Riverwind

The CFO is not automatically expected to know if some middle managers are embezzling funds from the company. That is what happened in sponsership scandal.

Depends on what you are talking about: did Martin know that sponsership contracts were going to Liberal friendly firms? Probably. Did he know that mafia like extortion was going on? Probably not until quite late in the game. It was a Martin supporter who took the stand at Gomery who was the first person to try and clean up the mess. It is probably reasonable to assume that he heard rumors like everyone else on parliment hill - does that me he was responsible for creating the mess in the first place? Not at all.

Depends if the Church is acting like a business and rents it hall to anyone who comes in off the street or if it restricts access to members of the Church. If the Church is acting like and competing with businesses (like hotels) then the Church must abide by the same rules as other businesses.

Yeah right. Just like Nixon is remembered for bringing democracy to Vietnam.

I believe obvious shills for other websites are automatically deleted by the admin. So you would be better off not re-posting after there are deleted.

Actually - yes it is. The SSM marriage issue is red herring. It is irrelevant what parliament does on this issue because the courts have already spoken. However, by championing this issue despite bad polls, Harper shows that he beholden to social conservatives in his party. Makes me wonder what will happen if the Conservatives got a majority: would abortion be next on his list things that are destroying the family? The $4.5 billion spending spree only happened after Harper the opportunist decided to try to topple the gov't. If Harper had supported the original budget as he promised then there would have been no spending spree and the corporate tax cuts would still be in place. In fact, if Harper had just stepped back and let the Liberals impale themselves he would likely be enjoying the same approval ratings that Jack Layton has now. All of his actions indicate that he has very poor instincts as a leader and would not likely be a good choice to lead the country (remember that Harper would have committed Canadian troops to Iraq: more evidence of bad judgment).

Bush won his second term because he wrapped himself in the American flag and convinced Americans that they are in a bogus war. Martin has not cheated the electorate. Some people who were working for the Liberal party did - but there is no evidence that Martin was directly involved. Bush, on the other hand, deliberately manipulated intelligence to deceive Americans. His deceit has not only cost 100s of billions of dollars it has also cost the lives of nearly 2000 US soldiers. There is no comparison to a 100 million or so wasted in sponsorship scandal And Kerry tried to do the same to Bush just like Harper runs around calling all Liberals corrupt when nothing could be further from the truth. The difference is American have this deep seated fear of all things liberal in the same way Canadians fear neo-cons. So the Americans tend to believe Bush- Candians believe Martin. We will see how the Liberals position themselves for the next election. It won't be the same as the past. And Kerry had a lot of sympathetic journalists and celebrities that helped him for free. How many candidates have a box office movie endorsing your campaign immediately before an election? The CPC on the other hand had a huge war chest filled up by bay street right before the rules changed.

That argument slices both ways, Sparhawk. If it is irrelevant what the government does, then maybe it should just leave the whole issue alone. I could not agree more, however, if the government does nothing then all of the court rulings stand and gay marriage is official in 8 out 10 provinces. But, I don't think SSM opponents would be willing to stand for that. The other problem is the thinly veiled hatred of gays expressed by so many opponents of SSM. When you see such obvious bigotry it is hard to sit back and say nothing even if you think the issue is irrelevant. Furthermore, if the Liberals had decided to adopt the separate but equal approach, I believe we would still be having this debate because the SSM opponents would still be arguing that gay civil unions undermined the family. By taking the extreme on one side, the Liberals forced the CPC into a more moderate middle.

Unfortunately, I agree. Paul Martin has been a disappointment as PM. The fact that he has been in crisis management mode for the entire time does explain some of it, however, there has been a disappointing lack of anything I would call leadership. That said, I have more faith in the Liberals to muddle through the mess than I have in the Conservatives to clean it up. What I would like to see is a national party like the BC Liberals: a mix of socreds and red tories which seem to manage the right combination of the right wing economic ideology and common sense. Most importantly, the BC Liberals do not touch social issues like SSM with a 10 foot pole.

You really have no right to judge the faith of another person. Many Catholics I know have thought about leaving the church because of their beliefs but stay and try to work for change from within. There is a good book about this topic: "Why I am a Catholic" http://www.powells.com/review/2002_08_15.html

Pepsi would get sued too if Pepsi went around calling the Coke executives a bunch of crooks because few embezzlers were discovered within the organization. The Conservatives are as guilty as the Liberals when it comes to throwing dirt at their opponents.

There are lots of conservative policies that I agree with, however, the issues I have with the CPC are: I believe in a balance between private sector and government - I don't trust right wing ideologues who pursue anti-government polices for no more thought than 'government is bad'. I don't trust the CPC to be intelligent when it comes to reducing the size of government anymore than I trust the NDP to look after the interests of the private sector. Part of the reason I don't trust teh CPC is the fact that they spend way too much time fighting SSM - they come across as a bunch of extremists.

Why don't you try reading more than the last line of my post. People in Ontario, BC and the Martimes are not stupid. They know perfectly well that the Liberals have made mistakes, however, most people know that Martin himself likely had nothing to do with the sponsership mess even if he is fudging on how much he knew about it before hand. The reason they will put up with the Liberals and their obvious faults is because the are the best among the alternatives. It seems to me the fault lies with the Conservatives for not making themselves more attractive to urban voters outside of Alberta. Does it make any sense to blame the customer if you have a product to sell and they don't want to buy it? I don't think so. The correct thing to do is fix the product and make it something that people want to buy.

People change their minds for many reasons. I used to be against SSM marriage until I analyzed my objections and realized that they made no sense. A willingness to change your mind is a strength not a weakness. Martin had to get the federal deficit under control. Transfers to provinces formed a large peice of federal spending and had to be cut. Bringing the federal gov't deficit down has helped reduce interest rates and gov't debt. As a result, it is now possible to put money back into the system. In other words, he had to cut health care in the 90s to save it in the 2000s. Martin wanted his own mandate as soon as he took over leadership - a very reasonable thing to do. If anything he delayed calling an election because of the scandal. In the end, he got a minority mandate set up the Gomery commision to get to the bottom of the mess and let the commision do its job. All he asked was to wait until that process completes. The only people that have a problem with waiting are hard core CPC and BQ supporters who thought they could take advantage of teh Gomery inquiry leading the news everyday. There are criminals who took advantage of the sponsership program and stole money - but it was not the entire Liberal party or the current leadership team. The fact that this program was poorly mismanaged does not take away from the fact that promoting Canada in Quebec is a reasonable thing to do. The sovereignist have been using Quebec gov't money to do the same thing for decades. So what? What Murphy and Dosanj implied was "there is no way a loser like you is going to get a senate or cabinet seat, however, if you abstain we will find something for you - maybe a commitee chair". It is perfectly legimate to try convince someone to switch sides. The people of Canada may re-elect the Liberals because the the CPC cannot seem to get its act together. For starters CPC supporters seem to have this habit of insulting the people that have the votes that they need.

I can't speak for the CPC, but I would support that option since it allows churches the freedom to hold their own values. Government should not be defining marriage. You make my point - it does not make a difference what the gov't calls marriage since society will make it own judgment. Even if SSM opponents succeeded many people and churches would refer to gay unions as marriages. This leads me to believe that all of high words about the santity of marriage are just a smoke screen to cover up fear and loathing of homosexuals. Argus makes the point that opponents to SSM are extermely motivated which is consistent by my belief that these people who are motivated by fear and loathing. Supporters of SSM correctly realize that it is irrelevant what the gov't does since marriage is social institution - not a gov't one. Which is why they are not as motivated.

Would the CPC support a solution where the gov't gets out of the marriage business all together? In other words, everyone has a civil union as far as the law is concerned. If individuals and churches want to call it a marriage then that is fine.

Sparhawk, I hate to break it to you but such a coalition was impossible since the rejection of Meech Lake. The federal Liberals put the nail in the coffin for any coalition, nationalist or otherwise, for the foreseeable future. Nothing is impossible in the world of politics. Two years ago the BQ was on its way out in the face of the Martin 'steamroller' and before the sponsership scandal broke. Now they are looking at a near sweep of Quebec. The CPC could have positioned itself as a federalist alternative to the BQ in franophone Quebec where there are lot of soft nationalists. They have clearly given up on Quebec and most of urban Canada. There only hope of winning gov't now is if vote splitting between the NDP and the Liberals in suburban areas gives them enough seats for a minority. BTW: Poll in the Vancouver Sun today: Libs 41%, NDP 26%, CPC 22%. Sort of makes the CPC look less and less like a 'Western' party and more like an Alberta/rural party.

Most Catholics I know have no problem with SSM, Birth Control, Abortion, Female Clergy. I would argue that the Martin better represents the the views of Catholics in this country than the Pope.

I would except change: 8. Pro more power to provinces to 8. Pro having services 100% delivered by the level of gov't that is most effective at delivering these services without any thought to ideology regarding feds vs. provinces. and 8. Pro war on terrorism to 8. Pro treating the problem of terrorism as a serious police/public safety matter and anti-useless fear mongering rhethoric about wars on abstract concepts. and I would add: 13. Pro drug de-criminalization.

There may be a silent majority of English Canadians who feel uncomfortable with SSM, however, French Canadians are part of the country too which means that the SSM has the support of majority of Canadians. This strategy is possiblely the dumbest thing Harper could do because it makes it so much easier for the Liberals to paint him as red-neck, wannabe Bush. It also drives the final stake in I my hope that the CPC could rebuild the Mulroney coilition between Quebec nationalists and western conservatives. I don't think this move represents any grand strategy by Harper - rather it is just a sign the Harper is beholden to the religious/social conservatives that form a minority of the CPC. Today it is SSM, tomorrow it will be abortion rights, evolution and school prayer. On the whole, it is a sad day for Canada.

Health Care: I have heard nothing from the CPC (or the Liberals for that matter) that has any substance. The issue will really come down to who to trust to make the right decisions. The CPC comes across as a bunch of ideologues who really hate the public system but only say they will protect it for political reasons. This will not play well with many Canadians. National Unity: The CPC has made no serious attempt to reach out to nationalist Quebequers. Their single minded obsessions with Bush's agenda from Iraq and missle defence to SSM is so far away from the main stream in Quebec that a CPC gov't would do more to convince Quebequers that they need their own country than all of the antics of the crooks that took advantage of the Liberal party. Honest Government: The CPC seems to have the upper hand by default on this issue because they have not been in power and therefore not had the opportunity to screw up. However, many people know that gov'ts of all strips get mired in ethical scandals (Conservatives in Sask, NDP in BC, et. al.) and may assume the CPC will end up being as bad as the Liberals. The net result is this issue will not likely swing many voters.

60%-70% of the population lives in central canada. In a democracy (the last time I checked) one person equals one vote, therefore you would expect that central canada would dominate gov't decision making. I would be seriously concerned if the narrow minded policies of an Alberta party representing a province with maybe 10% of the country's population had control over the national agenda. That said, central canada is hardly monolithic - Quebec votes for the BQ largely because they want nothing to do with the social conservatives that seem to be driving the policy agenda of the CPC. I have stated on this forum many times that I am not ideologically opposed to voting for a right of center party (like many Ontario voters). However, I can't vote for the Reform (oops, I mean the Conservative party) as long as it keeps trying to do its best impression of the Bush Republicans. BTW - The Conservative party is the only political party whose supporters regularly insult the people that they need to bring over to their side. Your comment about 'lemmings' is typical. Harper's comment about the BQ today and SMM is another example that is an insult to all Quebec nationalists.

The gov't could rewrite its laws to completely eliminate the term marriage from all laws and replace it with a neutral term like 'civil union' - in others the same word gets used for hetrosexual and homosexual couples so there can be no discrimination under the law. Marriage would then become a term that has no legal meaning. Would this be acceptable to SSM opponents? If not why not?

This is such a complete and total red herring. Homosexuality is not illegal between concenting adults. Polygamy and incest are illegal. Before anyone could seek to allow these types of 'marriages' they would have to be made legal first. The chances of that happening are next to zero. Therefore, there is no slippery slope.

Your knowledge of Canadian history is weak. When Canada was created the BNA act granted all residuals powers to the federal gov't. In other words, if the a power was not explicitly stated in the constitution to belong to the provinces then it became a federal gov't power. This is the reverse of the US model and it is not an accident since the fathers of confederation wished to create a nation that had a stronger central gov't than the US. Futhermore, the current boundaries of the provinces (with the exception of the martimes) include territories that did not originally belong to the provinces but were given to the provinces by the federal gov't for adminstrative convenience.