|
Post by Skilly on Dec 8, 2006 7:15:25 GMT -5
Well, if every province has the opt-out, it really makes the Federal government as a whole an opt-in process, which just won't work. The whole basis for opt-out is that the Quebec nation's needs aren't the same as other provinces. If something just isn't right for Alberta or Ontario, then it just won't be adopted - or at least, the anglo-saxon nation can bump off the government making such a bad program. I'd be open to a "regional veto" for groups of provinces, so that if a program isn't appropriate for a region then it won't apply there. As to agreeing between ourselves, the problem is agreeing on something that we can sell across the country. To a certain extent I understand what you are trying to say ... But is it really fair for Quebec to opt-out of a program that only benefits the other nine provinces but not Quebec ..... but another province not be allowed to opt-out of a national program when nine provinces are benefiting? As an example, (and I admit they may be two extremes) the Liberals tried to push through the National Daycare Plan. But Quebec already had a daycare plan in place, and neglecting the recent problems with it, they didn't need a national model. They could have just taken the federal money allocated to Quebec and used it on their own model (or elsewhere). Only nine provinces say any real benefit in it. So I would assume that if Quebec had an opt-out clause then it would have been used here. (probably a bad example .. but you get the point ... and you could provide me with a better example I am sure) Now look at Newfoundland. The provinces are currently working together to approach Ottawa with a new way of allocating equalization money. Every province recognizes that it has to be changed and it has to be done fairly. Harper defined "fairly" in his election promises as "no province in the Confederation will be adversely affected". The current proposed equalization formula (not yet adopted, but it is coming) will provide more money to every province except one .... Newfoundland, who will receive less. The so-called "poorest" province, receiving less money from a program that is suppose to bring programs up to the national standard. If you replace Newfoundland with Quebec, and Quebec has an opt-out, well Quebec would opt-out and receive a different deal... why should another province be any different if they are to be equal, but different. I admit these example may not be the best ... but they are off the top of my head. Newfoundland recognizes that including non-renewal resources hinders many provinces .... and although it was a Conservative election promise to not include them ... all we are asking is to work together for a better formula than the current one. Under the election promises scenario ... Newfoundlad would actually be a paying province (yes a have province) in 5 years .... this new formula means Newfoundland will be forever and a day a have-not province ... so if the equalization formula is that sensitive to resource revenue it can't be a fair one in my opinion. Your regional proposal would be no good. Unless Newfoundland is its own region. We are not apart of the Maritime provinces, have our own seperate time zone, so I should see why that should be a problem .... the cost of something coming here is so onerous (try comparing anything getting to or going from Halifax to St. John's) that to look at us as similar to the Maritimes isn't fair. We are totally distinct in culture, attitude, and needs than the martimes. And from an equalization point of view, all three Maritime provinces are oposed to Newfoundland's stance on equalization. You would think we had an ally with Nova Scotia, but they do not produce as much oil to make it a big difference to them.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 9, 2006 11:41:05 GMT -5
I just want you to get honest. I like to think I am. They're all bums. They are all in it for power and glory. I am a member of no party. I look at policy and decide from there. I lived in Alberta and voted Liberal. I lived in Saskatchewan and voted Conservative. I live in Ontario and have voted Green. I've never voted NDP -- I disagree with just about all of their platform. And if I lived in Quebec I might even vote PQ/BQ as some of my friends have done, becasue the alternative local candidates were so bad. As for you, you like the Liberal Party. You hate the Conservative Party. We get that. What I don't get is that you hate the Conservative Party for being corrupt, yet for the last 13 years we were led by a Liberal that was rife with corruption. You think that Conservatives are inconsistent, yet when the Liberals promised to "scrap the GST" but didn't they at least tried; Trudeau was against Wage and Price controls, but brought them in soon after his election and was against a gas tax increase (and won an election on that issue) but brought in the NEP. You hate Conservative fiscal policy, yet Paul Martin' policies were Conservative: he made masssive cuts to the health care system (but he balanced the books!). You hate Conservative social policy because it is right wing, but you are pro-life/anti-abortion, pro-family/anti-same sex marriage just as the Conservatives are, as opposed to Liberal pro-abortion, pro-same sex policy. Wax eloquently all you wish, but in some matters you are "one of them"
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 9, 2006 12:33:26 GMT -5
Wax eloquently all you wish, but in some matters you are "one of them" I'll be damned (I'm always damned anyway ), you found inconsistencies in TH's argument? LOL! I don't know about you guys but it seems that I no longer vote "for" a party, but rather for the party that I hate the least.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 9, 2006 12:36:43 GMT -5
Wax eloquently all you wish, but in some matters you are "one of them" I'll be damned (I'm always damned anyway ), you found inconsistencies in TH's argument? LOL! I don't know about you guys but it seems that I no longer vote "for" a party, but rather for the party that I hate the least. That's about it . . .
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 9, 2006 13:41:50 GMT -5
I just want you to get honest. I like to think I am. They're all bums. They are all in it for power and glory. I am a member of no party. I look at policy and decide from there. I lived in Alberta and voted Liberal. I lived in Saskatchewan and voted Conservative. I live in Ontario and have voted Green. I've never voted NDP -- I disagree with just about all of their platform. And if I lived in Quebec I might even vote PQ/BQ as some of my friends have done, becasue the alternative local candidates were so bad. As for you, you like the Liberal Party. You hate the Conservative Party. We get that. What I don't get is that you hate the Conservative Party for being corrupt, yet for the last 13 years we were led by a Liberal that was rife with corruption. ( You think that Conservatives are inconsistent, yet when the Liberals promised to "scrap the GST" but didn't they at least tried; Trudeau was against Wage and Price controls, but brought them in soon after his election and was against a gas tax increase (and won an election on that issue) but brought in the NEP. You hate Conservative fiscal policy, yet Paul Martin' policies were Conservative: he made masssive cuts to the health care system (but he balanced the books!). You hate Conservative social policy because it is right wing, but you are pro-life/anti-abortion, pro-family/anti-same sex marriage just as the Conservatives are, as opposed to Liberal pro-abortion, pro-same sex policy. Wax eloquently all you wish, but in some matters you are "one of them" I'm beginning to understand your quandry. I am not a Liberal. However Liberals to a higher degree than any other party., have brought into effect the kinds of policies that have made Canada, with all its grievious faluts, one of the very best countries in the world in which to live. No small matter. I don't hate conservatives or little girls who have their babies killed by someone else, or even the conservative party, who are mostly just really stupid, stupid people. Martin was the absolute worst PM imaginable to me, from the right side of the Liberal gang, who sank to the really putrid level of using abortion as a stepping stool to get elected. Many people, feel caught frankly between mutually exclusive forces on abortion. I must honestly say that were I not a Catholic, and I credit the church for this, I would not be as publicly and persistently in people's faces on this issue. One thing that really has astounded me, including when I stood up and spoke against it at and NDP convention, shortly before I left the party (in BC) over the issue, is that almost no one ever comes back at me on this issue. Young men at my (cheap and public) tennis club all fail to even attempt to defend abortion, tacitly acknowledging that they might just be a little pu$$ywhipped on the issue. The are ashamed of themselves. More rarely, some speak with simple and fearless clarity agaonst abortion. It is a crime against humanity. My reason for opposing it totally, is simply because the issue was clearly presented to me in its biological and moral dimensions. Sure, get agitated and activce for the second larget group of welfare recipients after single mothers and children , men over 50 who can't get hired, or agitate for bigger tax breaks for the wealthy, but in our culture, the tiniest, weakest little persons, male and female, boys and girls get dismembered and sliced up so they can be suctionned out of wombs every day. Like good German citizens living down the block from the furnaces built by the good Gernman factory workers in the good German corporations, people were silent. Fearfull and paralyzed by their fear and tacit approval. Those are the facts on abortion, the most grievious and terrible wrong in the world. As I was and am encouraged to examine my conscience and love my neighbor, I and other "fanatics", with "extreme postions" - that one really makes me laugh- simply do what we must, in conscience do. Is there a worthier cause, howsoever counter cultural? This is a major part of what the Pope John Paul called the "culture of death." The first proponents of killing children in the womb in modern times were of course the Nazis. This too is but a part of a much wider and far-reaching phenomenon particular to modern times. Most people don't know what to think about anything. They are tossed about by the opinion winds of the day and buffeted by media who are controlled by corporations and their next quarter profit imperatives. I find most people are terribly confused about everything. I thank God I was able to study philosophy at St. Mike's at U of T. The monster, often seen in some circles as the antichrist emerging in the west, was no accident, and what he did, bottom line, was signal the arrival of modern times. For about seventy years prior to his monstrous eugenics enterprise, German intellectuals had been busily reducing mankind to mere Darwinian terms. Many in our culture do it today, when they speak of "survival of the fittest", attempts to justify apply a savage and cowardly anti-human ethic to human ethics. THe prewar German intelligentia was laying the goundwork for the deathcamps, and using a worldview from Darwin to do it. This is NOT to argue against the general thesis of evolution, but it most certainly is and argument aginst the stupidity of philosophically atheistic evoulutionary theories. Evoluitonary science has nothing to say about the existence of God or atheism. Rather it is the dogmatic a priori and unscientific dogmatism of rather ignorant peope like Dawkins and the philosophical nonsense of Hawkings (Brief history of Time) that sow immense confusion in the minds of the average person who can't clearly know tha they are talking gibberish. And they are talking gibberish. "Possible universes" my a$$. The key issues are philosophical in our times. Most who read these words are probably convinced that you or I can not demonstrate the existence of God one way or another. Why do we accept that as true? What is the proof? Let's hear it. I digress. As always. Back to your post. To say that we were led for the last 13 years by a party that was rife with corruption, is a lot like asking how I can be a Catholic because they made the terrible mistake of admitting persons with homosexual orientations into the seminaries and roughly 90% of the abuse involved homosexual acts with teen-aged boys. Pedophilia (sex acts with infants) was never the issue, but the alliteratjon of "Pedophile Priests" made nice scandalous headlines and the media refused and refuses to point out the factual connection to predatory homosxexuality. Incidentlally. homosexually oriented persons are statistically vastly more likely to abuse children sexually, agian, contrary to popular belief. However, much as I intensely dislike Martin and loathe his pathetic campagne, and much as I am disappointed with the clear abuse of funds unearthed in the Gomery enquiry, Martin did in fact, quite reponsibly get the financial house in order. It was painful, and he did it. Politics is the art of the possible. Most Candadians trusted, (rightly) the Liberals to navigate the minefield. And they were right. They did, and Martin deserves the credit, just as Harper deserves credit for his pro-life stance, and should be pilloried for giving that moron Stockwell Day a handout job in cabinet. When you speak of corruption, the 407 given away by Harris to "balance" his books is a scandal thousands of times greater. A right wing war for family oil interests is VASTLY more relevant and scandalous. Gutting our national health plan is a vastly more serious issue than padding an ad agency account to repay them for work when out of power, as consevatives and govenments generally have done for centuries. The Liberals under Chretien called for the RCMP to investigate, and the Gomery inquiry was called by Martin, not right wing conservatives. it is however, like homosexual sex abuse and all scandals, Mulroney, Guite, whoseever, in the end a distraction from the larger issues, not the larger issues themselves. Is Harper opposong abortion? How? Was the recent vote to look into the absurd idea of homosexual "marriage" genuinely undertaken to address this terrible, short-sighted decision rejected in France as absurd? No. Everybody knew the result before the words were uttered. If anything, this politicking was a sop to the right wingers to show them that deep down,,,where it doesn't matter, he was their boy. Gotta go for a while. ( Big sigh of relief from persons reading ..heg heh. )
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 9, 2006 15:14:20 GMT -5
One thing that really has astounded me, including when I stood up and spoke against it at and NDP convention, shortly before I left the party (in BC) over the issue, is that almost no one ever comes back at me on this issue. I would tend to feel that you have your opinion made up on the matter at to discuss the issue is not possible. No one likes an opinion shoved down their throats. But I will "come back at you" on the issue .... Issues like abortion and capital punishment are not black and white issues. There is no right and wrong. The area of gray around them is so vast that you can not make a law to cover every possibility. It can't be done. I remember when I was in high school we had a Canadian Democracy class. For one month our class went from election to passing a bill through the House of Commons and Senate. As dumb-luck (unfortunate luck ... you will see what i mean) .... I won the election and became PM. Our little venture into democracy had one little caveat though .. our teacher was Speaker of the House and he got to choose the bill we would pass. He didnt just blindly say this is the bill however ... he had two issues on 5 pieces of paper (so ten issues in all) and placed them in a hat and chose one ...well wouldnt you know the paper he selected said "Capital Punishment or Abortion" .... we had a class (a 50 minute period) to go to caucus and come back with the bill we intended to draft. Well the debate in caucus was intense for 16-17 year olds I tell you..... the girls wanted no part of an abortion bill unless it was pro ... and no one wanted to touch capital punishment because it would be too easy for the opposition to hammer us on issues like double jeopardy and killing innocent people. So when we decided it was abortion we had to make a stance .... government can not be wishy-washy ...and we had to draft a bill we could pass. We knew the opposition would vote along party lines (and were sure the teacher was coaching them), the problem was making a bill that our own party could accept. My majority was only 2 people ... and then we had people who wanted their "A" in the course so they were adamant the bill had to be perfect. No perfect bill exists. I tried to give everyone want they wanted .. a bill with exceptions... I got hammered so bad in the House, the leader of the opposition stood up and said "Mr. Speaker, can I call the honourable member an idiot...." Our teacher said " I believe you just did.." The moral ... how can any caring human being expect a woman to carry a baby she hates. A baby conceived from rape ... a baby to remind her of the worst time of her life. I would expect that most people are against it as a form of birth control ... (I am) ... but how do you prove that .... and I'll tell you one thing. And this is where we had the problem as 16-17 year olds. One of those brainiacs who wanted her "A", brought in oodles of research showing that in countries where abortion is against the law, women/girls/teenagers were ending their pregnancies on their own .... one such story sticks with me to this very day of a women who mutilated herself wth a coathanger... and I am sure no god-fearing loving christian wants that.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 10, 2006 1:49:53 GMT -5
I'm still waiting to hear of one great thing that the Liberals achieved for Canada in their 13 years in power. Balancing the books on the backs of the provinces, by downloading the debt does not count. We just pay at the Provincial and Municipal end. Mulroney had free trade with the U.S. and an overhaul of the tax system on his resume. What did Chretien ever do for Canada? What did Martin ever do for Canada? Even Stephen Harper, in his first year has already surpassed 13 years of Liberal government. He has the Softwood Lumber agreement and the Revitalization of the Canadian Armed Forces on his resume. He is also working on a stronger crime bill, as well. Still waiting for those long lost Liberal achievements?
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 10, 2006 15:27:10 GMT -5
An article from 2003.
PM's legacy elusive: SES/Sun Media poll
Defining accomplishment hard to find By BILL RODGERS, Parliamentary Bureau, Ottawa Sun
A majority of Canadians can't cite a single accomplishment for Jean Chretien as his 10 years in office come to a close, an SES/Sun Media poll has found. Asked to name his top three accomplishments as PM, 51% of 1,000 Canadians surveyed couldn't name one.
Refusing to send Canadian troops to war in Iraq was mentioned as an important accomplishment by 11% of Canadians surveyed. Almost 10% said Chretien doesn't have a legacy while 8.9% said eliminating the deficit would be remembered as his biggest political achievement.
At a Liberal gathering in Brantford two months ago, Chretien suggested that calming the separatist storm in Quebec was one of his greatest accomplishments.
"One thing that I'm most proud of is that Canada has never been so united as it is today," he said.
But in the SES/Sun Media poll, only 4.4% cited keeping the country together as Chretien's greatest achievement during his decade in office.
FEW RISKS
SES pollster Nic Nanos said while Chretien's personal popularity remains high among Canadians, he is regarded by most as a good manager, not a visionary.
"There's usually one major accomplishment that people can think of," said Nanos. "For Mulroney it was free trade, for Pierre Trudeau it was the Charter (of Rights and Freedoms), for Lester Pearson it was his foreign policy."
Nanos said one of the reasons Chretien and the Liberals have been so popular is because "they haven't taken any risks and they've been rewarded at the polls."
"The trade-off," he added, "is that by running the safe course, there's no key accomplishment or legacy for the government."
Nanos said the PM gets very little credit for slaying the federal government's annual deficits because most Canadians see it as a joint accomplishment with Paul Martin, his successor.
A small percentage of Canadians gave the retiring PM credit for foreign policy, winning three consecutive majority governments, economic growth and increased health care funding.
The SES/Sun Media poll was conducted by telephone between Nov. 5 and 9 and is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 10, 2006 15:39:28 GMT -5
Chretien's legacy:
1) He renamed Trans-Canada Airlines to Air Canada (1964) 2) First francophonie minister of Finance 3) Created 10 national parks 4) Chretien played a major role in repatriating the Constitution (1980) AS Prime Minister:
1) Reduced the deficit (the amount by which government spending exceeds revenues) from 42 billion in 1993/94 to 8.9 billion in 1996/97. 2) Eliminated the deficit entirely in the 1998/99 fiscal year and ran surpluses for five years straight 3) Paid down over $10 billion in debt 4) Substantially increased the standard of living: it is twenty-nine percent higher in 2003 than in 1994 5) Increased economic growth from 2.7 percent in the previous decade to an average of 3.5 percent between 1994 and 2003 6) Improved Canada’s economic position to the point where Canada was the only G-7 country to have both fiscal and trade surpluses in 2002. Canada has suffered less from the economic fallout resulting from the collapse of the stock market and the 2001 terrorist attacks than many other countries. 7) Introduced the Clarity Bill 8) Created the position of Language Commissionare.
I have to admit .... there wasn't much that he did that jumps out at you.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 10, 2006 18:57:34 GMT -5
Chretien as Prime Minister:
Because he downloaded the debt to the provinces in cuts to transfer payments. Education, and healthcare, were supposed to be a 50 - 50 split between the provinces and the federal government. It was actually 87% provincially paid and 13% federally paid by the Feds when Chretien left. That's how he balanced his budget and slayed the deficit.
This was not Chretiens doing, it was thanks to the full phase in of NAFTA and the Canada/US free trade deal, instituted under Mulroney.
The U.S. bought 90% of our exports and we lived under a 63 cent dollar. Why wouldn't he, when we were pimping out our working people for 1/3 less than an equally qualified person in the U.S.? We may soon drop out of the G8, because we are being overtaken by countries like Spain, because of Chretiens inaction.
Of course, written by Stephan Harper and Preston Manning, introduced in to Parliament and the Liberals passed it.
Another patronage appointment for another department that taxpayers need not fund. Just more division for the country.
Sorry, nothing here to show progress for the country, just overtaxation and downloading of services to other jurisdictions. 13 years of nothing!
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 10, 2006 21:12:00 GMT -5
Check out the National news tonight. Another Liberal Scandal being uncovered. Money being funneled to a special Native Police force, from the Chretien/Martin government. The money was alocatted illegally, but hey?, why not steal more money from the Treasury Board, when you've been getting away with it. Another gem from the Auditor General!
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Dec 11, 2006 0:31:37 GMT -5
I have to admit .... there wasn't much that he did that jumps out at you. To me, a good government is like a good ref - you don't really notice him, he just does what needs to be done. Governments, or more correctly, leaders looking for a lasting legacy usually wind up creating more controversy than their pet projects were worth - bringing home the Constitution here is still a very contentious event in Quebec, Mayor Jean Drapeau's Olympic debt has just been paid off this year and Montreal has very few worthwhile installations left over, Bush's Iraq invasion was supposed to be the beginning of a marvelous project in the Middle East, etc, etc. To me a legacy is something look back to after 20 years and realise was well done, and not something flashy that everyone believes in right from the start. NB: I'm not defending Chrétien here by any means, but just saying that major legacy projects are overrated.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 11, 2006 0:48:08 GMT -5
Chretien squandered 13 years of Canadian history and minimized different sectors of our society. Our health-care and education suffered under his regime. The military and Canada's commitment to NATO suffered under Chretien. His government insulted and ridiculed our greatest trading partner and by the time 911 happened, we were not even an afterthought by our cousins to the south. Our Canadian prestige has plummeted on the world stage due to his ineptitude. The Kyoto Accord was just plain ridiculous, to sign on to, when the U.S., China, Russia, and India did not sign. We would have transfered massive amounts of money to third world dictatorships to buy credits on emissions, while the major industrialized countries took a pass and continue to pollute the world. Canada's 0.5% emissions was a mere drop in the bucket, but Chretien was about to send out taxpayers money to third world countries to make him look like a player on the world stage. Thank God the Liberals were defeated and this accord was scrapped by our new government.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 11, 2006 6:54:23 GMT -5
I have to admit .... there wasn't much that he did that jumps out at you. To me, a good government is like a good ref - you don't really notice him, he just does what needs to be done. Governments, or more correctly, leaders looking for a lasting legacy usually wind up creating more controversy than their pet projects were worth - bringing home the Constitution here is still a very contentious event in Quebec, Mayor Jean Drapeau's Olympic debt has just been paid off this year and Montreal has very few worthwhile installations left over, Bush's Iraq invasion was supposed to be the beginning of a marvelous project in the Middle East, etc, etc. To me a legacy is something look back to after 20 years and realise was well done, and not something flashy that everyone believes in right from the start. NB: I'm not defending Chrétien here by any means, but just saying that major legacy projects are overrated. And I was trying to show that Chretien did something while in office or nothing at all.... I merely googled "Chretien's legacy as Prime Minister" and "Chretien's accomplishments as PM" to see if there was one thing that we were all forgetting.
|
|
|
Post by LoupDogg on Dec 11, 2006 8:06:30 GMT -5
The Kyoto Accord was just plain ridiculous, to sign on to, when the U.S., China, Russia, and India did not sign. We would have transfered massive amounts of money to third world dictatorships to buy credits on emissions, while the major industrialized countries took a pass and continue to pollute the world. Canada's 0.5% emissions was a mere drop in the bucket, but Chretien was about to send out taxpayers money to third world countries to make him look like a player on the world stage. Thank God the Liberals were defeated and this accord was scrapped by our new government. I'm not sure you understand Kyoto agreement as it is. There is no buy-out of pollution from 3rd world countries in it. You reduce your own emissions. The fact that this "buying pollution credits" was NOT in the agreement was one of the reasons US didn't sign. Correct me if I'm wrong (could be)
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 11, 2006 8:47:28 GMT -5
I have to admit .... there wasn't much that he did that jumps out at you. To me, a good government is like a good ref - you don't really notice him, he just does what needs to be done. Paul, I'll add that a good ref is also firm but fair. He/she also understands that the rules of the game must also apply to everyone equally. If not, they risk losing control of the game. Edit: see Trudeau However, if the rules of the game have to be redefined, then all the teams should sit down and hash it out equally. Create the controversy, make the voter afraid of it and then tell you whose to blame. If there's one thing about Chretien's legacy that is positive, it has to be his decision to stay out of Iraq. I don't think history will ever admit that Chretien's major failing was losing control of his party. However, it will remember how it crushed Brian Mulrooney's Kim Campbell's conservatives. What it will fail to mention, though, is that it wasn't so much an election to vote the Liberals into office, as it was to boot the Conservatives out. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Dec 11, 2006 8:58:06 GMT -5
Chretien squandered 13 years of Canadian history and minimized different sectors of our society. Our health-care and education suffered under his regime. I remember talking to a Liberal economist ('96) on the plane coming back from Israel. He told me the national debt was getting better but that, "... every family in Canada still owes $20,000 but they're only taking in $10,000." Paul Martin actually turned out to be one of the best finance ministers in recent history. He slashed health care and other services so as to try and get a grip on a deficit that was spiraling out of control. When he increased health care spending a few years later, he did so around election time; a common, but predictable tactic for sure. However, he only replaced what he has slashed in the first place. Thank goodness for freedom of the press. Any country that has a strong identity has a strong military. The Torys are well on the way to restoring Canada's international reputation. Canada's performance in Afghanistan means that they will not ignored when contributing to NATO's policies. And Chretien, himself, did nothing to prevent it. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 11, 2006 11:31:37 GMT -5
The Kyoto Accord was just plain ridiculous, to sign on to, when the U.S., China, Russia, and India did not sign. We would have transfered massive amounts of money to third world dictatorships to buy credits on emissions, while the major industrialized countries took a pass and continue to pollute the world. Canada's 0.5% emissions was a mere drop in the bucket, but Chretien was about to send out taxpayers money to third world countries to make him look like a player on the world stage. Thank God the Liberals were defeated and this accord was scrapped by our new government. I'm not sure you understand Kyoto agreement as it is. There is no buy-out of pollution from 3rd world countries in it. You reduce your own emissions. The fact that this "buying pollution credits" was NOT in the agreement was one of the reasons US didn't sign. Correct me if I'm wrong (could be) If Canada is successful, forestry projects in developing countries could undermine efforts to protect the climate, and also damage the environments and livelihoods of local people. Weak rules will enable Canada to buy cheap carbon credits from questionable projects overseas, allowing the largest polluters to avoid reducing greenhouse gases at home. David SuzukiMeeting Kyoto targets will cost the Canadian economy a third of its output or force Ottawa to spend $20-billion by 2012 to buy international credits, says one of the country's leading business groups.
Under Kyoto, Canada agreed to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, which stood at 599 megatonnes, during the 2008-to-2012 period. Canada was 27% above 1990 levels in 2004, and Mr. Myers expects the country to be 30% above 1990 levels once 2005 data are calculated.
Mr. Myers said that since 1990, Canada's carbon output has increased by an average of 1% less than the rate of economic growth. He has calculated that technological progress in reducing emission intensity would have to accelerate by eight times, or 700%, during the next five years to meet Kyoto targets.
"You would have to have widespread replacement of energy sources, widespread improvement in vehicles currently on the road, and widespread replacement of existing industrial machinery. It's not going to happen in five years," Mr. Myers said.
As a result, only two options remain for legislators: Reduce economic output by 30%, or roughly $300-billion, by shutting down factories and taking vehicles off the road; or purchase the equivalent of about $5-billion a year, between 2008 to 2012, of emission credits as allowed under Kyoto, for a total of $20-billion.
The $20-billion figure is based on buying enough credits for each year between 2008 and 2012 to make up Canada's expected shortfall, of 215.7 megatonnes, at an estimated cost of $20 per tonne.
Under the former Liberal government's environment plan, up to $5-billion was set aside to purchase credits for the 2008 to 2012 period. link for more bad news
|
|
|
Post by duster on Dec 11, 2006 16:05:24 GMT -5
This was not Chretiens doing, it was thanks to the full phase in of NAFTA and the Canada/US free trade deal, instituted under Mulroney. I respectfully disagree. NAFTA had nothing to do with it. If anything, it was a resurgent U.S. economy which created demand for our natural resources as well as sound fiscal policy by Chretien's Liberals that made the difference. All NAFTA really achieved was to change our economic model to supply side economics from a quasi Keynesian model. In essence, our branch economy was reverted back to a resource dependent economy. Hoped for full employment at lower wages and the cheaper price of goods and services that typically occurs in supply side economics (Mulroney's famous "Jobs, jobs, jobs" and the GST) did not occur as it did in Reagan's U.S. due to various reasons - taxation being one of them. Instead, manufacturing promptly started moving south of the border for economy of scale reasons and also because the cost of doing business was and is cheaper in the U.S. in many respects. There is a good reason why the Auto Pact was not on table. The U.S. bought 90% of our exports and we lived under a 63 cent dollar. Why wouldn't he, when we were pimping out our working people for 1/3 less than an equally qualified person in the U.S.? We may soon drop out of the G8, because we are being overtaken by countries like Spain, because of Chretiens inaction. True, the U.S. bought 90% of our exports. And you'll note it's practically all raw materials instead of manufactured goods which generates more wealth. Our economy is more than ever dependent on the U.S. The U.S. knows this and that's why they have us over a barrel when they choose to ignore NAFTA as with softwood for example. It's ironic that a 63 cent dollar would not have been necessary in the first place if it wasn't for Conservative policy. Our membership in the G8 is political not economic. It was Mulroney's reward for giving the U.S. access to cheaper raw materials.
|
|
|
Post by duster on Dec 11, 2006 16:37:01 GMT -5
Check out the National news tonight. Another Liberal Scandal being uncovered. Money being funneled to a special Native Police force, from the Chretien/Martin government. The money was alocatted illegally, but hey?, why not steal more money from the Treasury Board, when you've been getting away with it. Another gem from the Auditor General! You know the saying about casting stones and glass houses... The more influential people who worked for Mulroney at PCO/PMO are back in the Langevin Block working for Harper.
|
|
|
Post by princelh on Dec 11, 2006 23:11:05 GMT -5
You are becoming an apologist, for the Chretien Liberals. The question was: What government policy did Chretien ever introduce that was of benefit to Canadians? What is there to show for 13 years of Liberal government? I sure don't want to make a list of what bad things they did, because it would first take me at least an hour and I want my hands to be able to function, after typing out the long list of indiscretions that these thieves foisted on the people of Canada. And people want them back in power? Just goes to show how forgetful? Blind? Ignorant? Stupid? that many of the electorate are. Then there are those you can't reason with, because they are not objective and have been brainwashed into believing that they have to vote for them, because Daddy voted for them. The record, is the record and if you put it on an objective scale, these people need a long holiday from power, until they wash the stench of entitlement away.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 12, 2006 7:21:28 GMT -5
You are becoming an apologist, for the Chretien Liberals. The question was: What government policy did Chretien ever introduce that was of benefit to Canadians? What is there to show for 13 years of Liberal government? I sure don't want to make a list of what bad things they did, because it would first take me at least an hour and I want my hands to be able to function, after typing out the long list of indiscretions that these thieves foisted on the people of Canada. And people want them back in power? Just goes to show how forgetful? Blind? Ignorant? Stupid? that many of the electorate are. Then there are those you can't reason with, because they are not objective and have been brainwashed into believing that they have to vote for them, because Daddy voted for them. The record, is the record and if you put it on an objective scale, these people need a long holiday from power, until they wash the stench of entitlement away. By that logic, then everyone should vote NDP - less they be stupid. They haven't had the chance to show their corruption. I met the leader of the provincial NDP party a few years back. It was about 6 months before an election. I jokingly told him I would run for him if he let me come up with my own campaign slogan ..... he said "Oh we need new young blood in our party what is your slogan" ... So I said .."You've been @#$ ED by the Liberals, you are getting @#$%ed by the PC's, Now let me @#$% you too" ;D
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 13, 2006 19:06:23 GMT -5
One thing that really has astounded me, including when I stood up and spoke against it at and NDP convention, shortly before I left the party (in BC) over the issue, is that almost no one ever comes back at me on this issue. I would tend to feel that you have your opinion made up on the matter at to discuss the issue is not possible. No one likes an opinion shoved down their throats. But I will "come back at you" on the issue .... Issues like abortion and capital punishment are not black and white issues. There is no right and wrong. The area of gray around them is so vast that you can not make a law to cover every possibility. It can't be done. I remember when I was in high school we had a Canadian Democracy class. For one month our class went from election to passing a bill through the House of Commons and Senate. As dumb-luck (unfortunate luck ... you will see what i mean) .... I won the election and became PM. Our little venture into democracy had one little caveat though .. our teacher was Speaker of the House and he got to choose the bill we would pass. He didnt just blindly say this is the bill however ... he had two issues on 5 pieces of paper (so ten issues in all) and placed them in a hat and chose one ...well wouldnt you know the paper he selected said "Capital Punishment or Abortion" .... we had a class (a 50 minute period) to go to caucus and come back with the bill we intended to draft. Well the debate in caucus was intense for 16-17 year olds I tell you..... the girls wanted no part of an abortion bill unless it was pro ... and no one wanted to touch capital punishment because it would be too easy for the opposition to hammer us on issues like double jeopardy and killing innocent people. So when we decided it was abortion we had to make a stance .... government can not be wishy-washy ...and we had to draft a bill we could pass. We knew the opposition would vote along party lines (and were sure the teacher was coaching them), the problem was making a bill that our own party could accept. My majority was only 2 people ... and then we had people who wanted their "A" in the course so they were adamant the bill had to be perfect. No perfect bill exists. I tried to give everyone want they wanted .. a bill with exceptions... I got hammered so bad in the House, the leader of the opposition stood up and said "Mr. Speaker, can I call the honourable member an idiot...." Our teacher said " I believe you just did.." The moral ... how can any caring human being expect a woman to carry a baby she hates. A baby conceived from rape ... a baby to remind her of the worst time of her life. I would expect that most people are against it as a form of birth control ... (I am) ... but how do you prove that .... and I'll tell you one thing. And this is where we had the problem as 16-17 year olds. One of those brainiacs who wanted her "A", brought in oodles of research showing that in countries where abortion is against the law, women/girls/teenagers were ending their pregnancies on their own .... one such story sticks with me to this very day of a women who mutilated herself wth a coathanger... and I am sure no god-fearing loving christian wants that. Sorry not to respond earlier, but the ordeal of Laura Gainey and her family took the umph out of the board for me, though I was surprised to find myself allowing myself to enjoy the Boston game. To get right to it, I do indeed and completely have my mind made up on abortion, and I am totally opposed to it, and am unaware of any circumstance wherein events or principles could arbitrate otherwise. Incidentally, I used to think abortion was ok. At that time I was told by the media, no doubt quoting scientific authorities, that a "product of conceptus" is not a human being, but just a blob of matter. I later learned that this was a complete falsehood and recognized that I found this view preferable at the time largely from fear of responsiblity. I learned in fact that I would kill a completely innocent human being for no other reason than my convenience and pleasure. This was not a pleasant thing to learn about me. Is it ok to kill Jews too? What is the criterion or criteria where it becomes acceptable to kill innocent human life? Nobody anymore, despite initial successes with people who didn't really want to know anyway, attempts the BS line that it is not a human being who is intentionally killed, usually in fact ripped limbs and head from torso and suctionned out. Newborns can be a major inconvenience and pain in the ass too. Is it ok to kill them too? I am open to reason. In fact, the force of law is reason. Is adultury ok? How about stealing things. Is that ok? Moral relativists, and there are very many, and they are very worng, say that these things are ok. I think that they are demonstrably wrong. I am not saying that it is my opinion that they are wrong, I am saying that they are demonstrably wrong. Most moral relavtivists cry for a cop if you try to kill them or steal their car. I think they are right when they do so. Law and respect for the law, the moral law exists in the minds and hearts of men or nowhere. Mussolini was right: facism was all about moral relativism.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 13, 2006 19:17:44 GMT -5
As to so-called capital punishment, there is only one circumstance wherein a case for capital punishment can be defended as human, or a reasonable thing to do.
That situation obtains when a person is perpetrating very violent or dangerous acts upon a community and they have no means of defending themselves from these acts, or means to render the offender harmless.
In a country like Canada which has a very high rate of incarceration incidentally, but that is another issue, we can readily render harrmless a dangerous individual. To kill such a person is therefor wrong for the same exact reason that a killer is wrong. To kill without sufficient cause is simply wrong, and as it is against reason, inhuman.
Re: pedophilia, you are right. I meant prepubescent but had a head cramp. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 13, 2006 19:29:50 GMT -5
Chretien's legacy: 1) He renamed Trans-Canada Airlines to Air Canada (1964) 2) First francophonie minister of Finance 3) Created 10 national parks 4) Chretien played a major role in repatriating the Constitution (1980) AS Prime Minister: 1) Reduced the deficit (the amount by which government spending exceeds revenues) from 42 billion in 1993/94 to 8.9 billion in 1996/97. 2) Eliminated the deficit entirely in the 1998/99 fiscal year and ran surpluses for five years straight 3) Paid down over $10 billion in debt 4) Substantially increased the standard of living: it is twenty-nine percent higher in 2003 than in 1994 5) Increased economic growth from 2.7 percent in the previous decade to an average of 3.5 percent between 1994 and 2003 6) Improved Canada’s economic position to the point where Canada was the only G-7 country to have both fiscal and trade surpluses in 2002. Canada has suffered less from the economic fallout resulting from the collapse of the stock market and the 2001 terrorist attacks than many other countries. 7) Introduced the Clarity Bill 8) Created the position of Language Commissionare. I have to admit .... there wasn't much that he did that jumps out at you. In short, following Mulroney's Conservatives, (read "On the Take") one of the most corrupt and hated governments in our entire history, he set about putting the Canadian house back in order. And he did this without jeoprodizing the institutions that Canadians value most, like our universal health plan. (See Romanov). He did see Canada through the most serious crisis of her existence in 1995, though reasonable criticisms can be made of federal action and inaction. Prince has a problem with reality and presenting it honestly.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 13, 2006 19:51:21 GMT -5
Chretien squandered 13 years of Canadian history and minimized different sectors of our society. Our health-care and education suffered under his regime. The military and Canada's commitment to NATO suffered under Chretien. His government insulted and ridiculed our greatest trading partner and by the time 911 happened, we were not even an afterthought by our cousins to the south. Our Canadian prestige has plummeted on the world stage due to his ineptitude. The Kyoto Accord was just plain ridiculous, to sign on to, when the U.S., China, Russia, and India did not sign. We would have transfered massive amounts of money to third world dictatorships to buy credits on emissions, while the major industrialized countries took a pass and continue to pollute the world. Canada's 0.5% emissions was a mere drop in the bucket, but Chretien was about to send out taxpayers money to third world countries to make him look like a player on the world stage. Thank God the Liberals were defeated and this accord was scrapped by our new government. Squandered 13 years of Canadian history? WHat can I say. Minimized different sectors of our society? After Mulroney? With Preston Manning and the Western Whackjobs? Stockwell Day? Wow! I find you raising this kind of point utterly incomprehensible. "REFORM!!!!!" Remarkable. Odd that Chretien remained one of the most popular PM's in our history and still is. No one, East or West, ever doubted his love for his country. Is it meant to be an honest statement or a simply misleading one to say "his government" insulted and ridiculed our greatest trading partner.... Do you mean that he had legilation enacted to ridicule and insult the US? If you are referring to an off the cuff minister's remark to the effect that "Bush is a moron.", I am personally glad that this information, so obviously true, was shared with all. Bush is an extremely stupid, dishonset right-wing conservative corrupt moron. Thank God Chretien stood up to the moronic a$$hole. Is that the appeal that he holds to Harper et al. The world scientific community and specifically the enviromental movement is very upset that Canada has backed down under Harper ( the clean air act guy) from the Kyoto accord. Seems you fail to see a value in what people actually concerned about the environment do see a value. But of course, right wing conservatives are big on the environment.....everybody knows that....right....? Sure. Mulroney had to come out of hiding to advise Harper to get into it. Real sincere.
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 13, 2006 19:58:23 GMT -5
To me, a good government is like a good ref - you don't really notice him, he just does what needs to be done. Governments, or more correctly, leaders looking for a lasting legacy usually wind up creating more controversy than their pet projects were worth - bringing home the Constitution here is still a very contentious event in Quebec, Mayor Jean Drapeau's Olympic debt has just been paid off this year and Montreal has very few worthwhile installations left over, Bush's Iraq invasion was supposed to be the beginning of a marvelous project in the Middle East, etc, etc. To me a legacy is something look back to after 20 years and realise was well done, and not something flashy that everyone believes in right from the start. NB: I'm not defending Chrétien here by any means, but just saying that major legacy projects are overrated. And I was trying to show that Chretien did something while in office or nothing at all.... I merely googled "Chretien's legacy as Prime Minister" and "Chretien's accomplishments as PM" to see if there was one thing that we were all forgetting. LIke marriages, countries can overcome severe challenges, like Mulroney's massive defict, and a referendum or disappear down the drain. Everybody knew that Trudeau was the visionary and Chretien, his good and faithful right hand man. The Chretien record was pretty good by most standards. Not mine particularly, but we'd have been out of our everlovin' minds to have put in Preston Manning and his right-wing Reform idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 13, 2006 20:15:40 GMT -5
To get right to it, I do indeed and completely have my mind made up on abortion, and I am totally opposed to it, and am unaware of any circumstance wherein events or principles could arbitrate otherwise. So how can we debate it or why should I (or anyone who "doesnt come back at you on the matter") bother to debate it with you.? The church is not always right. What does killing Jews have to do with abortion? The two aren't even comparable. You are saying it is human life. It can not survuve outside the womb until around 26 weeks on average ... (and they are usually about 1-2 lbs then). Doctors will not perform abortions after the first trimester (13 weeks) for fear of harm to the mother. There is no torso, no heart, no brain .... the difference is in potential life. You don't believe that ... then you should meet someone who has had a miscarriage and had to still give birth to the placenta. Another poor analogy. I would suggest you are not open to reason on this issue. You as much said yourself that your mind is 100% made up on the issue ... so there is no reasoning. Reason dictates that abortion is ok. Huh, you say? Well if the force of law is reason, and the law deems abortion legal, then abortion is ok. Case closed. How can a person who is open to reason force (cause thats what someone is doing, forcing her) a woman who was raped to have the rapist's child. And you want to know how unreasonable it is ... the rapist goes to jail, gets out in 5 years, the woman does not love her child or resents it in some regard, the rapist files for joint custody or full custody, enivatbly wins proving she doesnt love it like a mother should ..and guess what .. the woman has to pay the rapist child support.... yeah that's justice. So let me get this straight. A serial rapist goes throughout a community raping women, holding them a knife point while he rapes them ... a very violent and dangerous act to any human .... and you would be in favour of killing him, just not the product of his "loving" act. If God frowns upon that, then I frown upon God. And further more.... if a serial rapist is aprehended and tried and found guilty and put to death ... which you said you were in favour above ... then later determined he was innocent .... how is that different than abortion, which you have defined as the killig of innocent life? .... I feel your views diametrically oppose each other on these issues. On one habe the potential to kill innocent life is ok with you ....and the other all potential life has to be saved?/
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 13, 2006 20:17:08 GMT -5
I feel we are going way off the thread subject matter now ....and further "debate" should have its own thread
|
|
|
Post by Toronthab on Dec 13, 2006 20:27:31 GMT -5
Chretien squandered 13 years of Canadian history and minimized different sectors of our society. Our health-care and education suffered under his regime. I remember talking to a Liberal economist ('96) on the plane coming back from Israel. He told me the national debt was getting better but that, "... every family in Canada still owes $20,000 but they're only taking in $10,000." Paul Martin actually turned out to be one of the best finance ministers in recent history. He slashed health care and other services so as to try and get a grip on a deficit that was spiraling out of control. When he increased health care spending a few years later, he did so around election time; a common, but predictable tactic for sure. However, he only replaced what he has slashed in the first place. Thank goodness for freedom of the press. Any country that has a strong identity has a strong military. The Torys are well on the way to restoring Canada's international reputation. Canada's performance in Afghanistan means that they will not ignored when contributing to NATO's policies. And Chretien, himself, did nothing to prevent it. Cheers. The liberals didn't just restore money they'd removed (admittedly) from the provincial transfers. The fact is right wingers would have robbed us of our health plan. (See Klein Harper, Bush HMO's). Canadians trusted and still trust liberals more than conservatives with our national treasures. Cuts were going to have to be made. They were and they hurt. Outside of conservative circles in Canada, Martin was the messiah for what he accomplished ALONG WITH JOBS. It was the Liberals who put our forces into Ahghanistan, where they are carrying too much of the load presently in what has been and exemplary mission. I would certainly agree that under the Liberals the military was underemphasized, but I do not necessarily view this as a govenmental wrong. You can only do what you can do, and you can't plug all leaks. Child poverty is a much more serious issue with me. While I am very proud of my father's and family's service at war, my first Canadian ancestor came to Canada with the first European Marine Corp to New France, I would suggest that Japan is a world power with little to recommend it at war. Peace is powerful. I do not see us as a military power, and suspect we never will be. I would like to have seen us in Rwanda with force however. As to the moron to the south in that most dysfuntional of govenment systems, Bush, other than the 'axis of evil ' and other conservative attempts at geopolitics, hasn't spent 6 minutes thinking about either Kanada or prime minister Poutine. His ignorance appears to equal the meat factory worker who is now our Public Safey minister, old Stockwell Day, who is doing so much to rewrite Mexican hisrtory on his blog. Apparently the Mexicans are stating a preference for their actual history. One benefit of having an educated person holding responsible positions, is that here is at least the hope that they will get at least the basic facts correctly and not be swayed to precipitous acts of completely groundless action and public deception. e. g. Bush. Day
|
|