Queenmandy85

Or a cleft palate? Why is it okay to use surgery to address a cleft palate but not matching the body to the gender of the mind? This is ranging far from the CPC convention topic. Did anyone notice if any of the resolution on National Defence were voted on? I did notice the resolution the defund the CBC was defeated.

Your assumption is correct. Transgenderism is a normal, if rare, legitamate human thing. Your view that a kid chooses is incorrect. God made that choice for her. If a child is born with a disfigurement, such as a cleft palate, that can be corrected with surgery, would that corrective surgery violate Christian teachings? When your daughter is born with a male personality, trapped in a female body, and surgery can correct that, do you not believe the compassionate Christ would support that? After all, that is the primary lesson of Christianity, love and compassion. Be totally clear; while I disagree with you on this issue, I respect your devotion. It is just that I was not only married to a theologian (M Div.), but in my own career, I developed a close friendship with several people who were transgender.

The Progressive Conservative Party, the party of Sir John A. MacDonald and John Diefenbaker, was my party federally. What the CPC is is the old social credit party. According to Preston Manning, it was the party of Lincoln. Setting that aside, reading the results of the voting on the resolutions, while I oppose the resolutions on the transgender issue, on the whole the results were better than I had hoped. The resolution on transgender issues will no doubt be tested in Court if they are ever implemented. My MP just inched closer to winning my vote. I sent him an email to that effect and I am sure he is breathing easier knowing that.

I was the liason officer between my department and the local pride centre for quite a number of years. I got to know a number of trans people, both male to female and female to male. I have not only never met anyone who behaves in the manner you describe, I have never heard of anyone like that. You do not understand their situation. You need to do a lot more research. I am curious why you and others focus on Male to female transition but not female to Male? Just curious.

Just to correct the record, I have always advocated for a larger defence budget...a much larger defence budget. With 40 million people, we are no longer a small middle power. I do not like this nation having to rely on others to carry our burden or defend our borders. It is humiliating. My other issue, is if we are not willing to have more than a token military, starved for everything they need to make a difference, then the billions we do put into it are wasted money. We either make up our mind to have an effective military or not. We are living in a dangerous world with the mentality of a child seeking the protection from the adults. Canada is no longer a child, so it is time to grow up.

Last night on the CBC's National - At Issue, the panel said this was reminiscent of the last days of the Turner liberal administration before the Great Tory sweep under Brian Mulroney. Andrew Coyne said Pierre Poilievre shouldn't be where he is, especially in Ontario, but he is. Chantel Hebert pointed out that even liberal MP's see Prime Minister Trudeau as a leader with no plan and no hope. I'm paraphrasing but the consensus is that there is nothing left in the liberal toolkit that can turn this around. At least, that is how I interpreted it. If Mr. Poilievre can sustain this momentum until election day, he will win big, really big.

Let me rephrase that. I'm not sure we agree on what a conservative is.

I'm not sure what you think a Conservative is. It is a moot point however since the federal Conservative Party is dead federally. Anyway, these conventions are fun and as you say, they don't move the needle so far as the next election is concerned, and hve little impact on actually government policy.

Speak for yourself. ?

This weekend, the CPC is holding their policy convention in Quebec. I've been to several Conservative policy conventions and they are always a lot of fun. I spent this morning going through the resolutions that will be discussed. The thing about reolutions at these events is they are not binding on the leadership. I recall hearing about the resolution passed at an NDP convention years ago, that called for Canada to pull out of NATO. The leader, Ed Broadbent reportedly said, "That's nuts." The story may be apocryphal. Anyway, there were a couple of resolutions that called for fair treatment for veterans and another calling for bail reform. Not bad. Another resolution dealt with the CBC. "We believe that the control and operations of the CBC/SRC as an entity should be accomplished through independent, non-governmental funding." A few weeks ago, I had the chance to speak with my MP. He said the plan is to preserve funding for the French network and the radio arm of the CBC and reduce funding (not eliminate) to the English language TV arm. The resolution does not elaborate on what the "non-governmental funding" would look like. Where it gets really interesting is when you look at the resolutions to cut taxes: "Capital gains on the sale of Canadian equities and capital property are currently subject to personal income taxation on 50% of the net capital gain. The Conservative Party supports elimination of taxation on capital gains accrued by Canadian holders of Canadian equities and property to a lifetime maximum of $1,000,000." "We believe that there should be no federally imposed carbon taxes or cap and trade systems on either the provinces and territories or on the citizens of Canada." Then you have the resolutions calling for spending a whole lot of money. ""We believe the government should introduce a system of program evaluation to ensure that all major government spending programs are independently evaluated on a regular basis. This will ensure that programs are meeting government priorities and delivering value for money." As they used to say about the CPR, they will spend a $1000to save a $1. Capital gains on the sale of Canadian equities and capital property are currently subject to personal income taxation on 50% of the net capital gain. The Conservative Party supports elimination of taxation on capital gains accrued by Canadian holders of Canadian equities and property to a lifetime maximum of $1,000,000. A Conservative Government will take steps to address the needs of Canadian Seniors by: 1. Increasing OAS and GIS benefits in line with Public Servant cost of living increases. 2. Providing additional tax credits for low-income seniors; and 3. Offering additional financial assistance for those Canadian Seniors struggling with the cost of living. The Conservative Party believes that all Canadians should have a reasonable opportunity to own their own homes and to have access to safe and affordable housing. We support a broad-based tax relief, income support programs and tax incentives to make home ownership and rental accommodation more attainable and accessible. We will encourage financial institutions to develop a framework that allows for the consideration of a potential homeowner’s previous rental payment history when applying for a mortgage. We believe that all governments should address homelessness by assisting in the provision of shelters and by recognizing, addressing and seeking solutions to contributing factors of homelessness. We believe the government should partner and link with the respective jurisdictions of provincial, territorial and municipal governments, business initiatives and the work of social agencies and non-profit organizations, in dealing with housing, homelessness, social infrastructure and related support services, such as skills development, literacy, substance abuse treatment, health and social development. We believe the government should work with the provinces and municipalities to develop framework agreements that help low-income city dwellers access affordable housing, through the use of tax incentives for private sector builders. We recognize that most renters live in urban centres, and that the pressures of population growth as well as certain economic factors have made it increasingly difficult for many renters to find housing. We believe in increasing the small business revenue threshold for registering and charging GST/HST, from the original 1991 rate of $30,000, to its current inflation adjusted value, and then have it indexed yearly based on the Statistics Canada All-items Consumer Price Index at the all-Canada level." And then on Defence spending: "The Conservative Party of Canada supports Canada’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the principle of collective security. A Conservative Government will work towards spending at least the NATO recommended two (2) percent of our GDP on National Defence. As an Indo-Pacific nation, Conservatives support Canada joining the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD Group) for strategic military cooperation, as well as charting a path to membership in the new elite defence pact AUKUS. The Conservative Party of Canada believes that it is a fundamental purpose of Canadian defence policy to: 1. Defend our democratic freedom and territorial integrity, as it is the highest obligation of our federal government. 2. Preserve our current obligations, regionally and internationally. 3. Join forces with our allies, when in Canada’s best interests, to defend the rights and freedoms of peoples throughout the world. The Conservative Party of Canada will ensure Canada’s defence policy uses our foreign policy in guiding Canada’s national defence priorities. Defence starts at home and the threat environment has increased beyond our capabilities. Conservatives will meet these threats head-on by modernizing the Canadian Armed Forces. The Conservative Party of Canada supports increasing resources for the military in the Canadian North in defence of our northern sovereignty and security, including improving detection and response capability, and creating local benefits including multi-user, multi-purpose infrastructure that leaves a positive legacy for northern communities. Now just to repeat, "1. Defend our democratic freedom and territorial integrity, as it is the highest obligation of our federal government." This is a policy I have advocated for over fifty years. But I suspect the authors of this resolution haven't adequately considered how much tax money this would cost. The additional comitment to NATO is already going to add another $15 to $18 billion to the Defence budget. That is nothing compared to fulfilling defending our territorial integrity. Then there are resolutions dealing with healthcare: "A Conservative government will protect children by prohibiting life altering medicinal or surgical interventions on minors under 18 to treat gender confusion or dysphoria, and encourage positive mental and physical health support for all Canadians suffering from gender dysphoria and related mental health challenges." "Every Canadian is entitled to informed consent and bodily autonomy. Health professionals must disclose an uncensored risk benefit analysis for any treatment (including vaccines) while protecting patient privacy. No constitutional right shall be restricted for refusing medical treatments or disclosure. Our country shall promote a scientific, unprejudiced, balanced, open discourse." The second resolution contradicts the first. If you are trans, you already know it by the time you are 13 or 14. Nobody tells you you are trans. You already know it. The first resolution prohibits the actions specified in the second. A trans-gender person "is entitled to informed consent and bodily autonomy." Like the government of Saskatchewan, the people who come up with these ideas never talk to the individuals most affected by them. Finally, there is this one. I believe the whole country agrees with this one: (Even if it looks like it was lifted from the NDP policy book.) "The Conservative Party believes all Canadians should have reasonable access to timely, quality health care services, regardless of their ability to pay.The provinces and territories should have maximum flexibility to ensure the delivery of medically necessary health services within a universal, public health care system. We support adding a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act to provide stable and transparent federal funding." This post is not a criticism of the CPC policy convention. On the contrary, it shows a healthy willingness to listen to the membership. My MP was on Global news and he pointed out there are always resolutions that make you shake your head. Some of the resolutions appear to be unaware that they are addressing issues that have already been solved. There are some that contradict others. Many are just mom and apple pie. But on the whole, it is not a package I could vote for. For one thing, it calls for a major spending spree. A policy convention is not the place to discuss tax increases, but anyone reading this will know to expect a larger deficit or a significant tax increase. Most importantly, there was no reference at all regarding the core conservative values of a party that calls itself conservative. But, I will reserve judgement to see what comes out the other end.

The funny thing is,the truckers were protesting the regulation that they could not enter the USA without proof of vaccination. That was American policy they were protesting. The Canadian government does not have authority to set rules about whom the US can allow to enter their territory. President Trump is fully vaccinated and he looks pretty healthy to me.

She is being prosecuted by the Crown, not the Prime Minister. The issue was did she commit mischief? Again, we presume the defendent is innocent unless proven guilty. The excuse that someone can commit a criminal offence to protest government policy was the excuse used by the SLA to rob banks. You have the right to protest but not the right to break the law while doing so. Or do you support the rioters who burned buildings to protest the killing of George Floyd?

She is innocent unless proven guilty. The law provides the penalties in the case of a conviction. She is responsible for her actions. I always admired Ali. He broke the law and took responsibility.

More than twice as many Americans died from covid, per capita, as Canadians.

Mischief under the criminal code is a serious offence. It is a section that covers things like vandalism among other offences. People mistakenly associate the charge with a prank. If she is convicted, she could possibly get a sentence of ten years in prison. It is unlikely to be the maximum in this case, but if she is convicted, she may face a few years. On top of that, she will carry a criminal record which has its own set of ramifications for her. She is not being charged with opposing the government.

Absolutely. Why would they want to be different, what would be the incentive, in the race of the mediocre? Right. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. If it works, don't mess with it.

CdnFox, you seem to have an irrational hatred of Prime Minister Trudeau. As a Conservative, I don't support him. I disagree with his immigration policy, but that aside, the government of which he is a member has not differed that much from his predecessor. Both governments failed to address climate change in any meaningful way, but, like deficits and taxation, in a democratic system, governments are at the mercy of the electorate. Your post indicate to me that you don't understand how government works. I really hope I am wrong in saying you hate Trudeau, so perhaps you could say something positive about him. Nobody is all bad or all good. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the opposition are no exception.

Would you care to enlighten us what this revelation is?

Both Liberal and conservative governments have fostered good trade relationships with China. It is better to have peace than war. As a conservative, I cannot see a republic like the US as "the best system." It is the antithesis of conservative values. Yes, they are a valuable ally and as imperial powers go, they are unique in their generosity and good intentions. But, their system of government is incomapable with ours. If you are familiar with American history, you can see how American conservatives were treated in their Revolution. Fortunately the USA of the 18th and 19th century is not the USA of the 21st century. Professor Peterson is not being prevented from publishing his mis-information. He is just not able to do it as a member of his profession. I can't say I am comfortable with that. The way to deal with a social media whore like him is the way Professor Suzuki dealt with Bill Shockley and his views on race. They engaged in a proper debate. Professor Suzuki refuted Mr. Shockley's hypothesis. Unfortunately, I suspect Professor Peterson lacks the figurative testicles to risk humiliation. I am of the opinion that he is only interested in the money he gets for being a person without any courtesy or decency.

I am the luckiest person in the world. I had parents whom I under appreciated, and a life more blessed than I could deserve. I try to be a Christian, but I like the concept of the Danes and Norwegians of old that we will all meet again in the Great Hall of Valhalla, to drink and tell lies of our greatest battles...or was that the Klingons?

Totalitarian, yes; one-party state, yes; but it no longer fits the definition of communist. It is a kleptocratic republic now. Like I said, the Soviet Union was our close ally in WWII. Without them, the war would have been a lot worse for us. Both Canada and the US have close relations with Saudi Arabia. Human rights are a foreign concept to that government. You take that out of context. Mr. Trudeau was referring to the ability of a dictatorship to get things done expeditiously. An example is when Covid 19 exploded on the scene in 2020, China built two large hospitals dedicated to treating the disease. Both hospitals were up and running in just over a week. In a democracy, it takes years to do that. The fact that they are able to do that because of forced labour and intense coercion is understood. In a society like China, Professor Peterson would not have to take classes on ethics. They would just take him out and shoot him in the back of his head. To all those contributors out there who throw the word communist, nazi or dictator around to refer to any leading politician in Canada, get a brain. I've studied Soviet history under a professor who talked about Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Beria like he played poker with them every Saturday night.

Perhaps you would like to give that some context. What was the question he was answering and what exactly did he say? If Canada and the US had not opened up relations with china, that country would still be a Maoist Communist country. Now it is just a kleptocratic dictatorship.

So you want Canada to be a vassal colony to the country that has attacked us, not once, but twice. Canada's overture to Red China was at the request of President Richard Nixon. President Nixon needed Prime Minister Trudeau to initiate the process. The crisis of the two Michaels was caused by Canada fulfilling its obligations by arresting a Chinese executive on behalf of the US. The United States is an ally. But, they have no right to have any say in our affairs, anymore than we have in interfering in theirs. Neither China nor Cuba are our enemies any more than the US is. Currently, the only nation we can consider to be our adversary (God help us if that changes to enemy) is Russia. You seem to have forgotten what a nasty piece of work Batista was. Castro wasn't much better, but he was better. He got rid of the Mafia. You say we should not ally with communists? How do you think the Second World War would have turned out without our close ally, Stalin? In the Cuban missile crisis, who was it that prevented a nuclear war? It was Nikita Khrushchev. He had a clear view into hell and backed away. That you and I are here, alive and well, is thanks to the courage of that commie SOB. He paid a heavy price for that. "Only Nixon could go to China." Cast. Spock Unsaid was that it took a Canadian to pave the way.

Thank you, Doug. Good points.

Like Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker?