservative candidates of my area have all stated their opinions on controversial topics like abortion, gun registry, gay marriage etc... in fact I don't think I have ever seen an election where candidates did not state their opinions on it.

On homosexuality. Just because something seems so hard doesn't mean people won't do it.

In countries like Pakistan (I think), people who openly convert to Christianity are put to death. So why would anyone want to become Christian there openly? Still, every year, people are put to death for this 'crime'.

But the issue is not confined to just religious beliefs. Why do so many people deliberately break the laws every year in protest of them? Gandhi broke several laws in his fight for equality. Many people smoke marijuana illegaly, etc. Why do people steal when they can make a livlihood otherwise? A lot of it has to do with the 'thrill' of breaking the law, or the 'excitement' of the moment.

Just because something seems strange or the way difficult doesn't mean that people don't choose that way.

Recently, they claimed that they had found a 'cheater' gene. People with this gene are supposedly predisposed to cheating on their wife/husband. Does that mean that for these people cheating is o.k. and just a natural part of them? I think their wife/husband would disagree strongly.

Actually our Charter refers to the "the right to life" which is interpreted as the right to breathe, eat etc... It does not mention the 'right' to marry at all.

To illustrate my point think of this : If my parents decide to try to block my marriage to a certain girl may I take them to court for trying to deny me my 'rights'?

Garaj... no where in Svend's bill are there any protections for religious institutions.

MPs have the responsibility not only to consider how 'they want' the bill to be used but also how the bill may be used by others.

This is a similar argument to those that were presented against the anti-terrorism legislation. Even though the measures were intended for good purposes, they could still be potentially used for bad ones.

If there is no protection in the bill for religious institutions then in the future, ministers, imams, bishops or whoever, who preach that homosexuality is wrong may end up in jail. Worse still, the Bible (or Torah, or Koran) could be declared 'hate literature' and thus banned from the country.

So much for tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

Actually, Svend's bill was ammended before it was passed. The bill, as passed by parliament, contains the following section, establishing a defence against prosecution:

2. Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

STOP POSTING THIS! Its annoying.
Do you have something against freedom of speech?

No I don't but that is about the fifth time you posted it. It is redundent now. The more you post it the more people your going to annoy. Please stop.
If you took the time to READ the posts, you would notice that they are ALL different covering different election issues.

You are only annoyed because you choose to be?

Sorry if I am however, they all appear to be the same thing to me. Remember, you need to keep things simple for those of us that don't understand the Canadian Issues. Most everyone here is but you.

Umm, Formal Dances, you can't ask CanuckHeaven to dumb it down for you. If you have trouble understanding what he's posting ignore it. Keep to the simpler stuff you if you need to. You're not a moderator, so please stop asking people to stop posting their opinions. Thank You!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

STOP POSTING THIS! Its annoying.
Do you have something against freedom of speech?

No I don't but that is about the fifth time you posted it. It is redundent now. The more you post it the more people your going to annoy. Please stop.
If you took the time to READ the posts, you would notice that they are ALL different covering different election issues.

You are only annoyed because you choose to be?

Sorry if I am however, they all appear to be the same thing to me. Remember, you need to keep things simple for those of us that don't understand the Canadian Issues. Most everyone here is but you.

Umm, Formal Dances, you can't ask CanuckHeaven to dumb it down for you. If you have trouble understanding what he's posting ignore it. Keep to the simpler stuff you if you need to. You're not a moderator, so please stop asking people to stop posting their opinions. Thank You!

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that he should stop posting his opinions. I didn't mean that at all. I apologize if I caused offense in this matter.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that he should stop posting his opinions. I didn't mean that at all. I apologize if I caused offense in this matter.

No problem, just thought I'd let you know. No official warning was issued. In fact it's refreshing to see that you're so interested. If you don't understand some thing, you can always ask :)

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that he should stop posting his opinions. I didn't mean that at all. I apologize if I caused offense in this matter.

No problem, just thought I'd let you know. No official warning was issued. In fact it's refreshing to see that you're so interested. If you don't understand some thing, you can always ask :)

Stephanie
Game Moderator

I have and the responses were very knowledgeable. Thank you.

Garaj... no where in Svend's bill are there any protections for religious institutions.

...the Bible (or Torah, or Koran) could be declared 'hate literature' and thus banned from the country.

That could never, ever happen in this country and I think you know that very well. The courts and parliament would simply never use the bill that way.

Garaj... no where in Svend's bill are there any protections for religious institutions.

...the Bible (or Torah, or Koran) could be declared 'hate literature' and thus banned from the country.

That could never, ever happen in this country and I think you know that very well. The courts and parliament would simply never use the bill that way.

Don't bet on it. Its close to happening here in the US it seems like.

Hmm.. indeed I had not heard about the amendment to C-250. That would help solve some of the problems. Still, the "in good faith" part bothers me because it leaves the door open (rightly or wrongly) for prosecution of people if the police/prosecutor do not believe the person put forward their ideas "in good faith".

I used to argue in favour of the anti-terror legislation until one of my friends pointed out the fact that the anti-terror legislation left open too many loopholes. I hope that my fears about this legislation C-250 are unfounded.

I don't understand the basis of some conclusions that people make....

Finally, concerning the idea that such issues should be held to an open vote, I can only say that the cart is being put before the ox. Any such open votes are an absolute danger to our democratic rights if they are not encompassed by the obligation of candidates to speak their mind on the issue BEFORE they are elected. Any party that has clearly stated they would put such an issue to an open vote should, at the very least, require their own candidates to publicly state their stance on the issue. Ideally other party candidates would also do the same.

I think i shoudl stay away for a while. I'm frightened.

Open votes are a danger to our democracy? I do not want to see your idea of well functioning democracy then. To my knowledge, all CPC candidates are supposed to make it clear were they stand on an issue. Ask your local CPC candidate on his position. Open votes are a good thing, more local representation from your candidates.

I don't understand the basis of some conclusions that people make....

Finally, concerning the idea that such issues should be held to an open vote, I can only say that the cart is being put before the ox. Any such open votes are an absolute danger to our democratic rights if they are not encompassed by the obligation of candidates to speak their mind on the issue BEFORE they are elected. Any party that has clearly stated they would put such an issue to an open vote should, at the very least, require their own candidates to publicly state their stance on the issue. Ideally other party candidates would also do the same.

I think i shoudl stay away for a while. I'm frightened.

Open votes are a danger to our democracy? I do not want to see your idea of well functioning democracy then. To my knowledge, all CPC candidates are supposed to make it clear were they stand on an issue. Ask your local CPC candidate on his position. Open votes are a good thing, more local representation from your candidates.

Uh, actually he is correct. Open votes are very rare in our system. They have happened, while historically rare. If you have any doubt on this, look up "Party Whip" Many who have decided to break with party ranks end up on the back-bench. This has been true in all parties. I certainly hope your CPC aren't espousing to change the Canadian system? Because if they are, they should tell voters that and you will see them fall apart before your very eyes.

The CPC is not the big-tent socially that Stephen Harper is trying to make it out to be. Larry Spencer, my MP, was not allowed to run under the CPC banner because of his views on gay marriage and homosexuality.

Uh, actually he is correct. Open votes are very rare in our system. They have happened, while historically rare. If you have any doubt on this, look up "Party Whip" Many who have decided to break with party ranks end up on the back-bench. This has been true in all parties. I certainly hope your CPC aren't espousing to change the Canadian system? Because if they are, they should tell voters that and you will see them fall apart before your very eyes.
They (Reform/Alliance/CPC) have been saying that they are going to change the system for about 15 years now!! Is this a surprise?

I don't see "party whip" anywhere in the constitution. Party discipline is a convention of parliament, not a necessary component of our democracy. Obviously changing from party block voting to open voting requires that representatives actually listen to their constituents. The Conservatives know this. It would be electoral suicide for MPs in such a system to not be responsible to their citizens. Unlike now where the majority party tells us what our values are.

Note that the Conservatives can't force the other parties to adopt free votes. If the Liberals and NDP want to control through central committee instead of from the people, that's their business.

Uh, actually he is correct. Open votes are very rare in our system. They have happened, while historically rare. If you have any doubt on this, look up "Party Whip" Many who have decided to break with party ranks end up on the back-bench. This has been true in all parties. I certainly hope your CPC aren't espousing to change the Canadian system? Because if they are, they should tell voters that and you will see them fall apart before your very eyes.
They (Reform/Alliance/CPC) have been saying that they are going to change the system for about 15 years now!! Is this a surprise?

I don't see "party whip" anywhere in the constitution. Party discipline is a convention of parliament, not a necessary component of our democracy. Obviously changing from party block voting to open voting requires that representatives actually listen to their constituents. The Conservatives know this. It would be electoral suicide for MPs in such a system to not be responsible to their citizens. Unlike now where the majority party tells us what our values are.

Note that the Conservatives can't force the other parties to adopt free votes. If the Liberals and NDP want to control through central committee instead of from the people, that's their business.

I'll just say this, I won't address a lot of what you have said in your other posts to me, mostly because my time is valuable and with no offence I see it as mostly gibberish. However, I will say this much, if you want to be an American, no one is stopping you. Move there! This is Canada, not the USA and I venture to think if you asked Canadians if they wanted to adopt an American style system, you'd get a flat out NO! This is Canada, not America, I believe most Canadians want to keep it that way. De-centralizing the government is not what the majority of Canadians want. Some of us are not fooled. Also, unlike the system that you think is so great that we should change to, here is some thing to ponder, in the USA it's no big deal if the government sponsors a bill and it fails.. In Canada however if the sitting government puts forth a bill and it fails, it's call a vote of non-confidence and you have to call an election. So, nice try.. but I don't think so. It's a horrible idea. Besides, with this idea do we really want Canada to get into the habit of American style vote buying? I didn't think so.

Just keep saying "American-style" and maybe you'll scare people enough to vote Liberal. Sorry, but America isn't a dirty word.

As far as moving to the US, I'm a Canadian, why should I? Is that your advice for Americans unhappy with their government? Move?

I'm the one who wants to uphold the rule of law from its source: the constitution (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/). How about you get out of my country, since you're not willing to respect its rules?

Hey don't diss my nation's voting system or I'll have to diss your :twisted:

Granted ours isn't perfect but neither is yours.

I think its a good idea on what he puts forth. No offense Stephistan but sometimes you have to look past your age and look at the overall scope of things. Sometimes a change needs to be made to better the system.

The only election change we've made as far as I'm concerned is allowing the Populace to Vote for Senator instead of the State legislarure to appoint them. Never could fathom that after reading some of these campaigns.

Look at ways to reform the system to make it better. Yes some are dumb, especially what the house voted down. That was a stupid Amendment to our Constitution. Others may not be. You don't know how they will react to something along the lines of what Stirner said, they might go for it with the proper electoral changes to go with it.

Look at all of what is proposed not just a select few passaged. That is what my parents always says. (Hurry home dad. Miss you)

Just keep saying "American-style" and maybe you'll scare people enough to vote Liberal. Sorry, but America isn't a dirty word.

As far as moving to the US, I'm a Canadian, why should I? Is that your advice for Americans unhappy with their government? Move?

I'm the one who wants to uphold the rule of law from its source: the constitution (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/). How about you get out of my country, since you're not willing to respect its rules?

Haha, you're so cute. That Constitution was written basically by the same man you tried to bash a few posts ago. Pierrie Elliott Trudeau, who is not only seen as one of the greatest PM's of all time, but defined us as a nation, although, I even must admit, the work isn't worth the paper it's written on. Sec. 33 of the Canadian Constitution.. look it up.. you're all over the place..lol and I won't leave my country, because I love it . I can't think of a better country in the world off hand. Sure maybe the weather sucks for about 4 months a year.. but I love our system and my family goes back to before Confederation.. So, I think I'll stay in Canada and keep fighting to keep Canada, Canada!

Just keep saying "American-style" and maybe you'll scare people enough to vote Liberal. Sorry, but America isn't a dirty word.

As far as moving to the US, I'm a Canadian, why should I? Is that your advice for Americans unhappy with their government? Move?

I'm the one who wants to uphold the rule of law from its source: the constitution (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/). How about you get out of my country, since you're not willing to respect its rules?

Haha, you're so cute. That Constitution was written basically by the same man you tried to bash a few posts ago. Pierrie Elliott Trudeau, who is not only seen as one of the greatest PM's of all time, but defined us as a nation, although, I even must admit, the work isn't worth the paper it's written on. Sec. 33 of the Canadian Constitution.. look it up.. you're all over the place..lol and I won't leave my country, because I love it . I can't think of a better country in the world off hand. Sure maybe the weather sucks for about 4 months a year.. but I love our system and my family goes back to before Confederation.. So, I think I'll stay in Canada and keep fighting to keep Canada, Canada!

He wants to stay in Canada because he loves it and Stephistan wants to stay because she loves it but yet both want the other to leave because of their difference of opinions. Can someone explain the hostility here?

http://stopharper.org/templates/Round/img/company_name.gif

Wow, just came across this and I think it has Much to say:

http://stopharper.org/14601.html

MUSICIANS KICK OFF “STOP HARPER” CAMPAIGN AT MUCHMUSIC VIDEO AWARDS

Over 100 musicians, actors, artists and advocates sign online petition at StopHarper.org calling for Stephen Harper to admit radical agenda

OTTAWA - Musicians Sam Roberts, Hawksley Workman, Jeremy Taggart (Our Lady Peace), rock group Sum 41, rap groups Kardnal Official, Saukrates, Brassmunk and others kicked off the “Stop Harper” campaign by wearing "Stop Harper" buttons at the MuchMusic Video Awards Show Sunday night to show their support for a new website "StopHarper.org."

The website, which received more than 5,000 hits this morning alone, warns Canadians that Stephen Harper and the Alliance Conservatives hew to a radical right wing agenda, not the more moderate views of the old Progressive Conservative party.


Calling Harper the head of the "Canadian Republican Party," more than one hundred prominent musical performers, actors, artists and advocates including Sarah McLachlan, Avril Lavigne, Chantal Kreviazuk, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Sara and Tegan, Treble Charger, Sarah Harmer, Sarah Polley, Naomi Klein, Judy Rebick and others have signed an online petition at StopHarper.org demanding Harper come clean on his right-wing agenda.

The StopHarper.org petition says "Harper would take Canadians into dangerous territory" and highlights Harper's policy ties with George W. Bush. It criticizes Harper's support for the War in Iraq, rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, desire to challenge a woman's right to choose and refusal to defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It also encourages artists to use fan lists to send open letters about Harper's right-wing policies.

For more information, contact StopHarper.org @ 613.744.4786 or go to StopHarper.org.

I am wondering if there is there a stop Paul Martin campaign?

I don't understand the basis of some conclusions that people make....

Finally, concerning the idea that such issues should be held to an open vote, I can only say that the cart is being put before the ox. Any such open votes are an absolute danger to our democratic rights if they are not encompassed by the obligation of candidates to speak their mind on the issue BEFORE they are elected. Any party that has clearly stated they would put such an issue to an open vote should, at the very least, require their own candidates to publicly state their stance on the issue. Ideally other party candidates would also do the same.

I think i shoudl stay away for a while. I'm frightened.

Open votes are a danger to our democracy? I do not want to see your idea of well functioning democracy then. To my knowledge, all CPC candidates are supposed to make it clear were they stand on an issue. Ask your local CPC candidate on his position. Open votes are a good thing, more local representation from your candidates.

Uh, actually he is correct. Open votes are very rare in our system. They have happened, while historically rare. If you have any doubt on this, look up "Party Whip" Many who have decided to break with party ranks end up on the back-bench. This has been true in all parties. I certainly hope your CPC aren't espousing to change the Canadian system? Because if they are, they should tell voters that and you will see them fall apart before your very eyes.

Correct in stating that open votes are dangerous to our system? How so?

They are rare, because the party line is enforced through party whips. That doesn't mean they are a danger. They are a means to ensure that the MPs elected actually represent their local constituents by being able to vote their conscience. CPC candidates are expected to make it perfectly clear how they stand on certain social issues. I ask then, where do the Liberals stand? And would they be allowed to vote on conscience or would the Liberal party impose the party line on issues of say the definition of marriage or legal rights for same-sex couples?

The Reform party and the Canadian Alliance have both been saying they would change the system. We've said it time and time again. At every opportunity we've said we would ADD more democracy to the system. It stands at the core of the party ideals that we want to give more choices to Canadians, more choices to taxpayers and more choices to MPs. What are you afraid of? That people will speak their mind? Open votes are a good thing.

The CPC is not the big-tent socially that Stephen Harper is trying to make it out to be. Larry Spencer, my MP, was not allowed to run under the CPC banner because of his views on gay marriage and homosexuality.

Larry Spencer was barred for his extreme homophobic beliefs. It blurred the line with hatred. He stated there was a gay conspiracy to take power, that they were recruiting children, and that Svend Robinson should be cured...His statements were stupid and merited his barring from running as a candidate. He professed a destructive philosophy. He deserved to be barred, any other party would have done the same thing. Hate doesn't belong in politics. Logical discussion does.

Uh, actually he is correct. Open votes are very rare in our system. They have happened, while historically rare. If you have any doubt on this, look up "Party Whip" Many who have decided to break with party ranks end up on the back-bench. This has been true in all parties. I certainly hope your CPC aren't espousing to change the Canadian system? Because if they are, they should tell voters that and you will see them fall apart before your very eyes.
They (Reform/Alliance/CPC) have been saying that they are going to change the system for about 15 years now!! Is this a surprise?

I don't see "party whip" anywhere in the constitution. Party discipline is a convention of parliament, not a necessary component of our democracy. Obviously changing from party block voting to open voting requires that representatives actually listen to their constituents. The Conservatives know this. It would be electoral suicide for MPs in such a system to not be responsible to their citizens. Unlike now where the majority party tells us what our values are.

Note that the Conservatives can't force the other parties to adopt free votes. If the Liberals and NDP want to control through central committee instead of from the people, that's their business.

I'll just say this, I won't address a lot of what you have said in your other posts to me, mostly because my time is valuable and with no offence I see it as mostly gibberish. However, I will say this much, if you want to be an American, no one is stopping you. Move there! This is Canada, not the USA and I venture to think if you asked Canadians if they wanted to adopt an American style system, you'd get a flat out NO! This is Canada, not America, I believe most Canadians want to keep it that way. De-centralizing the government is not what the majority of Canadians want. Some of us are not fooled. Also, unlike the system that you think is so great that we should change to, here is some thing to ponder, in the USA it's no big deal if the government sponsors a bill and it fails.. In Canada however if the sitting government puts forth a bill and it fails, it's call a vote of non-confidence and you have to call an election. So, nice try.. but I don't think so. It's a horrible idea. Besides, with this idea do we really want Canada to get into the habit of American style vote buying? I didn't think so.

Your supposed to know this. Not every vote is a vote of non-confidence. And now I am going to ask you.

Is the American system wrong for Canada, because it is American OR because the ideas used their are bad for democracy? This is a fundamental question. Are you opposed to giving more power to MPs because it would make them more "American" OR because giving more freedom to MPs is simply bad?

I consider you opposition to this issue ridiculous Stephistan. Your entitled to your opinion, but, your explanation is gibberish.

Canadians want a well functioning, responsible and CLEAN government. This type of government will function better if the powers it has now subverted from the provincial governments returns to them. Let's start respecting our Constitution. I don't care where the ideas come from, whether they are American, Dutch or Nigerian; the only criteria they have to meet is if they give more power to our elected officials. Open votes do just THIS!

I came here from Canada when I was 4. I'm lived here the rest of my life. I'm proud of being a Canadian, I'm proud of having served in our Armed Forces, I'm proud of being a member of the CPC; Don't tell me where I can live. This is my country as much as it is yours. The ideas I like are just as "Canadian" as every other person's.

Frankly, you telling me to move to America is insulting. Why don't YOU move to somewhere more in line with your viewpoint such as France? :x


Just keep saying "American-style" and maybe you'll scare people enough to vote Liberal. Sorry, but America isn't a dirty word.

As far as moving to the US, I'm a Canadian, why should I? Is that your advice for Americans unhappy with their government? Move?

I'm the one who wants to uphold the rule of law from its source: the constitution (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/). How about you get out of my country, since you're not willing to respect its rules?

Haha, you're so cute. That Constitution was written basically by the same man you tried to bash a few posts ago. Pierrie Elliott Trudeau, who is not only seen as one of the greatest PM's of all time, but defined us as a nation, although, I even must admit, the work isn't worth the paper it's written on. Sec. 33 of the Canadian Constitution.. look it up.. you're all over the place..lol and I won't leave my country, because I love it . I can't think of a better country in the world off hand. Sure maybe the weather sucks for about 4 months a year.. but I love our system and my family goes back to before Confederation.. So, I think I'll stay in Canada and keep fighting to keep Canada, Canada!

Written by Pierre E.Trudeau? Wrong.

The 1982 repatriation added section 1 through 34 adding the Charter of Rights. Added an amending formula. Added the non-withstanding clause. The Quebec government didn't sign it. It also created the position of PM. Also added a table of things to review. He didn't write it. He added to it, the fundamental components date back to the BNA Act and the 1867 Act of Constitution.

The Charter of Rights has been a point of contention since it was created. Canada has become Canada through people's will to provide a better system for the future. Trudeau changed the system fundamentally in 1982; why is it SUPER then? And today, the CPC's proposal are wrong? Sounds like hipocracy.

As for the musiciens and entertainers, its their right to have an opinion. No matter how wrong or inaccurrate it may be, they have a right to express it. Then again, so what?

Very nice Post Vorringia! You've hit the nail on the head I think.

Uh, actually he is correct. Open votes are very rare in our system. They have happened, while historically rare. If you have any doubt on this, look up "Party Whip" Many who have decided to break with party ranks end up on the back-bench. This has been true in all parties. I certainly hope your CPC aren't espousing to change the Canadian system? Because if they are, they should tell voters that and you will see them fall apart before your very eyes.

Everyone's afraid...and of what? Open votes. Oooh. Big, dark, behemoth lurking under my bed! Go away, foul spawn of carrion and filth!

So, while it's not a danger to democracy for the "Party Whip" to force people into voting for something that the party leader thinks is just smashing, even if the individual representatives disagree...

...it's a danger to let each representative speak his/her mind in an open vote? Why don't I see it that way?

Have not open votes been used to great effect in the past? Think of the Meech Lake Accord, or the Charlottetown Accord that followed it! Both were supposed to have been rubber-stamp approved by a "party-whip" enforced vote in the House of Commons...and instead were both soundly rejected by a nation-wide referendum...the "ultimate" free vote. And it's a good bet that Canada is still one intact nation because both Accords were voted down, freely.

But no, it would have been better for the democratic process to let the elected officials be made to endorse a bill that the vast majority of the nation rejected. I see it clearly now.

The CPC is not the big-tent socially that Stephen Harper is trying to make it out to be. Larry Spencer, my MP, was not allowed to run under the CPC banner because of his views on gay marriage and homosexuality.

Larry Spencer was barred for his extreme homophobic beliefs. It blurred the line with hatred. He stated there was a gay conspiracy to take power, that they were recruiting children, and that Svend Robinson should be cured...His statements were stupid and merited his barring from running as a candidate. He professed a destructive philosophy. He deserved to be barred, any other party would have done the same thing. Hate doesn't belong in politics. Logical discussion does.


Agreed. While many issues can certainly be made open to discussion, and...I think...actual national approval, even (there's that frightening concept again — letting the people choose what they want instead of being told what they get), there is no room for stupid bigotry. Nor is there room for overt criminal actions...like the aforementioned Svend Robinson and his now infamous shoplifting episode. I admire the man more now...at least he had the honour to resign.


I'll just say this, I won't address a lot of what you have said in your other posts to me, mostly because my time is valuable and with no offence I see it as mostly gibberish. However, I will say this much, if you want to be an American, no one is stopping you. Move there! This is Canada, not the USA and I venture to think if you asked Canadians if they wanted to adopt an American style system, you'd get a flat out NO! This is Canada, not America, I believe most Canadians want to keep it that way. De-centralizing the government is not what the majority of Canadians want. Some of us are not fooled. Also, unlike the system that you think is so great that we should change to, here is some thing to ponder, in the USA it's no big deal if the government sponsors a bill and it fails.. In Canada however if the sitting government puts forth a bill and it fails, it's call a vote of non-confidence and you have to call an election. So, nice try.. but I don't think so. It's a horrible idea. Besides, with this idea do we really want Canada to get into the habit of American style vote buying? I didn't think so.

Agreed, Steph (boy, never thought I'd say that!). It's a good thing that the vote of no-confidence can topple a government. It puts a certain weight of caution on the party in power, keeps them from being too radical.

But on the other hand...a free vote is no more or less a danger. Oh, the government can't fall, but then the CPC's commitment to fixed election dates means that they have a time limit that is legally mandated down to the day (unlike at present, where it's just supposed to be roughly every 4 or 5 years). But really...if government is about the people of a nation being able to govern themselves, is it not right for each representative to vote in the best interests of his/her riding, whether that follows the "party line" or not? There's still not a great danger of radical shifts in the laws of the land, or the Charter...and those shifts that do happen will represent shifts desired by the majority of the population of Canada.

And next I suppose you'll tell me that a EEE Senate is un-Canadian? Yeah, I guess we don't believe in equal representation for all regions of the province at some elected level. Oh, well. Those Maritimes don't matter too much, and those Westerners are just uneducated hicks anyways.


Haha, you're so cute. That Constitution was written basically by the same man you tried to bash a few posts ago. Pierrie Elliott Trudeau, who is not only seen as one of the greatest PM's of all time, but defined us as a nation, although, I even must admit, the work isn't worth the paper it's written on. Sec. 33 of the Canadian Constitution.. look it up.. you're all over the place..lol and I won't leave my country, because I love it . I can't think of a better country in the world off hand. Sure maybe the weather sucks for about 4 months a year.. but I love our system and my family goes back to before Confederation.. So, I think I'll stay in Canada and keep fighting to keep Canada, Canada!


What's so great about Canada? Our weak dollar? Our laughingstock military that can't even keep the missiles attached to the hardpoints on the wings? Our government, which really only votes what the Prime Minister wants? Our Senate, which is supposed to be a "sober second thought" on all bills but in reality is just another rubber-stamp? Regional disunity? Our distressingly lax criminal justice system? A gun registry that was supposed to cost $70 million and is now incomplete at $1.2 billion? The fact that we're practically an open door when it comes to terrorists and illegal immigrants - given that, according to...I believe it was the Singh decision...anyone who sets foot on Canadian soil has full protection under the Charter, regardless of citizenship status? A health-care system that is so backlogged and generally retarded that some provincial governments have begun web-posting the surgical waiting lists in order to highlight the absurdity?

Beautiful nation you got, here.

Time for a change.

;) Aiera

I am wondering if there is there a stop Paul Martin campaign?
Yes. It's called the election.

What's so great about Canada?

Another Harper-ite professes his national loyalty.

Haha, you're so cute. That Constitution was written basically by the same man you tried to bash a few posts ago. Pierrie Elliott Trudeau, who is not only seen as one of the greatest PM's of all time, but defined us as a nation, although, I even must admit, the work isn't worth the paper it's written on. Sec. 33 of the Canadian Constitution.. look it up..
Actually I was referring to the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly the British North America Act) which PET most certainly did not write. How about you have a look at sections 91 and 92 and ask the Liberal cronies why they disrespect the rule of law in this country.

What's so great about Canada?

Another Harper-ite professes his national loyalty.
Sucks to your national loyalty. I don't slog through the swamps of Gagetown, New Brunswick with a C-7 and a 60 pound pack because I'm disloyal.

Funny how the Canadians who use "American" as a bad word criticize American Conservatives for using "Liberal" as a bad word.

What's so great about Canada?

Another Harper-ite professes his national loyalty.

Aiera made some very distinct points Garaj Mahal. I'm no Canadian but what he says actually made more sense than the people who support the Liberal Party of Canada.

Never say anything is bad unless you have evidence to support your theory.

I have noticed that people who are supporting the Liberal Party have rejected opinions on how to reform the system. I like to know why they are afraid of reform. Can anyone supporting the Liberal Party explain why you are scared of reform?

Wow.. I must admit Liberals have me confused...

For the Supreme Court:
9 Judges appointed by 1 man (or woman.. the PM)are more socially responsible than 308 elected by 30 million Canadians.

On open votes:
5 Party leaders choosing what will happen is more democratic than 308 elected MPs.

The point of democracy is to allow the majority to decide on what will happen in their lives/country. Liberals seem to espouse that the majority is inherently wrong in their intentions and needs to be reigned in by a vocal minority.

There is a word that describes such a government, where the wishes of the minority overule those of the majority. That word is DICTATORSHIP.

Long live democracy!

Uh, actually he is correct. Open votes are very rare in our system. They have happened, while historically rare. If you have any doubt on this, look up "Party Whip" Many who have decided to break with party ranks end up on the back-bench. This has been true in all parties. I certainly hope your CPC aren't espousing to change the Canadian system? Because if they are, they should tell voters that and you will see them fall apart before your very eyes.
They (Reform/Alliance/CPC) have been saying that they are going to change the system for about 15 years now!! Is this a surprise?

I don't see "party whip" anywhere in the constitution. Party discipline is a convention of parliament, not a necessary component of our democracy. Obviously changing from party block voting to open voting requires that representatives actually listen to their constituents. The Conservatives know this. It would be electoral suicide for MPs in such a system to not be responsible to their citizens. Unlike now where the majority party tells us what our values are.

I think you're missing the point. Voting the party line *is* an act of responsibility to the electorate. The problem with free votes is they really don't represent the will of the voters. Don't get wrapped around the buzzword "free" which implies that they're somehow more democratic.

The whole point of the party system is that the elector is buying into a known quantity, a branded political-philosophical system. If you're liberal you vote for a liberal party with a liberal platform - Lib or ND. If you're conservative you vote CPC. The elector knows what he or she is getting when they vote. The elector doesn't care what their representatives' personal opinions are - the MP is there to represent the elector's political will, not their own.

I'll cite an example. My riding has a significant gay and lesbian population. The LP and NDP parties are already on the record as being pro-SSM. The CPC is officially anti-same. However the CPC candidate (smelling a no-win situation) has made it know that she is pro-SSM and would act accordingly in a free vote. This means that if a person is a social conservative in my riding, that persons' right to express their opinion on a major moral and social issue has been stifled. Their right to express their opinion through political choice has been denied because the candidate who has a moral obligation to defend that choice has abandoned a minority viewpoint to chase the votes of the majority.

Ultimately this just encourages politicians to be even more slippery, whoreishly populist and self-serving then they already are.

This is why the NDP has stood alone along among the major parties in saying that free vote or not, sitting MPs will vote the party line or else. It may sound a draconian on the surface, but it's the only way to ensure that people who ordered Pepsi, get Pepsi - not caffeine-free Diet Coke. If you don't like the party line, find another party...

DP

I think you're missing the point. Voting the party line *is* an act of responsibility to the electorate. The problem with free votes is they really don't represent the will of the voters. Don't get wrapped around the buzzword "free" which implies that they're somehow more democratic.

Sorry but not true. A vote by the people is fair. It does represent the will of the people if they get the chance to vote. From what I'm reading, they dont have that chance to vote on what is important.

I have noticed that people who are supporting the Liberal Party have rejected opinions on how to reform the system. I like to know why they are afraid of reform. Can anyone supporting the Liberal Party explain why you are scared of reform?

Reform is most welcome, just not from the Conservatives.

I'd like to see another party govern Canada. But aside from the Liberals, the *only* party fit to govern today is the NDP. Our voting choices break down as:

NDP - best choice, and would be a giant step forward
Liberals - mediocre choice, but will bring limited change
CPC - terrible choice, will be several steps backwards
Greens - no experience yet, too soon to elect them


Because relatively few Canadians seem willing to elect the NDP and thus move forward, at very least we must resist moving backwards - we need to reject the CPC at any and all costs.

Reform is most welcome, just not from the Conservatives.

You've just shown what a hippocrit you are. Yes I did read the rest of you said but you know what, they invalidate your arguement.

From what I'm reading on here, the CPC has changed drasticly and for the better. What they promise could only help Canada. Of course that is my opinion.

By saying that change is welcome but not from the Conservatives proves that you haven't done research into the new CPC!

You may brush this off as some American bantering but you should look at the whole picture from the current CPC and leave the former CPC to bed.

Ultimately this just encourages politicians to be even more slippery, whoreishly populist and self-serving then they already are.

This is why the NDP has stood alone along among the major parties in saying that free vote or not, sitting MPs will vote the party line or else. It may sound a draconian on the surface, but it's the only way to ensure that people who ordered Pepsi, get Pepsi - not caffeine-free Diet Coke. If you don't like the party line, find another party...

The current system is governed by the whim of the PM and the PMO office. It really is up to him to pick and choose what policies he likes. That's not a democracy...Canadians get more choice this way and you also get the advantage of being able to lobby your local candidate on issues of morality. Only issues of morality/conscience will be put up to a free vote IF a private members bill comes forth and requires a vote.

If the NDP wants to force the party line, that's fine, they made it perfectly known. I don't want party line voting so I should find another party? I did, the CPC. I vote for my candidate and what he stands for. I trust him to make the right decisions on issues of social conscience. However, the CPC has stated that their will be party line voting on issues relating to the budget and fiscal management. These ideas are meant to improve the Canadian rapport to their local candidate.

I have noticed that people who are supporting the Liberal Party have rejected opinions on how to reform the system. I like to know why they are afraid of reform. Can anyone supporting the Liberal Party explain why you are scared of reform?

Reform is most welcome, just not from the Conservatives.

I'd like to see another party govern Canada. But aside from the Liberals, the *only* party fit to govern today is the NDP. Our voting choices break down as:

NDP - best choice, and would be a giant step forward
Liberals - mediocre choice, but will bring limited change
CPC - terrible choice, will be several steps backwards
Greens - no experience yet, too soon to elect them


Because relatively few Canadians seem willing to elect the NDP and thus move forward, at very least we must resist moving backwards - we need to reject the CPC at any and all costs.

So then Garaj, are the ideas espoused by the CPC wrong because they are bad OR because they come from the CPC?

You provide little in substance to back-up your claims.

As for adding democracy, Martin has pretty much gone back on whatever promises he made to give more power to MPs or riding associations in his party. He picked candidates in many Western Canada ridings and got personally involved in choosing candidates here in Quebec (In order to remove Chretien loyalists he used the excuse that more women need to be in politics...). The Liberals have also stated that they would allow more free votes, they didn't mention on what issues.

The NDP? They have pressed forward the notion that the Senate needs to be abolished. And that Canada needs to be further centralized. they would create seats in parliament based on RACE for the aborigenes...They've also proposed to lower the voting age to 16, non-withstanding the fact that NOTHING proves that will help the system. How about we lower it to the age of 7 then; what is the difference anyway?(I ask how low will we go?)
The only idea I like is a national referendum (A CA idea originally) on the issue of proportional representation.

NDP - best choice, and would be a giant step forward.
More like a Great Leap Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward).

The election is in 5 days.. I think I will just sit back and watch it unfold.. I think it's fairly safe to say whoever gets elected, will probably only form a minority government.. Thus not giving any one party too much power. I hope the Liberals are those people. We shall know soon enough ;)

All the debate has been an interesting read I must say. Whether I agreed with it or not.

Well... actually a lot of the ideas about electoral reform initially came from the NDP party way back before the Reform party even existed.

That is why I used to support it so strongly. They still hold to these ideas but they do not promote them as much as the CPC does. The CPC is focused on electoral reform, whereas the NDP is focused on the environment.

Personally I would like to see an NDP-CPC minority. I think it provides the appropriate balance to many contentious issues. However, the major downfall of this is that Quebec is totally sidelined. So for practical purposes, a Bloc-CPC minority would be better.

Well... actually a lot of the ideas about electoral reform initially came from the NDP party way back before the Reform party even existed.

That is why I used to support it so strongly. They still hold to these ideas but they do not promote them as much as the CPC does. The CPC is focused on electoral reform, whereas the NDP is focused on the environment.

Personally I would like to see an NDP-CPC minority. I think it provides the appropriate balance to many contentious issues. However, the major downfall of this is that Quebec is totally sidelined. So for practical purposes, a Bloc-CPC minority would be better.

Well... actually a lot of the ideas about electoral reform initially came from the NDP party way back before the Reform party even existed.

That is why I used to support it so strongly. They still hold to these ideas but they do not promote them as much as the CPC does. The CPC is focused on electoral reform, whereas the NDP is focused on the environment.

Personally I would like to see an NDP-CPC minority. I think it provides the appropriate balance to many contentious issues. However, the major downfall of this is that Quebec is totally sidelined. So for practical purposes, a Bloc-CPC minority would be better.
____________________________________________________________
Wait a minute, I got it! Free votes aren't actually free because we don't live in a democratic nation! This all makes sense now! I've been so confused for so many years.

See, we have a PM, and he gets to appoint senators, the Governor General, ambassadors, immigration judges, supreme court judges, cabinet, etc.... Absolute power to do anything he wants! Dictatorship! And if we had free votes then this would infringe upon our dictatorial system, thereby destroying our Canadian system of government.

(that was a joke)

Wow.. I must admit Liberals have me confused...

For the Supreme Court:
9 Judges appointed by 1 man (or woman.. the PM)are more socially responsible than 308 elected by 30 million Canadians.
It is this same Supreme Court that you refer to, as the one that allowed for the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, despite the objections of the Province of Quebec. Democracy was served.

The Supreme Court's job is to uphold the laws of the land. It is up to Parliament to make those laws. Democracy is served.

On open votes:
5 Party leaders choosing what will happen is more democratic than 308 elected MPs.
All party leaders have a cabinet that drive policy making decisions and for the most part, those policies are debated by the party caucus before being implimented. If the caucus does not support the proposed changes, then they have the freedom to vote against such changes. There is no law stating that an elected member has to vote "yea" or "nay". Any member of Parliament can bring forward a "private member" bill as well.

That is democracy.

The point of democracy is to allow the majority to decide on what will happen in their lives/country.
A bill is defeated if the majority of members vote against it.

That is democracy.

Liberals seem to espouse that the majority is inherently wrong in their intentions and needs to be reigned in by a vocal minority.
Say what? Where do you get this idea about Liberals?

There is a word that describes such a government, where the wishes of the minority overule those of the majority. That word is DICTATORSHIP.
There are mandated elections, with a maximum term of 5 years.

That is democracy.

To even suggest the Liberals are dictators is obscene. If anything, they are defenders of the Charter of Rights. It took a Liberal government led by Pierre Elliot Trudeau to bring the Constitution “home” to Canada. Before then, all changes to the Constitution technically had to be approved by the BRITISH Parliament.

If anything, I can't see these Conservatives that you would like us to elect as being staunch supporters of the Charter of Rights. I can provide many examples if you wish.


Long live democracy!

AMEN!! Vote Liberal.

Saddam Hussein was re-elected every 5 years... doesn't mean it was democratic. :P

It is up to Parliament to make the laws of the nation. Not the Supreme Court. The courts job is to interpret the laws and see if they contradict one another (and the Charter), not to promote a social agenda and make new laws.

CanuckHeaven your ideas about party policy are naive at best. On the Gay Marriage vote, a few (2 or 3 I believe) NDP MPs did not show up to vote. This was not because they were busy, but because Jack Layton had told all his MPs that he considered this issue a confidence issue in his leadership. They did not support gay marriage, but if they voiced that opinion then they would be booted from the party... how democratic.

CanuckHeaven I was more refering to the comments of other posters that the minorities need protection from the majority.

The Liberals have consistently been stalling efforts to institute more democracy into our system. They appointed an ethics counsellor but only made him responsible to the Parliament when public outcry was overwhelming. The Liberals are opposing reform to the Senate and to the powers concentrated in the PMO.

Moreover, Paul Martin overrulled his own party members and parachuted candidates into ridings. Again, how democratic of him. Steven Harper only did this when members held views that were too extreme.

Alright. The Liberal Government under both Chretien and Martin has royally screwed Canada. Are they accountable finacially to lead our nation? Hell no! Look at the HRDC, look at the Quebec Scandal Sponsorship Scandal, and look at Paul Martin sending money! The Liberals have screwed Canada for the last thirty years in under-funding our military, in the next five years if it goes by this pace, we will not have a military at all, we'll be a protectorate of the United States of America.

When Martin quickly became Prime Minister he sent troops off to Iraq. It wasn't publicize since he wanted to keep it a secret and as well the Canadian Media is liberal so they won't hurt it.

The Liberals are against the Freedom of Press, the Freedom of Speech the Freedom of Peaceful Association and the Freedom of Religion!

Our alternative Canadians:
Demand better, vote Conservative.

I'm with Stephistan. I think we should wait until the election is over with and then return here and rant some more. :wink:

The Liberals will most likely be the one's to form a government with the NDP if they win the necessary amount of seats. The CPC winning would also bear a weird alliance with the BQ or NDP.

The real winners in this election will be the BQ and NDP. They will have the balance of power and will be able to do anything they want with it.

Of course, the Governor General could just say no to any coalition formation and off to another election we go. :?

What's so great about Canada?

Another Harper-ite professes his national loyalty.

And what's so wrong about being for Harper? I thought this was an open discussion where all opinions and political affiliations are given equal right to speak their mind.

Whoops, I live in Canada. How did I ever get to thinking that way? Excuse me while I beat myself with a copy of the Liberal's Red Book for my sins.

I'm not going to blow my horn and say that I'm the most loyal Canuck-le-head on the planet, but I notice that you only quoted my opener to a long list of problems (which you apparently have conveniently ignored). Your refusal to address those problems might be construed as a tacit attempt to sweep them under the rug, you know? ;)

Because those are very real problems. When a rudder falls off of a CF-18 fighter, or an AIM-7 Sparrow (can we PLEASE upgrade from those 30-year old monstrosities to the AMRAAM?!?) falls off a CF-18's wing hardpoints and onto a (thankfully empty) golf course...that's a problem! A big one! And there's a cure! More military funding!

Whoops...that's "un-Canadian" and "disloyal".

When surgical waiting lists are more than six months long, that's a problem! When surgical waiting lists are so long that people who can afford it will cross the border to pay for the surgery immediately will do so, that's almost a private system anyhow...the rich go to the States and the poor settle for Canada's hospitals...and that's a problem. And it's going to take more than money to solve this one.

Whoops...that's "un-Canadian" and "disloyal".

When a province threatens, repeatedly, to seperate from Canada and our only solution is to throw more money at them (which doesn't solve the problem at all since it gets squirreled away into government coffers and never heard from again!), that's a problem! We need to work on regional unity with more than our pocketbooks, and I'm sorry if Harper is the only one talking half-seriously about working with the Bloc!

Whoops...that's "un-Canadian" and "disloyal"

When a government votes as the Prime Minister desires, instead of how the people of the nation desire, that's a problem! Let's not forget that the government of the day was ready to PASS (i.e. MAKE LAW) the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords...neither of which were actually desired by the majority of Canadian citizens. It's time the desires of the government and the desires of the governed got a little more in line!

Whoops...that's "un-Canadian" and "disloyal"

Well, if so, so be it. If it's true that sometimes you have to break it to fix it, I'll settle for that.

Cheers,
:D Aiera

People, i believe i was the one who brought up the free votes being a danger to our democracy bit. Now, Vorringia is clearly capable of writing with a certain degree of eloquence, but it would appear that reading is another matter.

I was explicitly clear that free votes are not in and of themselves anti-democratic, but that they were dangerous within the context of the current Canadian system. I also strongly said, more than once, that referendums are the more ideal solution to producing laws more democratically. Switzerland would be a country that sets a fine example in this regard. (by the way, "good-bye" to Vorringia and Formal Dances, and all the others, to judge by their past responses, who won't bother to read anything more of what i have to say, i do invite you to read and understand it all, but if you don't, pretend that you didn't read anything.)

Accepting the idea that it is truly democratic for pressure groups to push an MP to take one position or another is, in my view, really sad. This is one of the greatest sources of corruption in our system.

We have to have a system that would require all candidates to state their position on all issues before becoming elected. We need to know what to expect when we vote for someone. Even if a party requires all its members to openly state their position on a particular issue, it may not be the same for other parties. In fact, some parties have an agenda that would not be included on the radar of other parties. It seems a bit ridiculous that one party could make other party candidates take positions on issues for which they have no interest. If, however, it could be done (good luck on that), then sure, an open vote could be somewhat democratic.

This still does present other problems. One is that there are a myriad of issues upon which to vote, and often there is a mix between different candidates of what one likes and dislikes. If you support lower taxes for poor people, like the NDP, but would like to see a much larger investment in the military, like the conservatives, then your choice becomes complicated. Obviously there are many different combinations of positions that one could take, and each issue may be weighted differently from person to person. Just try to qualify what would happen if it were all put to a free vote. Tough job. Likewise, the parliamentary system will force you to put a certain plate of issues on the table according to the party you choose, regardless of that party's candidate's position.

Now, to connect the dots for those who otherwise would like to jump wildly to conclusions, i will go into slightly more detail.

The parliamentary system, as I hope you know, allows government ministers to introduce bills during a time of day called "government orders". Other bills, presented by backbenchers of the government, or opposition members, are known as private members' bills. Private member bills are allotted a limited time for presentation and reading during the daily 1 hour of private members' business. As competition for this time is naturally fierce, private member bills are chosen for reading by a draw. In short, most bills will originate with the government and private member bills are often unlikely to even get presented, let alone passed.

This means that if you wish something to be law you will ideally choose to elect a government that supports the position as opposed to a single member who does. The extension of this is that the taking into account of all potential MPs' views on issues would be a necessary step to gain a good idea of how to vote to get what you would like passed as law in this country. It is apparently hard enough to properly hold an accurate view of the major parties' platforms (as is evidenced by the misinformation common to this site); with but 4 major parties, it seems inconceivable to me that anyone would be able to account for the varying views of some 1200 individuals.

Taking an example to illustrate the danger, let's say we have a candidate C from party P in riding X who says he fully supports the right for homosexuals to marry. X has many people who support homosexual marriage and agreeing with P on much of their platform, decide to elect C. Assuming also that P has many more candidates who are strongly against homosexual marriage, what would happen if P is elected government by a small margin?

It could happen that the leader of P, or one of P's ministers, presents a bill against said issue. C and some other P members could dissent but this could be negated by opposition members who support the motion. End result is that those who helped elect P by voting for a member who was actually against the law that ended up being passed, have unwittingly given P the power to do so.

Now, more to the point, how do you suppose that people are going to be able to quantify the impact of electing an individual if you cannot ascertain the stance of his/her colleagues? We live in a System styled after the British Parliament, not the US Congress. Free votes do not have the same sort of impact.

People, i believe i was the one who brought up the free votes being a danger to our democracy bit. Now, Vorringia is clearly capable of writing with a certain degree of eloquence, but it would appear that reading is another matter.

I was explicitly clear that free votes are not in and of themselves anti-democratic, but that they were dangerous within the context of the current Canadian system. I also strongly said, more than once, that referendums are the more ideal solution to producing laws more democratically. Switzerland would be a country that sets a fine example in this regard. (by the way, "good-bye" to Vorringia and Formal Dances, and all the others, to judge by their past responses, who won't bother to read anything more of what i have to say, i do invite you to read and understand it all, but if you don't, pretend that you didn't read anything.)

Accepting the idea that it is truly democratic for pressure groups to push an MP to take one position or another is, in my view, really sad. This is one of the greatest sources of corruption in our system.

We have to have a system that would require all candidates to state their position on all issues before becoming elected. We need to know what to expect when we vote for someone. Even if a party requires all its members to openly state their position on a particular issue, it may not be the same for other parties. In fact, some parties have an agenda that would not be included on the radar of other parties. It seems a bit ridiculous that one party could make other party candidates take positions on issues for which they have no interest. If, however, it could be done (good luck on that), then sure, an open vote could be somewhat democratic.

This still does present other problems. One is that there are a myriad of issues upon which to vote, and often there is a mix between different candidates of what one likes and dislikes. If you support lower taxes for poor people, like the NDP, but would like to see a much larger investment in the military, like the conservatives, then your choice becomes complicated. Obviously there are many different combinations of positions that one could take, and each issue may be weighted differently from person to person. Just try to qualify what would happen if it were all put to a free vote. Tough job. Likewise, the parliamentary system will force you to put a certain plate of issues on the table according to the party you choose, regardless of that party's candidate's position.

Now, to connect the dots for those who otherwise would like to jump wildly to conclusions, i will go into slightly more detail.

The parliamentary system, as I hope you know, allows government ministers to introduce bills during a time of day called "government orders". Other bills, presented by backbenchers of the government, or opposition members, are known as private members' bills. Private member bills are allotted a limited time for presentation and reading during the daily 1 hour of private members' business. As competition for this time is naturally fierce, private member bills are chosen for reading by a draw. In short, most bills will originate with the government and private member bills are often unlikely to even get presented, let alone passed.

This means that if you wish something to be law you will ideally choose to elect a government that supports the position as opposed to a single member who does. The extension of this is that the taking into account of all potential MPs' views on issues would be a necessary step to gain a good idea of how to vote to get what you would like passed as law in this country. It is apparently hard enough to properly hold an accurate view of the major parties' platforms (as is evidenced by the misinformation common to this site); with but 4 major parties, it seems inconceivable to me that anyone would be able to account for the varying views of some 1200 individuals.

Taking an example to illustrate the danger, let's say we have a candidate C from party P in riding X who says he fully supports the right for homosexuals to marry. X has many people who support homosexual marriage and agreeing with P on much of their platform, decide to elect C. Assuming also that P has many more candidates who are strongly against homosexual marriage, what would happen if P is elected government by a small margin?

It could happen that the leader of P, or one of P's ministers, presents a bill against said issue. C and some other P members could dissent but this could be negated by opposition members who support the motion. End result is that those who helped elect P by voting for a member who was actually against the law that ended up being passed, have unwittingly given P the power to do so.

Now, more to the point, how do you suppose that people are going to be able to quantify the impact of electing an individual if you cannot ascertain the stance of his/her colleagues? We live in a System styled after the British Parliament, not the US Congress. Free votes do not have the same sort of impact.

I try and read the posts as much as I can; I usually end up zooming through.

On free votes; their a good thing for MPs and add to their freedom on voting. Now the CPC has expressly said that on issues of morality we'd have the free vote used. As well as the fact that the government will NOT attempt to introduce any legislation pertaining to issues of morality. That nullifies the problem of dual ideas you like or dislike on a party platform. The idea is that you vote for the platform, and for issues of conscience for the candidate. I understand that it makes the choice that much more difficult, but then again, politics is about hard choices and voters must bear some of that burden.

The idea behind the MPs getting more power is also that the individual will be more responsible to his or her riding. Here, the principle counts. The notion that your riding MP is working for YOU, not his political career. Its idealistic, I know, but something work trying to instill within potential MPs. Harper quit the Reform party over issues of policy; notably policy and grassroot involvement.

Its the time the system should change and become more flexible and accountable to people. I don't think people are confused about where people stand within the Liberal party and the CPC. The CPC has many members who feel strongly against same-sex marriage while the Liberals have more individuals with more accepting views (but not completely). The problem is government under the Liberals was run by the PM, so truly, it was more important what he thought on the issue then anyone else. Harper has proposed a reversal. Both of the large parties have people on both sides of the issues (related to issues of morality) and the political spectrum also. Summary, CPC has free votes on issues of conscience and party line voting on ALL other issues.

As much as I like the Swiss system. Its unworkable in our country, geograghy simply makes it all a logistical nightmare. But personnally, I'd like to see a nationwide vote on same-sex marriage and abortion that would be legally binding. It would bring finality to the issue, majority wins and it ends the political wrangling.

And I'm not going anywhere. 8) Stephistan had ceded some ground so I wanted to do the same.

On the other hand, I still believe my question on the validity of issues based upon whether they are inherently wrong or wrong because they were American deserved an answer from those advocating "blind" voting for the Liberals...(Not directed at you Proudhonistes, the others know who they are :wink: )

I don't usually say too much.

Until now.

Now I am going to say something!

In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by:

(1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? - a
multi-millionaire
lawyer from Quebec???

Quebec is at the center of Canadian politics...
Whether you like it or not....
THE ROAD TO OTTAWA goes Through Quebec...

I don't usually say too much.

Until now.

Now I am going to say something!

In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by:

(1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? - a
multi-millionaire
lawyer from Quebec???

Quebec is at the center of Canadian politics...
Whether you like it or not....
THE ROAD TO OTTAWA goes Through Quebec...

Proudhonistes... I don't know if your local newspapers do this but mine have always done the "Top Ten Questions" list on where all the candidates stand on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc..

The majority of Canadians vote for their local candidate as opposed to voting party line (I saw a poll recently that proved this). So most Canadians vote for the candidates positions rather then the party's. (Although the party is more visible most of the time and the party's views tends to influence the candidate's views)

I don't usually say too much.

Until now.

Now I am going to say something!

In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by:

(1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? - a
multi-millionaire
lawyer from Quebec???

Quebec is at the center of Canadian politics...
Whether you like it or not....
THE ROAD TO OTTAWA goes Through Quebec...

Historically, Quebec had the weight of the seats and the population behind them. The weight of votes is starting to balance itself out, so a Western leader is inevitable. Quebec is just stagnating; culturally, economically and politically. I live in Quebec, I've lived here for over 20 years, its the same issues day in and day out.

I'm waiting for someone to break that trend and maybe wake up the locals. The Road to Ottawa goes through Ontario, due to continued population growth and the number of seats. The fact is now that the West offers the weight necessary (in the event of an Ontario sweep) in order to win a majority. So its going to be Ontario at the center with Quebec and the collective West swinging back and forth.

Just a friendly reminder to everybody:

Tomorrow, do the most patriotic and thoughtful thing you can possibly do for Canada: STOP STEPHEN HARPER!!!

Just a friendly reminder to everybody:

Tomorrow, do the most patriotic and thoughtful thing you can possibly do for Canada: STOP STEPHEN HARPER!!!

Forcasts are for a Minority Government. Going to be interesting!

I don't usually say too much.

Until now.

Now I am going to say something!

In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by:

(1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? - a
multi-millionaire
lawyer from Quebec???

Quebec is at the center of Canadian politics...
Whether you like it or not....
THE ROAD TO OTTAWA goes Through Quebec...
a Western leader is inevitable.
Harper?

Since polls are hinting that more Ontarians seem to be returning to their senses this weekend, I think we might just be spared Harper after all. Let's hope so anyway.

Good luck to the Conservatives! I was going to vote Libertarian but Garaj Mahal and Canuck Heaven have convinced me to cast my vote for the Conservative Party.

Who's your candidate?

Hello. My name is Alan Robberstad. I am a Canadian. One voter out of
millions of Canadian voters.

Paul Martin is no friend of mine.

Liberal governments have not made my life any better.

Liberal governments have made the future worse for my children.

Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party became Prime Minister many years ago.

Guess who was the Liberal Finance Minister.....Paul Martin...LEST WE
FORGET

Since 1993:

(1) My taxes have increased.

(2) My family's share of the national debt has increased.

(3) My personal expenses have increased.

(4) My waiting time to see a doctor has increased.

(5) My concerns for my family's safety have increased.

(6) My costs to educate my children have increased.

(7) Government interference in my life has increased.

(8) My personal debt has increased.

(9) My income has stayed more or less the same.

(10) My savings have decreased.

(11) The buying power of my dollar, in Canada, has decreased.

(12) The value of my dollar, in the U.S., has decreased.

(13) My trust of elected officials has decreased.

(14) My trust in the justice system has decreased.

(15) My trust in the immigration system has decreased.

(16) My hope that a Liberal won't waste my tax dollars has decreased.

(17) My dreams for a better future for my kids, in Canada, have disappeared.

That is my story since the Liberals came to power.

I am not voting for Paul Martin's Liberals.

I am voting against Paul Martin and his Liberal Party on June 28, 2004.

I am voting for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

Do I like the Conservatives?

Not particularly......I don't really like Politics.

I am not political by nature.

I am not passionate about politics.

I am a middle age guy (48).

I live in a small house on a fairly quiet street in Edmonton.

I have a wife, Kathy, and two children (ages 19 and 17).

I have no pets.

I am a middle class man.

I don't usually say too much.

Until now.

Now I am going to say something!

In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by:

(1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.

(4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? - a
multi-millionaire
lawyer from Quebec???

The leader of the Conservative party, Stephen Harper, is:

(1) Not a lawyer.

(2) Not a multi-millionaire.

(3) Not from Quebec.

Stephen Harper says that the Conservative party will:

(1) Reduce my taxes.

(2) Pay off the national debt as fast as they can.

(3) Shrink the size and influence of the federal government.

That's good enough for me.

I'm going to give the Conservative party a chance with my vote. But wait
Paul Martin is now saying the same thing.

My mother told me forty years ago:

"Fool me once - shame on you.

Fool me twice - shame on me!"


The Liberals have had 34 years to be financially responsible.

Remember, Jean Chretien was Trudeau's Finance Minister.

Remember also, Paul Martin was Jean Chretien's Finance Minister

These people have been raising my taxes for thirty four years.

They have been mis-spending my tax dollars for 34 years.

34 years!

And now Paul Martin says he'll stop taxing and spending.

No way.

Thank you for reading my story so far!

Why am I telling my story to you?

Although I feel alone, I know that I am not alone.

Your story may be similar to mine.

And you may also feel alone.

One small voter in the midst of millions of voters.

What can you and I do together to change things?

How can you and I fight a huge political machine?

You and I have two things that we can use:

(1) Our individual personal connections.

(2) The Internet.

The Internet is supposed to be this global zing tool, right?

Let's put it to use.

I have 27 Canadians in my personal e-mail address book.

I am sending this e-mail to each of them.



I'm asking you to do two things:

(1) Forward this e-mail to every Canadian in your own address book.

(2) Vote against Paul Martin and the Liberal Party on June 28.

Vote for the Conservative candidate in your riding.

I have probably written this e-mail too late.

As I said I am not politically adroit.

I feel like Peter Finch, in the 1976 movie "Network", when he shouted: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

As I type these last few words the voting begins in less than 18 days.

432 hours till voting begins.

I hope the Internet is as fast as some people claim it is.

This may not work.

This e-mail may "fizzle out" and go nowhere.

But you and I will have tried, won't we have?

My best wishes to you.

My thanks to David Stokes from Toronto

He actually wrote this just (5) days before the last federal

election in 2000.

Fool me once - shame on you.

Fool me twice - shame on me!"

Alan Robberstad

Edmonton, Alberta June 10, 2004@ 3:00 p.m.

_____

[b]A friend of mine sent me the above email and I sent it back to him with the following questions and answers. Please excuse the arrows. 8)

> Subject: Election Day June 28th
>
> Canadian's
> don't talk enough about politics and I believe this election is very
> important.
>
> THINK ABOUT IT

I have thought about it and my response was stated above, and I ask some serious questions below..

>
> > -------------------
> > I am a Canadian.

Me too. Proud of Canada too!!

> > One voter out of millions of Canadian voters.

Yup, me too.
> >
> > Paul Martin is no friend of mine.

That is your choice, you could do worse for sure.

> > Liberal governments have not made my life any better.

They have been great for this country.

> > Liberal governments have made the future worse for my children.

How so? Anyone can make a statement.
> >
> > Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party became Prime Minister many years
> ago.
> > Guess who was the Liberal Finance Minister.....Paul Martin...LEST WE
> FORGET

Paul Martin was an exceptional Finance Minister.He did what Michael Wilson (LEST WE FORGET) said he would do and that was balance the books.
> >
> > Since 1993:
> > (1) My taxes have increased.

Paul Martin as Finance Minister reduced income tax, by a record $100 Billion over 5 years.

> > (2) My family's share of the national debt has increased.

The National debt has been reduced by $52 billion in the past 5 years.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/govt03.htm

> > (3) My personal expenses have increased.

Is that the fault of the Federal Liberals? How so?

> > (4) My waiting time to see a doctor has increased.

Mine is about the same.

> > (5) My concerns for my family's safety have increased.

Why? The crime rate in Canada has decreased significantly since the Liberals came to office in 1993, especially in Alberta, where this email came from.

http://www.solgen.gov.ab.ca/crime_prev/downloads/planning_guide_2004/4_crime_statistics.pdf

Canada's crime rate, lowest in 20 years:

http://canadaonline.about.com/library/weekly/aa072100a.htm

> > (6) My costs to educate my children have increased.

Normally, education is the responsibility of the Provinces, and not the Federal Government, but the Liberals are offering a better platform on education than the Conservatives. They are also offering a better deal on Municipalities, Environment, Health Care etc......

http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2004/static/issues/issues_education.html

> > (7) Government interference in my life has increased.

The Federal Government is interfering in your life? How so?

> > (8) My personal debt has increased.

Well that is a personal matter? You want to blame the Liberals for this?

> > (9) My income has stayed more or less the same.

Many Canadians are getting wage increases that tend to mirror inflation rates. The good thing is that the unemployment rate in Canada has declined from the double digit unemployment (11.4%) under the Mulroney Conservatives (1984 to 1993).

> > (10) My savings have decreased.

Having children is a financial burden for sure, and yet I see many of my fellow workers and friends trying to do it all, while leveraging themselves to the hilt. They want the cars, the "toys", the house, the kids, and they want it now. So many times, decreased savings results because of increased loan and mortgage payments. we can blame the Liberals for this somehow?

> > (11) The buying power of my dollar, in Canada, has decreased.

Well my dollar still gets me a dollars worth of goods here in Canada. Inflation is running around 2%, and interest rates are at an all time low. You can buy a car with 0% down and 0% interest rates. Your dollar would have bought a lot less during the last Conservative stand 1984 to 1993, when unemployment rose to 11.2%, interest rates were at 10% or more, and Canada was going through the worse recession since the 1930's.

> > (12) The value of my dollar, in the U.S., has decreased.

Well unless you are buying goods from the US, the US dollar value is somewhat illrelevant? The low dollar has been a boon to Canadian exporters which has resulted in a huge surplus trade with the US (over $50 Billion in 2003), and other countries. This surplus means more jobs for Canadians.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040611.wtrade0611/BNStory/Business/

> > (13) My trust of elected officials has decreased.

It does appear that most politicians make a practice out of deception? Some are more trustworthy than others.

> > (14) My trust in the justice system has decreased.

Alberta crime rates were far higher under the last Federal Conservative Government:

http://www.solgen.gov.ab.ca/crime_prev/statistics.aspx?id=945

> > (15 )My trust in the immigration system has decreased.

What is wrong with the immigration system, and why don't you trust it?

> > (16) My hope that a Liberal won't waste my tax dollars has
> decreased.

The last Federal Conservative Government wasted our tax dollars....big time.

> > (17 )My dreams for a better future for my kids, in Canada, have
> > disappeared.

This Liberal Government has been far more fiscally responsible than most Conservative Governments. Canada's economy is booming.

> > That is my story since the Liberals came to power.

You still want to blame this on the Liberals?
> >
> > I am not voting for Paul Martin's Liberals.

Well I sure am!!

> > I am voting against Paul Martin and his Liberal Party on June 28,
> 2004.

I know what Paul Martin can do. I don't think I can trust Stephen Harper to manage my money any better.
> >
> > I am voting for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

Well I think Paul Martin deserves the nod.
> >
> > Do I like the Conservatives?
> >
> > Not particularly......

Well I can agree with you there.

I don't really like Politics.
> > I am not political by nature.
> > I am not passionate about politics.
> > I am a middle age guy (48).
> > I live in a small house on a fairly quiet street in Edmonton.
> > I have a wife, Kathy, and two children (ages 19 and 17).
> > I have no pets.
> > I am a middle class man.
> > I don't usually say too much.
> >
> > Until now.
> >
> > Now I am going to say something!
> >
> > In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by:
> > (1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
> > (2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
> > (3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
> > (4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? - a
> > multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec???

Do you have a problem with millionaire lawyers from Quebec?
> >
> > The leader of the Conservative party, Stephen Harper, is:
> > (1) Not a lawyer.
> > (2) Not a multi-millionaire.
> > (3) Not from Quebec.

Perhaps being a lawyer would be an asset since it appears that Stephen Harper is looking at messing with the Charter of Rights.
> >
> > Stephen Harper says that the Conservative party will:
> > (1) Reduce my taxes.
> > (2) Pay off the national debt as fast as they can.
> > (3) Shrink the size and influence of the federal government.

The last time a Conservative Government said that to me here in Ontario, they closed hospitals, cut health care, and ambulances were turned away from emergency wards. They cut back funding to schools, cut back funding to municipalities, forced amalgamations, deregulated, then reregulated hydro, eliminated rent controls, voted themselves a huge pay increase, increased the debt, and lied about balancing the budget. There is much more but the list is long enough.

Except I will never forget Walkerton and the tainted meat scandal.


VOTE LIBERAL

I think it's quite simple. Harper had at least a minority government in the bag until that retarded attack accusing the liberals and NDP of supporting chil pornography. As soon as that idiotic crack was made, the integrity of his campaign fell apart, and everyone was reminded that while Stevie can keep the lunatics in his party quiet for a while, it doesn't mean they're not there. Not that anyone's campaign impressed me that much... The liberal attack ads spoiled their campaign by throwing valuable facts they had on their side (most things in those stupid ads ARE true) by thrashing them around so blunt and carelessly, while if I wanted an "ordinary nice guy with strong good convictions" à là conservative platform, I would run for prime minister myself.

WHY CANADIANS MUST REJECT HARPER:

On June 28, 2004, Canadians face a starker choice than in any election
in our lifetimes. Dissatisfaction with the years of Liberal government
is driving voters toward the "Conservative Party" and its new and
telegenic leader, Stephen Harper. With only weeks to go until election day,
we fear many members of the public will not have time to adequately assess the sharp and clear differences between the major parties.

In fact, the "Conservative Party" is not a known and trusted
alternative.

The Right Honourable Joe Clark, former Prime Minister and a life-long
member of the Progressive Conservative Party, made this clear when he
urged the Canadian public to choose Paul Martin over Harper. The
Harper agenda scares him. Many leading former Progressive Conservatives feel the same.

The party Harper leads has little in common with the former
Progressive Conservative Party. But there is a way that Canadians can learn more about Harper's mysterious party: We can look South, to George Bush and the U.S. Republican Party.

Like the Bush Republicans, the Harper Conservatives would take Canada
into dangerous territory:

Bush and Harper favour Canadian involvement in the illegal U.S.
attack on Iraq.

Bush and Harper would take Canada to deficits in order to pour
billions into the military. Bush has already taken the U.S. into trillions
of dollars of debt to fund militarism.

Bush and Harper deny the reality of climate change and the threat to
the whole planet, and especially Canada, from our continued reliance on
fossil fuels.

Bush and Harper reject the Kyoto Protocol. Harper has said he would
not implement this international treaty which Canada has already ratified.

Bush and Harper would change the protection of human rights enshrined
in our respective Bill of Rights and Charter of Rights. Harper has said
he would use the notwithstanding clause to prevent the equal application
of the marriage laws as they effect single-sex couples.

Bush and Harper would challenge a woman's right to choose. Harper
has said he would allow the issue of access to legal abortions to be
re-opened through an open vote in the House of Commons.

Bush was responsible for more executions than any other U.S. Governor
of recent times. Harper has suggested the prohibition of capital
punishment would be re-opened in Canada.

We must not sleep walk into electing a Canadian version of George W.
Bush.

Challenge Stephen Harper on these positions.

Harper tells Canadians we should "Demand Better." First, Canadians
must "Demand the truth" about the new Canadian Republican Party,
masquerading as the Conservative Party of Canada.

We do not have much time.

This reads like a quote from the Liberal Party's website. Whether it is or not, I'm surprised that someone who is supposed to be a PhD candidate can only rehash stale, turgid propaganda. As if there's a single person here who is going to be influenced one way or the other by this type of hyperbole. I'm not a supporter of Bush any more, but the stock left-wing references to Bush in order to tar Harper with the same brush beggars belief.

Just to go through Stephistan’s points:

The war in Iraq, as badly conceived as it was, was never declared officially to be "illegal". If Harper is elected, political pragmatism dictates that he would at best send further humanitarian support to Iraq, not involve thousands of Canadian troops in something that the great majority of Canadians don’t support.

Canada under Harper is hardly likely to embark on a massive military build-up to fund "militarism". Only someone who is a complete political ingenue could believe such baloney.

Climate change due to the use of fossil fuels is *not* proven. It is certainly possible, but it will need a much longer period of study to prove it. And even if it is true, is Harper going to suddenly make Canada the world's biggest user of fossil fuels? Hardly.

The Kyoto protocol was rejected by Bush because of the massive costs it would incur for the US economy. Russia has rejected it too, for the same reasons. Harper would be completely acting in the interests of Canada if he does the same. That’s what he’s supposed to do, act for Canada, not to please the scientific establishment or the mythical “world community”.

Human rights laws in Canada were never enacted with the idea of protecting the rights of “gays” to marriage. As in the United States, this is a new interpretation, a liberal one.

If Harper wants to present the issue of abortion to the House then let him, isn't that democracy? And we all know that he'll be defeated on that issue anyway.

And lastly, regarding capital punishment, well, there are many Canadians who want it too. Stephistan knows very well that as with abortion, it's just not going to happen though. Of all her comparisons with Bush, this one is the most ludicrous. Bush was governor of a southern state with no historical reference to Canada whatsover, but Harper is *really* just Bush and so will make Canada just like Texas. It really doesn’t follow.

Stephistan, really dear, you can do better than this.

Harper = Mulrooney.

It was bad the first time, why go back?

I'm voting for Layton, thankfully in my riding the NDP stand a strong chance of winning.

I hope the Free Qubec (or whatever its called) Party does good.