Where's the evil?

[Shawnski]

Kudos for your comments, March.

I think you, and many others, might find the actual debates on this in the house quite different than what you find in the media.

They publish webcasts daily here.. Look for the "HoC Meeting" listing for the particular day.

Around noon, Calgary time, the question period heats up and the real politics begin. Worth a watch, especially in the next while as the landmines that have been laid for a confidence vote heat up.

I have been quite impressed with Diane Ablonczy's attack on this particular issue.

Regardless of political position, watching this feed is beneficial for anyone wanting to know more about politics.

Again, thanks for your honesty, March.

[Coolsurfer79]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 9 2005, 06:24 PM

That's precisely the point I was trying to make. The NDP platform tells us that they believe in balanced budgets and responsable spending, but you and I both know what a farce that is. They say those things because they know they won't get any votes if they don't.

Likewise, I don't trust that the Conservatives would only enact the policies they outline in their platform. Why should we trust their new, (slightly) more moderate platform given views that were publicly stated in the past by many party members, including Harper?

I actually believe that the NDP would run balanced budgets. They are the only party that wouldn't be pushing major tax cuts. I'm actually more concerned about the Conservatives putting us back in the red largely because I've seen how the Conservatives have done it in the United States. I believe they will enact tax cuts, but they will then not change spending appropriately.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by Coolsurfer79+May 10 2005, 03:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Coolsurfer79 @ May 10 2005, 03:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@May 9 2005, 06:24 PM

That's precisely the point I was trying to make. The NDP platform tells us that they believe in balanced budgets and responsable spending, but you and I both know what a farce that is. They say those things because they know they won't get any votes if they don't.

Likewise, I don't trust that the Conservatives would only enact the policies they outline in their platform. Why should we trust their new, (slightly) more moderate platform given views that were publicly stated in the past by many party members, including Harper?

I actually believe that the NDP would run balanced budgets. They are the only party that wouldn't be pushing major tax cuts. I'm actually more concerned about the Conservatives putting us back in the red largely because I've seen how the Conservatives have done it in the United States. I believe they will enact tax cuts, but they will then not change spending appropriately. [/b][/quote]
Thats an interesting concept, but on the opposite side what if the conservatives were like the Alberta Provincial Conservatives, and manage to pay the debt off in record time?

That could be more appropriate then comparing them to the republicans

[FlamesAddiction]

[quote]Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@May 10 2005, 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by Coolsurfer79,May 10 2005, 03:38 AM

Thats an interesting concept, but on the opposite side what if the conservatives were like the Alberta Provincial Conservatives, and manage to pay the debt off in record time?

That could be more appropriate then comparing them to the republicans

Using Alberta oil revenues?

[CaptainCrunch]

[quote]Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 10 2005, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch,May 10 2005, 04:09 AM

Using Alberta oil revenues?

and . . . ?

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Julio+May 9 2005, 06:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Julio @ May 9 2005, 06:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

"I would generally continue...."

Simply put, I guarantee that you could not find 154 Conservative MP's (or hopefuls) who would vote in favour of outlawing abortions.

I would guarantee you couldnt find 50.

I also guarantee you would find Liberals who would support outlawing abortions.

Simply put, there is 0 chance that the Conservatives introduce a motion to ban abortions as official party platform, and there is only a marginally higher chance that an individual MP would introduce it as a private members bill, and expect it to even reach the floor for a vote, let alone be in any danger of passing.

The problem here is that you are taking a very small, extreme minority of the party and passing it off as being representative of the entire party. This is something Canada's liberal media has proven very adept at, and people - especially out east - eat it up.

And yet, if I were to brand the Liberals a racist organization based on the comments of Fry and Volpe, I'd get trashed for overgeneralizing.

Canada is a very hypocritical nation.

Snakeeye:
Have a look @ this page before you guarantee that 50 Conservative MPs wouldn't vote for a total abortion ban.
http://www.straightgoods.ca/Election...ews.cfm?Ref=15

Now I do have to agree that it would be greatly suprising if 154 Conservative MPs would, and it is also true that some Liberals are very anti abirtion. But generally I do think that it can be said that as a group the Conservative causus is more anti abortion and that the Liberal causus is more pro abortion. [/b][/quote]
And where did the Canadian labor Congress come up with those statistics? Thin air?

I doubt you'll find any more Conservatives willing to change the abortion laws than you'll find Liberals interested in changing the laws. That article is a typical example of organizations with an agenda spreading misinformation and lies.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Coolsurfer79@May 9 2005, 08:38 PM
I actually believe that the NDP would run balanced budgets. They are the only party that wouldn't be pushing major tax cuts. I'm actually more concerned about the Conservatives putting us back in the red largely because I've seen how the Conservatives have done it in the United States. I believe they will enact tax cuts, but they will then not change spending appropriately.

Another boogeyman. Conservatisim in Canada is generally closer to American Democrats than Republicans. It is patently unfair to base what a party in Canada might do because of the actions of a completely seperate party in a different country.

Or maybe it would be fair of me to compare a potential NDP government to the Soviet Union under Lenin?

[Coolsurfer79]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+May 9 2005, 09:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ May 9 2005, 09:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I actually believe that the NDP would run balanced budgets. They are the only party that wouldn't be pushing major tax cuts. I'm actually more concerned about the Conservatives putting us back in the red largely because I've seen how the Conservatives have done it in the United States. I believe they will enact tax cuts, but they will then not change spending appropriately.

Thats an interesting concept, but on the opposite side what if the conservatives were like the Alberta Provincial Conservatives, and manage to pay the debt off in record time?

That could be more appropriate then comparing them to the republicans [/b][/quote]
Well, I compare them to the Republicans because the situation is more similar than to that of the Conservative Government of Alberta. That being the belief that the reduced revenue from taxes will be offset by the increase in production. Both are Federal parties that did not hold power when the budget was balanced but want to come in and strengthen the economy by cutting taxes, but they also have very big spending ideas. I look at point after point on their written agenda and I can see little cost after little cost adding up. The Governmet of Alberta spent like drunken sailors and got us into an enormous debt, and then were bailed out by an oil boom so large that we are now the only have province and we can also spend more than anyone else. That the Alberta government cut so much to education really show they lacked foreward vision. Education spending is one of the keys to strong economic growth. I guess I just don't believe the Federal Conservatives can fall ass backward into money like the Alberta Conservatives did.

Honestly I don't know what party to support these days.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Coolsurfer79@May 10 2005, 01:49 PM
The Governmet of Alberta spent like drunken sailors and got us into an enormous debt, and then were bailed out by an oil boom so large that we are now the only have province and we can also spend more than anyone else. That the Alberta government cut so much to education really show they lacked foreward vision. Education spending is one of the keys to strong economic growth. I guess I just don't believe the Federal Conservatives can fall ass backward into money like the Alberta Conservatives did.

Honestly you are so uninformed. Yes the Alberta governement in the 80's and very early 90's spent like sailors on a 2 night shore leave. But is wan't because the were brimming with money. Trudeau's NEP simple decimated Alberta's economy. In response Alberta tried to spend/ loan it's way out of the (external)depression. Klein, after elected, cut spending. With Mulroney deep sixing the NEP, yet without the Oil revenue, Alberta started to not only balance the budget but pay of the loan. The massive upward swing in Oil prices has allowed Alberta to pay it off 2-3 decades in advance.

Education-wise...yes Alberta took it on the nose. But place it in this spectrum as you will. Alberta teachers never lost their #1 status as highet paid teachers. Alberta regained after a few year the #1 place as the lowest # of students per class in the country. During Klein's tenure Alberta teachers are still the best trained and Students have excelled. Topping the PISA examinations in the world nevermind Canada.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MarchHare@May 9 2005, 06:24 PM
That's precisely the point I was trying to make. The NDP platform tells us that they believe in balanced budgets and responsable spending, but you and I both know what a farce that is. They say those things because they know they won't get any votes if they don't.

Likewise, I don't trust that the Conservatives would only enact the policies they outline in their platform. Why should we trust their new, (slightly) more moderate platform given views that were publicly stated in the past by many party members, including Harper?

Except that we have stated and proven examples of the NDP believing that "responsibile spending" equals all kinds of funding for social pet projects. We have Layton's statements, we have the agreement he forced onto Martin promising nearly $6 billion in spending. We have numerous examples provincially of NDP governments destroying economies over thier policy.

And, lets face it, this isnt a fair comparison, as barring a radical shift in Canadian thinking, the NDP has no hope of even forming the opposition, let alone forming a government. Even given the scandal's plaguing the Liberals, the NDP has made virtually no gains.

Arguing what a theoretical NDP government would do is akin to arguing whether aliens will make first-contact and give us technology to clean the environment up. It's the stuff of fiction and fantasy.

As far as the Conservatives so-called social agenda goes, we have exactly one example: gay-marriage. And given polls consistantly show that a majority - albeit slight - favor leaving the definition as-is, it could be argued that the CPC has a mandate from the Canadian public to oppose it.

And, of course, we all know that the Liberals voted, to a man, against redefining marriage in 1999.

I personally do not believe that there is a mandate from the Canadian public to change other social policies, like abortion, so there is nothing to gain politically from doing so. More likely, it would lead to a rapid defeat of any government that tries or does. Self preservation will ensure that so-called hidden agenda's are very, very unlikely to come to pass.

[MarchHare]

Snakeeye:

Fair enough on most of your points.

I will disagree with this one though:

Even given the scandal's plaguing the Liberals, the NDP has made virtually no gains.

Outside of the West, the lion's share of the "anti-Liberal" vote has gone to the NDP (Quebec being the exception, where the only two viable parties are the Libs and BQ).

Take a look at these numbers:

2000 Federal Election:
Liberals: 40.8%
Alliance + PC: 37.7%
NDP: 8.5%

2004 Federal Election:
Liberals: 36.7% (-4.1%)
Conservatives: 29.6% (-8.1%)
NDP: 15.7% (+7.2%)

Latest Poll (SES/CPAC):
Liberals: 36.1% (-0.6%)
Conservatives: 29.5% (-0.1%)
NDP: 17.9% (+2.2%)

According to those figures, the NDP has more than doubled their support from five years ago. Also take a look at this article published today by Macleans: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics...6_105475_105475

According to their surveys, the NDP is the #2 choice for the majority of both Liberal supporters and CPC-backers.

Of voters who currently back the Liberals, 42 per cent make the NDP their second choice, compared with 27 per cent who name the Tories as their next pick. Perhaps more surprisingly, of Conservative supporters, 32 per cent make the NDP their second choice, slightly higher than the 29 per cent who would switch to the Liberals. In B.C. and Saskatchewan, vote swings between NDP and Tory candidates are commonplace. But Gregg says he can't remember a time when the NDP was the top second choice nationally. "The acceptability of the NDP to Liberal and Conservative voters has never been higher," he says.

Based on these facts, your text that I quoted ought to read: "Even given the scandal's plaguing the Liberals, the Conservative Party has made virtually no gains."

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Shawnski+May 9 2005, 07:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shawnski @ May 9 2005, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@May 9 2005, 06:25 PM
I'll tell you what: if the final results of the Gomery Inquiry accuse any currently-elected Liberal MP of criminal wrong-doing, I'll donate $25 to the Conservative Party.# If not, you donate $25 to the Liberals.# Sound fair?

Interesting bet, March.

Let's break it down this way.

Case 1) You ARE aware that NO ONE will be "named" as "criminally wrong doing" by this report (since the Gomery Commission CANNOT name anyone.... see quote and link following) whereby you are knowingly setting up an automatic win for yourself and propagating the Liberal myth that the Gomery report will in fact indicate any criminal actions, or

Case 2) You have no idea what the Gomery Inquiry is mandated to report, which is in fact only on the process/recommendations for improvement and not that of identifying any wrong doers in the matter. This point is being hushed by the media big time, and I would not blame you for not understanding it, although I find it irresponsible to take such a position as you have without knowing this truth.

Here is the link to the Gomery Commissions mandate

Section k) the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;

The whole "wait for Gomery's report" crowd is waiting for AIR. The Fiberals are banking on the facts that few, if any, understand that Gomery will NOT be saying anything close to "Person X, Y and Z broke the law"

So March, which is it? Case 1 or case 2? Baiting Snakeeye and posturing no better than the Liberals are doing, or are you too unaware of what the report is mandated to report?

Either way, your "bet" offer looks weak to me.[/b][/quote]
And Shawnski you are aware that, even though Gomery can't express any conclusions on criminal or civil liability, by virtue of section a of the commission mandate the commission may "report on questions raised, directly or indirectly, by Chapters 3 and 4 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons with regard to the sponsorship program and advertising activities of the Government of Canada, including... (iv)the receipt and use of any funds or commissions disbursed in connection with the sponsorship program and advertising activities by any person or organization"

Included in Chapter 3 are Transaction Intended to Hide Sources of Funding to Crown Enteties, so the Gomery Commission is completely capable and mandated to say "Persons X, Y & Z received kickbacks from the sponsorship program funding" even if it can't go on to say "and therefore they are guilty of fraud."

Your argument that there is no point in waiting for the conclusion of the Gomery Inquiry is AIR (to use your term); there is nothing wrong with voters wanting to find out whether the current PM or any members of the current gonernment were involved in the scandal before deciding whether or not to vote for them.

The CONservatives are banking on people being so mesmerized by section k that they mistakenly conclude that nothing of relevance to an election will come out of the inquiry.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois+May 10 2005, 02:58 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bend it like Bourgeois @ May 10 2005, 02:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@May 9 2005, 01:40 PM
It's not all about the Liberal party brainwashing us or the credibility of the crooks. A lot of it boils down to people taking the opposite stance on issues than the Conservatives have taken. Sometimes Conservative supporters just don't seem to grasp that.

What's the problem with the Conservatives? I think it boils down to the fact that they aren't liberal enough for this fairly liberal country. The current version of the Conservatives is still too right wing to gain majority support IMO.

I think you're right when you say Canadians generally don't support any kind of (small c) conservative agenda, and your post is pretty much bang on.

But you've also highlighted some of the bizarro world aspects of canadian politics.

We have virtually no philosphical stance on theft and corruption, to say nothing of being inept, but we have a philosophical attachment to who delivers free health care.

We're petrified of what parties *might* do, even when there's almost no rational basis for it, but are willing to completely forgive what the party in power actually *is* doing.

And I don't just mean federal politics. Short of our new record low of outright theft, almost any charge you can level at the federal liberals can be equally planted on provincial governments, including Alberta's.

We're so amazingly afraid of change. It's unhealthy. [/b][/quote]
I'm not sure we're "afraid of change" so much as there just aren't good alternatives to vote for due to the current electoral system. Our first past the post system encourages the big regional parties to stay in power in their powerbase region, I think you can put a big part of the blame on that.

It's Liberal or Conservative for the most part because of our first past the poll system. And those who don't agree with the Conservative platform won't vote for them (like many of the posters in this thread). Now I won't be voting Liberal either but because we don't have proportional representation my vote is wasted in this region that I find myself located in (Calgary.) NDP and Green are both screwed by this system because they don't have a concentration of support in one region, they instead have more of a national appeal. The current electoral system promotes regionalism (Tories in the west, Liberals in the east, Bloc in Quebec.)

How are we afraid of change when our choice is to vote for the party that disagrees with our stance, or to vote for the party that abused our trust and stole our money? We need more legitimate choices. We need the minority opinion to be better represented. We need our votes to count. Right now they don't.

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Mike F@May 10 2005, 09:36 AM
.... so the Gomery Commission is completely capable and mandated to say "Persons X, Y & Z received kickbacks from the sponsorship program funding" even if it can't go on to say "and therefore they are guilty of fraud."

Your argument that there is no point in waiting for the conclusion of the Gomery Inquiry is AIR (to use your term); there is nothing wrong with voters wanting to find out whether the current PM or any members of the current gonernment were involved in the scandal before deciding whether or not to vote for them.

The CONservatives are banking on people being so mesmerized by section k that they mistakenly conclude that nothing of relevance to an election will come out of the inquiry.

Ahhh, now you have to look at section "L"....

l) the Commissioner be directed to submit, on an urgent basis, one or more reports, interim or final, of his factual findings made pursuant to paragraph (a) in both official languages, to the Governor in Council, and to submit a separate report of his recommendations made pursuant to paragraph (b), in both official languages, to the Governor in Council;

Judge Gomery cannot judge anything. He cannot make any opinion, regardless of how convinced he is of one persons truthfullness or lack thereof. He cannot say "I think you lied about receiving a cash stuffed envelope." (or conversely, "I think you lied about GIVING a cash stuffed envelope."... etc)

So in any case where a person did NOT admit to receiving a kickback (or having any other involvement) as claimed by any other testimony, regardless if the person was lying about receiving said kickback, Gomery CANNOT report on the event whatsoever.

He is handcuffed big time.

I will stand by my "AIR" statement. His final report will be so watered down due to these limitations that it will in fact be useless. Paul Martin and the Fiberals know this.... they worded Gomery's mandate this way for a reason.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Shawnski+May 10 2005, 01:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shawnski @ May 10 2005, 01:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@May 10 2005, 09:36 AM
.... so the Gomery Commission is completely capable and mandated to say "Persons X, Y & Z received kickbacks from the sponsorship program funding" even if it can't go on to say "and therefore they are guilty of fraud."

Your argument that there is no point in waiting for the conclusion of the Gomery Inquiry is AIR (to use your term); there is nothing wrong with voters wanting to find out whether the current PM or any members of the current gonernment were involved in the scandal before deciding whether or not to vote for them.

The CONservatives are banking on people being so mesmerized by section k that they mistakenly conclude that nothing of relevance to an election will come out of the inquiry.

Ahhh, now you have to look at section "L"....

l) the Commissioner be directed to submit, on an urgent basis, one or more reports, interim or final, of his factual findings made pursuant to paragraph (a) in both official languages, to the Governor in Council, and to submit a separate report of his recommendations made pursuant to paragraph (b), in both official languages, to the Governor in Council;

Judge Gomery cannot judge anything. He cannot make any opinion, regardless of how convinced he is of one persons truthfullness or lack thereof. He cannot say "I think you lied about receiving a cash stuffed envelope." (or conversely, "I think you lied about GIVING a cash stuffed envelope."... etc)

So in any case where a person did NOT admit to receiving a kickback (or having any other involvement) as claimed by any other testimony, regardless if the person was lying about receiving said kickback, Gomery CANNOT report on the event whatsoever.

He is handcuffed big time.

I will stand by my "AIR" statement. His final report will be so watered down due to these limitations that it will in fact be useless. Paul Martin and the Fiberals know this.... they worded Gomery's mandate this way for a reason. [/b][/quote]
Unless this commission is vastly different from any other court hearing, findings about who recieved what are findings of fact (as opposed to findings of law).

If Gomery is convinced that the evidence has established to a reasonale degree of certainty that Paul Martin received a kickback then he can make that finding of fact and include it in his final report. And he would not need an admission by Martin to make that finding, so long as there is other sufficient evidence, such as testimony of others + accounting records, for example.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois@May 9 2005, 08:58 PM
We're petrified of what parties *might* do, even when there's almost no rational basis for it,

I think I have a rational basis for fearing what they *might* do, and that rational basis comes from what they *have* said.

Some members of the party are quite extreme in their views. That much I think most of us agree on, but the answer to any worries about those kinds of people running our country seems to be "yeah, they might have extreme views, but they won't do anything about it, so why worry"?

[Shawnski]

Mike you might find a few interesting points in Gomery's opening statement that will address two of your points. In a prior post, you mentioned that conservatives "...are banking on people being so mesmerized by section k...". Gomery felt it was noteworthy enough that it should be specifically spelled out. The second bolded line talks to your most recent point regarding your statement "Unless this commission is vastly different from any other court hearing, findings about who recieved what are findings of fact (as opposed to findings of law)." An inquiry like this is completely different from other court hearings.

The purpose of the Commission is not to conduct a trial or to express any conclusion regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization. That limitation is expressly articulated in paragraph (k) of the terms of reference which I take the liberty of reading aloud, because of its importance:

(k) the Commissioner be directed to perform his duties without expressing any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization and to ensure that the conduct of the inquiry does not jeopardize any ongoing criminal investigation or criminal proceedings;

Accordingly, the Commission may not establish either criminal culpability or civil responsibility for sums of money lost or misspent, or damages; it does not have the capacity nor does it intend to do so. The Inquiry is an investigation into the issues and events referred to in the terms of reference. Its future findings of fact and statements of opinion will be unconnected to normal legal criteria, and will be intended to serve as the basis for the recommendations which I will be making as required by paragraph (b) of the terms of reference. It follows that there will be no legal consequences arising from the Commission's findings and Reports, and they will not be enforceable in, and will not bind either civil or criminal courts which might consider the same subject matters.

Also included in his comments are this section:

I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it. Such findings will be the focus of the Inquiry only to the extent that they are necessary to carry out the mandate in the terms of reference.

Since the "terms of reference" severely limit his report to "factual findings" only, and the "paramount importance that the Inquiry's process be scrupulously fair" if there is any conflict in testimony, you can bet that none of it will be part of his report.

Bottom line, I think his final report will be a mere shadow of what most Canadians expect he will report upon. Time will tell though. In the interim, if the government falls and there is an election, so be it. Eventually Gomery's report will be tabled, and not until that time we will have the 20-20 vision to see how the "terms of reference" for this inquiry will have factored into it.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 10 2005, 02:26 PM
snip

None of that contradicts what I wrote, and indeed "I am entitled to draw conclusions as to whether there has been misconduct and who may be responsible for it" specifically backs it up. Yes, "such findings will be the focus of the Inquiry only to the extent that they are necessary to carry out the mandate in the terms of reference", but then the terms of reference specifically include Transaction Intended to Hide Sources of Funding to Crown Enteties. If findings about who received kickbacks from whom weren't going to be a part of the inquiry's findings then all of the testimony that has come out on that topic would have been irrelevant and Gomery wouldn't have spent so much time going over that area.

With respect to my comment about normal legal proceedings, I was simply meaning the regular distinction between findings of fact and findings of law. In a normal court proceeding who received movey would be a finding of fact and nothing I've read about this inquiry has made me believe that that distinction would be different here.

Since the "terms of reference" severely limit his report to "factual findings" only, and the "paramount importance that the Inquiry's process be scrupulously fair" if there is any conflict in testimony, you can bet that none of it will be part of his report.

Again, who received kickbacks are "factual findings" and are included in the "terms of reference". Yes, it's of "paramount importance that the Inquiry's process be scrupulously fair" but that's no different from any criminal or civil trial; Gomery will have to evaluate all the testimony on any given issue, the credibility of the witnesses and any corroberating evidence in order to determine whether a finding can be made.

Bottom line, I think his final report will be a mere shadow of what most Canadians expect he will report upon. Time will tell though. In the interim, if the government falls and there is an election, so be it. Eventually Gomery's report will be tabled, and not until that time we will have the 20-20 vision to see how the "terms of reference" for this inquiry will have factored into it.

So you've come down from your position that nothing of value will come out and have admitted we won't know until it comes out.

Given that, and the fact that the majority of Canadians don't want another election right now, whose positio now looks more reasonable? The Liberals who want to wait for the findings, or the Conservatives who insist it must be now? It must be getting hard to hold on to the belief that it's only the Liberals who are playing partisan politics.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

ok let's look at the first line of their platform:

Originally posted by Captain Crunch
The Conservatives have said that Canadians should have reasonable access to health care regardless of the ability to pay.

I think it's right there.

Seriously though, critiques against the conservatives:

Healthcare
I have fundamental problems with universal healthcare. I don't buy into the concept of those who can afford it just takes stress away from the system. You'll see a division in the healthcare system like there is in the legal system. You'll have the good ones, and legal aid.

Same Sex Marriage
I can't even get a girlfriend :P, and there are people out there that aren't being allowed to marry

Who cares? If Joe Blow and John Doe of Middle of Nowhere Canada want to get married, I should be upset why?


Defense
I believe that we should have a strong moderately sized armed defense. I think the majority of funding should currently be placed into patroling our boarders, we need to keep Canada safe. Also I think there should be an increase in our foreign aid in the miliatary. I don't think we need to be preparing for war on another country, but we should be prepared to defend battles that aren't the traditional country versus country.


Marijuana

I agree, shouldn't be legalized, only for medical use.


Municipalities
HOLY Sweet Mother of Pearl, be careful on this one. Constitution is clear, municipalities are property of the provincial, which makes any work between the feds and the cities hard to do.


Crime
I'm a hardnose on crime. Sorry I know better, so should you.


Gun Registry
I don't have a gun, have no intentions of ever owning one, so I haven't followed this whatsoever.

Into the jot notes:

- independent ethics commissioner, how exactly is that different from the auditor general? I'm not being an ass, but wouldn't the auditor general bascially do the same thing in accounting the finances and how they're spend?

- I don't like the idea of fixed election dates, we aren't running a republic here.

- free votes by MPs on moral issues, define moral issues, everything governments do will effect someone negatively, isn't that morally wrong?

- I like the idea of Senators being elected, but if I think the municipality thing is tough, this senator thing is even worse.

- judicial review committee, ok cool, but it can't be on anything that you'd have a moral vote over.

- annual reports of each governmnet department and program... this is different form a budget how?

- conduct an audit of social programs, see: budget

- the governor general currently can't look at all federal documents? I never gave it any thought before, since the GG is the representitive of the head of the country I would have assumed that'd be ok.

I'll respond to taxes by saying, if we pay for more social programs is it a good idea to have tax levels below the USA? That scares me



I'll comment on more later, have to run at the moment

[Shawnski]

Originally posted by Mike F@May 10 2005, 03:57 PM
So you've come down from your position that nothing of value will come out and have admitted we won't know until it comes out.

I did no such thing.

Given that, and the fact that the majority of Canadians don't want another election right now

Depends on the polls you have read. A recent poll by CTV asked "Will you be angry with the opposition if they force a federal election this summer?" Out of 19757 people, 56% said "No".

It must be getting hard to hold on to the belief that it's only the Liberals who are playing partisan politics.

I never ONCE indicated anything of the sort. I have watched almost every minute of the House events live for the last few weeks. Without question, since Harper said he is going to bring down the government, he (and the Conservatives) have taken every possible opportunity to plant non-confidence type amendments wherever possible.

Just today, however, one got passed 153-150. Two Liberals were away from the House, and one independent was too ill to be there. The two Conservatives who are also quite ill DID get to the house to vote, thus the motion was passed.

House passes motion asking Liberals to resign

'Tis the reality of the political situation.