CPC convention policy motions

[Guest Derek L]

So home from Calgary now, and from a conservative viewpoint, we had a positive powwow. So I thought I’d start this topic, devoid of Rob Ford, the Senate “Scandal” and Prime Minister Harper’s speech (we clearly have enough of those threads)

So instead of regurgitating the entire policy portion of the convention, I’ll link to a concise list put together by the Globe of a few “big ticket items”:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/fifteen-tory-motions-to-know-about-from-the-convention/article15232762/?click=tglobe

I won’t bother copying the entire list, but I’m more then willing to discuss most of them, and instead will reference a handful:

1. Sex-selective abortion

In a motion by the riding association of pro-life B.C. MP Mark Warawa, delegates agreed to support a motion to condemn sex-selective abortion. The motion read: "The Conservative Party condemns discrimination against girls through gender selection."

My personal views on this motion are that it’s purely a bone thrown to the social-conservative wing of the party, and will likely never reach the HoC, for the one simple fact that I don’t know how such legislation, if passed, could ever be enforced.

2. Gun rights

One of the most closely fought motions, it would have called gun ownership a "right" of Canadians, except when the right is "removed through due process of law on an individual basis." It did not pass, narrowly defeated 500 to 477.

The session co-chairs had to limit debate on the subject – in one case declining a request from MP Shelly Glover, who asked to speak against the motion.

Another motion on guns did pass, but was more mildly worded. It simply affirmed "the legitimacy of private ownership of firearms" and called on the government to "resist any domestic or international pressure to the contrary."

This was a very close one and in my view lost (rightfully so) for several reasons. First, the language was severally disjointed and overreaching, attempting to cover too much ground, and this lead to the narrow collapse onto itself due to it’s own weight.

Second, well acknowledging my first point, with the removal of the Firearms Act from the criminal code, gun ownership would no longer become a Federal jurisdiction, but one of the Provinces. This would entail a hodgepodge of differing laws across the country.

Disappointed that this omnibus motion wasn’t broken down into several smaller motions that would have seen the ATT requirement either dissolved or rolled into the RPAL, and the reclassification of the 12.6 class (at this time) firearms put back into the Restricted Class.

6. Aboriginal affairs

One motion that passed added "economic sustainability" to the party's aboriginal affairs principles. In particular, the motion says the party "supports provisions for property ownership and women's equality on reserves."

In arguing for the motion, one delegate said reserves are too often plagued by poor economies, and that property rights would help spur economic growth.

Agreed fully with the crux of this motion……..Ownership breeds independence, which ultimately will lead to better conditions for our First Nations peoples…….Think the recent fracking/pipeline debates under the context of the people of those Nations being both owners and having a viable (economic) steak (Fore or against) such decisions.

8. Reservists

This policy saw the party declare support for requiring all federal departments, agencies and federally regulated corporations to guarantee the job of an employee who leaves to complete reservist duty.

The motion also called on government to work with provincial and private sector counterparts to achieve the same goal, though not require them to. It passed 709-355.

This should be a no-brainer motion that I’d think would have bipartisan support within the HoC…….I’d liken this to learning to walk prior to running if one’s stated end-game is to see a more cost effective, smaller but better equipped military. In essence this will make feasible the use of more reserves to due the roles currently down by reg-force members or contractors. A viable Canadian version of the American’s “National Guard”

9. Victim's Charter

The government has already committed to this, including it in the Throne Speech last month. The party caught up, passing a motion calling for the adoption of a "Charter of rights for victims of criminals' acts." It passed easily.

This will have to happen prior to many of ideas put forth in the Firearms discussion. Canadians first need both the right and legal environment to self defence prior to allowing firearms to enter the conversation.

11. Foreign qualifications

This appears to be a call to both tweak immigration rules and fast-track the acceptance of foreign credentials. In a motion brought from the Calgary Northeast riding – an area home to many first and second-generation Canadians – the party welcomed "Canadians with foreign qualifications" as well as "immigrants," which was already included in its party's policy wording.

In other sections, it replaced the word "immigrants" with "foreign qualified individuals," and added a clause urging the government to "work with recognized professional bodies to pre-qualify internationally trained individuals for certain occupations as part of the immigration process." It also called on government to make the immigration system more flexible. It passed easily.

A no-brainier in my view…….Should have support with the parties and my only compliant (well, more my wife’s) is why couldn’t this have happened decades ago….

12. Defund the CBC

Though it called the public broadcaster "an important part of the broadcasting system in Canada," the motion called for change, saying private competitors "must be able to compete in an ever-increasing fragmented and global market."

And so the motion called for the CBC to be reorganized – including splitting the TV and radio operations – with the ultimate goal being "elimination of all public funding of the corporation which creates unfair competitive advantage with privately owned and operated networks and stations."

It passed narrowly, 596-504.

Good......and I actually watch the CBC and will likely select them (along with FNC of course) once I can choose the tv channels instead of packages

Edited November 3, 2013 by Derek L

[The_Squid]

Some backwards policies by a backwards-thinking party. Many will never be implemented as the leadership is probably more pragmatic than the "base".

the party "supports the rights of faith based organizations to refuse the use of their facilities to individuals or groups holding views which are contrary to [its] beliefs or standards," without "fear of sanctions or harassment." The motion also calls on faith-based beliefs to never be considered discrimination under human-rights laws.

Not well thought out at all. Religious organizations being exempt from laws are not wise. Bad governance.

The motion says the party "will not support any legislation to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide."

The religious conservatives seem to be leading the party by the nose.

[Guest Derek L]

Some backwards policies by a backwards-thinking party. Many will never be implemented as the leadership is probably more pragmatic than the "base".

Pragmatism certainly plays into the equation.

Not well thought out at all. Religious organizations being exempt from laws are not wise. Bad governance.

What law is this granting an exemption to? I’ve no dog in this fight in relation to the morale aspects, but if a inclusive group doesn’t want their facilities used by their opponents, I don’t see a problem with that.

The religious conservatives seem to be leading the party by the nose.

As to the division on assisted suicide, I think the split within the CPC is probably align (But tilting to the "right") with the Canadian populace in general. Has there been any scientific polls showing numbers fore and against among Canadians?

I would also suggest that though religion might impact some people’s choices, I doubt it’s inclusive.

[Topaz]

I think the "Right to die" and maybe abortion, could lose some voters for Harper. I don't see what the problem is as to giving people the right to "choose" how they die when the time comes. It seems this Tory base was more concern about not registering their guns than giving people their "rights" to choose.

[Guest Derek L]

I think the "Right to die" and maybe abortion, could lose some voters for Harper. I don't see what the problem is as to giving people the right to "choose" how they die when the time comes. It seems this Tory base was more concern about not registering their guns than giving people their "rights" to choose.

I doubt it………..The debate surrounding euthanasia is a more complex topic then simply black or white.

If we allow euthanasia, how do the laws apply to children? I mean what if a family has a terminally ill 10 year old, who gets to decide to put a child down? What if the parents realize their child is in a great amount of pain and decide to euthanize their child, but the child doesn’t want to die?

What of the mentally ill? You could have a severely ill person that is on medication and when on said meds lives a perfectly “normal” life, but when not on said medication, is suicidal. Do we let chemically unbalanced people kill themselves with the aide of a doctor?

What of life insurance polices that don’t pay out for suicides? Say you have a elderly couple with one spouse in a medically induced coma, kept on life support, slowly dieing in terrible pain, but the other spouse is forced to keep them alive until they die a natural death to ensure they receive their death benefits….

As I said, it’s a complex, divisive topic, that needs to be discussed further and in my view, though I’m leaning towards supporting euthanasia, I feel remaining with the status quo a prudent approach until a consensus is reached among our society.

And the LGR is long gone and was not a concern at the convention.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Derek L

[waldo]

So home from Calgary now, and from a conservative viewpoint, we had a positive powwow.

what flavour was the cool-aid?

[Guest Derek L]

what flavour was the cool-aid?

Come now, we can do better then powdered drink......more like Pellegrino-Campari-OJ (the $17 a pop kind) or for getting down to some real policy making, bourbon & branch

[waldo]

Come now, we can do better then powdered drink......more like Pellegrino-Campari-OJ (the $17 a pop kind) or for getting down to some real policy making, bourbon & branch

did you go see "The Man in Black"?

[waldo]

......more like Pellegrino-Campari-OJ (the $17 a pop kind)

Oda approved?

[Guest Derek L]

did you go see "The Man in Black"?

Not at Cowboys.........And it wasn't a Cash cover, but Dwight Yoakam

Thankfully, the Boss wasn't wearing tight leather pants

[waldo]

Thankfully, the Boss wasn't wearing tight leather pants

it really, really begs the question as to what "the handlers" really think this "Harper, the Man In Black" projection is intended to convey? Surely, this hasn't anything to do with shoring up the base... how do the short-pants PMO kids think this plays to the broader populace?

of course, he had to play "The Hockey Song"... book royalties, you know! But really, "Taking Care of Business" and the original Man in Black's, "Folsom Prison Blues"!!!

[Guest]

Maybe he just likes playing. Finds it relaxing. I know I do.

Of course, I never do it when anyone's watching.

[Moonlight Graham]

Derek, why were you there? Are you a delegate to the CPC or something (I really don't know how these things work since I have never had much interest in partisanship)? Or were you just a casual observer?

[Guest Derek L]

it really, really begs the question as to what "the handlers" really think this "Harper, the Man In Black" projection is intended to convey? Surely, this hasn't anything to do with shoring up the base... how do the short-pants PMO kids think this plays to the broader populace?

of course, he had to play "The Hockey Song"... book royalties, you know! But really, "Taking Care of Business" and the original Man in Black's, "Folsom Prison Blues"!!!

As I said, I wasn’t at Cowboys (though invited) to see the Prime Minister’s performance, so I can't comment on his "set" other then the clip I saw on the news…….I think you’re looking too deeply into it though Waldo…….World leaders have past times….big deal.

Now to get back on topic, which I admit to helping steer off, do you have any comments on convention policy motions?

[Guest Derek L]

Derek, why were you there? Are you a delegate to the CPC or something (I really don't know how these things work since I have never had much interest in partisanship)? Or were you just a casual observer?

Not the delegate from our riding association, but went with our delegation, along with my parents, to whom my father was the delegate for his association, then met up with my brother and his wife who came as part of their‘s……….To whit, this is nothing “special”, any party member can go to the convention (out of pocket).

[The_Squid]

What law is this granting an exemption to? I’ve no dog in this fight in relation to the morale aspects, but if a inclusive group doesn’t want their facilities used by their opponents, I don’t see a problem with that.

" The motion also calls on faith-based beliefs to never be considered discrimination under human-rights laws."

Discrimination laws.

What opponents are you referring to? And why would you refer to people as "opponents"? That's pretty cynical and prejudicial to view everyone who you may disagree with as an "opponent".

Who is an opponent of a church? Gay people? Brown skinned people?

As to the division on assisted suicide, I think the split within the CPC is probably align (But tilting to the "right") with the Canadian populace in general. Has there been any scientific polls showing numbers fore and against among Canadians?

I would also suggest that though religion might impact some people’s choices, I doubt it’s inclusive.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/majority-of-canadians-approve-of-assisted-suicide-poll/article14819642/

The majority of Canadians favour assisted suicide. Upwards of 70%. The CPC is very much out of touch and being led by their religious faction.

[Guest Derek L]

" The motion also calls on faith-based beliefs to never be considered discrimination under human-rights laws."

Discrimination laws.

Which ones?

If a Jewish synagogue doesn’t want the local skinheads into their facilities, should the skinheads be able to launch a complaint with a Human Rights Tribunal?

The majority of Canadians favour assisted suicide. Upwards of 70%. The CPC is very much out of touch and being led by their religious faction.

From the link, I can’t find the specific polling questions, so I’m forced ask how representative this poll is among Canadians when forced to examine the topic in a greater light.

Are ~70% of Canadians in favour of allowing parents the choice of having a sick child euthanized?

Are ~70% of Canadians in favour of allowing the mentally ill the ability to seek a doctor assisted suicide?

And what of Doctors? Are Canadians in favour of requiring all doctors to consent to such practices?

I think the issue needs to be examined and debated on further as I’ve stated, I’m forced to ask, are the Liberals and NDP supportive of doctor assisted suicide? If so, the Tory policy is only prudent and allows Canadians not in favour or reluctant until the topic is further explored, a voice.

[The_Squid]

Which ones?

If a Jewish synagogue doesnt want the local skinheads into their facilities, should the skinheads be able to launch a complaint with a Human Rights Tribunal?

You don't study many Canadian laws/Acts and their application, do you? Skinheads are not a recognized group in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

"3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

------------------------------------------------

5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or

(b ) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination."

Now do you understand which law?

From the link, I cant find the specific polling questions, so Im forced ask how representative this poll is among Canadians when forced to examine the topic in a greater light.

Are ~70% of Canadians in favour of allowing parents the choice of having a sick child euthanized?

Are ~70% of Canadians in favour of allowing the mentally ill the ability to seek a doctor assisted suicide?

And what of Doctors? Are Canadians in favour of requiring all doctors to consent to such practices?

I think the issue needs to be examined and debated on further as Ive stated, Im forced to ask, are the Liberals and NDP supportive of doctor assisted suicide? If so, the Tory policy is only prudent and allows Canadians not in favour or reluctant until the topic is further explored, a voice.

Your silly slippery slope questions make no sense. There are always limitations in any example of euthanasia laws. Tories would have no euthanasia whatsoever due to religious convictions. Their policies are not in line with the Canadian population. Edited November 4, 2013 by The_Squid

[Guest Derek L]

You don't study many Canadian laws/Acts and their application, do you? Skinheads are not a recognized group in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

"3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

------------------------------------------------

5. It is a discriminatory practice in the provision of goods, services, facilities or accommodation customarily available to the general public

(a) to deny, or to deny access to, any such good, service, facility or accommodation to any individual, or

(b ) to differentiate adversely in relation to any individual,

on a prohibited ground of discrimination."

Now do you understand which law?

No, not at all......I still fail to see a perceived wrong with allowing religious groups the ability to disallow those with countering views the use of their facilities……..As I asked, what law is being broken?

Your silly slippery slope questions make no sense. There are always limitations in any example of euthanasia laws. Tories would have no euthanasia whatsoever due to religious convictions. Their policies are not in line with the Canadian population.

How do they “make no sense”? You linked to a poll that stated 70% of Canadians favour euthanasia. I asked if said poll was inclusive and asked the respondents if they favoured the questions I outlined or if such question weighed on their choice.

And as I said, the policy motion was not adopted solely on religious grounds, so your assertion is not entirely true.

I'm sure a polling company could ask Canadians if they favored paying taxes and a majority would oppose.........clearly such topics are more complex and nuanced then you purport.

[The_Squid]

No, not at all......I still fail to see a perceived wrong with allowing religious groups the ability to disallow those with countering views the use of their facilities……..As I asked, what law is being broken?

Why would they have countering views? What if they have the same views as the church, they just happen to be gay? Is it ok to discriminate then?

The CPC wants churches to be immune from the Canadian Human Rights Act. There is no reason for churches to be exempt.

I'm not going to bother engaging in a debate with you on euthanasia, as clearly you are a partisan on the issue. You say the CPC has the same views as most Canadians.... I show you that they do not. You then bring up some nonsense about euthanizing children, as if that would naturally happen if canada enacted euthanasia laws. Forcing all doctors to euthanize patients, as if that would ever happen.

This is a logical fallacy called appeal to probability; where because something could happen (children being euthanized by their parents), that it will therefore happen. Just because bad things could happen with euthanasia, doesn't mean that we have to enact bad laws. Your argument is dishonest and makes you come across as a partisan hack.

[Guest Derek L]

Why would they have countering views? What if they have the same views as the church, they just happen to be gay? Is it ok to discriminate then?

The CPC wants churches to be immune from the Canadian Human Rights Act. There is no reason for churches to be exempt.

Like if a gay couple wanted to have a wedding in a place of worship of a religion opposed to gay marriage on their own subscribed morale grounds? I agree fully that a faith based group shouldn’t be forced to allow an event that runs counter to it’s views…….In doing so, this doesn’t prevent said gay couple from having a wedding, well also not forcing perceived immorality on a given religious group…..everybody wins.

I'm not going to bother engaging in a debate with you on euthanasia, as clearly you are a partisan on the issue. You say the CPC has the same views as most Canadians.... I show you that they do not. You then bring up some nonsense about euthanizing children, as if that would naturally happen if canada enacted euthanasia laws. Forcing all doctors to euthanize patients, as if that would ever happen.

Good, I don’t think you’re capable of having a nuanced discussion on euthanasia (Or any grown-up topic for that mater)……..You’ve misinterpreted my stated views ( in favour of), my question as to what the national breakdown was, and refuse to delve into the issues surrounding potential groups of people within our society that we as a civil society enact laws to protect on the realization that said groups are incapable of making such decisions.

This is a logical fallacy called appeal to probability; where because something could happen (children being euthanized by their parents), that it will therefore happen. Just because bad things could happen with euthanasia, doesn't mean that we have to enact bad laws. Your argument is dishonest and makes you come across as a partisan hack.

Make me come across as a partisan hack?.......fancy that, in a thread I started after attending the CPC convention Did you come up with this personal attack on your own?

Your refusal to address the potential flaws within the topic (The protection of certain groups) so as to come up with a palatable, working outcome to address euthanasia is noted………

I thank you for coming out and attempting to contribute, a notable showing worthy of an “A” for effort.

[Smallc]

I don't see the point of the motion. Freedom of religious institutions is guaranteed in the constitution. It's as important as equality of people. I do have a problem with the assisted suicide motion though.

[PIK]

Oda approved?

Do you know how much OJ is where oda comes from.

[Smallc]

That's a lame excuse

[cybercoma]

Do you know how much OJ is where oda comes from.

how much are limos?