MightyAC

Do you think same sex couples or single parents should not be able to obtain children through current methods...adoption, sperm donor or surrogate?

"(including the need of that child for a father)." So right now a single woman of sufficient means to support a child cannot buy a spermsicle and have a baby? If that is the case then the The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act should have been ammended already.

So the military wasn't one of the 5 priorities either? wow..they spent many billions on it. I guess that's why they had to swap in that new priority so it looks like they're still focused. They've slashed spending on environmental initiatives like the successful EnerGuide program claiming that the environment wasn't one of the big 5 and they will come up with a "made in Canada" solution in the future. Anyone else sick of the phrase "made in Canada solution"?

I don't want to ban all drinking or smoking, in fact I agree with the decriminalization of pot. I didn't say I agreed with a law that prevents pregnant women from drinking I just said that I agreed that it could easily be done as most of our laws that regulate behaviour are somewhat arbitrary. I also said I agree with the social contract in Scotland as a means of accessing government aid. How do we police underage drinking? The cops don't actively seek them out they are just fined if they are caught. I think it was a mistake for your wife to drink a few glasses of wine per week during pregnancy but that's her prerogative. I wouldn't make it illegal...but if the law was in place it would be illegal. If you're wife had wine on her breath and happened to come into contact with the police then she should be fined. If a doctor notices alcohol problems then it would have to be serious drinking. It would be nice if we had the social services available to help alcoholic and malnourished mothers to be. It would just take 1 law. No drinking while pregnant. If you wanted to ban other substances then more laws would have to be added but banning drinking does not have to lead to other bans. I don't think the idea is attractive, but it could be done. I do like the idea of a social contract in exchange for state care though. Why waste the spaces on a lost cause? Why not limit the assistance to those willing to be helped and those who really want to get better?

I agree with Liam. Why is assimilation necessary for patriotism? Do you think all Americans speak English? Do you think the people living in little Havana, little Italy or the thousands of Spanish communities don't have an associated identity from their source country that predominates being American?

The idea in Scotland is that addicts sign a social contract that, amongst other things, prevents them from having children, in exchange for housing and care. Considering the need for free rehab and shelter is far greater than the capacity I think it is a great idea. It's voluntary and it helps society as a whole. I understand that Warwick and FTA were debating a hypothetical, imposed system and I have to agree with FTA. We regulate all sorts of arbitrary practices why would preventing pregnant women from drinking be any different? We legally limit anyone in Ontario under 19 to zero drinks per day. Cops do not actively look for underage drinkers but if they catch one there is a fine. Why would it be different for pregnant women? I'm not saying it should happen, but it could easily be done.

Their fanatics are worse than our fanatics?!?! That's what you've got? You're pathetic. That's like a Hell's Angel saying the Rock Machine or the Mafia is bad news. Disgusting, evil deeds are done in the name of every religion every day. From treating women as the second class, to blowing up Catholics or Protestants to suicide bombers, to unequal treatment for different races, religions or sexual orientations...every single day people commit atrocities in the name of a god. The “One Tin Soldier” lyric is so true…

That depends on the candidate. I'd have no issue wih voting for a Muslim, Jew or Christian who recognized the neccessary separation between their personal religious beliefs and public policy. Exactly. I don't care what someone's personal religious beliefs are provided they leave them at home. Our longest serving PM sought advice from his dead dog....but he didn't advocate teaching our kids to channel the spirits of their dead pets in school. What’s that Sparky? We should force Christian beliefs on the proletariat? Bark once for yes and twice for no…

What?! Wait a minute, what year is it? Now that the socons are ruling North America I frequently feel like I've been transported back to the 1600's. Holy wars, terrorism, bombings, environmental eradication, recombination of church and state, is anyone else embarrassed to be living in this time?

I hope so. I've already heard rumours that the question that will be asked will not be 'Should the traditional definition of SSM be restored' but something more like 'Does the topic of SSM need to be revisited'. So that's a good sign. This leads me to some off topic questions so I'll start a new thread in the Federal Politics section. I suspect you're right about Harper appeasing the socons. He wants a majority government and thus needs all the support he can get. I am pretty sure that he would love to be the real socon that he has been publicly for the last decade but he's smart enough to realize that he'd loose a lot of his red Tory support. He has to walk a fine line to please the two sects of his party. I couldn't imagine combining the Liberals and NDP and then trying to please both sets of voters, what a tough job. With that in mind I wonder how long the CPC will last. In time will the socons get tired of the middle of the road policies and go back to reform or family coalition type parties? The ball is rolling towards proportional representation in Canada, considering PR generally produces coalition governments will that make it easier for the unholy alliance to split up and go back to the way it was? Bush is nearing the end of his term and his administration has left a bad taste in the mouths of most of the country. If the Democrats win the next election will that force the CPC to further suppress the socon voices thus making a split more likely? Is it possible that the CPC is stable long term in it's current form or will the party survive but drift left or further right?

I hope so. I've already heard rumours that the question that will be asked will not be 'Should the traditional definition of SSM be restored' but something more like 'Does the topic of SSM need to be revisited'. So that's a good sign. This leads me to some off topic questions so I'll start a new thread in the Federal Politics section.

Look where the tories come from - rural Ontario, rural Prairies. By voting against SSM they are just following the views of their constituents. I'm from an urban riding and my CPC MP says he will vote against SSM because of his religious views. No regard for the views of his constituents, no regard for the separation of church and state. My MP also defended the floor crossing incident and the senate appointment. In my opinion he's a party lap dog hoping to climb the ladder. I wonder how many MPs are like mine...more interested in advancing their political careers than representing their constituents. I have to wonder if there really are free votes. Maybe the idea of the free vote in the CPC is just a way for the party to avoid taking a stand on divisive, vote loosing, issues.

The meaning and purpose of marriage has changed drastically over time as society or societies have changed. Why should it be frozen now? Also, are there really ever free votes in the house? A handful of MPs may vote differently than the general view held by the party but how many MPs are trying to climb the party ladder and simply toe the line... In my personal view segregating same-sex couples with a different label for the same institution is unequal and somewhat of a human rights violation. I'm always uncomfortable when human rights are subject to a popularity contest. You mentioned that you "did not support the change of definition of marriage" but that you are "prepared to follow the will of the people on this one"...Would you be happier with the change in definition if an even larger percentage of the population was in favour of the change or do you disagree for other reasons?

Economic Left/Right: 0.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90 Barely right of centre and a libertarian... I guess that's why I'd rather have the PC party than the SoCons. Thanks for the link August.

I disagree with a deal that sets a maximum market share limit for Canadian producers when we are supposed to have a free trade agreement.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=567 Marriage is older than Christianity so Biblical arguments are irrelevant. The point of marriage has changed significantly over time as society has evolved. Why should that not happen now? Historically polygamy was the norm before marriage so historical arguments seem to be irrelevant as well. To those who believe that same-sex marriage is wrong, I would suggest you marry someone of the opposite sex. Why do opposers of gay marriage want to force the entire country to live by their personal belief system? Live by your own beliefs don’t impose them on others. Here's another interesting point involving the history of marriage...

Exactly. We need to start transitioning our economic and ecological policies towards those of a mature economy. The Green party seems to be the only group promoting sustainability in Canada, I wish more would listen.

Here is more from Garth Turner's blog on this issue. I agree with him 100%. I just wish I had an MP that cared more about his constituents than moving up the party ranks. I admire a guy that does what he believes is right even if it's not in the best interest of his party. The Conservatives campaigned on ethics and accountability at least there is one that really seems to believe in them. I don’t mean to be overly harsh but my MP is a party lap dog so I’m a little bitter and a little jealous of the residents of Halton Region. http://www.garth.ca/weblog/

It's not unusual for a party to win a majority with less than half the popular vote in a system where there are more than two parties. The last NDP majority in BC was formed by a party which got a smaller percentage of the popular vote than the party which wound up in opposition. That is a screwed up system. Right...but in Canada we use the same First Past the Post system federally as well as in every province. The screwed up system you're referring to is our only system right now. Also, most democracies around the world have changed to one of the various PR systems, so it's not common for a party to win a majority with less than half the popular vote is most countries.

I was listening to the radio in Florida and the station was giving away passes to a grapefruit league game and autograph session. The shows host burst into his own rendition of "Take me out to the ball game" but he changed the lyrics. Instead of "Buy me some peanuts and cracker jacks, I don't care if I never get back", he sang "Buy me some peanuts and cracker jacks, just don't make me sit with the blacks” The host and co-host then proceeded to laugh hysterically and tell racist jokes. I was blown away. I'm from Southern Ontario and I come across the occasional racist...typically they're elderly...but I was completely surprised that this occurred on the radio. Not all Americans are racists and not all Canadians are sensitive to race issues but from my experience it is definitely more prevalent in Florida for sure. Although, from what some friends and relatives tell me racism is more common in Alberta as well.

Harper was a proponent of electoral reform before he had a chance to win a false majority. I guess he isn't worried about a fair voting system hurting his support. Chretien was also in favour of it as well. I guess power corrupts.

Like I said I'm willing to sacrifice 5% for some regional representation and 5% is much better than our current 50%. Our country is so big and so different from region to region I think it is a worthwhile trade off. Most of Toronto is Liberal. In a Liberal riding anyone that voted CPC is now represented by a Liberal MP. The fact that the CPC is in government does not represent members of that riding. How will the CPC voters of the Liberal Toronto ridings feel when their MP votes in favour of same-sex marriage on their behalf? Also what about all the NDP and Green voters in Toronto Liberal ridings; their votes counted for nothing. In my riding the winning MP received 40% of the vote, which means 60% of all people that cast votes will now be represented by a viewpoint they do not agree with. Yes. Every local MP gets a seat but seats are added for each party to match the popular vote. A Mixed Member Proportional system will give Canadians the exact (within 5%) government they vote for. Every political view is represented in the correct proportion. This system does not give any party undeserved seats but it does not steal seats either. Conservative votes in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver would actually receive representation which is nice. Similarly Liberal and NDP votes in Saskatchewan and Alberta would be represented. Any non-national party or party that doesn't run in every riding in a province will be hurt by the system, which is fair considering our government represents the whole country or entire province. This system will almost always produce coalition governments. One other measure I'd like to see implemented is the removal of the ability of the opposition to topple the government. If Canadians elect coalition governments we should keep them for the full four year term. That way we can end the perpetual campaigning and take away the threat of election as a tool to force an outcome. A proportional system does not serve a minority of voters. It makes every vote equal so it serves 100% of voters. In my riding 60% of voters are represented by a voice they disagree with. On average half of our country is represented by an opposing point of view. I want a system that makes every vote equal and makes every vote count. I know there is debate over the meaning of democracy but the fact that one Bloc vote is worth a hell of a lot more than an NDP vote is undemocratic.

0% wastage is a great goal but tough for a large country like Canada. The Dutch get less than 1% wastage because their country is just one large riding with over 100 seats. We could do the same in Canada but due to the size and geographic and political diversity of the various regions I believe somewhat local representation is important. That's why I'm a fan of the Mixed Member Proportional system. It provides local representation and proportional representation with only 5% of the votes wasted.

Now this is the type of debate I hoped we'd get to. What about this? Each voter receives 2 votes. With vote 1 we vote for our local representative. The person receiving the most votes in a riding wins the seat, just like we do now. With vote 2 we vote for the party we'd like to govern the Country or Province. The votes are totaled and the popular vote is determined. Any party that has fewer locally won seats than they are owed by the popular vote is given seats until their representation is proportional. These added MPs will come from a predefined list created by the party. They will not represent a riding but instead represent supporters of the party. There will have to be a threshold so that we are not trying to find a half of a seat for a fringe party and I think your 5% figure is fair. In the end every riding will have a local rep and government will match the way Canadians vote. Plus a maximum of 5% of the votes cast will be unrepresented or wasted which is much better than the 50% we waste now. Additionally, a voter can vote for the best person locally no matter what party they represent and still vote for the party they'd like to govern. For instance I may like the local Conservative but want to see more NDPers in Ottawa. Also, I would think the fact that almost every vote would count for something would help increase voter turn out. This is the Mixed Member Proportional system. New Zealand recently switched to it; PEI and New Brunswick are proposing it. Germany and Scotland among others also use it. There is currently all sorts of debate on the details as well. For instance should the party be able to choose its own list of MPs to fill added seats or should those spaces go to MPs received the most local votes in a loosing cause.

Yes, I support it and it ISN'T FLAWED. I have shown you how the system would be a disadvantage to conservative voters in Canada and you haven't come back with anything substantial. You claimed that the current government would still have been formed if elected under PR and I showed you that that is not necessarily the case. Rather than throwing around value-laden words like 'fair' and 'flawed', and calling into question my voting practices, why don't you address what I have written here ? The fact that you haven't makes me think that you have less to back up your arguments than you think you do. Cheers, mh I have pointed out with numerous examples that our current system produces a government that does not match how the people voted. That is flawed. In one of your examples you pointed out that in our last federal election the NDP and Green parties were robbed of seats and the Bloc received several bonus seats. On average with our first past the post system 50% of the votes cast do not lead to any representation and are therefore wasted votes. I've made several points as to why the system is "flawed", you simply choose not to accept the arguments. In defense of our current system you argue that if the government actually reflected the way Canadians vote then parliament would most likely be perpetual coalition governments with a majority of the seats filled by centre-left parties. 1) The political preference of the country changes over time 2) If that is the way Canadians vote that is the government they should receive. Our system will give 10,000 voters in one riding a seat in parliament but ignore 1,000,000 voters across the country. Why should people have to live in the same neighbourhood to count?