# Hypothetical Election: Issues



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Hey folks!

I was intrigued by the other threads discussion on what Canadians. That discussion cropped up in a thread meant for sponsorship related stuff. I'm interested to know, if there was an election soon (which isn't impossible), what are the issues that you would like to see. Maybe you could post them as such (below), I'll use poverty to start us off. Maybe we can also use this as an opportunity not to attack each other, but strictly debate the issues. I don't much like the name calling and insults!

POVERTY: I think that this is an important issue namely because the current actions taken by politicians does not reflect what really needs to be done to help solve the problem. For example, money is given to drop in centres (which is a good thing) however the idea is that people think that's going to SOLVE the problem. Steps such as affordable housing and other social programs are the real steps that need to be taken. I would also like to see a public clean up of stigma and misconceptions regarding people without homes.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

only way to take care of poverty is to raise taxes
anyone want that?

'nuff said


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Poverty will never be a 'high on the agenda issue' for any government, because the poor wield virtually no political power. For any government, their only real concern is the maintenence of their governing power, so they make sure to set the agenda according to a very MOR range of issues. Tackling Poverty requires either a large expenditure of tax dollars that doesn't, as you say, solve the problem, or make it go away,
or a complete revision of how people see other people.
I know that here,
it's almost as if the government says- at least here in Manitoba-

"the poor? That's what the Lottery is for!"
 
James


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Are you talking election issues we'd LIKE to see or we WILL see.........very different methinks 

•••

THIS election if held right now would unlikely see much different. Finger pointing by the Cons and attempts to cloak agendas.
Defending by the Libs and attempts UNCLOAK Con agendas.

Good ideas from the NDP that won't get support - see above.

The new wrinkle.........unity maybe.

•••

What I'd like to see and won't,

A huge national commitment on the level of the railways project to multiple forms of clean energy and conservation of existing energy with huge efforts to establish Canada as a world leader in the field.

Large tax incentives for conservation projects, clean air cars with tax DIS-incentives for guzzlers including recreational vehicles like boats and RVs.

Land speculation taxes introduced with resulting funds feeding the conservation agenda and strong programs to increase density in cities. 

Actuality in infrastructure projects - ie Toronto waterfront - instead of waffles. A Superfund available for renewable energy and energy efficient cities ( ie Toronto's cold pipe)

Strong efforts to promote city forestation and reforestation in all areas of the country.

A strong effort to bring farmers into the income flow of the food industry as a whole. It's way imbalanced and farm land needs to be treated as national assets and farmers not left to swing in the wind.

Strong effort to bring 1/2 to 2/3s half of Canada's trade other than with the US. We are way too dependent.

A Canada Corp program for ALL teens ala Switzerlands but with focus on SAR, forestry and coast guard/fisheries management and aides to the medical community. ( Eldercare etc )
This should include all immigrants under 25. Complete the program - get your citizenship.
This should also include a "paid volunteer" aspect so seniors who wish to participate can suppliment their incomes in a modest way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Land speculation taxes introduced with resulting funds feeding the conservation agenda and strong programs to increase density in cities.


Yep, be good to see then all bunched up like boxer shorts in a pair of tight Wranglers.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> only way to take care of poverty is to raise taxes
> anyone want that?
> 
> 'nuff said


to be honest... not enough said. Taxes have been cut for decades now. We constantly compare our tax rates to that of the US, who are in many ways suffering. Whereas if we were to compare our tax rates to other G8 countries, we will see we are putting far less to our social services, and like the US are suffering. In tandem with a major increase in the minimum wage (which is LONG overdue), taxes SHOULD be raised, or at least we shouldn't be further cutting taxes by $4.4b to the people who need it least (big corporations)



MacDoc said:


> Are you talking election issues we'd LIKE to see or we WILL see.........very different methinks


I think this is true, but that is not to say that the things that we want aren't covered by any of the political platforms. IE I'm sure the Conservatives don't cover poverty in their platform, whereas the NDP do. I'm interested to know what issues are important to people.



thejst said:


> Tackling Poverty requires either a large expenditure of tax dollars that doesn't, as you say, solve the problem, or make it go away,
> or a complete revision of how people see other people.


Again, true. But I think this could be changed if people review their idea of government. IMO government is (with respect to services, and not the legislative side) the means by which we support, manage, and regulate public services within our society. If we see a need for something within our society, some group who's rights or basic needs are not being upheld for example, we make demands to change it.


----------



## drehleierguy (Aug 8, 2004)

I'm voting for MacDoc!!

The campaign begins here!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well thanks BUT I'm not moving anytime soon.....  however

take the list to your local MP.....


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Here are issues I would love to see in the campaign... but probably won't:

-Tax/social policy reform to stop discriminating against families. My wife and I pay more taxes because we got married and started a family vs living apart and having kids. That's ridiculous. This one is part of Conservative policy but it doesn't seem to be a front burner issues.

-Proportional Representation for Canada! The NDP support this but again, not a front burner issue.

-Senate reform. The Conservatives have the lead on this issue and it may happen.

-Supreme Court Reform. I have to clash with Macdoc here... he wrote in another thread:



> BTW the judiciary?? - the Cons want Parliament to have control over judiciary in matters like the same sex bill. They don't appear to like an independent judiciary - wanting it subject to parliament......an idea that is ludicrous in a modern democracy.


Supreme Court judges are appointed by the Prime Minister... which somewhat taints their independence. More to the point, making them subject to parliament would seem to be the essence of democracy rather than ludicrous. Should issues be decided by a majority of Canadians, or by a group of nine judges appointed by the Prime Minister?

-Health Care Reform. I've said it before and I'll say it again... mixed (public/private) health care systems work best. We have this mad paranoia against any kind of private health in Canada based on fears we will adopt the US model... but the best health systems in the world by almost every measure are the mixed systems of western and northern Europe. We need to learn from the French, the Germans and the Scandinavians. We also need to learn fast... with each visit I make to a hospital I can see things getting worse: patients not looked after, resources not used, poor food, cleanliness etc. I pity any sick person in a hospital today who doesn't have an advocate to look after them and make sure they are getting good care.

I can thing of a few more (Canadian culture and broadcasting issues, City issues etc) but there's a good start. I'm off to bed now as I'm up early tomorrow to walk to work... in lieu of the TTC.

Cheers!


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

*Supreme Court judges are appointed by the Prime Minister... which somewhat taints their independence. More to the point, making them subject to parliament would seem to be the essence of democracy rather than ludicrous. Should issues be decided by a majority of Canadians, or by a group of nine judges appointed by the Prime Minister?
* quoted by fink-nottle

Given the fractious regional-provincial nature of Can. Politics, I'll take the judges, thanks...
BTW, it's my impression that judges are, 95% of the time, interpreters of the Charter. only 5% of Appeals reach their level of the justice system anyways, so the decisions they make are more often than not, issues of a constitutional nature.
James


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

I will take the judges over parliament every time. Sorry, but our rights and privileges as Canadians are far to sacred to leave to the politicians and the particular whim of the day or period or party for that matter.
The supreme court has proven itself time and time again to be a sober and trustworthy institution. You also need to consider that our system does not contain the same checks and balances that the US system does. The court ultimately, is our only defence from any government at any time.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Amen, iPetie! Testify!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FN - the judges interpret the Charter which CAN be changed by legislative action which the judges would then have to abide by.
BTW as far as I know the judges are recommended by the judiciary itself and approved by the gov. to the appointment. That's a bit different that the spin you give it.

••

I agree on your healthcare approach EXCEPT - NAFTA  - we lost much of sovereign control over the medical business mix as we have over some other areas. We don't have full control over opening it up without triggering some of the nastier provisions.

Europe has mixed systems successfully and to some degree we have as well in some areas ( X-rays - presciptions ) but it's my belief that it's NAFTA at the heart of the difficulty and Harper's cozy attitude to the US is NOT helping to dispel a subtext suspicion.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

I think I'm going to concur with those who say that civil rights (that which the senate are to uphold) are not to be decided by the majority. The majority is usually the reason why the civil rights are being infringed upon in the first place. I also want to add one to the discussion

Public Childcare: promised by the liberals, but not REALLY followed up on except for a limited amount of childcare spots. An institutionalized childcare program will relieve the costs of raising children for those who are below (or near) the poverty line. I think the Liberal's substandard commitment to this issue be discussed in the election.

Also: PRO-REP! The thought that we can call ourselves just without this is absurd. I think that there are parties which will put this on the table, especially considering the next government will almost definately be a minority.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

The decision of a tiny minority is preferable to that of the majority?!?! Any democrats out there? 

I think the waters are somewhat muddied by the fact the court has been more progressive by Parliament. How would you feel then if Harper got in (not impossible) and over time appointed Judges who believed that human life begun at conception and therefore outlawed all abortion, or strictly defined marriage as between a man and woman. Would you want a say on these matters or would you be content to leave it to the nine people appointed by the Prime Minister?

Or looking at the same sex marriage debate, I believe the Liberal government has been pussilinamous in hiding behind the court on the issue. The result has been a very divisive split in the country which was not necessary. Had parliament addressed the issue I think there is a good chance a consensus could have been cobbled together... something along the lines of a civil union which is legally equal to marriage but not called marriage. From speaking to many people and reading these and other boards, I think a majority of Canadians would be happy going this far... it's only when the union is termed marriage that support drops off.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Or looking at the same sex marriage debate, I believe the Liberal government has been pussilinamous in hiding behind the court on the issue. The result has been a very divisive split in the country which was not necessary. Had parliament addressed the issue I think there is a good chance a consensus could have been cobbled together... something along the lines of a civil union which is legally equal to marriage but not called marriage. From speaking to many people and reading these and other boards, I think a majority of Canadians would be happy going this far... it's only when the union is termed marriage that support drops off.


Nice to see that someone down east "gets it"! :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

FN the Charter was untaken by a large majority - the same large majority needed to change it.
Courts can't just "introduce" elements into the charter or create laws - they can only interpret them under the Charter.
Want the Charter changed??? - get the votes.

Yes there can be more or less conservative or liberal interpretation with the court about the Charter and the legislation presented for review but you imply this "tiny group" legislates and that's simply wrongheaded.....and you know it.

It holds legislation passed by the Commons up to the standards of set by the Charter and yes the Charter has some lacunae that I understand were purposeful to allow some latitude and for unexpected issues ( hence the problem with the European Constitution which apprently puts War and Peace to shame for verbiage. )

These interpretations are "before the law" interpretations and not social engineering....something some people seem to have a problem understanding.....there is no such thing as "sort of equal" before the law.

People are free and the legislature is free to create a variegated social landscape as long as the "before law" rules are respected across the board.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hey Macdoc,

The supreme court can effectively change laws with activist rulings that reinterpret laws and redefine language. "Marriage" is a recent example (man and women vs same sex) and abortion is another... a redefinition of 'person' could extend charter protection to the unborn and prevent legal abortions. Whether you think that's a good or bad thing, I would put to you that such changes should be the decision of the people we elect.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Hey Macdoc,
> 
> The supreme court can effectively change laws with activist rulings that reinterpret laws and redefine language. "Marriage" is a recent example (man and women vs same sex) and abortion is another... a redefinition of 'person' could extend charter protection to the unborn and prevent legal abortions. Whether you think that's a good or bad thing, I would put to you that such changes should be the decision of the people we elect.


I think, however that such sensitive issues should not be decided by the majority. What would the black civil rights movement looked like if it were decided by the majority? Or similarly women and voting? Advancements in our society are unfortunately most often the result of the active few who drag the lazy many into it kicking and screaming, not something to be proud of. The traditionalists of our society are valued, but need to wake up and realize that we should be keeping Red Green around, not out of date means of treating people.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I'm thinking here that the upcoming election will be fought on the basis of "dump the crooks out on their collective butts" and not on any other issues.

This is really quite common in Canadian politics. I bet that it will be the motivating factor in most of the voting patterns when we next head to the polls.

And...if the Liberal Party continues to melt down at the current rate, or if that rate of destruction actually INCREASES in the coming weeks...then I suspect that we will be voting again rather shortly.

Anyone here care to make a prediction about the results?


----------



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

If, in fact, the upcoming election shall be fought on the basis of "dump the crooks out on their collective butts", then the Conservatives will form a minority government. If, however, actual issues come into the picture, and there is an actual debate about policies, then I forsee a Liberal minority government with a stronger NDP. We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> If, in fact, the upcoming election shall be fought on the basis of "dump the crooks out on their collective butts", then the Conservatives will form a minority government. If, however, actual issues come into the picture, and there is an actual debate about policies, then I foresee a Liberal minority government with a stronger NDP. We shall see.


I would agree but with the following changes:

"If, however, actual issues come into the picture, and there is an actual debate about policies, then I still foresee a Conservative minority government with a stronger NDP."


----------



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

Sinc, with respect, we disagree. At least our disagreement is civil. I think that there might still be the backlash to the issue of same sex marriage. I could be wrong, and I shall admit to this incorrect speculation when and if an election result confirms or rejects my speculation. We shall see.

I still say that the Liberals greatest problem will be to get voters like me voting for them once again, and not for the NDP or Conservatives, which I have also done in the past.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

my election list would include

what's being done about the Education in this country from JK to University and helping the ones that need financial aid to get trough the educational system in Canada.

In the last election a national daycare system was hinted at, are there plans to go trough with it or has it been scrapped totally.

International trade what's being done about opening doors with other country's so we don't depend on the US as much as we do now.

What's being done about affordable housing.

The environment is also at the top of my list, what's being done about the Kyoto protocol and research into renewable forms of fuels.

that's only a few but other people will bring up more.

Laterz


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yep, be good to see then all bunched up like boxer shorts in a pair of tight Wranglers.


Shows what you know... Canada, even with the immense size of our country HAS to develop higher density cities. High density mean more efficiency in terms of land use, transportation, energy distribution.

Think about it... Calgary and Edmonton can't keep expanding their boundaries, eventually the crushing cost of transportation infrastructure will kill the economic viability of the community.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Shows what you know...
> Think about it...


See the smiley? That was a tongue in cheek comment. A joke if you will.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Or looking at the same sex marriage debate, I believe the Liberal government has been pussilinamous in hiding behind the court on the issue. The result has been a very divisive split in the country which was not necessary. Had parliament addressed the issue I think there is a good chance a consensus could have been cobbled together... something along the lines of a civil union which is legally equal to marriage but not called marriage. From speaking to many people and reading these and other boards, I think a majority of Canadians would be happy going this far... it's only when the union is termed marriage that support drops off.


That is Bulls**t. Complete and utter Bulls**t. You and Sinc are completely out to lunch on this issue. This is just one more form of discrimination. These are people's human rights we are talking about here. Just because you don't like what it is called gives you NO right to prevent someone else from getting married. Two people of the same sex getting married in NO way affects your or anyones else's life. It is simply homophobia and bigotry (give me any reasonable argument to the contrary).

I might just vote for the Liberals this time for showing the proper leadership on this single issue alone. And I would recommend to others that they do the same.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> What I'd like to see and won't,
> 
> A huge national commitment on the level of the railways project to multiple forms of clean energy and conservation of existing energy with huge efforts to establish Canada as a world leader in the field.
> 
> ...


Bang On Macdoc!

It's too bad that the Conservatives and Liberals are so tightly wrapped up in their corporate sponsors that we could get some real leadership out of them on these issues.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

I think there is one thing that people aren't seeing that maybe i could toss in here. There is a strong possibility that the NDP, who are said to be at around 20%, the Bloc who have maybe a bit more, and the greens who have 7% might form a coalition government. I know that their popularity says little about how many seats they will get, but I think that they all could get along, and I would certainly like to see it.

So for those of you that are thinking that the NDP could never form government anytime soon, think again, and if you were hesistant to vote for them because of that, reconsider.


----------



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

"So for those of you that are thinking that the NDP could never form government anytime soon, think again, and if you were hesistant to vote for them because of that, reconsider." I strongly agree.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> I'm thinking here that the upcoming election will be fought on the basis of "dump the crooks out on their collective butts" and not on any other issues.


Sadly, I think this analysis is spot-on. The fact that the majority of Canadians are so offended by this sponsorship scandal that they'll be voting _against_ the liberals will insure that the Alliance winds a solid majority. Then we will discover that we inadvertantly voted _for_ a repressive, misanthropic, bigoted bunch who will shower the rich and corporations with tax-breaks while devastating the remaining shreds of our social fabric.

Welcome to the United States of North America.



> Anyone here care to make a prediction about the results?


See above. This one's a no-brainer. It looks like the bad guys are going to win again.

Cheers

P.S. I'm going to write-in MacDoc! What a great platform. I'd only add that we, as a country, should start doing something about our abysmal funding for basic science research... we spend less per-capita than many third world countries!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If nominated I shall not run, if elected I shall not.........oops that's been said already. 

I see little chance of a majority - I think a more fractured 4 way split - Harper is not liked and the Cons haven't moved in the polls much at all. They got defeated today after predicting a stampede their way for the same sex bill.

Canada is more left than the polls show directly as much of the past Liberal support has been a no NeoCon vote.

The Cons will win some disaffected Libs but the left side of the Liberals has been soft for a long time.
Many view Martin as the farthest to the right any Liberal has ever been.

The unity issue is smoking a bit and I think much depends on who pulls the trigger on what grounds. Harper spitting in the face of the 87% who want to wait til Gomery is finished may prove very ill advised given his already low "choice as PM" numbers.

The opportunity - Take 2 - still sees the Cons with poor policy, likely no money in the till and a leader recongnised as rigid adn distant. The slight glimmer might be a firming of some same sex marriage opponents on the Con side but they could lose some on that as well - women seeing that as a thin edge of the wedge indicator.

I'd like to see a coalition but who???


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Interesting, but only ONE man's opinion.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

da_jonesy,

Reread my post... I am talking about the way the 'same sex marriage' decision has been made, not the decision itself. I have made my support for 'same sex marriage' very clear in past posts on ehMac. However, I feel it is a decision that should be made by the people of Canada through their elected representatives. Instead, our government has abrogated responsibility and has hidden behind the skirts of the Supreme Court... a nine person body appointed by the Prime Minister. Have you heard Paul Martin or any Cabinet Minister take a strong and positive moral stand for 'same sex marriage'? No... all they say is that they have to respect the Supreme Court's decisions yada, yada, yada. That's weak leadership and weak government. Contrast that with the NDP, who fairly solidly support support 'same sex marriage' and the Conservatives, who generally oppose it.

The real pity with this, as I said in the last post, is that there is a genuine consensus in the country on this which is being missed. Most people, I think, believe that gays and lesbians should have the option of joining in unions that are legally and functionally equal to marriages. It's only when this union is called "marriage" that some people are less eager to lend their support. I would much rather go forward with this lesser measure though, knowing that there was majority support, than go further through having the minority impose its will on the majority. That's not democracy and the result has been a divisive debate which has done us no good. It is the role of parliament to negotiate, discuss and decide such matters by speaking on behalf of the rest of us... yet the government has failed to even attempt this. That's our loss.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Exactly. No real leadership at the top. And a massive ongoing scandal as well. The worst one in Canadian history. Perhaps the very largest and worst in North American history (only time will tell).

Say goodbye to the old boss. Say hello to the new boss.

Bye Paul. It's been a slice.


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

Fink-Nottle said:


> da_jonesy,
> 
> Reread my post... I am talking about the way the 'same sex marriage' decision has been made, not the decision itself. I have made my support for 'same sex marriage' very clear in past posts on ehMac. However, I feel it is a decision that should be made by the people of Canada through their elected representatives. Instead, our government has abrogated responsibility and has hidden behind the skirts of the Supreme Court... a nine person body appointed by the Prime Minister. Have you heard Paul Martin or any Cabinet Minister take a strong and positive moral stand for 'same sex marriage'? No... all they say is that they have to respect the Supreme Court's decisions yada, yada, yada. That's weak leadership and weak government. Contrast that with the NDP, who fairly solidly support support 'same sex marriage' and the Conservatives, who generally oppose it.
> 
> The real pity with this, as I said in the last post, is that there is a genuine consensus in the country on this which is being missed. Most people, I think, believe that gays and lesbians should have the option of joining in unions that are legally and functionally equal to marriages. It's only when this union is called "marriage" that some people are less eager to lend their support. I would much rather go forward with this lesser measure though, knowing that there was majority support, than go further through having the minority impose its will on the majority. That's not democracy and the result has been a divisive debate which has done us no good. It is the role of parliament to negotiate, discuss and decide such matters by speaking on behalf of the rest of us... yet the government has failed to even attempt this. That's our loss.


Firstly, would you like some toast?! Oh smegin' hell!

Secondly, its quite obvious that the Liberals aren't really doing much other than prancing around the topic, and not really making a decision. I think this is mainly they know they are in a horrible position (loosing popularity) and that there are many in their party who will likely leave if they make a decision to either side. And this is the interesting part. Most often, when you elect a liberal as your MP, you've signed up for backbenching, and little participation. However there are occasional issues which the particular MP's opinion actually matters, in which case the public aren't ever actually consulted! I can see their campaign slogan "Liberals: we won't listen to you nomatter what happens!". Better than the conservatives: "Some have money, others don't... but only because they aren't trying hard enough". I want election jingles this year!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This entire government from top to bottom seems to being doingnothing BUT "prancing around".

Canadians have made it clear they want a governing minority and they've gotten diddle squat from any of them.

Can we have a a recall for the entire gov 

Now we've got them in election fever because quickdraw Harper won't listen so even LESS will be done.

How about thi??s -

*PAY NO MORE TAXES UNTIL WE GET A GOVERNMENT THAT GOVERNS.*

Anyone got a bumperstick plant.


----------



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

"No taxation without representation"

"Death before Dishonor"

"Live Free or Die"

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy."

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!"

"These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their county; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us, the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value."

"I have not yet begun to fight!"


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Now we've got them in election fever because quickdraw Harper won't listen so even LESS will be done.


If Harper won't listen to the Canadian people now how are the Canadian people suppose to believe that he would listen to the voice of the people when he is Prime Minister? ie: Chretien not sending troops to Iraq because the people of Canada voiced there opinion that Canada had no business following the US into a war that was not warranted.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

"Democracy is the road to socialism"- Karl Marx

Laterz


----------



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

"I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members."
Groucho Marx


----------



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

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."
Groucho Marx


----------



## 2063 (Nov 9, 2003)

"feel the fibrations!"

-Marky Mark

... wait, I'm not sure it that was what you guys were looking for. No offense but I think this is getting a bit repetitive, so why don't I throw this out to everybody:

Proportional Representation is a critical step for our form of democracy to acheive some sort of fairness. While I beleive this is THE thing that must happen, and happen soon, I know other ehMacers don't. The NDP have commited to Pro-Rep even if it hypothetically hurt their representation (though that's not the case). The Greens are even more in favour of it, as that is the current reason that they don't hold a seat. The other party in the "left" basket, the BQ have not really carified this, probably because they would loose upwards of half their seats if PR went through. The Liberals and Conservatives have yet to make policy on this. In my opinion, their inaction is as good as action against. What do you think?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Principles....somebody mention principles....??? 

They musta taken a poll 



> *Tories flip-flop on Kyoto climate deal*
> 
> FROM CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...


NeoCons unite.......



















Must be catching........


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

ravijo said:


> The Liberals and Conservatives have yet to make policy on this. In my opinion, their inaction is as good as action against. What do you think?


Actually Harpo is on record as being in support of it and his current critic for Democratic Reform, Scott Reid, is very much an advocate for it. In the past the Alliance party had support of PR as part of their platform but now that they have received a slight bump from our current system in the last election, with their seat total being slightly higher than their percentage of the popular vote, they seem to have dropped official support.

I expect that if they think the current system will deliver them the seats they need, they will officially remain neutral. An analysis of their support would show that under PR, they would gain some of their elusive Ontario support, while possibly losing some out west, making them more of a real national party. This means that they stand to be more electable overall, but most politicians only think short term.

The Libs have played the distortions inherent in our current system well, gaining vastly more seats than their percentage of votes, at the expense of the NDP and others, so the degenerate power whores amongst them will never support PR. Even then there are some Liberals to whom principles is more important than political gamesmanship and a few do support it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There is a serious problem with PR in a country the size of Canada where the only link to central gov is your local representative.

FPTP needs modifying and SOME combined form of regional and PR might work but I very much doubt we'd ever see a a represenation divorced from the region of representation.

Here's how it's done in Australia's mixed system.

http://www.eca.gov.au/systems/proportional/proportion_rep.htm

BUT

these guys have not even been able pass a budget - I see NO agreement on major changes anytime soon and that bodes ill for this country


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

Hi Macdoc,

I agree... I think the Single Transferable Vote is great compromise that would work well in Canada. It's not perfect and doesn't guarantee PR but it has two big advantages... it's easy to understand and it eliminates the incentive for strategic voting.

For those who may not be familiar with it, instead of marking a 'X' beside your chosen candidate, you rank candidates from first to last. Then, if no candidate is the first choice of more than 50% of the population, the votes from the least popular candidate are redistributed to second choice on those ballots, and so on until a candidate gets 50% + 1.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

I had dinner tonight with some gay friends who told me that several gay couples they know who were 'tentatively' planning to get married in the future are now rushing their plans forward so they can get married ahead of a potential Conservative government who may throw up roadblocks. It's really sad that they should need to do this... and though I agree with many of the Conservative policies if this is the mast to which they choose to nail their colours, I will have trouble backing them in the election to come. I certainly can't vote Liberal either and am opposed to much of the NDP platform.. so that probably leaves me voting Green.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I'd like to see a credible military capable of defending our country and or expressing national will in conflicts / humanitarian or natural disasters. 

Why can't we be one of the countries at the forefront of care in the event of things like the Tsunami? because we don't have the capability. Rather then give money to the UN to set up a survey group for the working group before the second meeting group (or whatever top heavy bureaucratic structure is in place) I'd like to see this country actually deliver real aid. 

Dart's nice, but its awful small for a country this big and rich.


----------



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

F-N, I know of one gay couple who are considering the same plans earlier than scheduled here in NL, where it is legal.............for now.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

NBiBooker....

DART is a great idea. But the Liberals screwed it up as usual. Too little too late.

There is also a VERY strong insider rumour that claims the reason that the DART teams couldn't actually be deployed until a full two weeks AFTER the tsunami disaster, was because much of the equipment that was supposed to be in their inventories...and that was actually listed on their books...had to be bought and delivered to the DART teams rather quickly. Just to cover up THAT particular bit of "Skim". Before someone noticed.

This sort of theft has been going on for ages. Especially when it comes to the Canadian military. The persons in charge of procurement get a chunk of money for equipment upgrades and they do buy a few things. Then they stall out and re-direct much of the cash into their own pockets...with a suitable kick-back to the Top Boss, of course. For protection.

If the equipment is ever really needed, then an additional grant must come from the government to "bring the new gear into full deployment". Or, it turns out that the stuff was "defective" and had to be "disposed of" at an unnamed scrap dealer. Who is also a 'friend of the Liberals", no doubt.

This is an old game. The Liberals know how to play it like pros. They grew up doing this. 

Too bad it costs all of us so darned much in tax dollars to keep this sort of thing running. And results in hideous cost overruns and poor services. I'm thinking "gun registry" and the military here.

That's just two. Out of many.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> I had dinner tonight with some gay friends who told me that several gay couples they know who were 'tentatively' planning to get married in the future are now rushing their plans forward so they can get married ahead of a potential Conservative government who may throw up roadblocks. It's really sad that they should need to do this... and though I agree with many of the Conservative policies if this is the mast to which they choose to nail their colours, I will have trouble backing them in the election to come. I certainly can't vote Liberal either and am opposed to much of the NDP platform.. so that probably leaves me voting Green.


Another Green voter here for the same reason. Can't vote Libby or Conservative because they've both proven you can't trust them, NDP have some nice ideas... to bad the rest of us live in the real world and their agenda just isn't feasible... that leaves Green. Be nice if they snuck a MP in if/when a snap election is called. 

Oh, and to actually respond to the thread... I'd like to see some actual funding and commitment from Ottawa to find new sources of energy. We need to plan now because 15 years from now will be too late. Kyoto is a waste of time. We'll run out of oil/natural gas/coal way before we greenhouse ourselves to death.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Agreed. Kyoto is a massive waste of time. It won't accomplish anything real, after all.

But many people will THINK that they are doing something good. A fine "first step" or something.

It will only be many years later when the real truth becomes apparent. And the finger pointing begins anew.

Kyoto should be abandoned immediately so that we can replace it with something REAL. That will actually REDUCE pollution levels. Instead of just trading in expensive and ephemeral "carbon credits" between nations. (What a CROCK!)

Kyoto is a bust. Even many environmental groups are now saying that.

The Green party is _ALSO_ a complete bust. And I'm quite certain that many of the environmental groups will ALSO be saying that, in the very near future.

The rest of us already are. Which is why they will NEVER be a real force in the Canadian political scene.

Watch and see.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Even many environmental groups are now saying that.


wich ones? and would you care to share that information with us?

Laterz


----------



## Rob Dekker (Apr 6, 2005)

The only promise I want to hear is 'Responsible Government'...that's it and that's all. Kind of reminiscent of Canadian politics of the 1840's. The governing party has to go along with almost the top half of the public service. They're dysfunctional and rotten to the core. Thank heavens the national daycare program is going to bite the dust...can you just imagine the level of abuse, fraud, and outright theft available to the senior levels of government when trying to dole out this kind of cash.

It's time for a real change...back to some real common sense and rationality.


----------

