hiti

I believe this is the start of the social conservative exodus from Harper. http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists...17/1357480.html It is a duty of a parent to always love their children." These are not the words of Dr. Phil or Dr. Laura. They come from Dr. Stephen Harper in answer to a voter's question of whether or not he would love his child if he or she turned out to be gay. But on Thursday night, I wanted to go to the bullhorn and scream at my Conservative friends, "Will one of you please give Harper some human pills? With all the billions spent developing drugs that can kickstart selective parts of the brain, is there not a single chemical in some laboratory that can prevent Stephen Harper from offering stupid answers to stupid questions?"

No thanks... Harper shuns Duceppe's pre-debate handshake Published: Friday, December 16, 2005 Vancouver -- Prior to Thursday's French-language debate, television cameras zoomed-in as the four Federal party leaders met to shake hands -- and caught this: Conservative leader Stephen Harper refusing to shake hands with Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, despite two attempts http://tinyurl.com/9v9jp

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." -JOHN F. KENNEDY

Yet no 'expert' is quoted or referred to. Is it generally accepted journalistic practice to refer to 'expert' opinion without actually quoting any... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I heard those words fall right out of Harper's mouth. Sorry the media just reported what he said.

Not entirely true. The Supremes recognized that the provincial courts in five provinces and territories had already sanctioned ssm and that parliament intended to pass the bill stating same. And that is why they refused to answer question 4. Again Harper has put his convoluted spin on things. ========================================== Quote: July 12, 2002: The Ontario Superior Court says banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and violates the Charter or Rights and Freedoms. Dec. 9, 2004: Supreme Court announces that Ottawa has the power to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, but says religious officials can't be forced to marry them. In Canada, the opposite sex definition of marriage was found in common law( also sometimes referred to as judge made law). This definition, had only had a marginal expression in the statutes of Bill C-23 and statute 365 of the Quebec Civil Code. The Canadian common law definition of marriage was changed to include same-sex couples on July 10, 2003 (retroactive to January 14, 2001). Canada's Parliament passed the law on June 28, 2005, followed by the Senate on July 19. Equal marriage recieved royal assent on July 20, 2005. The Supreme Court Decision: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexr...4scc079.wpd.txt Read expansively, the word "marriage" in s. 91(26) does not exclude same-sex marriage. The scope accorded to s. 91(26) does not trench on provincial competence. While federal recognition of same-sex marriage would have an impact in the provincial sphere, the effects are incidental and do not relate to the core of the power in respect of "solemnization of marriage" under s. 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867 or that in respect of "property and civil rights" under s. 92(13). In the unique circumstances of this reference, the Court should exercise its discretion not to answer Question 4. First, the federal government has stated its intention to address the issue of same-sex marriage legislatively regardless of the Court's opinion on this question. As a result of decisions by lower courts, the common law definition of marriage in five provinces and one territory no longer imports an opposite-sex requirement and the same is true of s. 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1. The government has clearly accepted these decisions and adopted this position as its own. Second, the parties in the previous litigation, and other same-sex couples, have relied upon the finality of the decisions and have acquired rights which are entitled to protection. Finally, an answer to Question 4 has the potential to undermine the government's stated goal of achieving uniformity in respect of civil marriage across Canada. While uniformity would be achieved if the answer were "no", a "yes" answer would, by contrast, throw the law into confusion. The lower courts' decisions in the matters giving rise to this reference are binding in their respective provinces. They would be cast into doubt by an advisory opinion which expressed a contrary view, even though it could not overturn them. These circumstances, weighed against the hypothetical benefit Parliament might derive from an answer, indicate that the Court should decline to answer Question 4. Question not answered by the Supremes was: 4.Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in section 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, in what particular or particulars and to what extent?

Harper is simply liberal-lite for the duration of this campaign which will drive away his conservative votes. I know what the supreme ruled and parliament has already voted on the issue, with a free vote except for the government caucus. Harper gets nowhere with his misleading promise of another free vote. Plus if he gets his way and gets the law changed, the supremes will rule it violates the Charter, plus Harper plans to make two classes of the gay community with past marriages recognized but future marriages not available. How convoluted is that?

http://mikewatkins.net/categories/politics...pc_and_gop.html TORONTO, December 16, 2005 http://www.LifeSiteNews.com - One of the key figures in the social conservative political revival in the U.S., and in the election and re-election of President George W. Bush, brought his formula for success to Canada recently, in the hopes that some of his accomplishments south of the border would rub off in this country. Ralph Reed, the former head of the influential Christian Coalition who has worked on seven U.S. presidential campaigns, spoke during the Canadian Values Conference, staged by the nascent Institute for Canadian Values at Canada Christian College in Toronto Nov. 29 – Dec. 1. Reed served as a senior adviser to the Bush campaign in 2000 and as the president’s southeast campaign chair in 2004. Greeted with a standing ovation, he told the crowd in Toronto that the recipe for social conservative success in the political sphere is not “rocket science” and emphasized two simple planks in the process – a commitment to unabashed social conservatism and grassroots activism. Reed’s address capped three days of events at the Canadian Values Conference, which saw sessions led by speakers including Canada Christian College president Charles McVety, Canada Family Action Coalition executive director Brian Rushfeldt, Campagne Quebec Vie president Luc Gagnon, Senator Anne Cools, Equipping Christians for the Public Square executive director Tristan Emmanuel and Canadian Coalition for Democracies executive director Naresh Raghubeer. They and others looked at issues such as tax policy and the radical social agenda, judicial activism, Canada’s foreign policy, mobilizing people of faith and working with the media. http://www.canadianvalues.ca.

Speaking of the Tories..... their godfather is still alive and they have a hot-line to him. http://steviecameronblog.blogspot.com/2005...ies-and-me.html

"Harper appears to be living in a kind of legal Disneyland, as if you can wave a magic wand and thereby override" the Constitution, the courts and an act of Parliament, said Justice Minister Irwin Cotler. "The only way that Harper could possibly override all that is to use the notwithstanding clause and to suggest otherwise is either to be ignorant of the law or to be dissembling." Harper's declaration was "not appreciated," said Charles McVety, head of Canada Christian College and a founder of the Defend Marriage Coalition. "But we do recognize it's a hypothetical position," he said. ``You can never predict the Supreme Court. "This is not the position that we would like Mr. Harper to take but we do recognize that he is running for prime minister and that he is seeking a compromise." (read, Harper must maintain his hidden agenda) "Although technically it's still open ... it's highly unlikely you're going to be able to re-institute the opposite-sex definition of marriage without using the notwithstanding clause," said Patrick Monahan. dean of Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. "The reasoning has been seen as pretty compelling, such that the government of Canada did not even appeal those (lower-court) rulings." Jim Hughes, President of Campaign Life Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com on the debate saying, "what an appalling situation. Harper) has said he won't use the very vehicle that was placed in the constitution to deal with situations like this." In a press release responding to the Conservative debate, Christian Heritage Party Leader Ron Gray dubbed the Conservatives "Liberal Lite" saying they have "now deserted all three of the most important issues in this campaign." Those three issues, he said, are: o the sanctity of innocent human life; o the sanctity of marriage; o the urgent need to defend the Canadian Constitution from judicial usurpation of Parliament's exclusive authority of to write laws. The CHP stands for the protection of life, marriage, and the Constitution, he added. Yet even Tory justice critic Vic Toews said in 2003 that "when push comes to shove ... the only sure-fire way for Parliament to assert its supremacy is to use the notwithstanding clause. ...

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe the majority of Canadians simply looked at Conservative ideology and values and reject them and that is why we have liberal ideology and values? I know that Harper has been acting liberal-lite and trying to bend to Canadian ideology and values but this just confuses everyone because he has to leave his conservative ideology and values hidden. And where does this figure of 7 million who pay little or no taxes come from? Looking at someone who pays no taxes, they would have to earn around $10,000 next year and have a dependant. Under Harper's GST cut they would have to spend their whole income on taxable goods to save $100 in GST. That would mean no money left for groceries, rent or mortgage payments which are GST exempt and the real goods that lower income families spend their money on. Whooppeee!!! They would though get $1200 per year if their dependant was under six years of age, so they would have a little money for "beer and popcorn." Compare this to the Liberal Plan. Basic exemption raised by $500 with a point reduction in the tax rate, meaning more lower income Canadians would not have to pay taxes, so you could raise that 7 million to maybe 9 or 10 million, (I'm just guessing) and with funding to create more child-care spaces modeled after the Quebec plan, day care for these people would be around $7 per day. Now THAT is real saving.

Martin had no problems with wishing all of us a Merry Christmas in his closing remarks at the end of the debate with the rest following his lead.

Both statements are wrong as the "truth reporters" after the debates said that most of those millions when asked weren't even looking for a family doctor. I would be counted as one of these who don't have a family doctor and don't want one and am not looking. As for Harper's "health guarantees" he don't care who pays for them, public monies or his American friends. As Manning and Harris keep pushing for private health care, so does Harper. But right now he is mum on his true agenda. Harper was President of the NCC who's main purpose was to dismantle our public health care system. In Nov 2005, a high-powered anti-medicare conference, euphemistically named Saving Medicare -- Strategies and Solutions was held in Vancouver. Sponsored by the Canadian Independent Medical Clinics Association, it featured the Who's Who of medicare's foes from Canada, the U.S., Europe, Britain and New Zealand. Guests included former Reform party leader Preston Manning, Liberal Senator Michael Kirby, scions of the right-wing Fraser Institute like Gordon Gibson and Sally Pipes and privatization gurus from England, Europe, New Zealand and Sweden. (doesn't Harper refer to the Kirby plan?) The conference was billed by The Medical Post as "another pivotal moment in Canadian history." With registration fees between $1,154.53 and $1,282.93, it was pitched to a small, select elite: lawyers, doctors, economists, insurance executives, financial planners, investment advisors and top health and health policy bureaucrats. Significantly, the Toronto Star was the only major newspaper to cover the event, sending its national affairs writer, Tom Walkom. The guests spoke freely and Walkom reported them all. Charles Auld, former head of General Healthcare Group, Britain's largest private hospital chain, dismissed medicare's supporters as "tree huggers." He advocated a two-pronged approach to selling private medicine: present it as a partnership designed to strengthen medicare and label all medicare supporters as reactionaries. "Draw the teeth from the unions," he said. "Paint them as the voice of vested interests." But it was Manning's proposal that topped them all with its detail and audacity. Canadians love compromise, he said, so portray privatization as a compromise. Advocates of two-tier health care are always painted as extremists while medicare's champions are seen as moderates. Turn the tables, he continued. Paint the extremist as the moderate and visa versa. Manning's privatization prescription borrows a leaf straight from the U.S. right -- political action committees, or PACs, supposedly non-partisan citizen groups who actually front for special, and often highly-political, interests. Politicians won't move, he said, until the public pushes them. And pushing the public will require a lot of money. Once the war for the hearts and minds of Canadians is over, Manning would then move to his penultimate goal: to dismantle medicare and turn all federal health dollars into new tax room for the provinces. If Harper can't be believed on his "guarantee health service" he cannot be believed on anything he says. In my mind he was the biggest loser of the debate. His constant smirk and his cool aloofness was picked up by the tv camera's and he could not hide his distain for Canada. At least Paul Martin loves Canada and wished us all a Merry Christmas, ( with the rest all following his line)

The Conservative plan for "Child Care" does not only provide a gift of $1200 a year per child be given to the parents of all children under 6, but the plan is to eliminate the Liberal Day Care Plan. Rona Ambrose says that the $1200 will replace the Liberal agreements with the province. I remember raising children with the "family allowance" that amounted to $25 per month per child and it was a slap in the cost of what a child needed. It was pin money that was spent on "beer and popcorn" to provide some relief from all the bills of raising children. There also was no "means test" to determine that those who really needed the hand out were the ones who got it. The middle and upper income earners received the same "$25 beer and popcorn" money that the lower income parents did, except when the lower income parent bought "$25 beer and popcorn", the family may have gone without dinner or lunch. The Liberal Plan, while I have some concerns about its effectiveness, at least is focused on the problem: the lack of quality day care at a reasonable cost for those who need it. The Conservative Plan is based on ideology and will do nothing to solve the problem. This idea that there should be no programs offered to the less fortunate to give them a "hand up" reflects the rejection of "progressivism" in the new Conservative Party. I would prefer to see my tax dollars spent on helping the children of the less fortunate get a good start in life than provide a free gift to the more affluent. Quebec's $5- (now $7-) dollar-a-day, open-to-all daycare program is the model being used in the Liberal Plan. At least here lower income parents have a chance to make a difference in their children's lives.

My yes, CSL pays taxes all over the world, just like Scotiabank pays Caribbean taxes and CSL also pays Canadian taxes, just like Toyota Canada. What is this world coming to when a Canadians company goes global and pays taxes to other countries. Unbelievable.

Thank you for the link and I quote from your link: Today, Paul Martin’s family business has expanded into a global empire. In Canada, CSL owns eighteen ships which fly our flag. It employs 500 Canadians, and pays Canadian taxes. CSL also owns, in whole or in part, eighteen foreign flagged ships, sailing around the world, from Montreal to Melbourne.

CSL head office is in Montreal, Canada, meaning they pay Canadians taxes. http://www.thecslgroup.ca/menu_eng.html Where is the link to your Barbados inference?

Missing the point,how quickly things change during an election campaign.Yesterday's news is just that yesterday's news. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The fact remains that Harper is regarded as a dink by Brian Laghi and that was the point of the article, not some survey on Dec 2nd. Especially when during an election surveys are done on a daily bases and they change daily but Harper has not changed and he is a dink today as well as being a dink on Dec 2nd and will remain a dink forever.

Actually it is you who believes everything you read with your remark about "Martin plugging loop hole for foreign taxes on ships everywhere but where CSL was set up" without being able to name the country(s) but instead your reply is a personal attack. That would be because you cannot dispute the facts that the Conservatives have been spreading lies about CSL and you believe it.

A new survey from an article from Dec.2 is an old article and an old survey. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Missing the content of the article........

Harper's negative image hurts positive message By BRIAN LAGHI http://tinyurl.com/7nw78 OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF Friday, December 2, 2005, Page A4 Canadian voters like Stephen Harper's message. They're just not so sure they like him. A new survey conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV shows that the Conservatives appear to have hit a nerve with voters by pushing the need for a new broom to clean out the Liberals. However, those same voters are leery about Mr. Harper leading the party that would act as that broom. This is news? I've finally given up on Mr. Harper. To date, I've always wanted to like the guy and I've given him a large benefit of the doubt. Until a few days ago, that is. Until when he launched his Quebec campaign. He crossed the Ottawa river to Gatineau, where he got up on stage, surrounded by 7-8 Quebec candidates (most of which had travelled for hours to be there). He announced something or other (probably that he was proud of his candidates or some such, but I don't recall). Then he said that an assistant would give a list of candidate names, he turned around and walked out a side door. You could see the jaws drop when the candidates were left stranded on stage without having been presented. Josee Verner, who had come with five points (she got 31% of the vote, three times the average in Quebec!) of winning in her Quebec City riding, tried to recover by talking directly to the journalists present but the damage was done. Conclusion: the message was loud and clear. Mr. Harper thinks about "things" but not about "people", INCLUDING THOSE WHO MAY BECOME MEMBERS OF HIS CAUCUS. And that is a serious character flaw in a man who aspires to become PM. I wish him well and sincerely hope that the Tories do well in the upcoming election. But he's squandered my reserve of human sympathy. Along the same line, there's grumbling in the Tory who's-who in Quebec. Basically, they get a sense that Mr. Harper not only doesn't care about them but also that he doesn't like them, period. In particular, one of his principal Quebec leadership-campaign organizers in Quebec has alluded to (while still remaining a Tory) not voting CPC this time. When all's said and done, Tories here tend to think "aahhh, shaddap!" when they're told that winning over Quebec is a priority. If it is one, it's a long-term one. And no, all this has nothing to do with Mr. Harper having a hidden agenda ... he's just a dink, that's all.

So he plugged the taxes on ships in the Caribbean, South America, Australia and Asia?

Ah yes! The old CSL misinformation that the Cons keep spreading around, along with other mischievious lies. Canada Shipping Lines (CSL) owns 16 vessels, 15 of which fly under the Canadian flag, and CSL employs Canadians and pays Canadian taxes. 100% fact. Now CSL Group has 100% ownership of CSL International Inc. CSL International ships internationally (surprise) in areas such as the Caribbean, South America, Australia and Asia. CSL International owns 8 vessels that were acquired internationally that fly under foreign flags. These vessels have always been foreign vessels (before and after CSL Int. bought them). These vessels compete directly with companies based out of the Caribbean and South America. Low Caribbean taxes means that more money can be repatriated to Canada (as opposed to Australian taxes were the company to be based near it's Australian operations). How is this different than Royal Dutch/Shell, which operates in 140 different countries and has autonomous companies that pay local taxes in each country? How is this different than Scotiabank, which has had branches in the Caribbean since the 1890s that operate under companies like Bank of Nova Scotia Jamaica Limited (and pay Caribbean taxes)? What about car companies like Toyota Canada? According to you Toyota Canada is ripping off Japanese tax payers to benefit Canadians. It only makes sense to pay taxes in the jurisdiction of competition.

So the CPC child care plan is to bring back the baby bonus or family allowance that dad and mom can spend on goodies. So what good is $1200 per year per child under six years????? And what happens when this child turns seven and the CPC allowance check dries up as the childs expenses rises? What about the parents who's children are older than six years and need after school child care? With Harper they are out of luck. And how is $1200 per child under six going to compare with the wage of a mom who wants to work and needs real subsidized day care. $1200 per year is an insult to the intelligence of working Canadians.

Vote Harper. He uses less fuel. Oh brother.

So why then is the USA reconsidering their position on Kyoto? From the New York Times U.S., Under Fire, Eases Its Stance in Climate Talks By ANDREW C. REVKIN The United States dropped its opposition early Saturday morning to nonbinding talks on addressing global warming.