scribblet

What does it matter who delivers the health care, or who puts up the bricks and mortar, as long as you all get 'free heatth care'. Harper has made it clear that he supports our system and the Canada Health Act for people to say otherwise is simply wrong and dishonest. Even Jack Layton doesn't care about the growth of private health care, he said yesterday that he is not concerned with private clinics as long as they do not receive public money. Why does anyone care as long as it doesn't come out of your pocket. However, I guess we should close down all those private abortion clinics, the very successful Shouldice Surgery in Toronto, and any others providing a needed service.

The Supreme Court did not respond to Paul Martin’s fourth question regarding whether or not the traditional definition of marriage in common law violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They handed this question back to Parliament to decide, and made it clear that the definition of marriage is Parliament’s to deal with . POINTS OF INTEREST ON THE LIBERALS ANTI-MARRIAGE BILL - The Supreme Court did not declare the present definition of marriage (between a man and a woman) to be unconstitutional; - The Supreme Court agreed with the position of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada that any change in the definition had to come from Parliament, not the Courts. The Supremes refused to do Paul Martin's messy work; - The present federal definition does not rob people of their rights. No right is absolute, not even the right to marry. An adult cannot marry a child. A brother cannot marry his sister. An adult cannot marry another adult who is already married. A Moslem in Canada cannot marry more than one person even though his religious beliefs permit him to; - It is not unconstitutional to limit the right to marry. We do it in many instances; - Provinces can (and have) legalized many types of unions, including same sex; - However, only the federal government can change the definition; - Many homosexuals support the present definition of marriage and want it left alone. If it is a violation of 'human rights' why isn't it take up as such by the U.N. human rights tribunals? The CPC said it will seek to amend same-sex marriage legislation to provide the following if these amendments were not accepted. (they were not) A clear recognition of the traditional definition of marriage; Full recognition of equivalent rights and privileges for non-traditional relationships; Iron-clad protections for religious institutions. They also said that public officials, who for religious reasons, feel that they cannot perform same-sex marriages, must also be explicitly protected from reprisal if they refuse. Liberal Deputy House Leader and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform, Mauril Bélanger, stated that he believes public officials who refuse should be fired or reprimanded. The CPC disagree with that. Most conservatives as with liberals et al don't have a problem with equal rights of same sex unions, what they were against is blatant intolerance against people offering other opinions and a concern about what could happen for stating differing opinions.

From all accounts I've been reading Harper did very well, Martin seems to be getting more excited and worked up all the time. Layton - well, he never met a camera he didn't like, but he does speak well, reminds me of a Jack Russell ratter, nipping at the heels all the time. Personally, I think Giles D. always comes off the best in these debates. He's a good speaker and can get his point across, if he were not a separatist I could learn to like him.

There were some moments where he wrapped himself in the flag again, and his passion seemed a little contrived. But I'm glad we are getting to see all leaders speak directly to the issues from "regular" Canadians. And oh, speaking of melodramatic, I think your signature is a little over the top. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My signature is a bit over the top, but so is Martin with his 'only liberal values are Canadian values' and screaming 'I-luv-Canada' at least 3 times - thats a bit over the top too, not to mention scripted and unbelievable. http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/Commenta...16/1356910.html Prime Minister Paul Martin himself came up with the best reason for defeating his Liberals in last night's lively televised debate among the four party leaders: "The electorate ought to punish parties that don't keep their promises," he said at one point. Exactly. And as NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe immediately pointed out, Martin and the Liberals have been breaking promises to Canadians since 1993, when they promised to scrap the GST, renegotiate free trade, bring in a national daycare program -- and on and on.

The CPC proposals are designed to help the poor, to stimulate the economy and create more jobs. There are 7 million or so people who little or no taxes, those people will benefit the the GST cut. Funny, the GST was so hated, now all of a sudden its a good tax and we should keep it. Just as Margaret Thatcher once excoriated the low state of Britain enfeebled by socialism and gutless government at the same time as she passionately loved her country, so conservative Canadians cherish the country we could be, while strongly condemning the hypocritical arrogance of Liberal Canada. It is indeed a sad state of affairs when we are told that the only Canadian values are liberal ideology and liberal values.

I didn't get chance to watch the whole thing, am interested in reading comments tomorrow. Does anyone think that Martin seems to be losing it, getting red in the face and - well - dithering? Not to mention getting more melodramatic than ever. On the same note generally speaking, do you think he is not well these days, I wonder if he is finding this really stressful and he seems to be aging.

I find that a very strange thing to say. How exactly would the conservatives remove a choice of loving life, and exactly which policy would do that? Personally I think they would enhance it (life in Canada)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's been proven to you repeatedly that the bill had nothing to do with gay bashing, and addressed only the issue of broadening the definition of propaganda. Harper's concern-- that the bill infringed on religious speech-- is a valid one, and I posted a critique from lawyers who feel that the protection promised religious speech in the revised law is inadequate. click here for details. quick recap: People who continue to peddle that line probably do know better, but use it as a way to stiffle dissent, just as people use the term racist or bigot to stop a discussion. Being against redefining marriage, does not equate to "gay bashing", neither is it 'homophobic' whatever that is. Same argument goes for disagreeing with Bill C-250, it is also incorrectly tarring people with a broad brush, which is a form of intolerance isn't it? Personally, I think there are much higher priority issues to consider than SSM, it isn't an issue for me in any election.

If Harper had wrapped himself in the flag and screamed I Love Canada or whatever, he would have been accused of being too American and too nationalistic. Same-sex vote backed A poll finds 55 per cent of Canadians favour a Commons free vote on the marriage issue. By KATE DUBINSKI, FREE PRESS REPORTER http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/National/...355597-sun.html The smoldering same-sex marriage issue was decided in a Commons vote in June, but a Leger/Sun Media poll shows the majority of Canadians consider the issue far from dead. More than half the 2,013 adults surveyed in the poll -- 55 per cent -- said they favour a free vote on the divisive issue, as Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has promised. The issue is especially critical in Southwestern Ontario, often cited as the province's bible belt, where seven out of 10 MPs voted in June against changing the traditional definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. Three area Liberals, three Tories and Independent Pat O'Brien voted against the controversial legislation. Leger Marketing chief executive Jean-Marc Leger said the poll shows voters aren't ready to put the issue to rest. "This debate has not ended," he said.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...42-36b38d3bdebd The National Post has a good editorial on this, I'll post a couple of pertinent pararaphs. .....Harper apparently gave little thought to returning to public office. So he clearly didn't speak in the carefully parsed language of most politicians -- as evidenced by the 1997 speech to an American conservative group distributed to media this week, which was more noteworthy for its lame attempts at humour than anything telling about his ideology. (See John Duffy's column, below, for the Liberal spin on it). snip After providing historical context, Harper laid out his hope for economic and social conservatives to unite in common cause, and outlined the hurdles they face. "The real challenge is not economic, but the social agenda of the modern Left," he suggested. "Its system of moral relativism, moral neutrality and moral equivalency is beginning to dominate its intellectual debate." Canada was now in the clutches, he went on to suggest, of something "much darker" than even moral relativism. "The Left" was leading us into "a moral nihilism -- the rejection of any tradition or convention of morality, a post-Marxism with deep resentments, even hatreds of the norms of free and democratic Western civilization." snip Clearly, there's no easy answer. But responsible voters should at least have a look for themselves at what Harper has said, rather than entrusting the Liberals to deliver his message.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exactly, Wednesday on CBC radio at 8:00 Harper did say that our government will not send troops to Iraq, but wants to encourage American success there. He said our role is in Afghanistan, not Iraq. I am sure we willl have better relations with the U.S. (and rightly so) should Harper become PM.

This is similar to that radical kook Bill Whatcott sending out graphic anti abortion flyers in Anne McLellan's riding. The CPC has absolutely nothing to do with it, but the liberals are tying him to the conservatives. he's guarranteeing a liberal in in that riding.

It not hard to figure that the speech was pretty light hearted and I am surprised that Martin's Flying Monkey Media Spin Squad didn't dredge up the following quote from the same speech 'you Americans know almost nothing except for your own country..., which makes you knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians [ bar ump-bump], or would it have been too obvious by inclusion that the entire speech was for entertainment purposes only, at least entertainment at the dryer- than- a- vermouth -martini -without -booze -dryness that passes for humour amongst economists, statisticians, actuaries and morticians. SH went on from that quote to trash the NDP, Supreme Court, Senate, the appointed GG and just about every liberal fascist sacred cow, including the regionalism and ethnic nationalism of Canada that fractionalizes the politics of our country, fostering the concessionalism that has characterized the governing coalitions since at least Trudeau.

December 11, 2005 04:01PM (EST) TORONTO (CNB) - In a bid to combat the violence that has plagued Canada's urban centres in recent months, Liberal Leader Paul Martin promised an outright ban on all crime. "My government will immediately bring forward legislation to ban all forms of crime," said Martin, speaking to youth in a troubled Toronto neighbourhood. "Our aggressive vision for a safer Canada will leave no doubt in the minds of criminals - in this country, crime is very illegal." - - - - - - This is as funny as it is believeable.

Speaking of low blows, before you chastize Normie, please read some "writings" of the poster who goes by the name of a cartoon character. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry so far I don't recognize a cartoon character name, must be one before my time

It's almost a done deal - I don't think they've left much to be decriminalised. The only problem is that it's now a crime to be critical of almost any of the old crimes! Now, if only they could decriminalise free speech.

Saying that Canada is a mid-european welfare state isn't too far off, considering thats what we have become under the Liberals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree. The media has already been reporting on Harper's past only because it was Harper's recent statements that prompted the appropriate research. If the media on its own accord just starts to dig out Harper's past, they'll be accused of media-bias harder than they are already now. . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you are right, although he has been getting a bit more favourable coverage than recently, probably because he has taken the CPC more to the centre, and modified many of his previous positions. There's a link here in media coverage: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/media/artic...3_117742_117742 Running for coverage Analysis of newspaper reports on the campaign's earliest days shows Stephen Harper fighting the same old image problems JOAN BRYDEN Just because the Conservatives are paranoid about reporters doesn't mean the media isn't out to get them. An analysis of newspaper coverage in the opening days of this campaign concludes Stephen Harper received the most negative coverage of the four main party leaders, even more negative than the coverage he got in the disastrous final week of the 2004 election. Initial coverage of Paul Martin was not only less negative, it was more positive than the waning days of the last campaign, when the Prime Minister rebounded to pull out his narrow victory. "The findings are rather striking," said Stuart Soroka, co-director of McGill University's Observatory on Media and Public Policy (OMPP), which conducted the analysis. "Martin has been doing progressively better in the media over time and Harper has been doing progressively worse." Soroka pointed out that the initial findings reflect coverage that tended to rehash conventional wisdom on the parties and leaders as they entered the campaign. That would include criticism of Harper as an angry politician with a hidden agenda of social conservatism -- an image the Liberals exploited in 2004. Choosing to kick off this campaign with a promise to re-open the same-sex marriage debate prompted more such coverage. Despite heavy emphasis on Liberal party corruption in the opening days, Martin appears to have benefited from the fact that he was personally exonerated by Justice John Gomery's inquiry into the sponsorship scandal. The analysis is the first stage of the OMPP's 2006 Federal Election Newspaper Analysis project, to be carried in Maclean's throughout the campaign. It found New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton received the most positive coverage of all the leaders in the opening days. Still, Soroka cautioned against reading too much into the initial results. The sample sizes are small, especially with respect to the separatist Bloc Québécois, and the findings are based on reports and opinion pieces published before any major policy announcements had been made, including Harper's blockbuster pledge to reduce the hated GST. While Tories will be tempted to claim the analysis proves they can't get a fair shake from the press, Soroka said the monitoring is not intended to measure media bias. Rather, it's intended to measure how well or poorly the parties' are faring, as reflected in the coverage. http://www.ompp.mcgill.ca/pages/2006election.htm havn't read it yet so can't comment.

There's nothing to stop a liberal or any other party member from putting forward a bill, a couple of Liberals come to mind right awayl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> That last reply from Normanc is a pretty low blow, I don't see how a comment such as that adds to any debate. I suppose in some minds quantity trumps quality. cheers

Sure I can, but how about debating actual CPC policies in this century.

The liberal internal polling must not be very good for them to drag out an 8 year old speech.

People have to be given 4 hours to vote, so if necessary an employer has to let the employee leave early. You know you can actually vote now, you can do a walk in ballot if you know the name of the candidate. Lots of snowbirds are doing it.

Don't you think veryone loves the country they happen to be born in, no matter who is running it. We might not like the political shenanigans but disliking a party and wanting to change its policies does not translate into 'hating 'Canada'. This is another liberal tactic; they can't use the hidden agenda crap anymore, so now its anyone who doesn't agree with a liberal - 'hates Canada', or if you really tick them them off, you are 'racist'.

For starters the employee only contributes part of of the money that goes into the fund - the government contributes the rest. I believe 50-50 is the standard split but I heard that PSAC has a really rich pension scheme where the gov't actually contributes more than 50%.However, the employees lose their ownership of the money because they signed a deal that requires the taxpayer to pay for any short fall. I don't understand why you have diffilculty with concept. I would love to have an RRSP plan where I make my contributions and if the investments don't work out then I don't need to worry because the bank will cover my loses. The real world does not work that way - the employees had to give something up to get the gov't to cover the losses and what they gave up was ownership of the money in the fund. The only thing they are entitled to are the benefits promised - not the capital in the fund. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't agree that employees lose ownerhip of the money...the surplus belongs to the pension plan and most certainly should not be siphoned off into liberal coffers. If there is that much of a surplus, then premiums should be reduced (which would result in a reduction of the employer matching premiums) and current retirees should be given a pension increase. (or some benefit, not all should go to the active employees) Having said that, distribution of the pension surplus was wrong, as some pension funds which had to comply with gov't rules and distribute their surplus are now looking at possible shortfalls because of the market etc.