MightyAC

The calls for an election seem to be more common, but why do we need one? MPs should represent their constituents by pushing for their issues in parliament. If a united opposition is able to pass a bill that the majority of Canadians want then democracy is served. I see no need to collapse the government because of it. I think we may be too attached to a faulty electoral system. We have people calling for a majority, as if that would solve our problems. A majority is simply an elected dictatorship. What is so great about allowing a party to impose its wishes on all of Canada simply because they received 40% of the vote? Our current system doesn't give us the government we actually vote for, half of the votes cast do not aid in providing any representation at all and many are forced to vote strategically in an attempt to make their vote count rather than for who they really support. Rather than bitch about the current situation in Ottawa and then hope the next majority will act benevolently in the interest of the majority why not help fix the system? Of course there is debate over what fix means... senate, no senate, elected senate, PR, fixed terms, etc Anyway, I think it's time one of our leaders had the balls to deliver on the promise of electoral reform they made while in opposition. Both Mr. Harper and Mr. Chrétien liked the idea until they were in power. I like the process that is going on in Ontario right now (I think the same process took place in BC as well). A citizen’s assembly of one person from every riding is educated on all the various systems of government and the pros and cons of each. They then first decide if our current first past the post systems needs to be changed. If they believe it does then they recommend a new one. The public is then educated on the new system and we vote on whether or not to adopt it during the next election.

Flat tax is a great idea. Imagine a one page tax return that anyone can do in 10 minutes. Imagine the savings...we could axe tones of civil servants and at least one minister. It will never happen though...a flat tax system will eliminate that government's ability to offer complex tax cuts that translate into zero actual savings.

As Hydraboss pointed out this is assuming that that tax revenue has to be fully replaced. Are you implying that the tax revenue stream is currently at the appropriate level and any tax cut must be offset by a tax gain somewhere else? According to the Library of Parliament full pension splitting for seniors would be about $300 million per year. A 1% point drop in GST costs about $5 billion. How did we make up the $5 billion dollar shortfall created by the GST cut? Second it is far more common for seniors to have 1 income earner or a very large imbalance in their pensions. Why should a couple bringing in 1 pension worth 90 grand be taxed harder than a couple with two 45 grand pensions?

Income splitting does not harm the spinster sisters in your example, it just doesn't benefit them. You discrimination argument could be applied to our current tax system as well. Doesn't it discriminate against single income families? We pay too much tax, period. Income splitting would benefit a large portion of the country without burdening singles. Obviously single people will not benefit but they will not be hurt either. I don't see income splitting as the final solution but as a stepping stone to it. First step is to allow seniors to split all pension income. Second step is to allow income splitting for all families. The third step is to implement the graduated flat tax system. Doesn't "graduated flat tax" sound like an oxymoron? Anyway, I think it's a great fit for Canada as it is a compromise between a pure flat tax system and our current progressive tax system. Sorry to bring up Garth in another thread but income splitting is a huge issue for his constituents and one he promised he would push. Now that he is no longer a Conservative he was finally able to ask a question about it in the House. I find it funny that Garth has more power to push the views of his constituents as an independent than as part of the government. As a part of the Conservative party questions and private members bills of non-cabinet MPs have to be approved by ministers...very few are approved.

You may be right... I think Kerry Fraser (NHL Ref) also uses that same brand.

That would be ONE for the Harper government as opposed to what, ten million for the previous Liberal government? You could not pick one day, one question period of the last ten years where various government ministers didn't get up and lie, including that pompous windbag, Goodale. The typical party apologist approach when you have no defense is to say "uh well the other guys are worse"... The Green Plan sucks..."Uh well, the Libs did nothing". Emerson crossed the floor..."Uh well Belinda did too"... It kind of sounds like two 5 year olds arguing in the school yard doesn’t it? Every government blames the one before...I wonder who John A. blamed? It must have been tough for him, maybe that's why he drank so much. The man would spend a week in a hotel room with a case of scotch and a few hookers...although can you blame him? Whether or not a Liberal, Ralph Goodale, if that’s even his real name, or any other politician has lied in the past Pete MacKay still screwed up here. He made a quick witted, funny comment, which should not have been said. Instead of apologizing and winning this hands down he lied, acted like a coward and hid. Thus an issue was created. A guy that would lie about such a trivial issue raises questions about his own character. A guy like that may even lie and sell out an entire party….nah, that could never happen Conservatives have an infallible “moral compass” right? Argus, W&W, et al. you don't have to defend him...it's ok...life will go on. Sometimes it is ok to say yeah he blew this one big time and move on... Maybe it's the mind controlling chemicals in the party membership cards that are forcing these ridiculous song and dance routines. I don’t even care about this issue I just get so sick of people that have already picked a side even before an issue arises.

Correct, an opportunity created by the lie and lack of apology. If Pete apologized right after it was made public he would not be conceeding to anything, just that he shouldn't have made the remark. Instead his deceitful cowardice gave the Liberals a chance to paint him as a woman hating ogre. That may not be the case but that's politics all parties capitalize on the mistakes of others. It's too bad that Pete allowed such a grand stage to be created on such a dumb issue with such a simple solution.

Again you tip toe around the fact that a prominent CPC Minister lied and when caught he ran and hid. This issue will die soon...MacKay should have killed it with an apology but hey he's above that I guess. I don't particularly like the Liberal party but I will defend them here. You call them a sinking ship yet even without a leader they are running neck and neck with your boys in blue. That has to be scary. Just because you bought a little blue membership card (I don't know if a CPC membership is actually blue) doesn't mean you have to defend or attempt to excuse their mistakes. All parties make mistakes; they are simply a group of greedy, ambitious human beings. I prefer it when they simply admit they made a mistake and move on. Those little cards sure are powerful though. Whether they are blue, red, orange, etc it causes people to loose all reason and defend the party to the bitter end. I think we should have those cards tested for mind controlling chemicals.

You bring up many separate issues. The one pertaining to this thread is that MacKay said something he shouldn't have. No big deal it happens. However, when it does happen a quick apology is in order. He didn't apologize, in fact he lied. That's the issue. It wasn't a story before but now it is. Bringing up leadership races, sponsorship scandals, and the fact that Belinda is of low character is all a little song and dance routine meant to distract from the actual issue. MacKay lied and tried to avoid what otherwise would be a trivial issue. Now let's stop defending a liar he's always been one. He ran for the leadership of the PC's promising never to merge the party but that was a lie to. I actually liked Pete...much better than Harper in fact. I had hoped he would take a shot at the leadership of the CPC or as I like to call it...the unholy alliance. I guess you can't expect to win a leadership race when you lied to your half of the party though. His original burn was quite witty, I liked it. Too bad he had to lie and hide when a quick apology would have made him the winner. Anyway, Pete is now showing his ugly, stubborn side and tarnishing his reputation.

When Con MPs were speaking freely some of them were making controversial statements...hence the fact they were being torn apart. Again the reason a problem existed was because of the unholy alliance of the right. Under a PR system both halves of the CPC would be free to exist in their original forms. Some of those controversial Reformer statements that got the CPC in trouble were well received by the mainly socially conservative Reform audience. So a split up CPC could be themselves without fear of angering the other half of the party. For example, right now CPCers are slammed if they support SSM and they are also slammed if the don't. A party that has to gag its members and walk on egg shells isn’t really doing all it can for Canadians. Why bother having local representation if it is meaningless anyway? PR is the only way I can think of that will allow all voters to be represented in the appropriate proportion no matter how far right or left they sit. I am fighting for it. We will have a vote on it in Ontario next year. The ball is rolling in BC, PEI and NB as well...but I think you're right about 10 years or more. My lap dog Con MP is the chair of the committee in charge of. among other things, electoral reform. He was very accessible in opposition but now that they are in government he refuses to answer any of my questions...especially about electoral reform. Both Chrétien and Harper said they would bring in PR when in opposition...both lost interest when they were in power. I guess it is less interesting when it is no longer to your benefit…they say power corrupts. Anyway, if Dalton McGuinty can keep his word on PR in Ontario some federal politician can surely do it.

What do you mean "look what happened to the Reform party"? They grew from a grassroots group of malcontents into the official opposition in record time. Their leadership wasn't satisfied with NDP-like cult status caused by the vote splitting created by our BS electoral system...so they made an unholy alliance with the PC party. If we had PR, bottom up parties could flourish. Some top down decision making is always necessary, but what Harper is doing is fanatical. CPC MPs provide no reginal representation...it's simply not allowed. I really hope the party can be saved. Garth gave me hope. We need more people to encourage their MPs to speak out and represent them first. My guess is it won't work until Harper is no longer leader but hey stranger things have happened. Anyway, politicians are suckers for votes. If we make it known that we like our party to allow its MPs to think and speak for themselves and back it with our votes...they'll listen.

Politics is primarily an on going popularity contest. All parties attack and exploit everything they can. The Cons, NDP and Bloc would do the same thing. The fact remains that Pete had the power to take away all of their amunition with a quick apology. However, he didn't thought he could get away with it. That was a bonehead move. This story will evaporate today or tomorrow...but it still lasted a few days longer than it had to simply because MacKay is a stuborn fool that thought he got away with one.

Well, I'm not sure it's indicative of all Liberals, but it certainly is duplicitious. Wondering further on my point above, perhaps if Belinda had thrown the insult Peter's way the reaction wouldn't be silent, but rather, would be met with approving laughs, cheers of female empowerment, and calls of "you go girl!" The insult would have been met by the same faked outrage no matter what sex or party the sharp tounged idiot belonged to. As has been said before the only reason this story has any legs is because MacKay is too stuborn to apologize. If he had, nobody would be talking about it anymore. The fact that he is so stuborn definitely plays into the hands of Belinda though. She has been trying to rebuild her political image as a champion on women in politics. Pete's little outburst helped to hasten her makeover a smidge.

Interesting comments from Garth's blog. It seems a little hypocritical to me that a party supposedly born of bottom up grassroots support first of all turfs a guy elected by the grassroots. Secondly, this party severely limits private members bills...a tool MPs can use to push causes important to their constituents. Is this ground up politics or top down ruling with an iron fist? The latter seems more accurate to me. This quote is more evidence of the top down total control being exhibited by the PMO. In the Stephen Harper Tories, MPs do not represent us...the represent the party. Our BS first past the post system is bad enough already, but has some positive points if MPs represent the people and not simply act as party parrots. Harper has dramatically increased our democratic deficit. He was in favour of PR when in opposition...not sure what happened to that. Democracy and equality are the right thing to preach, until he had a chance to win a false majority I guess. At times I think f@#K Harper and the idiot Cons I'll vote for whoever has the best chance of beating them in my riding...and then I get angry and think this was my party once too. I like financial conservatism minus the social agenda and the dictatorial top down control. I want my party back. I want Harper to disappear. The root of the problem is the unholy alliance of the Reformers and Progressive Cons. We're too different. It would be like combining the Libs and NDP...they share some common ideals but are fundamentally just too different. I guess the actual root of the problem is our First Past the Post electoral system. Winner Take All type systems prevent a huge chunk of voters from being represented. If we had PR reformers and PCers could exist in their previous form. They could work together on reducing taxes and shrinking the government without having to pretend to agree on social issues. Garth is essentially fighting top down rule. He has PC ideals with a Reformer bottom up approach. If more politicians had balls like Garth we could see real, positive change.

People who want to see delayed results are just using the ecconomy as a thin veil for their anti-environmental agenda.

Not surprising since women tend to be slightly more socially progressive, environmentally conscious, pro-equality, and anti-war. Wow…we definitely need more women in politics. Bring on proportional rep. A great side effect of PR is that usually the sex and race of elected officials usually tends to more closely match that of the population….and voter turn out increases.

DEFLECT!!!!!!!!!!! DEFLECT!!!!!!!!!! I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. What MacKay said was stupid, but the same type of scorn wouldn't have been shown to half a these posters' party of choice for worse things being said. If MacKay is not fit for office, then neither was Trudeau for telling an MP to fuck off. Which means he shouldn't be labelled as one of the greatest PMs of all time by the same people who are slamming MacKay. Nah, a fuss is raised anytime a politician acts inappropriately. As to your Trudeau comment all politicians seem big/better in time. Trudeau, Mulrooney, Pearson, John A., Reagan, Clinton. These guys all had some big problems in their time at the top but seem somehow better now.... well, maybe Brian needs a few more years...but he'll be remembered fondly one day.

Because their prejudices make them to prefer being ridiculous than treating gays fairly. Exactly. Sepparate water fountains, restaurants and schools were once acceptible for black people as well. They were offered the same water, food and a similar education but just seggregated... The Civil Union is pretty much the same thing. Anyway, this is a thread about Garth. I imagine the news will die down a little until sometime next week. He is having two town hall meetings in his riding this weekend, asking his constituents for their input on what he should do next. Garth held monthly town hall meetings while he was a Con too. Can you imagine having an MP that cares what his/her constituents think? My Con MP is just a lap dog that repeats Conservative party sound bites. He actually went on local radio and tried to explain that the Emerson crossing was nothing like Stronach's. Even though he had bashed the Liberals for the same thing he told us it was a good move for Canadians.. Garth was honest and said hey, it was a mistake. We shouldn't have done it now let's move on..

Hiding behind the fact that it wasn't written in the record of Hansard is a weak excuse.. Next he will be spouting off Johnnie Cochran lines along the lines of "If the glove don't fit, you must aquit" "If it ain't in Type it's just Liberal Hype..." Too bad I liked MacKay as a politician, now he's just being an ass.

How is simply changing the definition of marriage in the dictionary a human right. Last I remember the Conservative were supporting civil unions which give the same benefits. It's not basic human rights, its basic stupidity. Human rights are important, but they have to be balanced with the needs of a community as well as the moral compass of a nation. I think civil unions would have been a logical balance or for that matter getting the government out of the marriage business all together. As well the right to life is also suppose to be the most basic human right, but Western society obviously doesn't respect that right. It was also the former Reform party that got shredded to pieces when they allowed MP's to say whatever they please, if anything its the Liberal party and media's fault for the iron fist, as unfortunately the only way to lead in this country is through an iron fist. Chretien showed that strategy worked best. Every thread turns into a SSM debate. OK CB... Let's say Manitoba is just joining Confederation. Some Canadians looked at the province to be and said wait a minute we don't want them to be called Canadians because they're weird and different. Over 90% percent of the people live in two cities and the rest is basically empty, that just won't do. They can have all the rights and privileges of Canadians but they will have to be called Naidanacs (Canadian backwards just in case you didn't get it). A ridiculous example for sure but so is the idea of civil unions. If it’s the same thing as marriage then call it marriage. Since this is a thread about Garth I'm glad he was against legislating morality. He supported leaving the law as is and moving on to reducing the size of government and cutting taxes. Garth Rules.

The reason the Liberal brought up MacKay's dog is because MacKay gave an interview outside at his family’s farm with a dog. The whole scene was a political, basically an attempt to depict a good ol' boy hurt by an evil billionaire. Anyway, it turns out the dog was his neighbour's. The Libs referred to the actual dog....Pete turned it into an insult to Belinda. The comment would be witty in a pub but it was obviously a stupid thing for a politician to say. Anyway, he should just apologize and let this relatively small story die. I think he is playing it out as a way of letting his accidental slip deflect some attention from the brutal reception the Clean Air act received yesterday.

If Harper makes this a vote of confidence he is in real trouble. The environment and specifically climate change is a hot (not intended) issue. Much of Harper's support came from disenfranchised Liberals who are sensitive to environmental and social issues. A forced election on this issue will cost Harper much of the former anti-Liberal vote. This bill has likely already hurt the cons in urban centers as well as Quebec. Putting it to a vote, even if it isn't one of confidence, can only hurt sitting Con MPs when they are forced to stand up and support it. A vote like that will add further support to the fact that Cons are not allowed to think for themselves or vote freely. A Green Plan had the power to win a majority for the Harper and the Cons if it was well done. Unfortunately the bill missed the boat so badly it may be what costs Steve-O a house on Sussex Drive.

I agree. Elizabeth May is a great environmentalist but I'm not sure about her as a political leader. Maybe Garth is right person for that job a few years from now.

That's great advice... Ok... Shower, shave, flowers, complement outfit, dinner, keep conversation focus on your date, drinks and don't publicly humiliate one's self and former girlfriends... wow that's a lot to remember. His stupid remark may hurt him with the ladies but at least it took some of the heat off of Rona, Steve-O and that brutal bill...maybe he's just taking one for the team.

So far all 3 opposition parties have said they cannot support it. Clean Air Act - Rocky Reception