# We are no longer the "Goverment of Canada"



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

From Harpo bizzaro land...


> As per the Minister's Office, effective immediately, and *until further notice, the words 'Canada's New Government' are to be used instead of 'the Government of Canada'* in all departmental correspondence," said the memo from the manager of the executive documents and appointments unit in the department's strategic policy branch.
> 
> "Please note that the initial letters of all 3 words are capitalized."
> "When people saw a message or advertisement from the Government of Canada, they saw it as something that was independent and non-partisan," he said.
> ...


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=6662bfbd-3aba-424b-94e4-901bcfc36b13

Good to see Harper is still not returning calls...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm struggling to find anything relevant to say to this, this is just both so stupid, and so trivial. Mostly small minded and petty, though, I think.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

more Tory NewSpeak


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I'm waiting for the new and improved government... one that will change our national colours back to just red and white.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

This government is more likely to change them to Red White and Blue (with stars and stripes). On the other hand, it could be argued that they see things only in black and white.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seems to me the PMO is toying with an official name and that is unacceptable. My Conservative MP shall hear of this from me.


----------



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

This move is absurd. Who ever heard of "branding" a national government?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Thank you, SINC.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

What is going on in Ottawa?

I hope those who voted for these retards because they wanted to put an end to the Liberal scandals are starting to open their eyes.

There are far worse things that a government can do than miss-spend a few million dollars.

As we're seeing, they can sell the whole damn country to the highest bidder and if they've got nothing to hide, why are they so busy hiding.

I'm going to start wearing a t-shirt with "Canada's New Government is not *MY* government" on it.

Stupid, stupid voters.

Margaret


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

It makes me think that the PMO believes _their_ changes will long lasting, perhaps even *permanent*. :yikes:


----------



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

This is ridiculous. The changing of the website was blantantly partisan propaganda, but this is just absurd.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> I'm struggling to find anything relevant to say to this, this is just both so stupid, and so trivial. Mostly small minded and petty, though, I think.


That about sums it up for me. It is stupid, small minded, petty and trivial. 

On the technical level, Government is the enduring institution (hasn't been new since 1867), the governing party is new and the elected representatives that make up government are new. On a level of relevance, why bother? Think in terms of writing: show, don't tell. This is consistent with the general, "We're going to clean house" sentiment that, in this example, is not a big deal but can be when tinkering with important laws and regulations without the necessary research and thought.

G: There are good reasons to brand a government (that could be taken a couple ways  ). Attracting young and intelligent new civil servants into debilitatingly absurd jobs is one of them.  Sort of like trying to create an aura of an elite employer without actually becoming one (or rewarding like one) or, better yet, communicating that you are an elite employer after you've put in place the reforms to make it true.


----------



## Luc Tremblay (Jul 5, 2005)

Wow!

It's NEW! It must be good! NEW technology! A BRAND NEW government with BRAND NEW ideas for a BRAND NEW country. 

It's as much good as wining a BRAND NEW car.

Isn't it?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Will the language be used consistently?

"Canada's New Government announces higher user fees for services..."

"Canada's New Government announces higher interest rates..."

"Canada's New Government announces higher unemployment since January 2006..."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Will the language be used consistently?
> 
> "Canada's New Government announces higher user fees for services..."
> 
> ...


If they get to one year, would it be "Canada's New Government announces that it is old"?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't support that branding, but I certainly hope SOME of the changes are permanent. Calling voters stupid isn't helpful though--were they stupid for giving Paul Martin a chance? His government was an unfortunate one but I hardly rack it up to voter stupidity.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> His government was an unfortunate one but I hardly rack it up to voter stupidity.


How so? 
His legacy as a finance minister and his time as PM is one that no Con government has matched. It always seems that on the Federal level, the "fiscally responsible Cons" drive up the debt and it takes the Liberals to fix it.

The rebranding is not an odd move when you think of how it's trying to remove all traces of the Liberals.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It always seems that on the Federal level, the "fiscally responsible Cons" drive up the debt and it takes the Liberals to fix it.


"Always" as in once, after the Liberals started the notion of accelerating debt outside of world wars and the Progressive Conservatives continued that foolhardy notion until beginning to address the problem with good foundational policies but not enough guts, afterwhich the Liberals came in and, after one or two years, decided to do the right thing with the force and guts that was needed, but benefited greatly from the foundational policies of the PC government. A government that was also much "redder" than current Conservatives and, arguably, about as "red" as Martin/Chretien were "blue" -- centre-centre governments, for their circumstances. That's the "always"?  

I think your notion may apply better to Republican/Democrat or conservative/liberal (still arguable). There is a difference.


----------



## mikeinmontreal (Oct 13, 2005)

They should change it to Canada's New Minority Government because that's all we'll likely get in elections in coming years.


----------



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

And that is not necessarily a bad thing to have. Minority goverments can do good things.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't support that branding, but I certainly hope SOME of the changes are permanent. Calling voters stupid isn't helpful though--were they stupid for giving Paul Martin a chance? His government was an unfortunate one but I hardly rack it up to voter stupidity.


I should have been more specific. Stupid voters who voted for this bunch of crooks.

There. Does that make it a more "helpful" statement?

Sure the Liberals had been in for a long time and maybe it was time for a change, but if this bunch of twits is the best change we could come up with, we were much better off before.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

It does betray a certain misunderstanding of how our government works on the part of Harper, et al. The Conservatives are not the government. The Conservatives aren't even the majority representatives of the people of Canada. They're supposed to be representing and serving us ('Prime minister' means 'first servant'), not dictating to us.

I've always thought Harper was an authoritarian power-monger, and he's doing nothing to make me reconsider this impression.

Cheers


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Fiscal responsibility?
Right, wonder what this will cost.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The members of Parliament who belong to the Conservative Party of Canada are most certainly "the government." No other representative can accurately make that statement.

While they are elected to "represent" us, it remains that so long as they command the confidence of the House of Commons, these Conservative M.P.s rightfully act as the government of Canada (whether we call them "New" or not).




bryanc said:


> It does betray a certain misunderstanding of how our government works on the part of Harper, et al. The Conservatives are not the government. The Conservatives aren't even the majority representatives of the people of Canada. They're supposed to be representing and serving us ('Prime minister' means 'first servant'), not dictating to us.
> 
> I've always thought Harper was an authoritarian power-monger, and he's doing nothing to make me reconsider this impression.
> 
> Cheers


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Egads, they aren't happy enough changing department/agency names every few years just when a person gets used to the old name, they now have to change the name of the Government of Canada. 

Between this and the complaint about Public Building names being too Liberal, I think some Conservative beauracrat has WAAAYYYYY too much time on his hands and could be put to work doing something better.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

I've figured it out! Harper is just following the same progression as men's razors. Soon we will have *'Canada's New Government Mach III Turbo'*.
And like the razors it won't be much better, but it will cost us a lot more. :heybaby:


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

And now he's going to appear before a "Senate committee" - when's the last time that happened. Maybe we can find a McCarthy to oversee the proceedings.

Margaret


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmmmmm seems perhaps the "New American Century" idjits have left a steaming calling card at the Parliamentary door for Harper to step in.

This reeks......


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Darn tootin' it reeks. Come the next election, I hope that Harper and all those other damn turds a-bobbing in the bowl with him will come to be known as _Canada's Previous New Government_.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Meh...

I'll wait for the Canada 2 New Government Duo to start shipping a much improved softwood lumber deal down to the US before commenting any further.

Probably performs just as well as the "Harper-threading" government of old...


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

ArtistSeries said:


> How so?
> His legacy as a finance minister and his time as PM is one that no Con government has matched. It always seems that on the Federal level, the "fiscally responsible Cons" drive up the debt and it takes the Liberals to fix it.


The cause of and solution to the deficit was contributed to by both parties. Trudeau's government let it get out of control, Brian Mulroney took too long to start trying to tackle it but eventually increased tax revenue with the GST. Chretien then came along and made the large cuts in transfer payments that were required to complete the fiscal turn around to surplus.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Chretien then came along and made the large cuts in transfer payments that were required to complete the fiscal turn around to surplus.


More than that was done. There were continued tax increases (e.g. automatic personal tax increases with the indexation Mulroney put in + low inflation targets) and some federal spending restraint alongside reductions in transfer payments. It was a relatively balanced approach that kept in place key Mulroney policies while completing the task at hand, come hell or high water.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Funny how Beej seems to think Mulroney was some kind of saviour...


> But now look at the records of Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney. In 1980, Mr. Reagan and his supply-side gurus decided that reducing the income tax by 25 per cent would bring a new dawn to America. Taxes were cut, but during the 1980s growth did not accelerate beyond the normal pace of recovery. Most importantly, the Reagan tax move sank the U.S. federal budget into a sea of red that took George Bush and Bill Clinton 10 years to correct.
> 
> Coming just after Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Mulroney had nine years to correct the course of the federal budget. And yes, there were minor corrections. But *when Jean Chrétien took over in 1993, the year's deficit stood at $35-billion and the national debt-to-GDP ratio had increased to 70 per cent -- much beyond the 46 per cent left by Mr. Trudeau in 1984.*
> 
> My point is not that Mr. Trudeau did well, but that Mr. Reagan and Mr. Mulroney did no better. The Canadian and U.S. public-finance crisis of 1975 to 1995 was the outcome of bad luck and slow reaction time. To single out Pierre Trudeau is both unfair and misleading.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/trudeau/grosuc_oct9.html


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Funny how Beej seems to think Mulroney was some kind of saviour...
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/series/trudeau/grosuc_oct9.html



you can't take the "con" out of the neo-con


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Funny how Beej seems to think Mulroney was some kind of saviour...


AS, you got caught out deliberately using a myopic pro-Liberal/anti-Con stance when, in reality, there was more at play and the standard con-whining is not as accurately attached as you would like. My posts mentioned how more foundational Mulroney policies set the stage, but were inadequate in and of themselves. No big deal, but your oversight with the above stupidity is an odd, although common, way to go about things.

You, having been exposed once again as wanting to whine about conservatives, and were left with options including showing a little honesty or going on your usual distortionary attacks in a weak attempt at shifting focus away from your oversight. As usual, you went on the attack and twist my posts into an argument that fits your world view of con/anti-con. 

AS, can you please try to show honesty and even (gasp!) reason in how you deal with your oversights being pointed out? If it's not the "you're nitpicking" argument or the more aggressive and baseless attack on a strawman argument, you've also recently demonstrated your "you can do better" line with MannyP. Try the honesty and reason approach for a change.

[Edit: Noticed that you're having a rough time expressing yourself in another thread. Maybe a quick walk or some other form of relaxation before you risk the honest and reasonable approach is in order.]


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, I have been thinking about this:


> I think your notion may apply better to Republican/Democrat or conservative/liberal (still arguable). There is a difference.


And I would likely agree with you there. Further, I was looking into what you called "myopic" view. 


So you don't like your association with Mulroney? Poor Beej. 
Nice rebuttal by the way - did you copy/paste from somewhere else because it seems your standard fare?

Mulroney was a disaster for this country on the economic plan. 
NAFTA is somewhat of a joke with the Americans seemingly cherry-picking certain aspect while ignoring others. The GST maybe one positive aspect but while he was in power, his economic performance was not stellar. The Chretien and Martin governments are the ones that grappled with the deficit in a positive manner. 

Yes there was a recession during the Mulroney years but one factor is clear: the debt doubled during his tenure.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Yes there was a recession during the Mulroney years but one factor is clear: the debt doubled during his tenure.


like the debt increased of mulroney's singing partner's country during his reign as leader, ronny ray-gun


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, I have been thinking about this:
> 
> And I would likely agree with you there. Further, I was looking into what you called "myopic" view.
> 
> ...


So, the bottom half of your email involves some reasoning. Good for you! Why you had to be prodded into it, I don't know.

Your economic read seems off when considering the foundation various policies set that the Liberals kept (low inflation/targetting, GST, free trade were some of the bigger ones; there was also some important regulatory stuff). These helped provide the economic growth that was a part of the C/M deficit fighting (as well as their relatively balanced way to reduce spending and increase revenues). 

There is a tendency, especially in the news, to limit the evaluation to a static accounting exercise in pluses and minuses. There is also a tendency to identify a single 'hero'. Both of these tendencies distort what was happening beyond the annual income statements. Add in political partisan/anti-partisan stuff, and the debate often becomes, "Mulroney did everything" or "C/M did everything". Ho hum.

Furthermore your read on NAFTA is a little too news-focussed. The vast majority of trade and benefit from NAFTA doesn't make the news because it goes quite smoothly. Check out some trade data and put the $5 billion in lumber duties (over a few years) or other disagreements in perspective. NAFTA isn't perfect, but Canada has done very well with it. 

On the topic of lumber specifically, I doubt we'd be better off without NAFTA so, even aside from getting some perspective on how much is going right with NAFTA instead of focussing on what is going poorly, there's also the problem that the biggest thing that is going poorly would be going poorly anyway, given the history behind Canada/U.S. lumber disputes.

What it comes down to is that a lot of the foundation, while not easy to observe, was wisely kept by the Liberals despite various complaints while in opposition. The Mulroney economic "disaster" was due to circumstance (general economic downturn) combined with a lot of his policies for structural change all happening at once and the years he wasted continuing with the status quo of accelerating debt. 

This created a deep recession and period of stagnation followed by strong economic growth (versus a more gradual approach). Good Liberal policies (and not changing good PC policies) added much to this and has put Canada in an excellent position. Why people feel the need to given either or the credit is odd.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> What it comes down to is that a lot of the foundation, while not easy to observe, was wisely kept by the Liberals despite various complaints while in opposition. The Mulroney economic "disaster" was due to circumstance (general economic downturn) combined with a lot of his policies for structural change all happening at once and the years he wasted continuing with the status quo of accelerating debt.
> 
> This created a deep recession and period of stagnation followed by strong economic growth (versus a more gradual approach). Good Liberal policies (and not changing good PC policies) added much to this and has put Canada in an excellent position. Why people feel the need to given either or the credit is odd.


Circumstances, or what you call (general economic downturn) are in part due to economic policies - Reagan and Thatcher did not help and I would say in part responsible for that. The trickle down model was a bit of a joke (still is IMO).

Yes the Lib did keep the GST. My own feelings is that it was another tax grab on the end user. I'm surprised we don't have a tax revolt with some of us getting hit with over 60% (plus all the various little ones) in the face of diminishing returns...
I had hope for a flat tax on income plus a GST model....

Now back to Mulroney - GST and Free Trade came at the end of tenure. During his time he kept on spending like a drunken sailor and hurt middle class Canadians - that's the legacy I remember the most.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Yes the Lib did keep the GST. My own feelings is that it was another tax grab on the end user. I'm surprised we don't have a tax revolt with some of us getting hit with over 60% (plus all the various little ones) in the face of diminishing returns...
> I had hope for a flat tax on income plus a GST model....
> 
> Now back to Mulroney - GST and Free Trade came at the end of tenure. During his time he kept on spending like a drunken sailor and hurt middle class Canadians - that's the legacy I remember the most.


QC is particularly bad for taxes; you're experiencing some of the worst in the country.

Flat tax + GST...how neo-con. beejacon Were you a fan of Forbes' proposal and Klein/Day's actual implementation of flat taxes (outside of their work)? I don't think Canada is wealthy enough for a flat tax (nor was Alberta when they did it; they almost instantly fell into trouble), but it would be a good long-term goal, alongside the kinds of programs I outlined in a previous post. 

Mulroney did not get on top of the rapidly advancing debt problem for years, and I've said that from the start. I also dared to mention Trudeau's foundational role in that problem. So what? They both eff'ed up on that front. Many policies that Mulroney put in place set the foundation for C/M success, but were inadequate on their own. C/M did good work and used the Mulroney policies (instead of reversing them). Mulroney also, I believe, balanced the operating budget after years (including some of his own) of the status quo being an operating deficit plus growing interest payments, so it's not like he did nothing on the accounting front. 

But, regardless, what is the problem with admitting that it was both and both in a significant way? It really seems motivated by standard partisan/anti-partisan sentiment than anything else.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Flat tax + GST...how neo-con. beejacon Were you a fan of Forbes' proposal and Klein/Day's actual implementation of flat taxes (outside of their work)? I don't think Canada is wealthy enough for a flat tax (nor was Alberta when they did it; they almost instantly fell into trouble), but it would be a good long-term goal, alongside the kinds of programs I outlined in a previous post.


It's an interesting idea. In part because of the fairness of it. 
If it's not feasible, as you seem to indicate, then maybe we should let it be...





Beej said:


> Mulroney did not get on top of the rapidly advancing debt problem for years, and I've said that from the start. I also dared to mention Trudeau's foundational role in that problem. So what? They both eff'ed up on that front. Many policies that Mulroney put in place set the foundation for C/M success, but were inadequate on their own. C/M did good work and used the Mulroney policies (instead of reversing them). Mulroney also, I believe, balanced the operating budget after years (including some of his own) of the status quo being an operating deficit plus growing interest payments, so it's not like he did nothing on the accounting front.


You may find this interesting:
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/CommentView.aspx?guid=c67aff20-f2e7-46c8-80aa-9b21f51e8fd0
It has all the charts and numbers you like... I have left the last little sentence in for you...



> The overall accumulated debt, grew (as a % of GDP) in every Mulroney year, but fell consistently from 1995-96 until the present. In other words, Mulroney always grew the debt faster than the economy, and the tide was reversed only after his 9 years in office.
> 
> So, how was it done?
> 
> ...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> It's an interesting idea. In part because of the fairness of it.
> If it's not feasible, as you seem to indicate, then maybe we should let it be...
> ........
> It has all the charts and numbers you like... I have left the last little sentence in for you...


Fairness is in the eye of the beer-holder.  Many (including myself) consider progressive income tax rates to be fair. But I'd prefer a basic income/flat tax/consumption tax mix to get better efficiency while maintaining the fairness.

It's technically feasible, but I don't consider the cost (political and otherwise) practical. ie. too much other stuff would have to be shifted/cut or the flat rate would have to be quite high. This relates back to previous discussions on the share of income taxes provided by various income levels -- getting rid of that progressivity is expensive and/or difficult. 

Still, combined with more consumption taxes and a basic income...beejacon 
........
The information demonstrates much of what I've said, including a warning about, "There is a tendency, especially in the news, to limit the evaluation to a static accounting exercise in pluses and minuses."

The author also closes with, 
"Certianly, Martin can't own responsibility for Canada's strong economy. However, Paul Martin's record on fiscal management is far from "smoke and mirrors" and actually is a strength he should be campaigning on. It's how he became popular in the first place, and (in my opinion) rightly so."

The foundational policies that I keep talking about factor greatly into the GDP, which is the unexamined denominator in much of the calculations. The post was intended to oppose any notion that, "Paul Martin's record on fiscal management is far from "smoke and mirrors"", and I agree, but that's all the post was focussing on. Why is there any difficulty in seeing that, with regards to Mulroney and the C/M combo "it was both and both in a significant way"? Again, it seems to be driven by partisan/anti-partisan sentiment. 

Either way, since you chose to start contributing postively, the discussion was interesting and the diversion-within-a-diversion of the flat tax was fun too. Thanks.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

You guys may be right about the economics or you may be really out to lunch.

What I'm more concerned about. And what all Canadians should be concerned about is this "new" government's movement to a dictatorship.

We're not supposed to see soldiers in coffins.

The media is not supposed to ask questions.

"New" Canadian Governement. WTF. Are we so stupid that we don't know there's a "new" government after an election. No. Harpie is setting us up for loss of freedom. Any move in that direction - no matter how small and insignificant needs to be squelched as soon as it happens or appears to be happening.

If we let him get away with this, what's next.

We let him get away with not talking to the media - what is he afraid of anyway? If he's not afraid that we'll find out what he's doing, why muzzle his people.

This is wrong. Wrong. Wrong.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

winwintoo said:


> You guys may be right about the economics or you may be really out to lunch.
> 
> What I'm more concerned about. And what all Canadians should be concerned about is this "new" government's movement to a dictatorship.
> 
> ...


Preach it, sister!

There have been some things done in the name of this government that aren't bad. Some few that have even reached good. But all of that, for my money, is overshadowed by the culture that is being created. The closed attitude and closed mind of this government is deeply frightening.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

winwintoo said:


> What I'm more concerned about. And what all Canadians should be concerned about is this "new" government's movement to a dictatorship.


Somewhat overstated, but I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. I think all Canadians should be worried about whether or not we are putting in place the policies needed to really benefit from in the future and if the fed-prov relationship could be less destructive if we Canadians stopped letting the politicians play us. If Harper wants to pout and micro-manage, that's lower on my list.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

winwintoo said:


> Harpie is setting us up for loss of freedom. Any move in that direction - no matter how small and insignificant needs to be squelched as soon as it happens or appears to be happening.


Just checking:

* You supported Liberal efforts to control firearms ownership or you didn't? 

* You supported Canadians defining "marriage" for themselves or supported the Liberals' efforts to define it for you? 

* You support the Liberals' use of consumption taxes on large cars or the use of certain fuels, or you maintain that your freedom to purchase what you want is more important?

I'm not trying to catch you. Just pointing out that each successive government restricts personal freedoms more than the last. Your alarm call should have gone out during the Trudeau era.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> * You supported Canadians defining "marriage" for themselves or supported the Liberals' efforts to define it for you?
> 
> I'm not trying to catch you. Just pointing out that each successive government restricts personal freedoms more than the last. Your alarm call should have gone out during the Trudeau era.


Valid points on the other two, but I fail to see how this one restricts personal freedom, even in the slightly sketchy way you have described it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

RevMatt: I included that one because I see the definition of marriage as a civil mtter, embarassingly elevated to the federal level. In essence, any issue that should be handled at a much lower level on the power structure scale that is handled and enforced by a strong federal government restricts the freedoms of people to act at a community level.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I'm not trying to catch you. Just pointing out that each successive government restricts personal freedoms more than the last. Your alarm call should have gone out during the Trudeau era.


How do you know it didn't? 

It's the culture that surrounds these btards that I object too. The culture of secrecy is scary. And unless we speak out about it, it will continue and get worse.

Saying that it's ok for harpie not to talk to the media because he followed through on his election promise is like saying that the guy who kidnapped that girl in Austria was ok because he fed her and let her watch tv.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I only mention it because I missed your call to alarm on eroding freedoms during the Martin era.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I only mention it because I missed your call to alarm on eroding freedoms during the Martin era.


Anything that happened in the Martin era was out in the open - and we were free to ask him questions.

Margaret


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> RevMatt: I included that one because I see the definition of marriage as a civil mtter, embarassingly elevated to the federal level. In essence, any issue that should be handled at a much lower level on the power structure scale that is handled and enforced by a strong federal government restricts the freedoms of people to act at a community level.


It already was at the Federal level. Your argument is a red herring.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

winwintoo said:


> Anything that happened in the Martin era was out in the open - and we were free to ask him questions.
> 
> Margaret


Well, I'm sure they kept secrets, too. But there was far more openness, and that is significant in my books, too. Take the lumber deal (see my thread). If even something simple like what level of participation from companies the government has been able to secure is private, there is something deeply wrong.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> It already was at the Federal level. Your argument is a red herring.


I think he may be getting at why they didn't get out of marriage altogether. I'm not sure if that would have required a constitutional amendment or not. If it wasn't something as messy as the constitution, that seems like a valid point.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I only mention it because I missed your call to alarm on eroding freedoms during the Martin era.


If bringing SSM issue to the forefront and expanding that notion to be protected under law, is restricting personal freedom than you should be writing a newspeak dictionary...

Controlling firearms is not an attack on personal freedoms - you are still free to own certain guns. It's the party of Law and Order that wants a free for all...

Trudeau rightly said that government does not belong in our bedrooms...


MF, sometimes the big ugly government has to act to protect individual rights (that in effect harm no one) when mob rules would act in oppressive ways.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> I think he may be getting at why they didn't get out of marriage altogether. I'm not sure if that would have required a constitutional amendment or not. If it wasn't something as messy as the constitution, that seems like a valid point.


Yes, that's not a bad point. But that would be a move to restore freedom, and continuing with the status quo is not actively restricting freedoms.

It wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, as the lawyers tell me, btw.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> Take the lumber deal (see my thread). If even something simple like what level of participation from companies the government has been able to secure is private, there is something deeply wrong.


I don't think they know for sure, and are trying to get more support. The companies have to sign some document and they likely want to (slowly)submit things with clauses. If they do know for sure and are done with any backroom discussions, then they should release the info, otherwise why would they release an estimate...except as another political tactic: publicly say the number is inadequate and try to get the public to pressure lumber companies and/or get a message out that it is purely in the hands of the companies.

Generally, I think there are better examples than lumber regarding this line of discussion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> It wouldn't require a constitutional amendment, as the lawyers tell me, btw.


Thanks for the info.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

If marriage is defined as the legal to have sex with someone then I agree government ought to stay out of it.

The reason politicians are so worried about same-sex marriage has nothing to do with sex.

"Marriage" provides benefits that are denied "single" people.

Suppose you work for XYZ company, you probably have some form of health coverage above what is provided universally. If you are married - either with a certificate or common-law as recognized by CCRA - your "spouse" is granted the same benefits.

That's what the original same-sex discussion was based on - the right to share those monetary entitlements.

Then somewhere along the line - maybe because gay people didn't want to appear greedy, the rally call was changed to something about love.

But the underlying fear is still there. If we let same-sex people marry and grab those benefits where will it end?

What about adult-son wishing to lessen his elder care bill by "marrying his father"

Now that you're all rolling on the floor laughing, grab a wet rag and start cleaning will you?

Back to my argument. What if two friends marry so they can share the benefits - how will it be policed? You can't marry because you're both men and you're not gay - so it is about sex?

If it's just about sharing a life, why can't I marry my brother or the old lady down the hall? I could sure use the benefits provided by my brother's job, and I have more benefits than my elderly neighbour so I could pass them on to her.

Many arguments against same-sex marriage sound like simple revulsion at the thought of two men or two women getting it on, but the real opposition is economic. Imagine the additional insurance costs.

I need to get some work done here since I can't find anyone of either sex that I'd be willing to marry.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Designated beneficiaries and contracts for the right to sue for assets/income upon splitting up. Marriage isn't needed for any of that. Why can't I designate a pension beneficiary just because I'm not married and have no kids? My pension scheme, when I had one, was immediately less valuable regardless of my contributions. Another problem with defined benefit programs that can be resolved two ways: toss them or allow for designated beneficiaries for everyone.

If benefits are meant to encourage procreation and families, target them better than attaching them to the concept of marriage. Still, that sort of real break with tradition is quite radical, so the Liberals settled on what I consider reasonable grounds. Eventually we will have to deal with polygamy and, as genetic knowledge gets better, incest. A strange new world is coming at us and we will be forced to face up to what we really mean by the somewhat vague statements we collectively think of as values.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> I need to get some work done here since I can't find anyone of either sex that I'd be willing to marry.


I don't know if this is an invitation for us to play matchmakers or not...


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Beej said:


> Designated beneficiaries and contracts for the right to sue for assets/income upon splitting up. Marriage isn't needed for any of that. Why can't I designate a pension beneficiary just because I'm not married and have no kids? My pension scheme, when I had one, was immediately less valuable regardless of my contributions. Another problem with defined benefit programs that can be resolved two ways: toss them or allow for designated beneficiaries for everyone.
> 
> If benefits are meant to encourage procreation and families, target them better than attaching them to the concept of marriage. Still, that sort of real break with tradition is quite radical, so the Liberals settled on what I consider reasonable grounds. Eventually we will have to deal with polygamy and, as genetic knowledge gets better, incest. A strange new world is coming at us and we will be forced to face up to what we really mean by the somewhat vague statements we collectively think of as values.


Not designated beneficiaries - I meant like a dental plan at work. If you're not married, you're the only one who can use the benefits (and your kids if you're a single parent of course)

You're right, there will be changes in coming years that we can't even imagine yet.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

winwintoo said:


> Not designated beneficiaries - I meant like a dental plan at work.


I'm talking about those kinds of benefits and Pension plan types. Revamp the approach for equality. You either get X designated beneficiaries or you pay some $ for each one you want to add (can also adjust based on the characteristics of who you want to add). Designate whoever you want; possibly limited to Canadian citizens, possibly not.

If the nation wants pro-family and kid policies, put the programs in place. They don't require the current benefits treatment as a precursor. Survivor benefits for homosexual couples should never have been issue except that an implicit pro-family and kid policy is embedded all over the place instead of as a handful of identifiable and perfectly acceptable government programs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Regarding same sex marriage, I do mean that the federal government should have rightly rejected it as a matter that should be decided organically at the community and provincial level. Certainly, individual court cases about benefits were setting unreversable precedents that would have soon made the clumsy exercise of federal power on this matter irrelevant.

AS: It all depends on your definition of freedom. I don't want to turn this into a gun-control thread, but when the government decides which guns you may own, it is already limiting your freedom. You may prefer that limitation of freedom, but it is still a limitation.


----------

