# PM toppled in no-confidence vote



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112800378.html

Oh, gosh. How I envy you guys. A new election and spanking new government by Christmas time. The various scandals in Ottawa are small potatoes compared to what Bush and cronies are up to. One Yanks' opinion.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

MissGulch said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112800378.html
> 
> Oh, gosh. How I envy you guys. A new election and spanking new government by Christmas time. The various scandals in Ottawa are small potatoes compared to what Bush and cronies are up to. One Yanks' opinion.


We won't have a new gov't by Christmas, but here's hoping for a chastened Liberal Party in the New Year.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So sad that not one member of the opposition could wait until spring. They are all imbeciles IMHO. They will surely pay at the polls.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> So sad that not one member of the opposition could wait until spring. They are all imbeciles IMHO. They will surely pay at the polls.


Yes, I feel they have misjudged this. 

Once again that through lack of leadership there is no solid opposition and therefore no alternative to a Liberal government, minority or majority.

I am happy with a Liberal government, but I would be happier still if Canada had the prospect of decent opposition.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

we're going to have a string of minority gov't no matter how you slice it
the Liberals have lost Quebec to the Bloc and have no chance of forming a majority for a while to come


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

Miss G, this is the reason that I hope that we never go to a set 4-year schedule for elections (as some people in Canada would like). It seems like in the States, one year out of four is wasted in terms of governing since nobody wants to pass any potentially controversial bills (read: every bill) in an election year.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> So sad that not one member of the opposition could wait until spring. They are all imbeciles IMHO. They will surely pay at the polls.


Hi Sinc,

Sadly, I agree with you that they could pay at the polls. 

My question is why?

I fail to understand the sentiment that taking this government down now is such a terrible thing? We'll be voting at the end of January? No? I've heard the argument that nobody wants a vote at Christmas but election day will be 2 or 3 weeks later. Also, Gomery has given his report so what's the holdup? 

The other thing that makes me scratch my head is people saying they can't get out to vote over the holidays? Funny they have no problems lining up ouside of futureshop for 2 city blocks in minus 30 to save 50 bucks on a TV come boxing day. Is it too much to ask to take half an hour to visit a polling booth at the end of January to mark an x on a ballot? I guess its a matter of where a persons priorities are.

As far as paying at the polls? What the heck for? Sure Liberal supporters will be mad as hell because they love the way things are. No surprise there. But what Conservative, NDP or Bloc supporter would be so incensed about going to the polls at the end of January that they'd support the authors of Adscam, the duck hunter's gun registry, HRDC etc. etc.? If they did, they'd have to have shallow convictions.

Maybe I'm missing something here that makes this election so wrong?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## pimephalis (Nov 29, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> we're going to have a string of minority gov't no matter how you slice it
> the Liberals have lost Quebec to the Bloc and have no chance of forming a majority for a while to come


Yep, I can't see the way out of the woods on this one either. The BQ will be in place for some time to come, and Ontario seems unwilling to trust the Conservatives. Thewest won't vote for the Liberals, so we're going to be stuck with minorities.

If the NDP can't unshackle themselves from the reality-impaired on the left (and I'm on the left), then we'll never have a truly effective minority.

*Sigh*


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Sinc,
> 
> Sadly, I agree with you that they could pay at the polls.
> 
> ...



BINGO!

MacGuiver has hit the nail squarely on the head. As he always does. And I personally think that everyone who cares about this country...and certainly all THINKING Canadians...should re-read his post. Carefully.

And then they should sit down and think for a bit. Before they cast their vote. Or decide to "sit this one out" (as almost half of us seem to do).

And...before any of us lash out and start "punishing" any of the opposition parties for giving us an opportunity to excersize our free will in the winter months...

We should all stop and consider WHO exactly needs to be "punished" here.

-Do we punish the openly corrupt ruling party that has been in power for wayyy too long...and who have made such a mess of so many things, and that seems to stagger from shocking scandal to shocking scandal while wasting billions of our hard-earned tax dollars on do-nothing programs? And do we re-elect a party that is so well known for breaking ALL of their campaign promises? Right after they are safely back into power?

-Or do we punish the other three parties who make up the clear majority....and who are about to give us the rare opportunity to rid ourselves of this silly dithering mess, once and for all?

Canada deserves better. Much better. The old guys we have right now are tired, and we now know they are also deeply corrupt...and it's high time for a change of leadership. We need some fresh blood here. We need it NOW.

Think VERY hard before you vote. Vote your mind. Just make sure you vote.

This is important. Our very future hangs in the balance.

Trust me on this.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacNutt said:


> Canada deserves better. Much better. The old guys we have right now are tired, and we now know they are also deeply corrupt...and it's high time for a change of leadership. We need some fresh blood here. We need it NOW.


Agreed. And the very first person that needs to go to give us any chance at change is Stephen Harper.

The guy is the Grim Reaper to the Conservatives and this election will be lost because of him.

Central Canadians will reject him, pure and simple Gerry.

And we will end up with no friggin' change after another huge expenditure out of taxpayers pockets for this unnecessary election.

What a dismal outlook for the next 18 months. Again. ALL over again.

Sigh.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/28/AR2005112800378.html
> 
> Oh, gosh. How I envy you guys. A new election and spanking new government by Christmas time. The various scandals in Ottawa are small potatoes compared to what Bush and cronies are up to. One Yanks' opinion.


In the long run none of our respective government 'leaders' (and I use the term loosely) are up to the task; however, at the moment our 'leaders' are still just butt-rapping Canadians.

I still think it was stupid to push an election in January, just before tax time. First they argue who is going to hold the 'non-confidence bag' in case this doesn't work, and second, an early election. Personally I want a new choice to vote for, the choices we have have only proven to be ineffective working on their own or showing any real backbone.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

The Problem MacNutt, is that most Canadians, myself included would love to have a choice. Unfortunately, when I stop and think as you suggest, my lack of a credible alternative becomes even more obvious.
So, shame on the Liberals! So, double shame on the Conservatives for not providing a moderate leader. Triple shame on McKay for allowing the takover of the PC's by the Conservatives.
My contention is that, if the PC's were still in existence, the West would give up on the "Alliance" and support the more moderate PC's. Ontario would swap the Liberals for the PC's.
Those two scenarios add up to a majority PC Gov in my estimation. As opposed to another Liberal minority which is virtually guaranteed at this point.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iPetie said:


> As opposed to another Liberal minority which is virtually guaranteed at this point.


Sigh.

Right again iPetie.


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> This is important. Our very future hangs in the balance.



Don't worry. The sun will still rise the morning after the election.

s.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Triple shame on McKay for allowing the takover of the PC's by the Conservatives.


What takeover are you talking about?

The former Conservative Party supported the merger. They voted on it themselves. The Alliance membership did not join their party in droves to bump up the support level. A strong majority of Conservatives supported it.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Myrddin Emrys said:


> I still think it was stupid to push an election in January, just before tax time. First they argue who is going to hold the 'non-confidence bag' in case this doesn't work, and second, an early election. Personally I want a new choice to vote for, the choices we have have only proven to be ineffective working on their own or showing any real backbone.


I agree! Why do you think the Liberals didn't fight this time to hold power? They're political masters and their silence or lack of action has only bolstered the nagging feeling of Canadians that the opposition parties are incompetent.

Who in their right mind, brings down a government with a 10% lead in the polls. Who, can't figure out between them who will table the vote of confidence. Who makes Canadians go to the polls in the middle of winter for the first time in 30 years. If they make errors in judgement on subjects of this simplicity, how do they plan to run the economy and country.

Two things I know about the Liberals are this:
Members no longer associated with the party stole from us.
They have far and away the best economic and fiscal results in the history of the Dominion.

Better the smart devil I know.....


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> What takeover are you talking about?
> 
> The former Conservative Party supported the merger. They voted on it themselves. The Alliance membership did not join their party in droves to bump up the support level. A strong majority of Conservatives supported it.


Yes, they followed McKay into oblivion. Not arguing that! I'm arguing that had they stayed the course, they would likely be forming a government in 53 days.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

iPetie said:


> The Problem MacNutt, is that most Canadians, myself included would love to have a choice. Unfortunately, when I stop and think as you suggest, my lack of a credible alternative becomes even more obvious.
> So, shame on the Liberals! So, double shame on the Conservatives for not providing a moderate leader. Triple shame on McKay for allowing the takover of the PC's by the Conservatives.
> My contention is that, if the PC's were still in existence, the West would give up on the "Alliance" and support the more moderate PC's. Ontario would swap the Liberals for the PC's.
> Those two scenarios add up to a majority PC Gov in my estimation. As opposed to another Liberal minority which is virtually guaranteed at this point.


To my way of thinking....

An obvious "credible alternative" to the deeply corrupt and dithering Federal Liberals is a political party that was originally founded to REFORM the stinking corrupt mess that is Ottawa, as we now know it.

Or...you could vote for the seperatists who want to break up the country.

Or...you could vote for a tiny splinter party that is driven by self interested trade unions. One that still thinks that the government should be running EVERYTHING. And owning EVERYTHING. (With good trade unionists employed to do all of the work, BTW).

This hasn't worked in one single country that has ever tried it, for most of the past century. A total dead end.

Or...you could re-elect the same old bunch of corrupt wastrels who are currently embroiled in a mutitude of scandals...and who have blundered us all into some sort of national prosperity by adopting the principles and ideals of a previous conservative government. Despite that well recorded fact that they swore on a huge stack of bibles to END all of the previous conservative government's policies.

You might ALSO want to take note that this current wave of "Prosperity in the Canadian Economy" is not exactly a nationwide phenomenon.

It comes solely from the right wing inspired business-friendly principles and policies that have been born in the west. THAT is where the boom is, my friends. 

Liberal friendly Ontario is not exactly setting the world on fire these days. (140,000 manufacturing jobs lost, this year alone. A crumbling infrastructure. Mass out-migration of the best and brightest with no end in sight.)

Maybe it's time to take a fresh look at things. See what works. And what doesn't.

Gee...do ya THINK??


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> Agreed. And the very first person that needs to go to give us any chance at change is Stephen Harper.
> 
> The guy is the Grim Reaper to the Conservatives and this election will be lost because of him.
> 
> ...


Hi Sinc,

I guess I see where you're coming from. We may just end up back where we started. But a spring election would likely face the same issues for the Conservatives barring a new face in leadership and that likely wouldn't change come spring. Personally I like the guy, sure he looks bad in a stetson and leather vest (gee how many more times will the Liberal friendly media run that photo in the next 2 months?) but I'm not picking a guy for the cover of GQ, I'm looking for someone to lead my country with some ethics and intelligence. 

I don't know if the "Boogie Man" tactic will fly with voters as it did in the last election. They're is a good chance Toronto will inflict another Liberal government on the nation this round but I'm not too sure about that. 

Personally I think its time we give the "Devil we don't know" a chance at ruling hell for a while. The other Devils have been at it for 12 years and hell has only gotten warmer and the stench is getting unbearable. My hope is that the unbearable smell has breached the heppa filter that surrounds the GTA and the stench is bothering them as well. 

Maybe they'll find out he actually isn't the Devil the Liberal Devils have been claiming he is.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacNutt, you need to get out more (or change the channel). Ontario is very healthy, and a good job too, since Toronto ALONE (not including the GTA) pumps $125 billion into the Canadian economy every year. And we're doing just fine recruiting thanks. I don't hate Ontario, which is one of the many reasons I will not vote for Stephen Harper. I've also better things to do than listen to squabbling politicians for the next month. In my opinion, the Liberal government has significantly improved the country and I see no reason to risk throwing the ball to someone who has failed to articulate anything except spitting "Gomery!" during the past year. But don't worry, I will vote and this is probably the last thing I'll say about this election.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Who makes Canadians go to the polls in the middle of winter for the first time in 30 years.


No wonder our obesity level is so high. 

Who is their right mind complains about having to vote? 

Does everybody back east just lock themselves away for the entire winter, or do some people actually come out from hibernation? 

Is it that hard for people to get off their ass and take 15 minutes out of their day.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Yes, they followed McKay into oblivion. Not arguing that! I'm arguing that had they stayed the course, they would likely be forming a government in 53 days.


At the time, the 'right' was facing a Martin landslide (this was before Adscam really took off and before Martin's leadership was on display). They couldn't touch Martin on fiscal policy, and there wasn't much else to get traction on. In hindsight, the PCs could have stayed separate and formed a government, but at the time things seemed very different.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Sinc, There's is a good chance Toronto will inflict another Liberal government on the nation this round but I'm not too sure about that.
> 
> Personally I think its time we give the "Devil we don't know" a chance at ruling hell for a while. The other Devils have been at it for 12 years and hell has only gotten warmer and the stench is getting unbearable. My hope is that the unbearable smell has breached the heppa filter that surrounds the GTA and the stench is bothering them as well.
> 
> ...


Given the penchant of central Canadians for corruption is normal in government, don't hold your breath.

Look for yet another parliament just like the last one. What a waste of money and Harper is to blame.

Me, I'm voting Liberal in protest. I figure I too should have a corrupt MP to languish in the spoils of criminal activity.

If it is good enough for Central Canada, it is good enough for me.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> To my way of thinking....
> 
> An obvious "credible alternative" to the deeply corrupt and dithering Federal Liberals is a political party that was originally founded to REFORM the stinking corrupt mess that is Ottawa, as we now know it.


I'd actually consider voting for Preston at this point. At least he was smart and "wanted" to make a difference. I will never think that Harper has the best interest of Canadians at heart.



MacNutt said:


> Or...you could vote for the seperatists who want to break up the country.


If Duceppe was a Federalist, he'd get my vote!



MacNutt said:


> Or...you could vote for a tiny splinter party that is driven by self interested trade unions. One that still thinks that the government should be running EVERYTHING. And owning EVERYTHING. (With good trade unionists employed to do all of the work, BTW).


Well, you have no idea what what the NDP is about. Layton is a successful small business owner and has worked tirelessly here to support business. However, some of what you say is historically true. They are left of centre, to be sure.



MacNutt said:


> This hasn't worked in one single country that has ever tried it, for most of the past century. A total dead end.


Care to back that claim up with fact. Economics is a fluid discipline. We leearn as we go, however, I challenge you come up with one verifiable example other than communism.



MacNutt said:


> Or...you could re-elect the same old bunch of corrupt wastrels who are currently embroiled in a mutitude of scandals...and who have blundered us all into some sort of national prosperity by adopting the principles and ideals of a previous conservative government. Despite that well recorded fact that they swore on a huge stack of bibles to END all of the previous conservative government's policies.


Which PC policies would you be talking about? The 42 billion annual deficit, or the part time free trade deal with our partner to the south.



MacNutt said:


> You might ALSO want to take note that this current wave of "Prosperity in the Canadian Economy" is not exactly a nationwide phenomenon.


Really, care to back that up. Our growth has consistently outstripped that of all other nations over the last 12 years. A product of sound and responsible fiscal policy.



MacNutt said:


> It comes solely from the right wing inspired business-friendly principles and policies that have been born in the west. THAT is where the boom is, my friends.


Puuuleese, that is the assinine thing I've ever heard. Any chance you can back that up. Any chance that you can show that 10% of a countries economy can carry the freight for the other 90%. Given that the economy has consistently grown at 3%, the west would have to grow the economy by 30% anually.



MacNutt said:


> Liberal friendly Ontario is not exactly setting the world on fire these days. (140,000 manufacturing jobs lost, this year alone. A crumbling infrastructure. Mass out-migration of the best and brightest with no end in sight.)


So, you think it's every Ontarians dream to work in a factory for the unions that you previously disparaged in this thread. The simple fact is that the Ontario economy has added hundreds of thousands of net jobs over the last few years.
Our infrastructure is Old Macnutt because our Cities are old. I live here and our infrastructure isn't collapsing around my head. Room for improvement, yes.
Ontario adds the most net population of any province in Canada every year. You are way off base on that.



MacNutt said:


> Maybe it's time to take a fresh look at things. See what works. And what doesn't.
> 
> Gee...do ya THINK??


No, I don't! If I had a choice, I would in a heartbeat.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Beej said:


> At the time, the 'right' was facing a Martin landslide (this was before Adscam really took off and before Martin's leadership was on display). They couldn't touch Martin on fiscal policy, and there wasn't much else to get traction on. In hindsight, the PCs could have stayed separate and formed a government, but at the time things seemed very different.


I agree, hoever there were some pretty smart PC's who wanted nothing of it. Who was correct?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Vandave said:


> No wonder our obesity level is so high.
> 
> Who is their right mind complains about having to vote?
> 
> ...


That's rich coming from a guy who lives in Vancouver. How's your winter been so far? Have you had any snow yet? 

You live in Lotus land, that's the only explanation for comments like that.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Vandave said:


> No wonder our obesity level is so high.
> 
> Who is their right mind complains about having to vote?
> 
> ...


Actually Vandave they don't hibernate. They're just too busy doing more important things like standing in minus 30 outside Futureshop on boxing day for cheap TVs or skating 10 miles up the Rideau Canal to snag a beaver tail at the other end. Its not a cold or weather issue at all, it a priorities issue. And if your a diehard Liberal its just a nuisance to have to lace up your boots and put on your toque to defend your turf.
Its sort of like a cop that doesn't want to leave the comfort of the cruiser to stop a thief robbing a convenience store because its too cold outside and maybe you can catch him in the summer when its warmer. Mind you he may have knocked off a few liquor stores by then but you won't be getting snow on your boots.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

iPetie said:


> That's rich coming from a guy who lives in Vancouver. How's your winter been so far? Have you had any snow yet?
> 
> You live in Lotus land, that's the only explanation for comments like that.


It's supposed to snow tonight. It's been a cold winter here so far. 

I would run a marathon in the snow to be able to vote.

If you are over 65, you have a mediocre excuse, but its still not a very good one. All the major parties will drive you to the poll and you can also vote in advance.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We have been told that we will be "getting snow" around here tonight...and we are currently getting very wet snow where I am. But...it looks like it's melting just as it's hitting the ground.

Lots of bluff and bluster and threats...but the whole thing just turns into a dirty mess that flows down the drain and is forgotten by the first light of tomorrow. It's just nature...flushing away the nasties.

Sort of reminds me of the Chretien/Martin Liberals in this upcoming election. 

Or the next.:lmao:


----------



## Kazak (Jan 19, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I would run a marathon in the snow to be able to vote.
> 
> Amen.
> 
> 'Round here, it doesn't take half an hour or even fifteen minutes. All it takes is a commitment to democracy. I'd vote Christmas Day, even if the polls were only open between 5:00 and 7:00 pm. (In truth, I wouldn't survive a marathon, snow or otherwise, but I'd happily go "cold turkey" to honour my responsibility as a citizen.)


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

Kazak said:


> All it takes is a commitment to democracy.


Hear Hear!

If you don't want any of the aforementioned devils, you can always vote for an indy... I'm thinking green, due to their environmentally conscious market-based economics.


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

I'm a red Tory who wishes that the blue Liberals switch their vote.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Whomever you choose to vote for....whomever you decide to support in this upcoming election...

Just make sure you get out and VOTE!!

It's very important. Much of the rest of the world envies our freedom to make this decision for ourselves. Many of them don't have this choice. They are stuck with tyrant leaders who govern for decades without any real opposition.

Canadians died to make sure that you have this option to vote for your leaders. LOTS of them died to ensure that you have this choice.

Make it count.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> My hope is that the unbearable smell has breached the heppa filter that surrounds the GTA and the stench is bothering them as well.


 That's a nice analogy, one that complements those who live in the 905 belt 'round Toronto. As an east-central Torontonian, I find the analogy laughably self-serving. Hepa filter, eh? And here I thought it was the toxic effluvia from the central plant. I guess, as ever, much depends on one's perspective and local geography.

Anyway, no biggie. Get out and vote - that's the main thing. Now that's it's definitely on its way, let's deal with the election and its consequences.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

To be clear again, the question for many of us here in the "middle" is not which party has the better economic policy. Our history shows us that while it may be technically possible for a governing party to influence the economy, most of our governments, be they Conservative or Liberal, have been far more reactive than prescritive. It's also not about trust, really. I cannot think of a single reason why the Reform/PC/whatever are more trustworthy than the Liberals, and the NDP severly damaged what little trust they had by joining the lynching. (For whoever made the cheap shot about Ontarians being willing to accept corrupt government, have you looked at BC and Klein at all? Ever?) Politicians who have been nurtured by our current system will be corrupt. That seems to be just about all there is to it. If there were a national party advocating a systemic change, I would vote for them until the end of time, or at least until they got power and had the chance to welch. (oh, wait there is. Never mind)
Really, when it comes down to it, I give it a long, hard look, and think about what kind of social policies I want to run this country. Do I like Liberal "policies"? No. They are self-serving, and spineless. But they are far less frightening than what the Conservative party brings. I do NOT want a country that adopts social policies based on discrimination, on the removal of rights, on the triumph of the individual over society. I do NOT want a country that believes the almight dollar is more important than it's citizens. And yes, I would rather have a government that steals than one that espouses the above policies. And I'm not alone in this.
Will I vote Liberal? Only if doing so will stop the Conservatives from winning. Since the local refuge from the insane asylum that the Conservatives put up here always wins, my vote will be irrelevant in this riding. So this Ontarian won't vote Liberal. But I sure as HELL won't vote Conservative!
The main reason I'm bitter, is that the original election timeline would have fallen after I had moved to a riding where there is some hope. Now I'm stuck wasting my vote in this part of the world that quite openly wants a more hateful country, and votes for freaking Cheryl Gallant.
I wish, I really do, that I could make a positive choice about how to vote. To vote FOR something, rather than against it. The Greens new economic policy takes them firmly to the middle, where they fade into the background. The NDP still get it right on occasion, but they, too, are striving to find the middle of late. And frankly, either choice is irrelevant in our bankrupt system, and it is debatable as to whether real leadership can come under this system. Be happy for a chance to vote? Why the hell should I be? It's a waste of time. I'll do it. Even if it is -30 with snow up to my armpits. But I sure as hell ain't happy about it. And being forced into this pointless exercise, which means a number of very good pieces of legislation are dying, just for the sake of a few months does not please me.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I've read through most of this and IMNSHO, most of it is jargon and rhetoric that is meaningless.

There has ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPTION IN OTTAWA, AND FOR THAT MATTER IN REGINA AND EDMONTON AND WINNIPEG AND TORONTO AND VICTORIA AND ON AND ON.........

The damn conservatives couldn't win an election honestly, so they milked millions of dollars out of us for that stupid inquiry - gave some people entertainment while the NHL was on strike, I guess - and now they've forced an election.

There will still be corruption in Ottawa no matter who wins this election.

Should something be done about the corruption - sure, but having an election now or ever won't bring that about. 

The party in power and corruption have nothing to do with each other. They're all corrupt - changing the party won't solve the corruption problem.

When it comes to picking who to vote for, I can usually rely on my gut feelings. My gut feeling about Harper makes me break out in hives. There is something about his eyes that scares the bejeeebers out of me.

If, by some twist of fate, he should win this election, PLEASE make him wear dark, black-out glasses for all public appearances and a paper bag over his head if he has to travel to foreign countries! If some Canadians can't see the evil lurking there, I'm afraid the same won't be true for the rest of the world.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Put up your right hand if you think some form of political corruption in Canada started with the current liberal government...

Cretien's mess in my opinion, and I don't think the party before Cretien had it much better, with Airbus and the like. $250 million for some ads, and some iffy choices is still much cheaper than an election every year. Oh yes, we have a budget surplus, and a prime minister who will stand up for Canada during disputes with our neighbors to the south.

Harper scares me. He wants to ban gay marriage. He wants to ban abortions, there have been calls to privatize healthcare, send troops to Iraq... I don't want Canada to elect a deputy President. His plans seem very similar to Mr. Bush's.

It all just sounds like the conservative party this time round can be summed in three words... Mulroney with religion.

Mr. Layton seems to be a smart guy, but just a bit too much to the left for me. Right guy, wrong party.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

Pelao said:


> Once again that through lack of leadership...


Pardon me for snipping your quote, but that is exactly the way I feel about ALL the parties in Canada. There is just no leadership. Only mudslinging and power hunger. None of the political leaders inspire patriotism or at least doing something for my country. tptptptp 

I also don't see why there was a need for making the government fall since an election was going to happen in January or February anyway. 

The Liberals will win anyway not because of central Ontario but because the Conservatives don't have anything which appeals to central Ontario. Nobody cares about mudslinging.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

sketch said:


> Nobody cares about mudslinging.


Well, in a way, I care about mudslinging - I think the person doing it might just have too much of it surrounding themselves and can't speak without some of it being flung off in all directions.

Do I believe what's incased in the mud - NO

Will the mudslingers get my vote - HELL NO

Margaret


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

It's an interesting phenomenon that people have started voting for the leaders of the parties rather than the parties themselves. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any real leaders, so people are being forced to go back and look at the actual party, which I find very interesting - a lesson for many. 

Despite this, however, I agree, there is something not quite right about that Harper guy. It seems as though it was an accident that he came into politics. The fact that he was voted in certainly says a lot about the party itself, not to mention their desire to take away human equality for its countries citizens, or simply not allow it. 

I really don't care when the election is held, although I'd like to focus on this season with joy. I would just like there to be someone or some party to vote for. Once again that green party comes to mind...

My two cents.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Canadians died to make sure that you have this option to vote for your leaders. LOTS of them died to ensure that you have this choice.


Hear-hear! Nobody can complain about their government if they didn't participate.

My friend is an example of somebody who has been completely passive and never voted. She said she doesn't because politicians are all the same, one vote doesn't matter, blah-blah-blah. She doesn't read the newspaper either. It's just lazy indifference. 

The war rages on and her children are draft age, so I wonder if she cares yet. She lives in Florida and held a decisive vote in 2000.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MissGulch said:


> Hear-hear! Nobody can complain about their government if they didn't participate.


I've always been strongly against this sentiment. 

Not voting is a perfectly reasonable stance, even if many don't like it. I would prefer if everyone voted, but the idea that people who do not vote can't complain or have less credibility makes no sense to me. Almost like misery loves company...I spent time endorsing this cr*p, so you should too.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> I've always been strongly against this sentiment.
> 
> Not voting is a perfectly reasonable stance, even if many don't like it. I would prefer if everyone voted, but the idea that people who do not vote can't complain or have less credibility makes no sense to me. Almost like misery loves company...I spent time endorsing this cr*p, so you should too.


My opinion is that everybody should vote. You can always spoil your ballet or have them count it as a non-vote. 

They should add a box on the bottom that says none of the above. If 10 or 20% of people voted that way it would send a message to politicians.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

singingcrow said:


> It's an interesting phenomenon that people have started voting for the leaders of the parties rather than the parties themselves. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any real leaders, so people are being forced to go back and look at the actual party, which I find very interesting - a lesson for many.
> 
> Despite this, however, I agree, there is something not quite right about that Harper guy. It seems as though it was an accident that he came into politics. The fact that he was voted in certainly says a lot about the party itself, not to mention their desire to take away human equality for its countries citizens, or simply not allow it.
> 
> ...


I'm looking more toward the leader because our leader has to lead not just here at home, but in the world. 

I was appalled to read the RSS feeds from both CNN and BBC this morning talking about a million dollar scandal bringing down the government. A MILLION DOLLARS - what must they think of us. A million dollars is pocket change. And we're all fools if we let it happen. Those of us who were glued to the television while that bull**** was going on, egging the b*tards on are fools. 

Our government should be bigger than that. A million dollar scandal should have been handled without all that froofraw. A trillion dollar scandal - now that would be world headline stuff. Sure bitch about it. Fire the people responsible, but did we really need an inquiry and airing our petty, dirty laundry in front of the world to find out what happened.

Stop anyone on the street before the Gomry inquiry started and ask if they believed that money had been misspent and you'd have the answer. The Canadian people were already convinced. Now we've shown the rest of the world how small-minded we are. We're not ready to play in the big legues.

Just my opinion. Margaret


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Miss G., being of draft age is of no consequence anymore because there is no draft. When I turned 18, if you were not in college/university, or unfit for military service, it was a very good bet that you were headed for Vietnam.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Miss G., being of draft age is of no consequence anymore because there is no draft. When I turned 18, if you were not in college/university, or unfit for military service, it was a very good bet that you were headed for Vietnam.


I know, but a draft is beginning to look like a necessity if the war drags on and on. Besides, military recruiters are stalking kids in their schools, hangouts and calling them day and night. Parents have filed lawsuits against predatory recruitment methods. I didn't want to turn this into an American issue thread, but I had to make the point that my friend's kids are the cannon fodder the military wants.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Miss G., Bush may support a draft, but he is a "lame duck" president, and no Republican Congressperson will support a draft unless the US in under direct attack, on US soil, from a powerful nation. Congressional elections are less than a year away and no one is going to make the same mistake as Congressman Joseph Resnick, of upstate NY, made back in 1968 when he threw his support totally and unconditionally behind LBJ, even if it meant increasing the number of draftees to upwards of 1 million, about a week before LBJ said he would not seek the presidential nomination in 1968. He tried to run again in a heavily Democratic district, but he lost to the Republican, the Liberal Party candidate, the Conservative Party candidate, and just beat out the candidate from the Communist Party.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> My opinion is that everybody should vote. You can always spoil your ballet or have them count it as a non-vote.
> 
> They should add a box on the bottom that says none of the above. If 10 or 20% of people voted that way it would send a message to politicians.



DO NOT SPOIL YOU BALLOT. It will be ignored, as parties prefer to think of spoiled ballots as mistakes, rather than statements. We have a "none of the above" option. What you do, is go to the polling both, take your ballot, then immediately give it back, declaring that you are refusing it. The refusal MUST be recorded as such, and it is a much clearer way of declaring your feelings.

I'm starting to think I may just do that, in fact.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> DO NOT SPOIL YOU BALLOT. It will be ignored, as parties prefer to think of spoiled ballots as mistakes, rather than statements. We have a "none of the above" option. What you do, is go to the polling both, take your ballot, then immediately give it back, declaring that you are refusing it. The refusal MUST be recorded as such, and it is a much clearer way of declaring your feelings.
> 
> I'm starting to think I may just do that, in fact.


That's good to know. I think that's what I'll do too.

Margaret


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Miss G., Bush may support a draft, but he is a "lame duck" president, and no Republican Congressperson will support a draft unless the US in under direct attack, on US soil, from a powerful nation. Congressional elections are less than a year away and no one is going to make the same mistake as Congressman Joseph Resnick, of upstate NY, made back in 1968 when he threw his support totally and unconditionally behind LBJ, even if it meant increasing the number of draftees to upwards of 1 million, about a week before LBJ said he would not seek the presidential nomination in 1968. He tried to run again in a heavily Democratic district, but he lost to the Republican, the Liberal Party candidate, the Conservative Party candidate, and just beat out the candidate from the Communist Party.


My point was, we wouldn't have a war and this protracted mess if people like my friend had taken more of an interest and *gone to the polls* and voted for Al Gore. XX)


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> And had more Canadians voted for (shrugs; chills) Stephen Harper, we likely would have had to join you.


Yes and if our Current PM was at the helm at the time we would have been there too. Funny thing is the same people that are painting Harper as a war monger fail to acknowledge that the esteemed leader of the party they will vote for also supported the war at the time.

Here are his own words at the time.


> I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible.
> Paul Martin


So really he's no better than Steven Harper in that regard. At the time, he too felt Iraq had to be dealt with. Heck even Hillary Clinton was pushing for a war against Iraq. I guess Americans won't vote for Hillary for her support of the war as well?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"My point was, we wouldn't have a war and this protracted mess if people like my friend had taken more of an interest and gone to the polls and voted for Al Gore." Agreed. However, more people did vote for Gore, and more votes were taken from Gore.......................but in the end, we all got Bush.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> At the time, he too felt Iraq had to be dealt with.


The contect is important - it was all about evidence. Provided clear evidence was provided regarding the WMD a lot of Canadians may hev felt differently. Chretien felt the evidence provided was "compelling", but not conclusive. Had it been conclusive, his reaction too may well have been different.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*I've voted NDP in every federal election so far...*

but this time I'm inclined to vote liberal, in protest of this stupid election.

It's not that I mind a Christmas election... in fact I can't think of a better time... people can't complain about having to work, and lots of rich people will be away on holidays. Christmas elections are fine with me.

However, elections are expensive, and disruptive to the work of parliament. This election is almost certain to yield another minority, probably another liberal minority, which means the entire process will be a waste.

I'm not at all surprised that the slavering power whores in the conservative party are eager for an election, and clearly the election plays right into the hands of the Bloc, but I'm very disappointed with the NDP's role in this non-confidence vote. I wish they had risen above this and abstained from the vote. That would've been a classy move.

So I'll vote strategically in this election: anti-conservative. Whoever looks like they have the best chance of beating the conservative in my riding gets my vote.

Cheers


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I don't get it. All this wailing about an election January 23rd. Unless Martin was lying (and we all know Liberals are good at their word), he stated that an election would be called immediately after the final Gomery report was released on February 1. By my figuring that means this current election is just two months and a bit earlier than he reckoned on. Big deal !!!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Pelao
> 
> I agree it has to be taken in context. That goes for Steven Harpers position as well. At the time the intelligence community was adamant that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. George Bush believed it, Hillary Clinton did, John Kerry, John Major, Paul Martin and Steven Harper. So why do we keep stroking the whip on Harper's back while ignoring the positions of our current PM at the time and the leadership of the US Democrats? Truth is, had Martin been PM at the time, he too supported the war. In his own words.
> 
> ...


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I fear everyone has overlooked an important feature of our parliamentary system. Just because a vote of non confidence carried, an election didn't have to be called. The Conservatives could have tried to form a Government. However the Conservatives want a majority to hammer home their policies. Harper and crew think ADscam is their ticket to 24 Sussex Drive with a majority government.

This parliament featured and dear I say the next parliament will feature a minority government. 

I personally look forward to another minority government and my hope is, this time, all the parties learn to play nice.

I believe that Jack Layton played his role in the last parliament from his experience in local government. In my view he played nice.

I wonder what kind of Prime Minister Gilles Duceppe would make? This could be a reality in our parliamentary system. 

I look forward to exercising my franchise. My father fought and was wounded in World War II to keep our Country from not being dominated by fascism.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> After all, Canadians love all things anti-american and there is no better way to delight a Canadian than to trash an American. Its an insecurity thing I guess. Sort of like the ugly girls at school that love to make rude comments about the pretty girls fat ankles.


LOL

This is one of those throwaway, achingly generalist lines which takes little to generate and means even less. Can we take it you're not Canadian, or are we to merely assume you regard yourself as being somehow exempt from the swipe you're apparently content to take at your fellow citizens?

Or should I just conclude: _it's an insecurity thing I guess._


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

BigDL said:


> I fear everyone has overlooked an important feature of our parliamentary system. Just because a vote of non confidence carried, an election didn't have to be called. The Conservatives could have tried to form a Government. However the Conservatives want a majority to hammer home their policies. Harper and crew think ADscam is their ticket to 24 Sussex Drive with a majority government.
> 
> This parliament featured and dear I say the next parliament will feature a minority government.
> 
> ...


as long as the Bloc keeps getting 40+ seats in Quebec, you ain't gonna see any majority gov't for a long time


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Yes and if our Current PM was at the helm at the time we would have been there too. Funny thing is the same people that are painting Harper as a war monger fail to acknowledge that the esteemed leader of the party they will vote for also supported the war at the time.
> 
> Here are his own words at the time.
> 
> ...


Sorry to keep on quoting MacGuiver here...but the guy simply makes so much really basic common sense in his posts on this forum, that I just HAVE to.

Those of you who have been around here for a few years already know that this is not a new thing for me. I am a big fan of both MacGuiver and Guinness (wherever he may be, these days).

They both make some real sense out of this modern mess we now find ourselves in. And state their case in a very fair and even handed way.

And the facts are all there...if you just care to look for yourself.

Honest.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

In order for Harper to do this he would need a coalition to create a block of votes greater than those of the Liberals. a coalition seems unlikely at his point as the NDP wouldn't be caught dead in sucha coalition and the Conservatives would never live it down if they formed a coalition with the Bloc.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> In order for Harper to do this he would need a coalition to create a block of votes greater than those of the Liberals. a coalition seems unlikely at his point as the NDP wouldn't be caught dead in sucha coalition and the Conservatives would never live it down if they formed a coalition with the Bloc.


Besides which, the Bloc, and Quebec in general, is quite left-wing socially. It would be virtually impossible for the Bloc and the Conservatives to work together on anythiing substantial. They were allies of convenience in assaulting their common foe, but that doesn't make them able to actually govern together.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Here's what I posted on another forum... sort of tongue in cheek:

*ME:* All opposition parties are posed to gain new seats. The next election is expected to elect another minority government. It will possibly be a Conservative minority, but there is a good chance that the Liberals will just gain a small minority government than the one they currently have. One where the balance of power is even less stable.


*SOME GUY:* I sure which the Quebecois could get sovereignty...


*ME:* It's more likely to happen with a Conservative federal government in charge. Since the Progressive wing of the conservatives were taken over by the right wing, Western, Canadian Alliance (Reform)... the would have little trouble letting Quebec go it's own way. In Quebec the debate has been sovereignty or federalism... the Bloc or the Liberals. The Conservatives have no foothold there to speak of anymore. Thus... since the Conservative movement is so regional itself, it has little to gain by allowing Quebec to remain. Take away Quebec and the Conservatives could conceivably gain a majority.

All I'm saying.

Liberals are still the dominant national party... from coast to coast to coast.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> Besides which, the Bloc, and Quebec in general, is quite left-wing socially. It would be virtually impossible for the Bloc and the Conservatives to work together on anythiing substantial. They were allies of convenience in assaulting their common foe, but that doesn't make them able to actually govern together.


Actually, the BQ (and also the PQ) caucuses are more of a mixed bag of different social stripes, spanning the centre. They are bound together in harmonious unity, however, by their sacred quest to break up the country.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

Their quest isn't to break up the country. Their quest is sovereignty for Quebec.

I know I know, it's just semanics.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

LOL!
Looks who's scary now! Time for the Conservatives to borrow a page from the Liberal play book and play the hidden agenda card. Worked great for them.

Globe and Mail poll:

Which one of the political parties do you think has a hidden agenda?

Liberals: 33%

Conservatives: 25%

NDP: 7%

Green: 1%

Bloc: 3%

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Well, it looks already like we won't see Steve Harper as Prime Minister, no sooner have the parties gotten their electoral campaigns started than Harper is on his way backwards. Why would you call a vote on same-sex-marriage that has already been passed by the government and should not be an issue even on the table. Harper, we don't want to discuss it any more! There are more important issues to discuss then dredging that up again! If we can expect this kind of stupidity from him, it's no wonder the only party we can vote for is Liberal.

Paul O'Keefe is also correct in that the Liberals are the only NATIONAL dominant party, the Conservatives still have that "we're looking out for the West" smell about them. The NDP would spend the whole budget and MORE on social programs.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Kosh said:


> Well, it looks already like we won't see Steve Harper as Prime Minister, no sooner have the parties gotten their electoral campaigns started than Harper is on his way backwards. Why would you call a vote on same-sex-marriage that has already been passed by the government and should not be an issue even on the table. Harper, we don't want to discuss it any more! There are more important issues to discuss then dredging that up again! If we can expect this kind of stupidity from him, it's no wonder the only party we can vote for is Liberal.
> 
> Paul O'Keefe is also correct in that the Liberals are the only NATIONAL dominant party, the Conservatives still have that "we're looking out for the West" smell about them. The NDP would spend the whole budget and MORE on social programs.


I am really disappointed that Harper brought the same sex marriage issue up again. What a stupid move to make. This is only going to cause a loss of support for the Conservatives. He just handed the Liberals an issue they can discuss for the entire election. It's not going to go away. I was going to support the party and volunteer in my riding but now, I don't think I can.

He was also lobbed a softball question asking if he loved Canada. Nowhere in his long winded response did he say he loved Canada. Duhhhh. 

The Conservatives aren't just looking out for the west. It's really simple...The West Wants In. We are strong federalists out here, but we are getting really sick of the corruption and culture of entitlement in Ottawa.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Harper would never get the gay/gay activist vote anyhow so he's lost nothing. He's simply providing an option for the majority of Canadians 52% that opposed the change to the traditional definition of marriage to have some say on the matter they were denied. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I'm just a dumb grandma, reading the paper and listening to the news and trying to figure out what the hell is going on here.

I "thought" the other parties called a non-confidence vote over the Gomry inquiry and the kickback scandal and corruption and brought down the government because of it. That's what the headline news around the world reported - I thought it made us look stupid on the world stage, but what do I know.

Then this morning, the headlines in our own newspaper say that the biggest issue on the minds of the beady-eyed Harper is the same-sex marriage thing WTF??

Excuse my language, but somebody hand that boy a songbook.

It's like bait and switch.

Did he always want an election so he and his religious cronies could re-visit same-sex and knowing that he'd be thoroughly thrashed if he tried to bring down the government on that issue, he put us through that whole corruption thing to divert our attention.

Does he really think we're that stupid? Are we?

Margaret


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Harper would never get the gay/gay activist vote anyhow so he's lost nothing. He's simply providing an option for the majority of Canadians 52% that opposed the change to the traditional definition of marriage to have some say on the matter they were denied.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


He didn't just lose the gay/gay activist vote, he lost a lot of other votes when he brought that up. I personally don't like that the legislation passed, but now that it has, let's just leave it as it is. Canadians are tired of long drawn out debates, get some action going and move forward, NOT backwards.

I also think it shows he's got no good people in his party helping him steer his campaign. He should be campaigning on the issues, not something that's irreversible - reminds me of the old "get rid of the GST" promise. Even, if on the slim slim (maybe I better say slim several more times) chance that Harper got a minority government, his party couldn't out-vote the votes for same-sex marriage from the Bloc, Liberals, and NDP.

Besides, it'd be be a half-a$$ed situation with same-sex marriages already taken place and now you can't get any new same-sex marriages. Come on Harper, you've got to smarten up, you're the leader of a political party. Where is this guy's PR person - I'm sure the PR person is lookin' for a new job.

As for the love Canada fiasco, well I could have overseen that, it was just a slip, but...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> That said, Harper also doesn't care what the courts have *not* yet ruled on. Calling an election based on the sponsorship scandal before the final Gomery report is the single most disrespectful act of his career. Either he expects that the report will continue to clear Prime Minister Paul Martin, and fears the result, or he just doesn't care that all this effort has gone into investigation, testimony and that charges are already laid against the perpetrators--who no longer hold office.


I believe the second Gomery report that we're waiting for is what to do going forward (expenditure processes), so I don't think it has much to do with clearing or not clearing anyone's name. There's no reason to hold up an election for it -- it's more comparable to a committee recommendation on process.

The Gomery commission was most definitely NOT a court and the judge was appointed by Martin. This is nothing like a real trial. The real trials will take a while, so they're not really part of the electoral cycle. The one completed that I know of was, if I remember correctly, for Paul Coffin.

The thing that I don't like about Harper's approach to same sex marriage (aside from disagreeing with his positioin) is that he isn't very upfront about what it will require: the notwithstanding clause. He wanted a vote on it, it happened and passed (even allowing for 'forced' Liberal cabinet members). Even if he got a different result and put in a new law, it would be challenged and lose in the Supreme Court, causing years of pointless mess. 

He should let it rest and state that clearly in public. Essentially tell his more socially conservative supporters that they are not in control and that they must decide: is this issue worth all the other platform issues being marginalized?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I'm just a dumb grandma


Grandma maybe, dumb - no way.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Margaret, I agree with Pelao, you are certainly NOT dumb. I saw the CNN.com headlines about the government being brought down due to corruption and I wanted to cringe. 

Then, this morning, when I heard Harper talking about revisiting the same sex marriage issue, I thought to myself that it must be a replay of issues from two years ago and how the Conservatives were going to bring about change, which seems to be their catchphrase this year. I could not believe that they would want to hand the Liberals the issue once again of who best protects the rights of all Canadians. I know that during the summer he lost his entire "think trust" advisors, but I can't believe that they now hired people wanting to "preach to the converted". Anyone who is against same sex marriage to such an extent that they want the issue revisited once again is going to probably vote for the Conservatives. However, those that were going to consider the Conservative "change" approach now have, once again, a moment to pause and reflect. My wife actually said last night she is considering voting for the NDP here in St.John's East. If Harper continues on this track, I may join her, or vote Green. We shall see.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Canada also got good coverage on the fake news yesterday -- The Daily Show. It was quite funny and should be available for download from their site.

The rumours I heard revolved around Harper not listening to his communications staff and them leaving because of it. If that's true, then the likely outcome would be yesmen to support his stance. I'm still trying to find a good reason for why so many refer to Harper as intelligent. As far as I can tell, it's based on the 'If you can't say something nice...' philosophy.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Kosh said:


> He didn't just lose the gay/gay activist vote, he lost a lot of other votes when he brought that up. I personally don't like that the legislation passed, but now that it has, let's just leave it as it is. Canadians are tired of long drawn out debates, get some action going and move forward, NOT backwards.
> 
> I also think it shows he's got no good people in his party helping him steer his campaign. He should be campaigning on the issues, not something that's irreversible - reminds me of the old "get rid of the GST" promise. Even, if on the slim slim (maybe I better say slim several more times) chance that Harper got a minority government, his party couldn't out-vote the votes for same-sex marriage from the Bloc, Liberals, and NDP.
> 
> ...


Hi Kosh,

Do you really think it would be politically wise for Harper to be silent on this issue? I don't. By throwing his cards on the table now, he shuts the mouths of the Liberal cries of "hidden agenda" which sunk him in the last election. Also, the majority of Canadians (52%) opposed this change to the traditional definition of marriage so it may be a wise move strategically.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

From the polls few people other than the "foam at the mouths" are relying on Gomery.
Polls show most simply want a change in gov with the Libs being too long in power.

Cons would do well to stop ranting and start acting like COULD govern.
So far there has been no indication of that.

Pissed off GTA could swing NDP as it did last time they were annoyed a an arrogant Liberal Provincial Premiere.

Harpers face plant on same sex puts them neck and neck with the Libs for "stupid opening moves" and just about all on par with Layton for pulling the plug early in the first place.

So they ALL start in the negative column.....NOTA party would do very well in Canada just now. 

THIS freaked me out today

Have you decided which party will get your support on January 23?

Yes 11937 votes (83 %) 
No 2430 votes (17 %)


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...ve=_save37437&show_vote_always=no&hub=Front&s ubhub=VoteResult

Now the Globe has pretty broad spectrum readership and 12,000 sampling is very wide. *( Now 17,000 and holding the high decided percentage ).*


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Kosh,
> 
> Do you really think it would be politically wise for Harper to be silent on this issue? I don't. By throwing his cards on the table now, he shuts the mouths of the Liberal cries of "hidden agenda" which sunk him in the last election. Also, the majority of Canadians (52%) opposed this change to the traditional definition of marriage so it may be a wise move strategically.
> 
> ...


Silence is not a good strategy. The best strategy would be to say the issue was over and done with. Say that he didn't support the legislation to begin with but he respects the vote that took place on it. And finally, say he would not introduce legislation to backtrack on what had already passed.

The Liberals are going to cry hidden agenda no matter what.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Beej, I heard the same "rumours" from people I know in Calgary. Seems like his communication staff wanted to take him onto a more moderate level, and when this was rejected, they left.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper and crew have no traction...time for a leadership overhaul and quite frankly I'd not be disappointed if that applied to the three main parties.

ALL have shown poor judgement and refusal to listen ..a pox on them all.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

*Jack Harris for the Avalon*



Dr.G. said:


> However, those that were going to consider the Conservative "change" approach now have, once again, a moment to pause and reflect. My wife actually said last night she is considering voting for the NDP here in St.John's East. If Harper continues on this track, I may join her, or vote Green. We shall see.


It's too bad that Jack Harris wasn't running as an NDP Candidate for some jusridicition on the Avalon. Just before his announcement of stepping down as the provincial NDP leader, I thought it would be great if he ran federally. I think he would have a better than average shot. Think of it a federal NDP seat in Newfoundland.

Who are the candidates that Norm Doyle (Conservative) is running against for Avalon East?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> Harper would never get the gay/gay activist vote anyhow so he's lost nothing...


I'm sorry, but that is an abhorrent view. It expresses that nobody needs to give a damn (or does give a damn) about anyone but themselves. It says that it is OK to oppress minorities that don't support your party, because you won't get their votes anyway.

To add to However's comment, Harper does worse than demonstrating his contempt for a minority and his lack of respect for our highest court. It wasn't the Supreme Court that compelled the government to change the law, it was our constitution, the supreme law of our country. The Courts don't make the law, they enforce it.

What Harper is doing is pandering to the people he perceives are his constituency, who I will politely describe as social conservatives.

There are plenty of people who may have qualms about gay marriage, and may not support it, who respect our constitution and the Supreme Court, and accept that the issue is resolved. For anyone who now claims that the public should have more say in the matter - our say was when 9 provinces and the federal government agreed to entrench the Charter of Rights in the constitution. The Charter is a document that Canadians take pride in and is generally accepted that it reflects values that Canadians hold dear. 

It will be a cold day in hell when I feel it is OK for Stephen Harper to decide what my rights are.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

From what I have read and heard, the Conservatives do not intend to revoke same-sex marriage. Rather they want to re-define traditional marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. It follows of course that same sex married couple would also have to be re-defined but with the full rights of marriage.

It seems the definition change would satisfy the 50% plus of Canadians who oppose same-sex marriage being called marriage.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Harper does worse than demonstrating his contempt for a minority and his lack of respect for our highest court. It wasn't the Supreme Court that compelled the government to change the law, it was our constitution, the supreme law of our country. The Courts don't make the law, they enforce it.
> 
> What Harper is doing is pandering to the people he perceives are his constituency, who I will politely describe as social conservatives.
> 
> There are plenty of people who may have qualms about gay marriage, and may not support it,......


Well put nxmw - 

I also hope that national unity gets more importance in this election - at this moment Quebec would certainly leave Canada.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Harper and crew have no traction...time for a leadership overhaul and quite frankly I'd not be disappointed if that applied to the three main parties.
> 
> ALL have shown poor judgement and refusal to listen ..a pox on them all.


I'll second that. Let's get a new leader for each of the parties. It's time for a leadership change of all three parties, nevermind a change of government.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

nxnw said:


> For anyone who now claims that the public should have more say in the matter - our say was when 9 provinces and the federal government agreed to entrench the Charter of Rights in the constitution. The Charter is a document that Canadians take pride in and is generally accepted that it reflects values that Canadians hold dear.
> 
> It will be a cold day in hell when I feel it is OK for Stephen Harper to decide what my rights are.


Since we've had our say what's the holdup on private heathcare? Seeing that the courts have ruled its unconstitutional to deny Canadians access to for-profit life saving medical treatment in our own country. Surely the keepers of the Charter of Rights will do what's right here and allow private clinics? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Also, the majority of Canadians (52%) opposed this change to the traditional definition of marriage so it may be a wise move strategically.


I'm not normally one to go calling for sources, but I will here. Not because I believe you are hugely wrong, but rather because from what I remember, whether it was %52 for or against depended largely on who was doing the reporting.

In any case, it is irrelevant, however, unless Harper wishes to use the notwithstanding clause. So if what he really wants to do is lay his cards on the table, then he needs to say that's what he will do. Otherwise it's just more hot air.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Since we've had our say what's the holdup on private heathcare? Seeing that the courts have ruled its unconstitutional to deny Canadians access to for-profit life saving medical treatment in our own country. Surely the keepers of the Charter of Rights will do what's right here and allow private clinics?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


The ruling was that we cannot be denied timely treatment, and that if the public system can't meet that, then the private system can step in. That's not quite the same thing, although it may have the similar implications in the very short term, or permanently if there is no actual willingness to improve the public system.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> From what I have read and heard, the Conservatives do not intend to revoke same-sex marriage. Rather they want to re-define traditional marriage to be the union of one man and one woman. It follows of course that same sex married couple would also have to be re-defined but with the full rights of marriage.
> 
> It seems the definition change would satisfy the 50% plus of Canadians who oppose same-sex marriage being called marriage.


So they would change the definition to be exactly the same as before, without technically revoking the previous law. This makes a difference how?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> I'm not normally one to go calling for sources, but I will here. Not because I believe you are hugely wrong, but rather because from what I remember, whether it was %52 for or against depended largely on who was doing the reporting.


Actually RevMatt I agree that the source of statistics like this can skew them to fit their agenda. That is what makes these numbers so high. They came from the Liberal friendly CBC. So if they're usual Liberal bias had any effect on the numbers they could be even higher.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/10/gay-marriage-050410.html

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Paul O'Keefe said:


> Who are the candidates that Norm Doyle (Conservative) is running against for Avalon East?


 Paul Antle took over from:yawn: Walter Noel

http://www.cbc.ca/nl/story/nf_antle_liberals_20051124.html


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I haven't had time to keep up on the campaigning so far, but, from what I'm gathering, the Harper Conservatives want to:

A) revoke same-sex marriage
B) block decriminalization of marijuana
C) privatize healthcare
D) scrap the gun registry
E) reduce taxes for corporations
and
F) tell Quebec not to let the door hit them on the ass on the way out.

How, exactly would Canada under the Conservatives be different than the US?

I understand that they may like the cold weather up here, but why don't they just move to North Dakota?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually RevMatt I agree that the source of statistics like this can skew them to fit their agenda. That is what makes these numbers so high. They came from the Liberal friendly CBC. So if they're usual Liberal bias had any effect on the numbers they could be even higher.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/10/gay-marriage-050410.html
> 
> ...


Thanks.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> So they would change the definition to be exactly the same as before, without technically revoking the previous law. This makes a difference how?


To the majority of Canadians, "marriage" is only between one man and one woman". Same-sex couples would have "unions" or whatever to differentiate between the two.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Kosh said:


> I'll second that. Let's get a new leader for each of the parties. It's time for a leadership change of all three parties, nevermind a change of government.


They could just play musical chairs with the current leaders.

I would vote for a party led by Giles Duceppe (the BQ doesn't field candidates in Saskatchewan) - of all the current leaders, he's the only one that would look good on the world stage and the only one in my opinion that makes any sense when he talks - in both languages even though I have only minimal understanding of one of Canada's official languages.

I'm having a hard time taking any of this seriously. Some very rude terms come to mind.

Margaret


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> To the majority of Canadians, "marriage" is only between one man and one woman". Same-sex couples would have "unions" or whatever to differentiate between the two.


Except that that very question was asked of the Supremes, and they said it was a no go. That may be an important semantic difference for some Canadians, but not for the law.

But again I ask, how does the way they do it make any difference ot the outcome?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I haven't had time to keep up on the campaigning so far, but, from what I'm gathering, the Harper Conservatives want to:
> 
> A) revoke same-sex marriage
> B) block decriminalization of marijuana
> ...


Not sure why the Conservatives are characterised this way.

A) Pretty much. They prefer 'unions', which is separate but equal, which will be shot down by the Supreme Court.

B) As far as I know

C) The Liberals have suceeded in fear-mongering here despite private healthcare rapidly expanding on their watch. Conservative policies and Liberal actions are very close for this one...not at all like the U.S.

D) Why not? The problem is handguns not hunting rifles. Focus on the problem. Reforming the registry is probably a better idea.

E) Why not? Liberals did this. Conservatives might do more. Many political stripes around the world support this. It is not a 'U.S.' thing by any stretch.

F) Not really. Their approach is to stop begging and buying Quebec support. Probably would work better than a sponsorship program, especially when combined with less desire to meddle in provincial jurisdiction (Liberals love to do this). It is not at all clear which party would more likely lead to separation. Again, the Liberal spin-machine has been very effective at hiding reality.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The same sex marriage debate is done, eventually the rest of the world who hasn't yet followed will, even the USA. Harper is an idiot for bringing it up. There is no way to legally reverse it, or re-name it that satisfies our Charter of Rights, short of the notwithstanding clause.


bryanc said:


> I haven't had time to keep up on the campaigning so far, but, from what I'm gathering, the Harper Conservatives want to:
> 
> A) revoke same-sex marriage
> B) block decriminalization of marijuana
> ...


That's the not-so-hidden agenda of Harper's party. This real hidden agenda, which never seems to really be discussed during elections, is how quickly we will proceed on Canada becoming a small cog in the Untited States of North America.

Although we are already far along this road, Harper's party would send us there faster. Martin's party is not much different, they are just presenting the fantasy that we can be equal partners with the US and Mexico in the USNA. We already know that won't work seeing how the US hasn't bothered to even maintain the fiction that it would be bound by NAFTA. 

The Liberals have already laid the groundwork in barely publicized talks with the US and Mexico on "Deep Integration". Harper's party likely hasten our move in that direction, especially if they facilitate Quebec's separation. I would not vote for any party that is willing to give Canada away on a platter to US corporate interests.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

winwintoo said:


> They could just play musical chairs with the current leaders.
> 
> I would vote for a party led by Giles Duceppe (the BQ doesn't field candidates in Saskatchewan) - of all the current leaders, he's the only one that would look good on the world stage and the only one in my opinion that makes any sense when he talks - in both languages even though I have only minimal understanding of one of Canada's official languages.
> 
> ...



I agree Giles Duceppe is a first rate communicator. Bill Clinton had that gift as well. In the last election debates, Duceppe carried himself like a pro. Smooth, passionate, articulate. Sadly, if anyone had a chance of leading Quebec to independence, its Giles Duceppe.

Too bad thats the direction he's going.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> I agree Giles Duceppe is a first rate communicator. Bill Clinton had that gift as well. In the last election debates, Duceppe carried himself like a pro. Smooth, passionate, articulate. Sadly, if anyone had a chance of leading Quebec to independence, its Giles Duceppe.
> 
> Too bad thats the direction he's going.


I have to agree with you there. I was very impressed with Gilles Duceppe in the debate of the last election, as you said he commuicated well, was very professional and tried to get Paul Martin and the others to give answers to the questions and not some political retoric or double-talk. He is a good example of a LEADER. Unfortunately i don't want Quebec to leave Canada.

And to add, I think Gilles would bring some respect back to the position of Prime Minister after the last couple of dufus PMs we've had.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Economist take on the situation - note Jack MIA

Here's the Economist take



> *No confidence, no alternative?*
> Nov 30th 2005
> From The Economist Global Agenda
> 
> ...


 The remainder here complete article


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Where the hell have you been? The laws of our country say otherwise. Marriage is now between persons, whatever parts they were born with.
> 
> Your views are now illegal and discriminatory. Fortunately, being Canada, it isn't against the law for you to hold these views.
> 
> As for the majority of whatever, often our laws have to protect the minority of our citizens, and that is something the majority don't differ about.


Show me one iota of proof that my views are illegal or discriminatory for that matter.

Yeah, yeah I know. You can't, but then most people who have no idea what they are talking about can't either.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Did someone say Harper was scary looking?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Regardless Harper aint; gonna EVER get a chance at it. His face plant just got worse.


> Duceppe denounces Harper's same-sex marriage comments
> Wednesday, November 30, 2005 Posted at 3:24 PM EST
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...


There goes THAT opportunity. 

I tell you any party leader that comes out and says they will GOVERN within a coalition gets my respect big time.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Not sure why the Conservatives are characterised this way.


Um... because that's how they describe themselves? I admit I'm paraphrasing, and that my personal opinions are affecting how I describe their positions, but these are hardly secrets.

Clearly, you agree. To whit:
regarding overturning gay marriages...


> A) Pretty much. They prefer 'unions', which is separate but equal, which will be shot down by the Supreme Court.


...opposing marijuana legalization...


> B) As far as I know


...privatizing healthcare...


> C) The Liberals have succeeded in fear-mongering here despite private healthcare rapidly expanding on their watch. Conservative policies and Liberal actions are very close for this one.


Indeed... the liberals are just about as bad in this regard. The point is that their American-like position on this is not a secret.

...scraping the gun registry...


> D) Why not?


This is a different question... my point here is the congruence between the policy positions of the Conservative party, and existing policy in the U.S. is well known.

...regarding tax-cuts for corporations...


> E) Why not? Liberals did this.


Again, this is a different question. And again, the liberals may be just as bad. If you like these American policies, by all means vote for them, but my point is that, as far as I can tell, the Conservatives want to turn Canada into the United States.

...regarding alienating Quebec...


> F) Not really.


I admit that the Liberal policy of buying/begging for Quebec to stay is neither palatable nor likely to succeed. But my experience with conservatives in the West is that they _hate_ Quebec, and couldn't be happier to see them separate. Here is where the Bloc and the PCs have common ground, and it is here that my biggest worry about the next parliament lies.

While there is obviously a lot wrong with the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, without them the gradual erosion of our national identity by the constant overwhelming chaos, beauty, genius, rage, and unmitigated stupidity to the south, will become so much more rapid.

At any rate. My point here was not to contrast the Liberals with the Conservatives (I see the Liberals as Conservatives without as many religious nuts). It was to show the lack of contrast between the Conservatives and the Republicans.

I doubt that there are many Canadians who would vote for George Bush.

Cheers


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Show me one iota of proof that my views are illegal or discriminatory for that matter.
> 
> Yeah, yeah I know. You can't, but then most people who have no idea what they are talking about can't either.


Perhaps calling your views illegal was not a good choice of words. According to the SCC, however, the policy you advocate would violate the Charter as discriminatory. You can look it up.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> If you like these American policies, by all means vote for them, but my point is that, as far as I can tell, the Conservatives want to turn Canada into the United States.


These policies are not 'American' policies. There are similarities, as there are with many parties in many nations, but the specific points made are not at all U.S./Republican polices. 

This is best for a side debate but, to give one example, the basic notion of private and public healthcare is an 'every developed nation in the world' policy. The concept of a universal AND exclusive government monopoly on healthcare is a) impossible unless you shut down our borders to the world b) not practiced in any developed nation in the world. The Liberals with NDP goading have managed to keep the lie going, but I retain the hope that one day Canada will have an honest public dialogue on healthcare.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Martin is a fiscal conservative in a social liberal party and THAT combo is a key around the world.
CANADA needs a new federal system is the underlying problem.
When the NDP get a huge popular vote and nada in seats and the Bloc can get do the inverse - the SYSTEM is FUBAR.

No jockeying of parties and seats will change that.

I think ONLY a actual acknowledgement by three of the parties including the Bloc as one of those that the SYSTEM is broke and requires not only rethinking but actual change will bring some progress.

Stronach is the only one so far that is actually doing something with the problem and it's only a "study".

This issue is in some ways bigger than the constitution, Meech lake etc as it's the logical next step in the evolution of the federation.

Power centres have shifted dramatically and may shift even further if the NDP finally gets a strong base in the GTA then they defacto become the regional Ontario party as far as federalism is concerned.
Not hard to imagine with Miller as Mayor, Oliva Chow and Layton with Toronto as home base and an immensely growing immigrant population.

The coasts then determine the mix which gives THEM substantive power.

The federal structure that grew out of the repatriation and Quebec's emergence from under "English Canada" is no more in my mind.

Time for a new regional system with lesser federal power. The move giving Toronto more power is one step in the right direction.

What a functional goal state might be for a renewed Federalism I don't know yet but I think it has to give Quebec and other regions greater powers, the PMO and current federal government lesser.

The lower house is beginning to be a regional representaive house.
Perhaps an upper house will be needed for the federalist role to maintain a dynamic tension and check and balance.

I fear that only Quebec actually voting out will bring this to a head. 

Australia may have some lessons for us.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Perhaps calling your views illegal was not a good choice of words. According to the SCC, however, the policy you advocate would violate the Charter as discriminatory. You can look it up.


He's well within his right to think it and discuss it. He is not allowed to act upon those beliefs. Eg. He is not allowed to disqualify hiring someone because they are homosexual.

So far I'm voting green. Cons need to grow up and quit acting like the school yard bully. Liberals are just so full of sh*t I can't take it anymore. Everytime Martin says 'Promise made, Promise kept' I want to strangle the old geezer. NDP have 'nice' policies, it's too bad that they can't temper their platform with a little fiscal responsibility. Since I'm not one to spoil my ballot, and I will vote, I'm going Green. Hell, maybe I'll volunteer a little time while I'm at it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Mugatu, although we may have come at it from different angles, I'm in much the same place. 

I'm so fed up with the 'Big Three' (even worse than the other well known Big Three) that I'm looking into joining, donating to and volunteering for a political party for the first time in my life (Green). There are still things I don't like about their 2004 platform (I still have to look into their new one), but they're pretty close in most cases, very impressive in a couple, and I really want them to wipe out one of the Big Three in the long-run.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The federal structure that grew out of the repatriation and Quebec's emergence from under "English Canada" is no more in my mind.
> 
> Time for a new regional system with lesser federal power. The move giving Toronto more power is one step in the right direction.


This view is a big part of the problem - federal powers should be stronger not weaker. 
When we talk of certain Canadian problems, many are do to regional parties such as the Cons (for yes they are mostly a western party) and the BQ. 

If anything, the federal structure has to be firmer and stronger and not pander to the perceived "have nots".


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Margaret


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> The Liberals with NDP goading have managed to keep the lie going, but I retain the hope that one day Canada will have an honest public dialogue on healthcare.


The real lie is that private health care is more efficient. That's the "honest public dialogue" you have in the US, that's bought and paid for by big medicine and big pharma. All private health care really accomplishes is converting health care dollars into somebody's profit. It isn't the answer.

The immediate negative effect of private business offering paid health care is that it would compete for resources - particularly doctors and nurses -and everyone else would suffer for the benefit of a privileged minority. If you are rich and can't wait, you are free go to the US and pay without further compromising our system. For the vast majority of us, it's not even far away.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

That illustrates my point. We don't have an honest public dialogue on healthcare in Canada, and this election may not start it, but hopefully the Supreme Court decision will. 

A lot of what is said out there ignores numerous models around the world. In Canada it's our way or that naughty U.S. way. In reality there are many, many options and even our provinces have differences that need looking into. Simple zero-sum analyses or comparisons to a system without universal health care don't add much. 

Electioneering favours fear mongering and quasi-evidence, but my hope remains.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> Margaret


Good one Margaret. :lmao: :clap:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

nxnw said:


> The real lie is that private health care is more efficient. That's the "honest public dialogue" you have in the US, that's bought and paid for by big medicine and big pharma. All private health care really accomplishes is converting health care dollars into somebody's profit. It isn't the answer.
> 
> The immediate negative effect of private business offering paid health care is that it would compete for resources - particularly doctors and nurses -and everyone else would suffer for the benefit of a privileged minority. If you are rich and can't wait, you are free go to the US and pay without further compromising our system. For the vast majority of us, it's not even far away.


:clap: nxnw excellent post well said. 

Tommy Douglas managed to pay for Universal health care in one of the poorest places in North America and at the same time balance the budget. So much for the myth of "wild spending sprees of the socialist hoard." That is the reason the rest of Canada ran with the idea.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

nxnw said:


> The real lie is that private health care is more efficient. That's the "honest public dialogue" you have in the US, that's bought and paid for by big medicine and big pharma. All private health care really accomplishes is converting health care dollars into somebody's profit. It isn't the answer.
> 
> The immediate negative effect of private business offering paid health care is that it would compete for resources - particularly doctors and nurses -and everyone else would suffer for the benefit of a privileged minority. If you are rich and can't wait, you are free go to the US and pay without further compromising our system. For the vast majority of us, it's not even far away.


Somebody needs to start saying it, so I will. Our healthcare system will only get worse until we give our collective heads a shake are realize that just because we CAN keep people alive forever, that isn't a good reason that we SHOULD.

We've gotten to the point where natural death is a thing of the past. The only folks who seem to die naturally any more are those that are lost in the wilderness and die of exposure or fall out of a canoe and drown.

If you live within two hours of a hospital - everybody does - you're going to pull through for a few more day at an astronomical cost.

Talk to staff on the cardiac ward - Great-grandpa is lying there near death and the grandkids are out in the hall arguing with the doctors that they want him to have that quadruple bypass - great-grandpa is 97 and can't take a piss without help and doesn't know if it's 2005 or 1923, but darn it, those kids are not going to let him die.

Meanwhile, young Fred - age 36 - needs knee surgery so he can get back to work, but he's been on a waiting list for 18 months and no surgery in sight. His cousin Laura, age 27 has a lump on her breast and needs an MRI, but there's a waiting list for them too. The family's favorite horse got an MRI right away though when it came down with quivers.

Or spend some time in the orthopedic ward. Hip replacements, cripes. Sure you can't let someone live with that pain, but many of the people who are having hip replacements have been kept alive artificially for years beyond when they normally would have expired if normal life expectancey would have been allowed to run it's course. Meanwhile, young people are limping around because they can't get in to see the surgeon.

There has been some talk about euthenesia lately - is/was there a bill on the table? - depending on how carefully it's worded, it might not be a bad idea. When I run out of money and quit finding amusing things to do with my time, what business is it of anyone else's if I decide to go out? What does it benefit society to prevent my exit?

Some tough things need to be thought about before changes can be made.

Margaret


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

BigDL said:


> :clap: nxnw excellent post well said.
> 
> Tommy Douglas managed to pay for Universal health care in one of the poorest places in North America and at the same time balance the budget. So much for the myth of "wild spending sprees of the socialist hoard." That is the reason the rest of Canada ran with the idea.


Our system needs a radical overhaul. Just pumping more money into the inefficient system we have right now is not the answer. Sure things looks OK now, but when the baby boomers all start wanting their hip replacements (which they deserve), it's going to get mighty expensive. Maybe they should just raise the GST to 15% to pay for health care? 

Seriously, it's not a black-and-white debate. There are many shades of gray... and a lot of them include some form of privatized health coverage. Maybe we'll get lucky and the government will figure out a way to keep public health care and not drive us into debt. Doesn't look likely with the bozos currently running for office.

If you think the Liberal's are going to save public health care... you better have another drink... or 15.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

BigDL said:


> :clap: nxnw excellent post well said.
> 
> Tommy Douglas managed to pay for Universal health care in one of the poorest places in North America and at the same time balance the budget. So much for the myth of "wild spending sprees of the socialist hoard." That is the reason the rest of Canada ran with the idea.


I don't understand why this guy got voted as the greatest Canadian. Two years ago, nobody outside Saskatchewan knew the guy. Universal health care wasn't his invention. It already existed in other countries.

The socialist hoard ran BC into large deficits and drove business away. The day they got kicked out was the day the economy here did a 180.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Mugatu said:


> Our system needs a radical overhaul. Just pumping more money into the inefficient system we have right now is not the answer. Sure things looks OK now, but when the baby boomers all start wanting their hip replacements (which they deserve), it's going to get mighty expensive. Maybe they should just raise the GST to 15% to pay for health care?
> 
> Seriously, it's not a black-and-white debate. There are many shades of gray... and a lot of them include some form of privatized health coverage. Maybe we'll get lucky and the government will figure out a way to keep public health care and not drive us into debt. Doesn't look likely with the bozos currently running for office.
> 
> If you think the Liberal's are going to save public health care... you better have another drink... or 15.


I don't know about where you live but where I have lived there has always been private health care. All of my physicians have been business people and still are today.

The crisis in health care came about as a result of cuts to federal funding of health care budgets. The current fiscal situation is that Canada has surpluses and the Liberals and New Cons want to give tax cuts. Tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy corporations give them bigger breaks in avoiding paying their fair share.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

BigDL said:


> I don't know about where you live but where I have lived there has always been private health care. All of my physicians have been business people and still are today.
> 
> The crisis in health care came about as a result of cuts to federal funding of health care budgets. The current fiscal situation is that Canada has surpluses and the Liberals and New Cons want to give tax cuts. Tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy corporations give them bigger breaks in avoiding paying their fair share.


I'm just advocating balance. Saying 'no' to any and all private health care is short sighted.

Don't GP clinics fall in the gray area between public and private?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BigDL said:


> I don't know about where you live but where I have lived there has always been private health care. All of my physicians have been business people and still are today.
> 
> The crisis in health care came about as a result of cuts to federal funding of health care budgets. The current fiscal situation is that Canada has surpluses and the Liberals and New Cons want to give tax cuts. Tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy corporations give them bigger breaks in avoiding paying their fair share.


Tax cuts actually benefit ALL of us. This has been proven time and time again. Every single government, everywhere in the world, that has chosen to cut back on their tax take has enjoyed a major upswing in their money stream shortly thereafter. When the former Soviet satellite states of eastern Europe decided to try a flat 15% income tax after the collapse of communism... the results were almost instant, and were totally amazing.

The newly-freed ex-communist/socialist governments that had been strapped for cash soon found themselves awash in a torrent of money when they dropped the tax to 15% and eliminated all loopholes. And their national economies were suddenly surging. Big TIME! Germany (one of the most staunchly socialist of the modern western economies) is just about to set itself onto this path to solve it's economic doldrums.

It'll work, too. Just as it has in every other jurisdiction. It's a no-brainer.

But the union types have been slow to see this. They stubbornly cling to a dead end philosophy, from decades ago. Still stuck in the old ways, I suspect.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

To me the issue with health care is coverage and access, not delivery. I believe the government should provide coverage for every Canadian and everybody should be able to access good health care. I don't care who delivers the service as long as it is the best and most cost effective. There is plenty of room for the private sector here. 

I also think people need to get off their asses and take better care of themselves. Not enough people exercise and eat the right food. I don't have a solution to this, but to solve a problem, you first have to define it.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> But the union types have been slow to see this. They stubbornly cling to a dead end philosophy, from decades ago. Still stuck in the old ways, I suspect.


Speaking of which:

http://www.cknw.com/news/news_local...1119923aPBIny&wids=410&gi=1&gm=news_local.cfm

I guess they will slowly learn over time. Unfortunately, it has to be the hard way.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Vandave said:


> To me the issue with health care is coverage and access, not delivery. I believe the government should provide coverage for every Canadian and everybody should be able to access good health care. I don't care who delivers the service as long as it is the best and most cost effective. There is plenty of room for the private sector here.


Precisely! Coverage should be shared by all of us. As a giant group of powerful consumers, we command serious attention from any and all insurance providers. Strength lies in numbers. 

The government collects a health care premium from every Canadian and then looks for a good provider of services. (it's a huge plum)

And delivery of services should be farmed out to several different outfits...and the ones that perform the best should get the biggest contracts. If they fail to perform, or cause us to wait...then we sh*tcan their sorry butts, and move on. With this many consumers as a large group, we can afford to be picky and expect the best. They will come to US. WE don't have to go to THEM.

The Europeans have already figured this out. Too bad the union types here in Canada are scare-mongering to delay the inevitable. While "protecting" a rather small amount of union jobs. At the expense of the health of all of the rest of us.

Tooo sad.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

winwintoo said:


> Somebody needs to start saying it, so I will. Our healthcare system will only get worse until we give our collective heads a shake are realize that just because we CAN keep people alive forever, that isn't a good reason that we SHOULD.
> 
> We've gotten to the point where natural death is a thing of the past. The only folks who seem to die naturally any more are those that are lost in the wilderness and die of exposure or fall out of a canoe and drown.Some tough things need to be thought about before changes can be made.
> 
> Margaret


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

The whole post was too long to repeat, but you are so very right. My wife has been a RN for over 40 years and she tells me the same thing.

A gutsy post and right on the money Margaret. Spoken by someone who has been there, done that, and quite recently is my bet. 

Thanks for having the courage to tell it like it is.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

This is likely to become a major national issue once the vast baby boomer generation begins to die off. They (me included) seem to think that their birthright is good government healthcare and everlasting youth...mostly paid for by others.

Interesting times are a'comin. No question about it.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

winwintoo said:


> ... Great-grandpa is lying there near death and the grandkids are out in the hall arguing with the doctors that they want him to have that quadruple bypass - great-grandpa is 97 and can't take a piss without help and doesn't know if it's 2005 or 1923, but darn it, those kids are not going to let him die.
> 
> Meanwhile, young Fred - age 36 - needs knee surgery so he can get back to work, but he's been on a waiting list for 18 months and no surgery in sight. His cousin Laura, age 27 has a lump on her breast and needs an MRI, but there's a waiting list for them too. The family's favorite horse got an MRI right away though when it came down with quivers....


This is bull****. The opposite is true. The elderly are shortchanged every day.

We were one of those families that had to fight to keep someone alive.

My mother's oncologist tried to persuade us to let her obstructed bowel perforate, which would quickly kill her. We emphatically said no and insisted on being informed of her options. He left the room in a fury. 

The next day, her obstruction was relieved with a minor procedure (a g-tube). Also, her potassium level was corrected (which had made her incoherent and feeble). Two days later, she was able to get into a chair, see friends, and told us that it had been the best day of her life. 

Two weeks later, she came home with me and lived in my house for 4 months. She would have lived longer, but we needed to take her to the hospital to fix her G-tube. A lazy nurse refused to attend to something, which eventually made my mother throw up. She inhaled some vomit and died of pneumonia the next day. She probably had another couple of months left. That's a half year - not in a hospital - that her doctor tried to steal from her.

Younger people are treated better in hospitals than the elderly. They are not kept waiting because of elderly patients.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Precisely! Coverage should be shared by all of us. As a giant group of powerful consumers, we command serious attention from any and all insurance providers. Strength lies in numbers.
> 
> The government collects a health care premium from every Canadian and then looks for a good provider of services. (it's a huge plum)
> 
> ...


And if you believe a "for-profit" system will actually help then I'm not sure what you have been drinking - 
Farming out to the performance/profit usually means cheap labour that will cost us way more in the end.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And if you believe a "for-profit" system will actually help then I'm not sure what you have been drinking -
> Farming out to the performance/profit usually means cheap labour that will cost us way more in the end.


Paying less means lower costs by definition. Private service providers would have to meet certain minimum criteria in order to qualify to deliver the services.

Throwing more money at this problem isn't going to be the solution.

We need to be innovative. But, then again, copying what is working in other countries doesn't take much thought and is hardly innovative. As a minimum, we should be discussing this and trying new ideas. Why not take what is working in Europe and integrate it into our system? If it can save them money, why are we so afraid? If we are concerned, then let's give it a shot in select provinces of health jurisdictions. Let's go with what works.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Paying less means lower costs by definition. Private service providers would have to meet certain minimum criteria in order to qualify to deliver the services.


And so far systems motivated by profits only do not work - no matter what "criteria" you have contractors aspire to...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> This is bull****. The opposite is true. The elderly are shortchanged every day.


Uh, no. It was a different point of view and a contribution to the discussion, as was the rest of your post. 

We need a lot more of this in a much more public manner in this country. The desires of the population and observations of how other systems are run are not being brought together with the political rhetoric. 

There is a great deal of interest in a variety of practices used in other countries. The reports done in Canada have added a lot to our knowledge base -- enough to finally do something -- but the politicians just spin them to support an unchanging message of fear and falsehoods.

We have the information we need to do better for everyone, but the loudest and least informed are forcing the debate into a polarized and useless set of options that ignore Canada's extensive research on the topic.

Change will happen but, like the debt, probably when we have the least flexibility and time to do it smoothly.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And so far systems motivated by profits only do not work - no matter what "criteria" you have contractors aspire to...


Look around you. It's happening in your own back yard. Even under the socialist NDP in BC, a huge number of private clinics opened.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Look around you. It's happening in your own back yard. Even under the socialist NDP in BC, a huge number of private clinics opened.


Yes it's happening and it's NOT A GOOD THING. It's been a disaster in Montreal - we have a rich and a poor system where the rich system pillages from the poor causing more and more problems.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The rich can either get their care here from doctors that pay nice fat income taxes, or they can go to the U.S., which has thousands of Canadian educated doctors to serve the extra patients. This is not a zero sum system. We can be a supplier of choice for U.S. hospitals that treat, amongst many others, wealthy Canadians, or we could be a destination of choice for medical professionals to set up practice. 

If done thoughtfully we can reduce the burden on the public system and increase income tax revenue (to put more funding in the public system) by creating a new industry that uses very expensive and highly skilled labour.

It would not be easy, but neither is running a more expensive system than most other countries with universal-hybrids (not the U.S.) while not getting better results. We are getting less for more, but as long as they can point at the U.S., many seem perfectly happy to ignore every other system in the world. 

What is wrong with implementing basic features from other universal health care models?

[Edit: Note my new signature is not an insult, I've been intending to choose one for a while and am partial to www.despair.com. I also finally got an avatar...isn't it cute?]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes it's happening and it's NOT A GOOD THING. It's been a disaster in Montreal - we have a rich and a poor system where the rich system pillages from the poor causing more and more problems.


No...actually the so-called "rich system" diverts enough paying people that it severely shortens the waiting lists for the so-called "poor system".

And...if you have real politicians watching over it all...ones who have our best interests in mind...then they will set up standards that make BOTH systems just as responsive and just as well-equipped. For EVERYONE!

Europe has already done this. For about a decade or two. And it's working brilliantly. Have a look for yourself (you might want to ignore the old-timey Union rhetoric for a day or so while you do...it'll just get in the way of reality. It always does.)

BTW...you might also want to switch from the old Liberal politicans to something newer and more resp[onsive to your actual needs.

Ohh yeah...and one more bit of information here....the old Liberals...Paul Martin, Jean Chretien and ALL of their families...use ONLY private medical clinics for ALL of their needs. They choose to bypass the standard Canadian health care system. Always have. Always will. 

I suspect that most of the rest of the filthy rich Liberals...especially the ones who have been living off the avails of organised crime for so many years...use ONLY private no-wait medical clinics. In Quebec. Probably in Montreal.

BTW....Paul Martin's personal physician owns the biggest chain of private for-profit medical clinics in all of Canada. Paul Martin never gets any medical procedure done in ANY other facility, except one of these private clinics.

I doubt if he's ever even been in a public medical care facility. Except for a photo-op during an election campaign.

But Paul Martin is...somehow...in SOME people's minds....just the RIGHT GUY to "defend" public health care in Canada against the onslaught of private medical care.

While not using public health care himself...Ever.

Yeah. Right.
  :clap: :heybaby:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> No...actually the so-called "rich system" diverts enough paying people that it severely shortens the waiting lists for the so-called "poor system".


By using up public hospitals and resources to those who pay and by proxy make the waiting times so much longer for the "poor". At least that is what is happening in Quebec


MacNutt said:


> BTW...you might also want to switch from the old Liberal politicans to something newer and more resp[onsive to your actual needs.


I'll take the Liberals over the neo-kooks.
As I have already explained to you, I'm libertarian... not that you ever pay attention to what is written....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> By using up public hospitals and resources to those who pay and by proxy make the waiting times so much longer for the "poor". At least that is what is happening in Quebec
> 
> I'll take the Liberals over the neo-kooks.
> As I have already explained to you, I'm libertarian... not that you ever pay attention to what is written....


Okay...hang on here...

In Europe, most governments have discovered that private companies can provide vastly superior health care for a fraction of the cost of what the public version costs us...

And they are mostly using their OWN hospitals and clinics. Not the existing public ones. Which actually frees up the tired old public ones for the rest of us. It also severely shortens waiting lists. European government health care plans that are similar to ours often have a two or three day wait for surgery or treatment.

Because THEY'VE figured it out!

Canadian waiting lists, on the other hand...even for important and crucial procedures... often stretch into the YEARS.

Canadians often DIE while awaiting treatment by our wonderful universal health care system. Many of the more well-off Canadians actually go to the USA for timely treatment.

Instead of waiting.

Our own Liberal Prime Minister does this. As did Jean Chretien. And so do ALL of their families.

They use private facilities, or they travel south to take advantage of the superior American clinics.

But...they loudly proclaim to be the ONLY ONES who will "fight to preserve the Universal Canadian health care system".

While NOT actually using it themselves, BTW.


Tooo funny. :lmao:


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> In Europe, most governments have discovered that private companies can provide vastly superior health care for a fraction of the cost of what the public version costs us...


Stop the rhetoric and lies please... or show us unbiased studies that back up this claim.

PS. if the conservatives press this issue too far it will bite them on the ass as it will alienate a large segment of their aging support base who depend on the existing health system and would have nothing if health care was privatized.

P...PS. yeah privatization... that worked wonders for Ontario's energy industry.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

As I mentioned before, the change has to be done thoughtfully. Ontario's fake electricity privatization was not done thoughtfully but, compared to the mountainous public debt, wasted electricity, and subsidies for heavy consumption, it's clear that public decision-making was far worse.

So, again, why shouldn't Canada implement some of the best features from other universal health care systems around the world? 

Right now we pay more and get less than many countries out there, perhaps we should start by thoughtfully copying what works best in those countries. 

Or we could just keep letting people characterise our choices as universial government health care versus credit card medicine.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> By using up public hospitals and resources to those who pay and by proxy make the waiting times so much longer for the "poor". At least that is what is happening in Quebec.


...and in the UK. The public waiting times are so long, its like not having public health care at all.

Improving health care is a tough problem that doesn't get fixed by the standard, cure-all of the right wing - business will fix it because business is efficient and so fabulously clever. That remedy has never fixed anything. Some things need to be public because the profit motive is antagonistic to the public interest.

(Speaking about how business is our friend, if you live in 905 and need to use the 407, if you don't like paying the highest highway tolls in North America, and if you don't like the way they ignore your calls when they overcharge you..... Well, my heart bleeds for you, it really does, but you DID elect the guy who sold your highway to a conglomerate, didn't you?)


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> Right now we pay more and get less than many countries out there, perhaps we should start by thoughtfully copying what works best in those countries...


What "many countries" are these? Until you back up this bald statement, I'll list a few of the places you may have in mind, to get the ball rolling:
- Lilliput;
- Fairyland;
- Middle Earth;
- The Land of Nod;
- Hogwarts


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

We need to have a public debate on just what level of care we're willing to pay for.

See my previous post.

We shouldn't leave the decision about how much expensive care we expect up to our grieving relatives at our hospital bedside. We need to start being responsible and making that decision for ourselves. Decide ahead of time when to pull the plug.

What's breaking our current system has little to do with how it's funded or delivered, it has everything to do with how much of it is wasted.

The Pareto principle applies - 80% of the funding goes to pay for services where there is little chance of ultimate success, leaving just 20% left for the rest of the population.

My kids and grandkids, brothers and sisters shouldn't be placed in a position of having to huddle in the hallway with some overworked doctor trying to convince him to take heroic and costly measures to prolong my life. It's up to me to decide ahead of time at what point they should back away, kiss me goodbye and start planning the wake.

I've made my plans. It will be long before it starts costing $1k+ a day to keep me alive.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

winwintoo said:


> My kids and grandkids, brothers and sisters shouldn't be placed in a position of having to huddle in the hallway with some overworked doctor trying to convince him to take heroic and costly measures to prolong my life...


That's the least of your worries.

You should pray that they are there to deal with a doctor who feels you don't even rate not-so-heroic-or-costly measures, because you are just an old lady who isn't worth the effort.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Margaret, I am strongly in favor of a Living Will that will have the force of law behind it, thus allowing for the proverbial "plug to be pulled" rather than keep me on life support when there is no real life, as I now experience it, to support. 

I also persoanlly believe in self-selected euthenasia for myself, but that is a topic for another thread.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> What "many countries" are these? Until you back up this bald statement, I'll list a few of the places you may have in mind, to get the ball rolling:
> - Lilliput;
> - Fairyland;
> - Middle Earth;
> ...


:baby: 

Canada having one of the more expensive health care systems in the world is well documented (as is the U.S. having the most expensive). The link is just one example, but it's pretty basic and objective data: we spend more than a lot of other countries. 
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/review/03fall/03fallpg1.pdf

Note: a 0.5% Expense/GDP gap is about $6 billion dollars, so it's not chump change.

Next is performance. This gets a lot more subjective but we have longer waiting lists than some cheaper systems (France is a good example) and worse health outcomes. I'm not going to get into a study war. This is highly complex (example: how much is due to our eating habits? Younger population?) and requires thoughtful discussion, not 'us and them' polarization. 

There are more than two health care models out there and if people just want to maintain their fake outlook then the politicians will continue to take advantage of that. Why don't you prove that our system delivers better value for money than than other universal-hybrids? How about just better performance than the other universal-hybrids, regardless of our costs? 

This is not about picking one measure or one ideology. There is a lot we can learn from other systems, but some people just don't want to learn.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Can anyone explain why having public _and_ private healthcare is a bad thing? There are some privatized services being offered in certain parts of Canada anyway.

It took us almost 5 years to get a family doctor after we moved to Quebec (we had to settle for one in Ottawa, but we end up paying the difference because there is _no_ universal healthcare... Quebec only pays us what _they_ think it should cost for a doctor visit) -- however she doesn't see children under 2 years of age; it has taken us over a year to find a pediatrician for Xander... and we've been looking before he was born!

We have long wait times; doctors are overworked and are either restricting how many patients they are willing to accept (or cutting back in some instances); doctors are leaving en masse for the States; immigrant doctors have difficulties getting their credentials acknowledged... the list goes on.

Why would anyone believe the current system is actually working? Why can't there be room for both public and private health care?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

For people interested in reading about other health care systems, the following may be of interest:
http://www.health.gov.ab.ca/resources/publications/pdf/Conference_Board2.pdf


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Manny the problem that is NOT faced by other mixed systems is NAFTA.

•••

Now for the latest bomb - Given how "well thought out" the prosecutor balloon is one wonders just how much thought has gone into reducing the GST cashflow by close to 30%  



> THE ELECTION
> Harper proposes corruption prosecutor
> Plan for permanent independent watchdog causes confusion in Conservative ranks
> By GLORIA GALLOWAY
> ...


 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051201/ELXNTORIES01/TPNational 



> Tories appear confused on plan


.....understatement.

Now he wants to just casually come up with this nice round number for the election to alter the GST flow..........

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051201.wharper1201/BNStory/specialDecision2006/

"bread and circuses" for the mob...Harpers got a lock on the circus part. Martin on the bread crumbs.......a pox on em all.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

What happened to the day when Canada had one of the top two positions for national healthcare in the world? How did the system change? I know it started to erode before the G.S.T. was introduced, but unfortunately I've only been able to vote since the Liberals came into power. All I know is there have been many changes made since then that seem to only cause problems in the system.

Why did it change? Aren't there just some things that actually work that shouldn't be changed?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Singingcrow, might it have been when the Federal began to download much of the health care system onto the provinces, at a time when most provinces could not sustain this system? I have no specific answer to your question, and I have not personally had problems with the heath care system in my 28+ years here in Canada, certainly not like the problems I had in the US. However, I feel that I have been lucky, and others have gotten caught in this system that is not able to keep up with the health care demands.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and didn't one Paul Martin cut those x-fer payments in order to pay down the deficit?

so Bay St. is happy, but Main St. is not


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

There is another, secondary industry that relies on the healthcare industry that never gets talked about because it's all done on the q.t. and hard to account for.

Maybe it's not the same in every province, but Dr. G reminded me of it.

Here in Saskatchewan, most of the major healthcare delivery is done in the two largest cities - Regina and Saskatoon. Sooooooo, if you live anywhere else and require the services of a specialist, you have to travel to one of those major cities and the following spinoffs result:

buy gas
service your car
if you can't drive, hire someone to drive you
eat on the road
while you're in the city, you might was well shop or take in a movie
probably stay overnight in a hotel because they always schedule your appointment at 8 A.M. (for your convenience)
often these trips are made by ambulance - another rural growth industry

The cost of all the above is borne by the individual - except ambulance which is a gray area, some of it picked up by the health region and some by the individual, depending on who makes the call for service. Those of us in the two major cities are spared the added expense of travelling for medical service, so in a way we have a two-tier system here already.

Another cost that nobody considers is the unpaid care-givers - but I'll leave that rant for another day.

Margaret


----------



## pimephalis (Nov 29, 2004)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Can anyone explain why having public _and_ private healthcare is a bad thing? There are some privatized services being offered in certain parts of Canada anyway.
> 
> ...
> 
> Why would anyone believe the current system is actually working? Why can't there be room for both public and private health care?


One of the enduring myths here in Canada is that we have a public health care system. We do not. We have a publicly-funded health care system, where the bulk of services are provided by private corporations/bodies/individuals.

Doctors, given the way they are compensated for the most part, are essentially fee-for-service consultants.

Nurses belong to a variety of bargaining units, and in many cases work in for-profit corporations.

Nursing home services are provided by a mix of for-profit, not-for-profit and charitable corporate entities, some of which are multinational conglomerates.

Laboratories and pharmacies are operated on a for profit basis.

When we talk about the private/public debate in health care, we need to be very careful to define our terms. What the debate is really about is whether we let private funding cover some portion of health care services, not whether private business can deliver care.

And one other caveat -- one of the private/public success stories that conservatives like to tout is the UK, and its transformation in recent years. One must keep in mind that recent success in the UK have less to do with the financing structures, and more to do with the massive infusion of public dollars to support the NHS. In fact, they increased the funding to that system so greatly that it changed the EU's average, per capita financing of health services quite substantially.

One other final point: a factor leading to increased health care costs in Canada comes from our huge geography and highly distributed population. Most European nations which have better control of their health care costs are densely populated, making it easier to gain efficiencies by almagamating services. We could actually reduce the number of hospitals in this country substantially were the population less distributed than it currently is.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Regarding a private and public healthcare mix, if you consider the US system which is basically a mixed system, the per capita cost is the highest in THE WORLD. 
The US system is also ranked poorly in indicators like infant mortality.

Source: http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Also from the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050829fa_fact

So really, if we think we are paying through the nose with our current system, what makes anyone think a mixed system is cheaper or better?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ErnstNL said:


> So really, if we think we are paying through the nose with our current system, what makes anyone think a mixed system is cheaper or better?


Lots and lots of empty rhetoric is what helps that belief..... and maybe a dose of lunacy....


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Just wondering:
Does anyone here go to the US for Healthcare?
I've heard of some wealthy St. John's citizens that fly to the US for dental work and visit clinics for physicals etc. They can afford it, of course.

Anyone here cross the border for their healthcare needs?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ErnstNL said:


> So really, if we think we are paying through the nose with our current system, what makes anyone think a mixed system is cheaper or better?


Read the previous posts -- there are more than two health care systems in the world. Every wealthy nation has a mixed health care system, but only 2 or 3 are more expensive than Canada's. Read up a lot more on this.

A basic question not being addressed is:
1) What is wrong with implementing the best features of other universal hybrid systems. To be more clear than I should need to be: LOOK AT OTHER SYSTEMS ASIDE FROM THE U.S.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> A basic question not being addressed is:
> 1) What is wrong with implementing the best features of other universal hybrid systems.


Because what is being implemented in Canada is not a hybrid solution. It's one where the rich system eats up the poor resources for it's benefit. 
The ones asking for more private solutions are only self-serving and clearly not in the Canadian spirit.

As for other systems aside from the US many have posting the "cons" but I have not seem any "pros".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej why do you avoid the NAFTA implications?

Canada is NOT sovereign entirely in this due to NAFTA and I would not be surprised if the not withstanding clause might finally get invoked if push comes to shove over it.

I suspect as with child care Quebec may have some intermediate solutions. I don;t think we quite have a mixed system as much as a core/primary and discretionary/non-core dual system.

I think private has a role to play but not as delivering healthcare but as financing infrastructure and things like providing lease funding on MRIs and other capital intensive aspects. I have no problem with services provided privately as they are now ie X-ray etc but it is done through the Healthcare system.

I don't mind a lease financed fire truck - I DO mind a private company fireman.

Different roles for the institutions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Holding a vote on same-sex marriage is more than insulting. It isn't just that the law has changed; the law changed because the Supreme Court of Canada *required* that it change. This issue is over and passing some new law is a huge statement that you don't care what the courts have already ruled on.


Maybe, then again maybe not:

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Thursday, December 01, 2005
Let's get one thing crystal clear: Stephen Harper was not wrong to reveal his stance on reopening the same-sex marriage debate.
On the contrary, he did what most voters say they want, and what most politicians pretend should be the norm when they accuse each other of hidden agendas: He refused to keep quiet, on grounds of political expediency, about something controversial he would do if he won power.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=ee9f494c-a1bd-4804-b043-96ba1b5c2ed9


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Sinc,

Yeah its hard for the Libs to play the hidden agenda card when you lay the agenda at the voters feet. Especially your most controversial policy right from the get go. Smart move I think and probably a popular one with the 52% of Canadians that don't agree with the change in the definition.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, and it is not insulting in any way. He is well within his right to do just that. Hold a free vote to attempt to change the legal definition.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Yep, and it is not insulting in any way. He is well within his right to do just that. Hold a free vote to attempt to change the legal definition.


I agree, actually, EXCEPT that he is not being honest about what it would entail. My anecdotal experience is that when people know it will require the notwithstanding clause, which means re-voting every 5(?) years, a significant number are less willing to support the reversion of policy. If he really wants to try and take the agenda high road, why not be completely open about it?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Supremes refuse to rule that the "traditional definition of marriage" was discriminatory against gays? But they did rule it was discriminatory to deny gays the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals? ie. Pension, spousal benefits etc.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Supremes refuse to rule that the "traditional definition of marriage" was discriminatory against gays? But they did rule it was discriminatory to deny gays the same rights enjoyed by heterosexuals? ie. Pension, spousal benefits etc.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I haven't read the supreme's ruling, only the Ontario one. However, since it was never challenged in time, it has the same status. And it explicitly states that an equal but different option won't fly.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Sinc,
> 
> Yeah its hard for the Libs to play the hidden agenda card when you lay the agenda at the voters feet. Especially your most controversial policy right from the get go. Smart move I think and probably a popular one with the 52% of Canadians that don't agree with the change in the definition.
> 
> ...



Smart move, but stupid policy.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Because what is being implemented in Canada is not a hybrid solution. It's one where the rich system eats up the poor resources for it's benefit.
> The ones asking for more private solutions are only self-serving and clearly not in the Canadian spirit.
> 
> As for other systems aside from the US many have posting the "cons" but I have not seem any "pros".


Pros: Evidence of being cheaper, and when you look at some examples also evidence of being better. Cheaper and better, in some cases, but it requires THOUGHT, not just blindly dismissing everything, labelling others as self-serving and not in the Canadian spirit or just a wholesale grafting of another system onto ours. 

But hey, I can't make others think about this if they don't want to.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

I for one would like to see a smarter delivery of health care. 

I do not see how the commodification (not a real word I know but I hope you will understand the gist of my thoughts) of health care delivery is going to help. I also fail to understand how giving full access to our health care budgets (dollars) to private interests is the simple answer to our woes.

I understand studies have shown politicians of all stripe over invest in bricks and mortar in the health care system and in New Brunswick we still have too many hospital beds for our population. Premiere Lord (help us!) is investing more dollars into expansions onto the Moncton City Hospital. 

I would happily see a Nurse Practitioner instead of a GP for routine visits to monitor my health. 

I have never understood why I can take my dog to the Vet for stitches or for X-rays in a commercial type building but if I sprain/strain or cut myself I have to go to the emergency ward of a hospital. Why can't we have an after hours clinic equipped with X-ray machines and have the ability to deal with these types of maladies as well as children's earaches and similar minor aliments? 

I fail to understand how a failure to reopen a mill in the western lands has any bering on the non-confidence of the federal Liberal government. I could show a link to the successful reopening of a mill in Nackawick NB with a Union involved and how the employer sought greater concessions from the Provincial government and got them at the expense of retirees. What would that prove in relation to the down fall of the Martin Liberals?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej why do you avoid the NAFTA implications?
> 
> Canada is NOT sovereign entirely in this due to NAFTA and I would not be surprised if the not withstanding clause might finally get invoked if push comes to shove over it.


NAFTA implications are often overstated, but I don't know in this case. Considering we already have private clinics in the country, I suspect the NAFTA implications are minimal. It depends on the design of the system and the details of NAFTA. 

I'm most interested, right now, in getting people beyond the standard bs that dominates Canada's health care debate (you seem to have done that and you have my thanks) so that one day (in my happy place) there would be honest debate about a new approach to healthcare and its implications (NAFTA and others).

This isn't about somebody revealing a perfect system. It's about improving what we have based on the experiences of other countries.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

SINC said:


> Maybe, then again maybe not:
> 
> The Edmonton Journal
> Published: Thursday, December 01, 2005
> ...


So what? It isn't a legitimate agenda because what Harper wants is unconstitutional. Get over it!

He knows that, short of overriding the Charter with the notwithstanding clause, he can't change the substance of this law. So, why make it an election issue? To appeal to ignorance and bigotry. 

It's good to know who he views as his constituency.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - re Nafta - I think the real headache in the scheme is with drug companies - just look at the mess in the US.
If we lose control of the core services it hampers the ability of the gov to be "arbitrary" aka sovereign in this regard.

I always fall back on the Fire service of an example for the medical service as it's easier to understand why the core should not be privatized nor "better service" available for a price.

IN my mind core water supply, fire service, police service and medical service including first responder should not be open to competition from private "for pay".

By all means security guards, good fire prevention, alarm systems etc should all be open to innovation and competition but security guards are NOT police and the institutions are very different.

I think the US is running into this problem big time - the blurring of military and security with "for hire".


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> I haven't read the supreme's ruling, only the Ontario one. However, since it was never challenged in time, it has the same status. And it explicitly states that an equal but different option won't fly.


This is the pith of the Ontario decision in terms of equality. The SCC reference was silent on this point, because they were assessing the proposed legislation, but other decisions of the SCC (like _Egan_) are consistent with this ruling.


> [106] ...the AGC’s submission takes too narrow a view of the s. 15(1) equality guarantee. As the passage cited from Egan indicates, s. 15(1) guarantees more than equal access to economic benefits. One must also consider whether persons and groups have been excluded from fundamental societal institutions. A similar view was expressed by Cory J. in M. v. H. at 53:
> The respondent H. has argued that the differential treatment imposed by s. 29 of the [Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3] does not deny the respondent M. the equal benefit of the law since same-sex spouses are not being denied an economic benefit, but simply the opportunity to gain access to a court-enforced process. Such an analysis takes too narrow a view of "benefit" under the law. It is a view this Court should not adopt. The type of benefit salient to the s. 15(1) analysis cannot encompass only the conferral of an economic benefit. It must also include access to a process that could confer an economic or other benefit. . . .​
> [107] In this case, same-sex couples are excluded from a fundamental societal institution – marriage. The societal significance of marriage, and the corresponding benefits that are available only to married persons, cannot be overlooked. Indeed, all parties are in agreement that marriage is an important and fundamental institution in Canadian society. It is for that reason that the claimants wish to have access to the institution. Exclusion perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite-sex relationships. In doing so, it offends the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships.
> (v)  Conclusion
> [108] Based on the foregoing analysis, it is our view that the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships is violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the institution of marriage...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Same-sex debate, part 2*



> Knights entitled to deny lesbians, tribunal says.
> 
> By ROBERT MATAS
> Wednesday, November 30, 2005 Posted at 6:46 AM EST
> ...


Now those who want to discriminate against same-sex couples are using religious freedom as an excuse and seem to have partially gotten away with it in this sure-to-be-overturned ruling.

I guess if the Knights of Columbus owned a for-profit restaurant business, rather than a for-profit hall rental business they would be allowed to tell gay and lesbian customers to take a hike too. As far as I'm concerned the Catholic group's religious freedom ends at the door of their church, not when they offer for-profit services to the general public.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Now those who want to discriminate against same-sex couples are using religious freedom as an excuse and seem to have partially gotten away with it in this sure-to-be-overturned ruling.
> 
> I guess if the Knights of Columbus owned a for-profit restaurant business, rather than a for-profit hall rental business they would be allowed to tell gay and lesbian customers to take a hike too. As far as I'm concerned the Catholic group's religious freedom ends at the door of their church, not when they offer for-profit services to the general public.


The Supremes, and the Ontario ruling, have both said exceedingly clearly, that a church body may decide however it sees fit *so long as that decision is within the bounds of the parent denomination.* For some churches, like mine, this leads to many headaches, but for the Roman Catholics, it is a no brainer. Having said that, I don't know enough about the Knights to know whether they really are a religious organisation, or whether they have fallen over the line into community service group.
The FAR more significant part of this decision, from the Church's point of view, is the clear recognition that just because there is a legal right to refuse same sex couples, there is no legal right to be nasty about it.
Anyways, I won't bore you all with the longer church argument, this being a largely secular forum, but there it is. As to your last sentence, the law says that the religious rights extend to all property owned by the church, not just the actual place of worship, unless that place is run for profit. I do not know for a fact that the Knight's halls actually are. Certainly, if the one here is, it is run very badly  But the law would agree with you in essence - if you are doing it to make money, you have to follow the same rules as everyone else.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Now those who want to discriminate against same-sex couples are using religious freedom as an excuse and seem to have partially gotten away with it in this sure-to-be-overturned ruling.
> 
> I guess if the Knights of Columbus owned a for-profit restaurant business, rather than a for-profit hall rental business they would be allowed to tell gay and lesbian customers to take a hike too. As far as I'm concerned the Catholic group's religious freedom ends at the door of their church, not when they offer for-profit services to the general public.


I don't agree with you. A business has the right to chose who they want to do business with, for whatever reason. 

Poor taste and bad judgement shouldn't be legislated.

There are plenty of places for the lesbians to get married at. It's not taking away their rights.

I think we need a better working definition of discrimination in this country. The government is discriminatory in their hiring policies. Why isn't this illegal?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree with you. A business has the right to chose who they want to do business with, for whatever reason.


UUmmm you want to rethink that statement?

So what happens when MacDonald's start refuse black people service?

Ever been to the southern US? ask them what they think about your statement?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I think we need a better working definition of discrimination in this country. The government is discriminatory in their hiring policies. Why isn't this illegal?


Affirmative action is not discriminatory... if it were it would have been struck down by the courts long ago.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Affirmative action is discrimination. The question of its legality is whether it's acceptable and if anyone took it to the Supreme Court. There is much discrimination that is deemed acceptable for purposes that are, depending on who you talk to, agreed upon or not agreed upon.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree with you. A business has the right to chose who they want to do business with, for whatever reason.


The law doesn't agree with you. Not in Ontario, at least. The Human Rights Code says:


> Every person having legal capacity has a right to contract on equal terms without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.


I would think that most people would agree with this principle.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Nxnw, I certainly agree with you. I vividly recall the few times I have confronted discrimination on a personal level. I was denied being able to rent a couple of apartments in upstate New York because of my being Jewish, and I was denied being allowed to accompany someone as their guest to a country club in Georgia because of my religion.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Affirmative action is not discriminatory... if it were it would have been struck down by the courts long ago.


By definition, an affirmative action program discriminates in favour of specified people (and therefore, against everyone else). Discrimination "based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability" is a breach of equality rights... but not if the discrimination is for an affirmative action program. 

No need to ask any court to rule on it either. It's right in the Charter, in the equality rights section.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Nxnw, I certainly agree with you. I vividly recall the few times I have confronted discrimination on a personal level. I was denied being able to rent a couple of apartments in upstate New York because of my being Jewish, and I was denied being allowed to accompany someone as their guest to a country club in Georgia because of my religion.


People like to think this kind of stuff never happens any more.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

nxnw, to be fair, this happened in 1968 (re the apartments) and 1975 (re the country club). St. John's has such a small Jewish population that there has not been much overt discrimination towards Jewish people.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> UUmmm you want to rethink that statement?
> 
> So what happens when MacDonald's start refuse black people service?
> 
> Ever been to the southern US? ask them what they think about your statement?


Ya, good point. I don't know what I was thinking.

In the case of the lesbians, it doesn't seem that discriminatory to me. There are plenty of places people get married and maybe that type of thing would offend the Knights. But, then again, I guess somebody could use that argument about any segment of society.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree with you. A business has the right to chose who they want to do business with, for whatever reason.


As some have already pointed out, this would be discrimination, Dave. How about I put a sign in my business saying that because of my religious beliefs I refuse to do business with those who are not white? This would be discrimination, not just personal choice. 

If I advertise and proclaim to the world that I am offering services to the general public I cannot say only the white general public or the straight general public. This is no different than the odious segregation laws from the pre-60s US South. I'm sure you would not want to live in such a place, Dave.

As far as the Knights of Columbus right to discriminate based on the shallow argument that it is against their Catholic beliefs, it seems to me that, whether or not their group is non-profit (it likely is), they are engaging in a business activity to raise money for that group (renting the hall to the general public). Either keep the hall for the use of their members exclusively or don't offer it for rent to the general public. I think for them to put a "We don't rent to gay people" line in their advertising would be as bad as them putting a "We don't rent to non-whites" line there.

It's the same issue as racial discrimination and it shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Ya, good point. I don't know what I was thinking.
> 
> In the case of the lesbians, it doesn't seem that discriminatory to me. There are plenty of places people get married and maybe that type of thing would offend the Knights. But, then again, I guess somebody could use that argument about any segment of society.


I was typing my last response when you were posting this, Dave. I'm glad you backed off that point.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

So if we want to talk about discrimination - I've been the subject of discrimination and also benefited from it, so I'll leave the right or wrong to someone else.

But it's generally accepted that you can't put a sign in your window saying that green-polka-dot-skinned people aren't welcome in your restaurant or confectionary. But I read an article the other day that someone has discovered a high-pitched, annoying, sound that only young people can hear so business are hyped to start playing recordings of that sound to discourage young people from gathering - isn't that sort of like putting out a sign?

Someone in their infinite wisdom designed a big mall downtown here and I guess they had lots of left over concrete or something, but they ended up with miles of tunnels. The tunnels end up being shortcuts for office people but serve no other real purpose, but they attracted - you guessed it - skateboarders. It gets pretty cold outside, but those guys could skate all winter in the tunnels. Well, the mall didn't like that, so they pumped noxious fumes into the tunnels to keep the skateboarders out. Made it pretty bad for anyone wanting to take a shortcut too. Another kind of discrimination?

Maybe my examples are frivilous or extreme, but where do we draw the line?

margaret


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I can't see the noxious fumes being discriminatory, unless they were only noxious to certain races, ages, sexes, etc. I can see it being kind of shaky for other reasons, but not equality or human rights. Likewise, although the Landlord can't keep someone out just because he's 17, for instance, he can keep someone out for engaging in activities he doesn't like, such as loitering.

I can see the high pitched sound being questioned, however.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Now those who want to discriminate against same-sex couples are using religious freedom as an excuse and seem to have partially gotten away with it in this sure-to-be-overturned ruling.


Its not an excuse, religious freedom is guaranteed by the Charter. Freedom of conscience, religion, belief, opinion and expression and all that good stuff.

I can see where in good "conscience" a Catholic "religious" mens organization could have problems renting a hall out to celebrate a union condemned in scripture and the very church they espouse to serve.

The Knights, faithful to church teaching against homosexual marriage, cancelled the rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple’s deposit and paid for the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations. That still didn’t satisfy the two lesbians who went to the Human Rights Commission.

I suspect these ladies had this in mind from the get go. What gay person on the planet isn't aware that the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I guess if the Knights of Columbus owned a for-profit restaurant business, rather than a for-profit hall rental business they would be allowed to tell gay and lesbian customers to take a hike too. As far as I'm concerned the Catholic group's religious freedom ends at the door of their church, not when they offer for-profit services to the general public.


The Knights of Columbus are not Denny's Inc. as you allude to unless everyone working at Denny's is of a particular religion, volunteering their time and sending every cent they earn to charities. They're a non-profit organization, not a business. What your saying is like demanding the Sierra Club run adds for Exon oil tankers in their magazine.

Unless you want to pull out the liquid paper to the charter, you'll have to practice some of that tolerance I keep hearing about from people that hate religion and people of faith.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I was typing my last response when you were posting this, Dave. I'm glad you backed off that point.


I guess what I was trying to say is that discrimination isn't clear cut.

Many companies and businesses stereotype and focus on certain market segments (based on age, gender, race, sexual orientation). They advertise exclusively to these certain groups. Some people might consider this discriminatory, while others just think it is good business.

Another example is the recent case of a man trying to join a woman's only gym. They refused him based on his sex. Is this discrimination? To me, I think the business should be free to select the type of customers they want. The guy isn't going to be put out by driving a couple extra blocks to another gym.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I suspect these ladies had this in mind from the get go. What gay person on the planet isn't aware that the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage.


I believe they didn't know that the Knights of Columbus are a Catholic group. I didn't know that either until this story came out. I had heard the name but didn't know who they were. I also believe that the group didn't pay expenses until they were ordered to.


MacGuiver said:


> The Knights of Columbus are not Denny's Inc. as you allude to unless everyone working at Denny's is of a particular religion, volunteering their time and sending every cent they earn to charities. They're a non-profit organization, not a business. What your saying is like demanding the Sierra Club run adds for Exon oil tankers in their magazine.
> 
> Unless you want to pull out the liquid paper to the charter, you'll have to practice some of that tolerance I keep hearing about from people that hate religion and people of faith.
> 
> ...


I agree with freedom of religion and I am a very tolerant person. Just don't tell me that when a gay friend of mine is looking up "halls for rent" in the Yellow Pages he or she will have to witness "We don't do business with gays or lesbians" in the ad and feel like a second class citizen. It is exactly the same thing as a group saying "We don't do business with non-whites" and is as clear a case of discrimination. 

The Knights of Columbus are free to indulge in their homophobic interpretation of the Bible inside their church or at their religious clubhouse. But once a group offers their clubhouse for rent to the general public they don't get to choose to only do business with straight members of the general public. It's exactly the same as if a group chose to only rent their hall out to white people if that happened to be their interpretation of their God's word.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The Knights of Columbus are free to indulge in their homophobic interpretation of the Bible inside their church or at their religious clubhouse. But once a group offers their clubhouse for rent to the general public they don't get to choose to only do business with straight members of the general public.


Somehow I don't think the Charter shares your ideal of "freedom in a box". Thats not real freedom is it? 
You can rent a hall from Jewish groups too. Should they be forced to host pig roasts, skin head music concerts, passion plays at Easter? I think not. Its common sense and basic respect. I see nothing wrong with eating pork but I think you'd consider me an asshole to insist a Jewish facility host my pig roast.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's exactly the same as if a group chose to only rent their hall out to white people if that happened to be their interpretation of their God's word.


I would say its more equivalent to a group of occultists wanting to rent the hall to host lectures on the joys of Satanism. For Catholics, its simply a moral issue. A morality that goes against the teachings of the church. The motivation isn't hate as you like to paint it. A BIG DIFFERENCE from the discrimination faced by blacks. Would you say a parent "hates" his child if he doesn't allow him to do drugs in there house? No, the motivation for discrimination can actually be love or concern.

In fact had these women came looking for a hall to rent to raise money for the community women's shelter there wouldn't have been an issue with their lifestyle. The church simply believes marriage is between a man and a woman. To host gay weddings would be somewhat hypocritical and contrary to their religious beliefs, which are protected under the charter.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

> I see nothing wrong with eating pork but I think you'd consider me an asshole to insist a Jewish facility host my pig roast.


This is not a great analogy. The pork roast would render the synagogue's kitchen, dishes, etc. unkosher, and interfere with the synagogues use by its constituency. 

I have not read the BC tribunal decision, so I don't know the ins and outs of the decision, but you have to be careful not to oversimplify what these rights are about and what they mean. First of all, equality rights, etc, are subject to reasonable limits, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Secondly, just because someone does something that is inconsistent with your religious beliefs does not mean that your freedom of religion is infringed.

Forcing the Catholic church to marry gays would infringe on freedom of religion, because it would oblige Catholics to perform a religious ceremony contrary to their religious beliefs. Likewise, your pork fest would ruin the synagogue.

Secondly, the Charter is not at issue anyway. The issue is human rights legislation which, in Ontario, for instance, says you can't discriminate in your contractual dealings with people on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation. 

The Human Rights Code does not say you can't refuse to host a racist concert (or any concert) in your synagogue, KofC hall, church basement, theatre or whatever venue you might have - as long as you are not discriminating on the basis of "race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Thankfully, business can discriminate based on manners, intelligence and attractiveness.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Secondly, the Charter is not at issue anyway. The issue is human rights legislation which, in Ontario, for instance, says you can't discriminate in your contractual dealings with people on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation.
> 
> The Human Rights Code does not say you can't refuse to host a racist concert (or any concert) in your synagogue, KofC hall, church basement, theatre or whatever venue you might have - as long as you are not discriminating on the basis of "race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability"


If this is true of the human rights legislation in BC, then the tribunal erred in their ruling. I believe they cited the Charter in their ruling and mentioned religious freedom. The Knights of Columbus used that argument in their defense. I have read that the lesbian couple and their lawyer may appeal it. I doubt if we've heard the end of this.


MacGuiver said:


> I would say its more equivalent to a group of occultists wanting to rent the hall to host lectures on the joys of Satanism. For Catholics, its simply a moral issue. A morality that goes against the teachings of the church. The motivation isn't hate as you like to paint it. A BIG DIFFERENCE from the discrimination faced by blacks. Would you say a parent "hates" his child if he doesn't allow him to do drugs in there house? No, the motivation for discrimination can actually be love or concern.
> 
> In fact had these women came looking for a hall to rent to raise money for the community women's shelter there wouldn't have been an issue with their lifestyle. The church simply believes marriage is between a man and a woman. To host gay weddings would be somewhat hypocritical and contrary to their religious beliefs, which are protected under the charter.
> 
> ...


The motivation for the discrimination is irrelevant, MacGuiver. Frankly, while I believe some in the Christian world may be motivated by genuine, although IMO, misplaced, concern for the immortal souls of gay folks, what I've seen leads me to believe it's usually more about fear and hatred. But again, why they discriminated is irrelevant.

There was a sign on the hall, that said "Hall for rent". Weeks after the couple had rented the hall and printed and mailed wedding reception invites, they were contacted by the K of C and told that the hall was not for rent to them, because they were choosing to celebrate a gay marriage there.

If the K of C wants to preserve the "sanctity" of their hall from homosexual marriages then the answer is simple. Don't rent it to the public. To put out a sign saying "Hall for rent" implies for rent _to anybody_, regardless of colour, race, affiliation, age or sexual orientation. If they had put on the sign "Hall for rent, to straight people only - Cheers", that would be discrimination. This is what the tribunal's ruling essentially allows.

Since we are indulging in hypothetical situations here, what if the K of C owned hotel rooms to rent, not just a hall? Would they then be free to say, "no gays allowed"? Would they also be allowed to say "no sex in our rooms, unless it is done between straight married couples for the purposes of procreation"?

So let's say a straight couple rents the hall for their wedding reception and invites several of their gay married friends to attend. What if these people speak at the reception in celebration of their gay marriages and decide to hold hands, dance or God forbid, kiss? Could the K of C refuse this rental, too?

Man, these people are living in the past. As I have said before on this issue, we will look back on this time in the future and be amazed that our society was so intolerant, just as all but the most hard core racists regret some of our society's laws only a few decades ago in regards to non-white races.

But eventually the majority of society always drags the racists and homophobes kicking and screaming into acceptance of societal norms. Even the Catholic church and other religions will have to change to keep up, as they have in the past, or be abandoned as irrelevant.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As I have said before on this issue, we will look back on this time in the future and be amazed that our society was so intolerant...


This, I agree with. 

But consideration must be given to others, as per All in the Family. People raised a certain way, who follow all the rules responsibilities taught to them are suddenly told they are wrong and not wanted. Some empathy is needed, but in the end: things change, welcome to life. It's a tough balance between empathy for the people raised in a very different world and trying to build the future.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> This, I agree with.
> 
> But consideration must be given to others, as per All in the Family. People raised a certain way, who follow all the rules responsibilities taught to them are suddenly told they are wrong and not wanted. Some empathy is needed, but in the end: things change, welcome to life. It's a tough balance between empathy for the people raised in a very different world and trying to build the future.


The consideration given depends on the person. Someone's 90 year old Granny railing on about "those gays" won't bother too many people. Most would just let her rant and forget about it. But you can tell the character of person by how they recognize that what they have been taught or was acceptable when they were young was wrong. You can see this today in South Africa and also in the US South, where many freely admit that they were given the wrong instructions to live by and seek to change for the better. At least those who refuse to change are now not listened to seriously any more by society at large.

I'm not even 50 and I can already see that in myself. When I was a teenager I had never really known a gay person or seen the humanity beyond the stupid societal stereotypes. I indulged in tasteless anti-gay "humour" along with my peers. Now I have many gay and lesbian friends and know that what was taught to me and what I so easily accepted was absolutely wrong.

It's one thing to say that I understand why Archie Bunker is the way he is. It's another thing to say that Archie's hate is OK, because he's old, when it's not OK in the least.

All societies have their versions of racist, sexist and homophobic stereotypes that they propagate. I have little patience now with those who don't want to get beyond them. It's not a good enough excuse to say "That's what I was taught when I was young". Human beings need to use their brains and their hearts.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If this is true of the human rights legislation in BC, then the tribunal erred in their ruling. I believe they cited the Charter in their ruling and mentioned religious freedom. The Knights of Columbus used that argument in their defense. I have read that the lesbian couple and their lawyer may appeal it. I doubt if we've heard the end of this.
> 
> The motivation for the discrimination is irrelevant, MacGuiver. Frankly, while I believe some in the Christian world may be motivated by genuine, although IMO, misplaced, concern for the immortal souls of gay folks, what I've seen leads me to believe it's usually more about fear and hatred. But again, why they discriminated is irrelevant.
> 
> ...


So your basically saying, you respect freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, so long as you agree with it.
Got it. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------

