August1991

David Olive is a die-hard, partisan Liberal. Want to know what the Liberal take (or defense) is on any issue? Read Olive's blog. So, for Olive to take a strip off Herle means this Liberal gang war is very, very ugly. Herle is hardly the sole guilty party here. David Olive in the Toronto Star

Harper is not in favour of the status quo at all. The whole point of the firewall remark was to state that the line between federal and provincial jurisdiction should be respected. Isn't Toronto called Hogtown?

Cute. The guy with the cigar is, uh, Desmarais?

The joke is not funny, MS. Look what your guy said: Layton in the Toronto Star The last thing we want is to follow the Soviet model of economic development. Governments cannot pick winners. They should certainly not be in the car business. Was it not David Lewis who invented the phrase "Corporate Welfare Bums"? At heart, Jack Layton is an entrepreneur. He wants to get involved and fix things and make them work. He is an activist. But by all accounts, he doesn't see the limits to government. Despite his apparent intelligence, he seems to have drawn no conclusion from the experiences of the past century.

No provincial premier would agree to sharing municipal affairs with the feds. It would be unthinkable in Quebec. Nor should it be, either. Local matters are best decided at the provincial level. This is not merely the Canadian way but it also makes practical sense. Many of the boondoggles arise when the feds try to manage at the local level.

The messiness would arise in part because the NDP will likely not alone have enough seats to support the government. That means if, for example, it's a Tory minority, they will have to seek the support of either the BQ or the Liberals on a confidence motion (or a money bill). There are two key factors: 1) A strong ability to count votes (expect John Reynolds to be the Tory whip) and 2) the basic fear of all members to face an election (where they might lose). The worst fear is going into an election on the wrong side of a confidence vote. I can see a Tory government surviving for a year or two. I think a Liberal minority would have more difficulty. Also keep in mind that the government can wait several months before facing the House. And that raises the interesting question of who the GG will ask to form a government. What happens if PM PM gets fewer seats than the Tories but says he wants to stay and seek the confidence of the House?

That's not what the Constitution says. Municipal affairs, like education, are local matters best governed in a country like Canada at the provincial level. Harper is dead right on this one. Martin and Layton are the ones grandstanding. You can guess Duceppe's position.

The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!! And according to PM PM, Canada will get smaller!! (Is this because of global warming?) I thought these kind of hysterical scare tactics were only used against the PQ.

SES uses a sample of 600 with 200 new people added each day and 200 people from the previous third day dropped. What happened here is that among the 200 new people added, there were several more Liberal supporters than in the 200 dropped. I'd wait and see what happens in the SES numbers for the next day or two before drawing any conclusions.

WTF?

The Constitution makes it clear that municipal affairs are entirely within provincial jurisdiction. Trudeau once had a minister of urban affairs but this was abolished. It should be the provincial governments who negotiate with cities. (These mayors want money.) IME, successful city politicians avoid getting into the fray during provincial or federal elections.

In this election, I think the media have been tagging far behind public opinion. The depth of anger about Liberal arrogance and corruption was palpable months ago. So, if there's a media bias, it would be either pro-status quo or anti-Tory. But any bias seems to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, the media provides the basic facts so that people can form their own opinions.

The Liberal anti-BQ attack ad in French is here. It's interesting because the last line had to be changed apparently. The first version left Canada to Harper. Then, the Libs realized that no one in Quebec would care about that so it was changed to "Voter pour le Bloc, c'est laisser le Québec à Harper" which somehow defies logic.

Call it illegal or back-street, the idea is ultimately the same. A woman under stress must somehow find someone (in most cases a physician) who will perform an illegal act.

If the State decides to forbid by law, it must have the ability to enforce its law. (The best law is self-regulating; it requires no legislator.) Canadian police cannot enforce marijuana laws. Let us be practical, and honest. We must change the law.

I agree strongly.

Thanks MS, for the debate details. Can you give a link?

The only possible francophones are Pettigrew and Dion. Anglos? Manley and Copps (?). Ken "I don't want to be a celebrity" Dryden? Can anyone suggest some names? This is happening very, very fast for Herle and Martin. Events to them are arriving at the speed of light. It's an awful feeling. And on the 29 June, it will come to a sudden, unbelievable halt. So, who's next? [bTW, I posted this query on my French forum to truly strange results... IMV, in Quebec, no one seems ever willing to face the obvious future.]

People have access to the CBC and more important now, the Internet. For those interested, there are ample opportunities to get the "real" story. For example, you caesar seem to have formed an opinion different from the so-called CanWest line. My conclusion? caesar, you are really saying that ordinary people are lazy, stupid or indifferent. Or, easily manipulated? Please respect ordinary people more than that, caesar. Otherwise I'd say you are an elitist.

What a thread! Let's go. That quote comes from Hugo's post and so does this link. IMV, these raise the best points on this thread. At the end of the link, there is an interesting case which raises the critical question of the line between abortion and murder. (BTW, Kim Campbell was Justice Minister, not PM, when the legislation was introduced.) As a practical matter, I can't disagree with you BD.It seems to me, first, that any abortion policy (law?)should be enforceable in practice. The last thing we want is a black market in abortions. Second, what role does the man have? Can a man sue a woman to prevent her from having an abortion? Third, why is murder bad? (I don't want a murderer to kill me.) Fourth, should the State condone abortion but not impose the death penalty? (A civilized State should never cause death except when it can't practically prevent it.) What prevents a happily pregnant woman from claiming the money to stop an abortion she never intended to have? (Please, some clear thinking is merited here.)

Is Harper keen to use the notwithstanding clause? Heck, he's apparently keen to do every other possible nasty deed - why would he waste his time on this minor one? In fact, this was not one of Chantal Hebert's better efforts. It started with an unilluminating dog-owner story. I'm sure Harper understands that the Charter and many other laws intend to protect minorities, particularly the individual, against the power of the State. From what I can understand, Harper has made the point that in protecting one minority, we often hurt another minority. (Dog owners versus lovers of clean parks.) Harper's point seems to be that representatives chosen democratically should draw the line. They should not foist the problem off to some small council. To be practical, take the case of same-sex marriage. Gays have the right to sign a contract (civil union) just as a woman and man can do. Gays also want the right to have the right to refer to themselves as married which some other people object to. The argument of these other people? Granting this name-calling right to gays would presumably diminish the current name-calling right of straights. Where do we draw the line in this name-calling right? (To be named mayonnaise, it has to have whole eggs. Otherwise, it's called salad dressing.) It seems reasonable to me to let an elected Parliament decide. Of all things confronting Canada right now, this issue strikes me as among the more inane.

Something bothered me about the style of the Liberal ad. It's the rhetorical question at the end. The "And you know what?" question. It's superfluous, and it speaks down to the viewer. The ad works better if it were cut out. For such a risky ad, I would have thought the Liberals would have crafted it more carefully. Nonetheless, one has to admire the dissolving flag at the end. It is easy to imagine it turning into an American flag. The next Liberal attack ad will apparently get into the hypotheticals of a Harper cabinet.

This is a silly thread because it is based on the absurd assumption that NDP voters and Tory voters want to get rid of the Liberals at all costs. In the UK, with Labour and Lib-Dems, it made sense to join to get rid of the Conservatives. That's not the case here. Many NDP voters would prefer a Liberal victory to a Conservative victory. I don't know how many Tories would like to see a Liberal minority supported by the NDP.

This is the Liberal/Herle anti-Harper ad: Liberal ad (it's the top one) This is the NDP anti-Tory, anti-Liberal ad: NDP ad Note that both use a female narrator.

I agree but not because of justice or fairness. I'm thinking of the rich uncle and nephew who go to the Grand Canyon next week. If the judge lets the niece off, what is the nephew going to think? We impose sentences not by fairness but to deter others from committing a crime and causing greater harm. Deterrence is the critical factor in fixing sentences.