Things about the Tory government which disappoint me.

[Pliny]

You only lose personal sovereignty and national domain when you submit to a belief system that you accept - that you call the global prgression - and that bunch of Trotskite leftist opportunist self serving bandits you call the UN . You must have confidence and power and each man must state - I am king and carry yourself with dignity and honour - no one can harm or control you then - these dark forces thrive on fear and cowardice - be a man!

And haven't all countries submitted to a belief system - based on environmentalism and global resource management?

I agree the UN needs to be dismantled.

[Wild Bill]

Well, Harper used to go around with his ideological guns blazing on issues like abortion until he realized that as PM--especially in a minority situation--you really can't impose your ideology without fueling an opposition. That's why the Liberals tend to govern more than the Conservatives--federally, at least--because they have tended to be more populist in their approach to governance. Trudeau, of course, had his problems, and when Martin took over (being somewhat more of a neo-con) and tried pushing his agenda, the Liberals faltered. .

What planet did you grow up on? Can you give me a single link to an example of Harper EVER saying any such thing about abortion? If you can I'll eat my hat, without salt!

I was there at a convention when Harper told the Reform party that if they tried to push ANY social engineering ideas into their party platform THEY WOULD LOSE! He told them flat out that religious values had to be kept totally out of the party or they would never gain power. He said that the country as whole would NEVER elect a party that tried such a thing. He SPECIFICALLY mentioned abortion!

I think you are imposing a cartoon idea of a conservative onto your impression of Harper. You might get farther if you just stayed in the real world.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Fortunata]

Here you go Wild Bill - this is why people don't trust the "new" Harper

"Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should... They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country."

- Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, in a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing American think tank.

[bk59]

Except convicted felons are convicted felons. People who have been proven to have broken the law and victimized their fellow citizens. A difference you don't seem to comprehend.

Your point? Once someone has served their sentence and finished their parole they re-enter Canadian society. They are not second class citizens. If someone has realized their mistakes, served their time and is now a law abiding citizen then why is it that their interest in the justice system no longer counts? You need a better reason to include police than "they have an interest". Everyone has an interest in the judiciary. That does not mean that we appoint the CEO of Apotex to these committees just because Apotex has an interest in the judiciary.

Many feel they already have representation, that is why the judiciary's public image is so poor.

They already have representation in the same way that the police already had representation.

The rational is there would be more than one interest represented and the more interests that are represented the more likely a result that reflects the public interest.

The public interest was already represented by community representatives on the committees. In fact, these people had broader interests than the police representatives. So this reason also has nothing to do with the police. Why not have a spot for welders, or school teachers, or etc.? The police do not represent the public; people from the community do that.

Finally, since you distrust everyone on the committees so much, why do you not think the police will be just as self-serving as everyone else? Judges that play favourites with the police are not in the public interest. Judges that are overly sympathetic to the police are not in the public interest.

[bk59]

Quite similar, I agree, their agendas somewhat differ though. The Liberals became a little too arrogant, an indicator of underlying scandal, I expect the Conservatives will soon become arrogant. It is the way of government.

"... will soon become arrogant"? I think you may have the wrong verb tense. Yes, there were those in the Liberal party who became arrogant and this probably came about because they were in power for so long. But I would say that the Conservative party, and particularly Harper, were arrogant from day one. Just maybe not in the same way. The way Harper has this hate relationship with the media, the way he runs his office and the Conservative MPs, they all look like someone who believes he knows better than everyone else. I particularly think his relationship with the media is unhealthy for Canadians. It certainly isn't what one would have expected from a party that promised to be open, transparent and accountable.

Any cut is a good cut. I would like to see an income tax cut as well.

Perhaps. I just think that if you are going to cut taxes, make the cut so that it either benefits everyone equally or benefits those with lower incomes more. Cutting the GST is most beneficial for those with large disposable incomes. An income tax cut would have helped those in the middle brackets more than the GST cut. If done properly of course.

It is the global progression. It isn't up to us. We lost sovereignty, what we had of it, when we joined the UN.

that bunch of Trotskite leftist opportunist self serving bandits you call the UN .

I agree the UN needs to be dismantled.

The UN isn't perfect, but why the need to dismantle it? How did we lose sovereignty when we joined the UN? The Security Council does have one way to put out binding resolutions, but I can only think of one instance where it was used right now (getting member states to pass money laundering legislation after September 11, 2001). I'm not sure that counts as losing sovereignty in the way it looks like you are saying we did. We are still free to enter into, or not enter into, whatever international agreements we choose.

[Pliny]

Well, I think that the media is incorrect for doing so, but this shouldn't be a surprise because the media is so error-prone nowadays that it's no longer funny. I can't tell you how often I've read/heard the use of the Queen of England, British Royal Family, the GG referred to as our "Head of State"...

Of course the CPC is going to refer to themselves as Tories; they're trying to present themselves as the heirs to the Canadian conservativism, which is all part of the deception.

So who is the Head of State for Canada?

Conservatism can change over decades. The Federalists and loyalists were the Tories in the 1800's. The whigs were for change and small government. Up until recently the conservatives were becoming more Liberal and the Liberals were becoming more Statist or socialist. Very recently, the growing resentment regarding political correctness and high taxes, government's inability to resolve social problems like health care, illegal drugs, gun control, justice/criminality coupled with waste and arrogance, has increased the popularity of Conservatism in the old sense of the word "maintaining the status quo". So Conservatism is moving from the left to it's more traditonal roots at the centre or just right of it. It is consequently not being wishy-washy with criminals and making tougher laws to deal with them because that is what the people have said they want. Many of the silent majority, who generally don't pay very close attention to politics, are feeling a little snubbed with all the special interest groups that government caters to for votes and a favourable image, and are becoming disenchanted with the lib-left and it's quest for egalitarianism in everything. Some of them will move to the centre and some will move further left. The extreme left, the Statists and the Socialists will also split some of them becoming what is termed neocons. If the Neocons make any gains more leftists will join them as the old conservatives (Paleo-conservatives =Tories) dismantle the socialist gains of the past 5 decades and move us back to what seemed like the good old fifties. To the lib-left this reversion seems like right wing extremism but, while it is a sterner hand than the permissive and wishy-washy liberals, it is by no means fanatical right wing socialism - that is the province of the Neocon. They too are attempting to maintain a status quo which is - the current status quo and level of Statism in North American society and governance, hence the "conservative " part of the label. These Neocons are some of the lib-left who are content with political correctness, social engineering, the health care system as it stands, the soft stand on marijuana, the molly coddling of criminals, welfare, large government with plenty of good paying easy jobs with benefits. The Paleo-Conservative would remove or try to remove at least some of that and set more stringent guidelines. The Tories are not socialists or Statists though - still the lib-left fear them. Their fear is launching the Neocon movement who are socialists and they originate from left wing socialism. There is some distancing right now from the Neocons in the Bush Administration and other neocon factions. The Neocons in America are concentrating on foreign policy almost exclusively. If they focused on domestic policy they would reveal themselves as the left wing socialists they are by would attempting to "conserve" the socialist gains to date.

Confused yet? Political parties can change positions on the political spectrum. One Economist, Murray Rothbard, said he moved from one end of the conventional political spectrum to the other over the period of several decades with out changing his political perspective one iota. We are today going through a shift.

[Wilber]

Your point? Once someone has served their sentence and finished their parole they re-enter Canadian society. They are not second class citizens. If someone has realized their mistakes, served their time and is now a law abiding citizen then why is it that their interest in the justice system no longer counts?

In that case they have the same interest as any other citizen. You were suggesting that we give convicted fellons status because they are convicted fellons. Why else would you bring them up?

Finally, since you distrust everyone on the committees so much, why do you not think the police will be just as self-serving as everyone else? Judges that play favourites with the police are not in the public interest. Judges that are overly sympathetic to the police are not in the public interest.

If everyone on the committee is self serving, even more reason to have police representation. We are talking about one place on a committee of eight, not the police choosing judges.

Why not have a spot for welders, or school teachers, or etc.?

Because the police are part of the system. They are officers of the court.

By the way, it is not the job of the police to put people in jail, that is the judiciary's job. The police can't put anyone in jail.

[bk59]

In that case they have the same interest as any other citizen. You were suggesting that we give convicted fellons status because they are convicted fellons. Why else would you bring them up?

You are saying police should be on the committee because they are police. That is not a good enough reason. The shortcomings of that logic become obvious when you use the same logic for convicted felons. Hence my example.

If everyone on the committee is self serving, even more reason to have police representation. We are talking about one place on a committee of eight, not the police choosing judges.

Why is that a reason to have police on the committee? You must have a reason for wanting them there. What is it? You first claimed public interest. Except that there were already community members who represented the public interest. So why police? What interest do they represent if they are not there to select judges that are pro-police?

Because the police are part of the system. They are officers of the court.

Which is a good reason for them not being there. Judges must be impartial, they cannot favour one part of the system over another.

By the way, it is not the job of the police to put people in jail, that is the judiciary's job. The police can't put anyone in jail.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary and the police. The police are there to investigate and prevent crimes by building up evidence against criminals and trying to put them in jail. If they aren't trying to put criminals in jail, then what are they doing?

The judiciary is not there to put people in jail. Judges are there to impartially run jury trials, impartially weigh evidence and determine guilt in non-jury trials, and impose sentences on those convicted of crimes. They are also there to run private law trials, resolve commercial disputes, family disputes, etc. At no time are they trying to put someone in jail. Someone may go to jail as a result of a finding of guilt, but that is not what the judge is trying to do. The police are trying to do that, not the judge.

We don't need a voice on these committees dedicated solely to picking judges that favour police over other interests. I also have not seen an argument for what a police officer will add to the selection of judges who will be dealing with non-criminal matters.

[Wild Bill]

Here you go Wild Bill - this is why people don't trust the "new" Harper

That doesn't change anything! Your quote is not from Reform but from the National Citizens Coalition. Harper might well hold such views personally. As the leader of the NCC he might criticize the PC's particularly at a time when Reform/Alliance and the PC's were trying to slam each other into oblivion. Your quote has nothing to do with a political party's platform or how they would govern, just Harper's personal views.

Or at least, views he thought might appeal to the supporters of the NCC.

I don't care about politicians' personal views. A lot of Liberals believe the same thing about gay rights and abortion. You can google up all kinds of quotes from Liberals that will sound like this one. Yet when it came to a vote in Parliament they all toed the party line.

Did you not watch the news clips during the vote on same sex marriage? There were Liberal MP's in tears because they were voting against their conscience, their own words and in many cases the wishes of the majority of their constituents, because they were "good Liberals".

Personal views mean nothing in Canadian politics. Power and keeping it does and that means party solidarity and also NEVER touching hot button issues like abortion! When Harper told Reformers not to push religious values and social engineering causes he was telling them the "real world" truth. He wasn't telling them they had no right to their own beliefs, just that such beliefs were political suicide!

What do you expect Harper to do? Achieve a majority with lies so he can ram through some bible belt crap and ensure that his party will get voted out and and NEVER get in AGAIN? That's just crazy! Tin foil hat stuff!

I'm the farthest thing from a social conservative you can get. Yet I jumped to join Reform! Why? Because they were the first and only party that promised to vote according to the wishes of the people in their riding, regardless of the party line. At least, except for major bills like budgets. They also promised to change things so that losing a vote on day to day bills would NOT mean triggering an election.

They wanted to make us just like every other parliamentary democracy in the world. Canada is the only one that practices such rigid party solidarity, right down to bills about where to buy the day's coffee and doughnuts.

Forgive me, but it sounds to me like you're just scared of Christians! I'm not overly fond of them in some situations myself but it's ridiculous to be scared of them. Christians for the most part hold the same value of separation of church and politics as anybody else. Hell, it was Christians who enshrined that very concept when America was founded! There are a few OTHER religions that WOULD force social engineering changes! Then they'd change the laws so they could have fun stoning people to death.

Until Harper and his crew change to that sect, I wouldn't worry about such things at election time.

[Argus]

I'd like to point out that the usage of the term "Tories" is incorrect. The current Conservative party is simply a revamped Canadian Alliance party, in other words a hodge-podge of western seperatists, Alberta nationaists, republicans, and a few defectors from the PCs. The Tories still exist in the form of the Progressive Canadian party.

Do you have a point? The former Alliance, and its predecessor the Reform party were almost entirely made up of dissafected Tories who left that party over its graft, corruption, and complete lack of conservative values, ethics, programs, policies or ideas. I see no problem with them assuming the name "tories" when the tired old PC party collapsed.

[Wild Bill]

Do you have a point? The former Alliance, and its predecessor the Reform party were almost entirely made up of dissafected Tories who left that party over its graft, corruption, and complete lack of conservative values, ethics, programs, policies or ideas. I see no problem with them assuming the name "tories" when the tired old PC party collapsed.

+1! What's more, a political party can call themselves anything they like but the PEOPLE will always have their OWN name for them!

The people want to call them Tories. So Tories they are. Period. End of story.

Would Ontario Loyalist like to start a thread about the usage of "irregardless" or ending a sentence with a preposition? It might be marginally more useful.

[Argus]

I've always wondered what the diferences were between the two and I think if we called the PC's ,Tories, how can anyone call THIS conservative party, tories? They should have called themselves the Reformed Conservatives or Conservative Reformed.

The term originates in the UK, from the British Conservative Party. If the PCs can use it than I would suggest a party with actual conservative policies has even more right.

[madmax]

The term originates in the UK, from the British Conservative Party. If the PCs can use it than I would suggest a party with actual conservative policies has even more right.

Conservatives were called Tories long before the Progressives showed up.

I have to admire that you would start a thread title with such a negative slant, in order to create a real dialogue about the party term in power.

[Argus]

I am very disturbed by Harper's stance on the Supreme Court. The Supremes are all we have standing between democracy and a beer hall putsch..

You are aware that every single member of the supreme court was chosne strictly because the party in power felt that he/she shared their particular ideological beliefs, right? I mean, there is no other criteria other than they sometimes be from a particular geographical area, and be breathing.

In all likelihood, if you were able to put together a list of the top 100 legal minds in Canada none of the supremes would be on it.

[Argus]

Harper's action of adding a police officer to each judicial advisory committee shows contempt for our judicial system.

Good. I share that contempt.

[Argus]

What do we do than? Who will come to our defence then if not the judiciary?

Are you really this pathetically naive? In what country has the judiciary ever protected anyone against a government bent on tyranny? Especially given the government loads up the judiciary with its friends? Buddy, if you're going to depend on lawyers to protect you you better be able to pay them well, cause that's the only thing they care about.

[Argus]

Would you give a seat on the committee to a convicted felon? Convicts "have just as big a stake in the success of our legal system as the judiciary."

The problem is that the police are there to put the accused person in jail. The judge is there to impartially run the trial, determine appropriate sentences and, in the case of a trial without a jury, impartially weigh the evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Having the police help pick judges gives the appearance that they are picking pro-police judges. Whether this happens or not, the appearance is damaging enough.

After all, how would it look if we gave people serving prison terms a seat at the table? If one side gets to help pick judges, why not the other side too? Isn't the justice system supposed to be about fairness?

Where on earth did you come up with the bizzre idea we should put any weight to the interests or views of criminals? The police in most cases represent the interests of society. Criminals certainly do not.

[Wilber]

Why is that a reason to have police on the committee? You must have a reason for wanting them there. What is it? You first claimed public interest. Except that there were already community members who represented the public interest. So why police? What interest do they represent if they are not there to select judges that are pro-police?

Then why allow anyone who is involved in the justice system in a professional capacity? Using that logic, having anything to do with the legal system should automatically disqualify one. Look at how many of these committee members are lawyers, many of whom are wannabee judges. Why shouldn't law enforcement be represented by one cop? Everyone else in the justice system has multiple representation why not the people who are on the sharp end of it?

Why is that a reason to have police on the committee? You must have a reason for wanting them there. What is it?

Every party that is allowed to appoint someone to a committee has a reason for wanting them there. What is it? Give me a break.

Judges must be impartial, they cannot favour one part of the system over another.

They do, they're human and so are the people who pick them. Why is there such a discrepancy in sentencing for criminal code offenses it different regions of the country? One reason FTA and I bump heads is the huge difference in sentences for the same crimes between Alberta and BC. We are seeing the issue from a different reference point.

The police are there to investigate and prevent crimes by building up evidence against criminals and trying to put them in jail. If they aren't trying to put criminals in jail, then what are they doing?

They are trying to enforce the law and they do that by trying to prevent people from carrying out illegal activities and enforcing warrants issued by judges. They are there to provide the tools for the rest of the system to work. They have no control over who goes to jail. In BC they can't even lay charges for criminal activity, only request that the prosecution does so. They are there to spend their days dealing with the worst people in our society just so you and I don't have to.

The judiciary is not there to put people in jail.

Not specifically but they are the only people who can put someone in jail.

We don't need a voice on these committees dedicated solely to picking judges that favour police over other interests. I also have not seen an argument for what a police officer will add to the selection of judges who will be dealing with non-criminal matters.

We need voices that express the concerns of all involved in the process. I don't ask you to justify the voices of every other member of these committees. I would include all stakeholders.

We don't need a voice on these committees dedicated solely to picking judges that favour police over other interests.

Why do you assume that the police would be more dedicated solely to picking judges that favour their interests, than anyone else on that committee would be dedicated solely to picking judges based on their interests? Again, we are speaking of one voice out of eight.

I also have not seen an argument for what a police officer will add to the selection of judges who will be dealing with non-criminal matters.

Perhaps nothing and really there is no reason for them to try, but I have not seen an argument for what people who have no background in the criminal justice system will add to the selection of judges who do.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Do you have a point? The former Alliance, and its predecessor the Reform party were almost entirely made up of dissafected Tories who left that party over its graft, corruption, and complete lack of conservative values, ethics, programs, policies or ideas. I see no problem with them assuming the name "tories" when the tired old PC party collapsed.

Yeah, the point is that the CPC aren't really "Tories" and the use of the term is part of their deception.

[Ontario Loyalist]

So who is the Head of State for Canada?

You tell me. This is something that I don't exactly need to be quizzed on.

Political parties can change positions on the political spectrum.

I'm kinda aware of that. What we're talking about here is a party that assumes a nickname that has traditionally represented an ideology that this party does not fully embody. Why do they do this? Because it makes them more palatable. It's all part of the deception.

[Wild Bill]

You tell me. This is something that I don't exactly need to be quizzed on.

I'm kinda aware of that. What we're talking about here is a party that assumes a nickname that has traditionally represented an ideology that this party does not fully embody. Why do they do this? Because it makes them more palatable. It's all part of the deception.

Actually, if the term Tory is a dictionary description of a conservative you could make an argument that the Progressive Conservatives were never Tories!

[bk59]

You are aware that every single member of the supreme court was chosne strictly because the party in power felt that he/she shared their particular ideological beliefs, right? I mean, there is no other criteria other than they sometimes be from a particular geographical area, and be breathing.

Your opinion and how things actually happen are not the same.

In all likelihood, if you were able to put together a list of the top 100 legal minds in Canada none of the supremes would be on it.

Any basis for this particular comment? Any legal basis? Without looking up their names, can you even name all of the Supreme Court?

Buddy, if you're going to depend on lawyers to protect you you better be able to pay them well, cause that's the only thing they care about.

Yup, and everyone from Alberta is a gun toting redneck. The police are more interested in eating doughnuts than catching criminals. Everyone from Newfoundland is dumb and lazy. Anyone connected to a university does not know what the real world looks like. Etc. etc.

I guess it's just so much easier to stereotype than it is to put the effort into an argument.

Where on earth did you come up with the bizzre idea we should put any weight to the interests or views of criminals? The police in most cases represent the interests of society. Criminals certainly do not.

In most cases? That is a nice qualifier. And why is it that a convicted felon, one who has served his or her time, cannot represent the interests of society?

In any case you missed the point. If the justification for allowing police on the committee is that they have an interest in the justice system then the exact same reason applies to criminals (those currently in the system as well as those who have done their time). If the reason isn't good enough to allow criminals on the committee then it isn't good enough to allow the police.

And we already had people from the community on the committee to represent the interests of society.

[bk59]

Then why allow anyone who is involved in the justice system in a professional capacity? Using that logic, having anything to do with the legal system should automatically disqualify one. Look at how many of these committee members are lawyers, many of whom are wannabee judges. Why shouldn't law enforcement be represented by one cop? Everyone else in the justice system has multiple representation why not the people who are on the sharp end of it?

No actually. Not everyone in the justice system is involved in these committees. The immediate examples that spring to mind include prison guards, arbitrators and mediators, paralegals, some medical personnel, etc. Add CSIS to the list if you really want. The point is that the police were in no way specifically excluded in the past.

As for lawyers, they bring something to the table that no one else can: the ability to evaluate the applicant's legal knowledge. Whether you like it or not, lawyers are necessary on these committees for that very reason. Not to mention the fact that lawyers represent all of the interests in the justice system and not just one interest.

Your speculation that the lawyers on the committee all want to be judges has no basis in fact.

Every party that is allowed to appoint someone to a committee has a reason for wanting them there. What is it? Give me a break.

That is your big reason for wanting police on the committee? "Give me a break." You'll have to do better than that. Why do you want police on the committee?

They do, they're human and so are the people who pick them. Why is there such a discrepancy in sentencing for criminal code offenses it different regions of the country? One reason FTA and I bump heads is the huge difference in sentences for the same crimes between Alberta and BC. We are seeing the issue from a different reference point.

Different sentences for similar crimes in different areas of the country is a valid concern. But it has absolutely nothing to do with wanting police on judicial selection committees.

They are trying to enforce the law and they do that by trying to prevent people from carrying out illegal activities and enforcing warrants issued by judges. They are there to provide the tools for the rest of the system to work. They have no control over who goes to jail. In BC they can't even lay charges for criminal activity, only request that the prosecution does so. They are there to spend their days dealing with the worst people in our society just so you and I don't have to.

Not specifically but they are the only people who can put someone in jail.

Of course the police have control over who goes to jail. It is not complete control, but no single element of the system has that complete control (not even a judge). Police do their best to create a case against an individual with one purpose in mind - putting that person in jail. This is what they are trying to do. They don't have the authority to find an individual guilty or sentence that individual, but they are trying to ensure that the jury and judge who do make those decisions makes the decision that the police want.

That is their goal. It is not the same as the judge's goal. And I think it is inappropriate to have someone on the committee helping to select a judge based on a goal that has nothing to do with a judge's job.

We need voices that express the concerns of all involved in the process. I don't ask you to justify the voices of every other member of these committees. I would include all stakeholders.

That is practically impossible. The number of people who would count as a stakeholder is enormous. Even poverty rights groups have a stake in the justice system. It also brings us back to the point about convicted felons. Even those convicts still serving time have a stake in the justice system. If you want to include police because they have a stake in the justice system then you have to accept that criminals also have a stake in the justice system. Or you need a better reason to include the police on the selection committee.

Why do you assume that the police would be more dedicated solely to picking judges that favour their interests, than anyone else on that committee would be dedicated solely to picking judges based on their interests? Again, we are speaking of one voice out of eight.

I don't think that everyone on the committee is acting out of self-interest. But you seem to. You seem to think that everyone is there to look out for themselves except the police.

As for the one voice out of eight argument, would you allow an immediate family member of an accused person to sit on that accused person's jury? Of course not. It would be inappropriate. Even though they are just one voice out of twelve.

Perhaps nothing and really there is no reason for them to try, but I have not seen an argument for what people who have no background in the criminal justice system will add to the selection of judges who do.

Given that judges do more than just sit on criminal trials I don't see why experience with the criminal justice system is a mandatory criteria. Even more to the point, you brought up the public interest earlier. Community members who sit on the committees for this reason can do so without being employed by the criminal justice system.

[Argus]

Actually, if the term Tory is a dictionary description of a conservative you could make an argument that the Progressive Conservatives were never Tories!

In fact, that is quite true. The PC party was the result of a merger between the Progressive party and the Conservative Party, but over the years the Progressives had come to dominate, and eventually took over the party entirely. There simply were no conservative policies advocated by the old PC party. It was, as almost everyone acknowledge, just another liberal party undera different name. People called them tories out of habit, but there was nothing conservative about them.

[Ontario Loyalist]

In fact, that is quite true. The PC party was the result of a merger between the Progressive party and the Conservative Party, but over the years the Progressives had come to dominate, and eventually took over the party entirely. There simply were no conservative policies advocated by the old PC party. It was, as almost everyone acknowledge, just another liberal party undera different name. People called them tories out of habit, but there was nothing conservative about them.

Nonsense. Let's see this "dictionary description," then.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Ontario Loyalist