Canadian Politics

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Nurv, I just got curious about this. Is the seal hunt mentioned anywhere in the different political agendas of the politcal parties or is it not an issue at all?

This might be an issue in the Maritimes, but it hasn't yet made national news.

Personally I don't have a problem with seal hunting as long as populations (and levels of hunting) are sustainable. This applies to hunting any animal though.


About lawsuits, I think one reason this isn't an issue in Canada is because if you sue someone (person or company) and lose, you have to pay their legal costs. This prevents people from suing unless they feel they have a darn good case.

[Nurvingiel]

The Liberals are involved in a mini-scandal involving the ever-competant department of finance. There are accusations that the Prime Minister's Office leaked information about a decision on Income Trusts (I don't really know what these are, sorry) which led to insider trading. This is alleged by the opposition (during an election, Martin points out).

Full story at CBC.

The problem I have is not that they're being investigated (since investigated parties could be innocent) but that the Finance Minister Ralph Goodale has not stepped aside during the investigation of his department. It is expected, and it might be a rule, that people under investigation in office step aside during the investigation. Goodale hasn't because he personally isn't under investigation.

I thought it was rude Goodale wasn't stepping aside, but now I'm reserving my opinion until a) the investigation is over or b) Goodale does become personally investigated and does or does not step aside.

Then, just when I thought it couldn't get any worse for the Liberals, I noticed this little gem. Some idiot opens his yapper and insults Jack Layton's smile. In the words of Napoleon Dynamite, "Gosh. Idiot."

All in all, the Liberals are running a very weak campaign. They don't have very many good ideas, and they don't even seem to give a crap they're under investigation again. I'm pretty annoyed at them, but I won't write them off for good. (They seem to be doing that by themselves quite well.)

Speaking of bad ideas, Stephen Harper wants to increase the military presence in major cities. Yes, you read that right. News at eleven.

I think there are already reserves in Vancouver, stationed right next to my own neighbourhood IIRC. Reserves are already probably stationed in Winnipeg and other major cities as well. I mean, where else would they be? So if Harper wants to boost their numbers, what's he going to do? Transfer reserves from other bases to the ones in his plan? Boost reserve pay to entice more volunteers?

Each option has a trade-off, and I don't think Harper's idea stands up to scrutiny. He tends to suggest ideas that sound excellent when you first hear them, but when you weigh the pros and cons, his ideas either seem uncreative or like they won't go anywhere.

As the campaign goes on the NDP just look better and better. The Liberals are running a poor campaign and I can't stand the Conservatives (even though they're running a very effective campaign). Fairly enough though, Canada is ready for a change from our many years of Liberal governance. Even though Stephen Harper does tend to sling mud and make himself look like an idiot, he still has a good chance of becoming Prime Minister ( ). All he needs to guarantee a Conservative win is a roll of duct tape.

(Note that there are three fun links in this post.)

[Nurvingiel]

Tonight was the second debate between four of the major party leaders. Tonight is English, and the French debate is tomorrow. We had Paul Martin (Liberal), Gilles Duceppe (Bloc), Stephen Harper (Conservative) and Jack Layton (NDP).

Irritatingly, Jim Harris leader of the Greens and 5th largest political party in Canada, was not allowed to participate. That is just weak. We need to fix that. Let the man speak!

The debate (the 1 of the 2 hours I watched) went pretty well. I was actually a bit impressed with Stephen Harper. Gone is the man who said the Liberals were involved in organised crime, Stephen Harper was the most laid back of the four. That being said, he did lack the fire the other debaters had in their argument. Relatively, Harper is the weakest debater, but he still did a decent job.

He did say he would amend the Charter to add property rights. What the heck is that!? I don't think he has the wherewithal (fortunately) to amend the Charter anyway - this is a deservedly long and complex process, and you can't just amend the Charter solely to fulfill an empty election promise.

Paul Martin is a very skillful debater. I decided to include the Liberals back into the people who I might vote for. Paul Martin, despite everything I ranted about in my previous post, inspires trust. I like the way he deals with USA-Canada relations - he doesn't kiss arse but he isn't rude either (*cough* Chrétien ).

Speaking of USA-Canada relations, apparently the USA doesn't want to be an election issue. Firstly, I'd be flattered if we were an issue in the American election. Secondly, if they really don't want to be an election issue, they could always give back the $4 billion dollars of illegal tarriffs they stole over the course of the Softwood Lumber dispute. (Not that I'm a forestry student from BC and needless to say a bit ticked about that or anything... )

That wasn't a debate issue though, so moving along...

Paul Martin also said he'll remove the notwithstanding clause from the Charter. IIRC we have never used this clause, which I think can be used to overturn a Charter-based Supreme Court decision. Martin said politicians should not be able to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court. Stephen Harper only had 30 seconds to rebut (like everyone else), but he tried to compare the Canadian judicial system with the British and the American in this short time and it didn't work out so well.

Jack Layton kind of blew it tonight. He spoke eloquently, but there were a few times where he was giving mini NDP ads instead of debating properly. He wasn't rude or anything, it's just that the last thing people want to watch in a debate is a political ad. We see those all the time. What we wanted tonight was for him to defend his policies and say what he'd do in government.

Gilles Duceppe really impressed me. He spoke very well and was quite firey. He did have it a bit easier though since, being the English debate, he didn't have a lot to lose. Still, he didn't phone it in.

I was also happy to see a sign-free debate where no-one left their podium to get all up in someone's grill (I'm looking at you Stockwell Day).

Good times were had in Canadian politics. I'm going to try to watch some of the French debate tomorrow.

Thoughts?

(BTW I hope I don't intimidate anyone with my huge posts of rantage. I just want to spark discussion and get my ideas out there.)

[Nurvingiel]

Post to update thread.

As if that giant rant wasn't enough eh?

EDIT: I'm the only person on this page! You guys are making me feel like a big ol' windbag!

[Earniel]

The USA is an election-issue in Canada? Interesting... 4 billion dollars! That's quite a big amount.

[inked]

Hey, Nurv, Did you see in Time where the Mayor of Totonto blamed the violence there on the "US exporting its problems"? I like that one because we all know that Canadians would never engage in the drug trade or have a gun battle in the streets over turf, would they?

I mean, what with the Charter and everything, I would think that Canadians wouldn't have to fight it out like that. They could just get the court to approve it before it was a law.

[Nurvingiel]

I didn't see that news. I don't think it's an election issue, but maybe it will be in the Toronto municipal election. Blaming our neighbours isn't very constructive. Because the USA invented violence. Yeah, that's it.

Reporter: Mr. Mayor, what does your government plan to do about increasing gang violence in downtown Toronto?
Mayor: We will address poverty issues in the city by funding more social programs in key areas, and building quality low-income housing. We are also working with the RCMP for more effective policing in the downtown.
Reporter: So the council has approved the budget for these projects?
Mayor: Actually... well, it's all the American's fault anyway! They exported violence here!
Reporter: o_0

[/possibly a little too much sarcasm]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

The USA is an election-issue in Canada? Interesting... 4 billion dollars! That's quite a big amount.

It sure it! Give us back our 4 billion dollars! The amount is high because we export a lot of lumber and other wood products to the USA, and they have been gouging us on these exports for a number of years now. We can't afford not to do business with them, so we continue to get gouged. (It's like shopping at the campus bookstore, except if there was no internet and we couldn't buy books from other students. >_<)

USA-Canada relations are very important to us, and it's an election issue because we want our Prime Minister to be strong in this area. I like Martin's approach. I don't like Harper's butt kissing approach.

Edit: Inked, what would we add to the Charter? The fundamental right to split someone's wig?

[Nurvingiel]

Plus, I forgot to add that I watched part of the French debate tonight. Stephen Harper and Jack Layton have very strong Anglophone accents, especially Harper. (So do I, but never mind that.) Gilles Duceppe, of course, has the best French, and Martin is completely fluent though he doesn't have a Francophone accent. The quality of French isn't going to be a reason I'll vote for someone though.

The debate was mostly the same, except all four leaders were clearly addressing Québec voters. Jack Layton basically said you don't have to choose between the Conservatives (Conservatoires) the Bloc (Bloc) or the Liberals (Libéraux), you have a better option blah blah NDP. In the English debate he didn't mention the Bloc. This is the debate that really mattered for Duceppe.

Also, Option Canada was a much bigger issue in this debate. Option Canada was a federal program during the 1995 Referendum on Québec separation, created to promote Canadian unity. The scandal (yes, another one ) is that apparently Option Canada spent 5 million dollars they weren't allowed to spend. (There was a spending limit on both sides of the referendum.)

The reason this comes up now? Someone apparently found a box near a dumpster on a tip, and the box contained documents from ten years ago showing this illegal spending.

This all looks quite suspicious. Any corporate criminal worth his salt would have destroyed those documents years ago. Paper shredders are what, fifty bucks? But the real suspicion is the simple appearance of this "proof" that just happened to show up during an election, and it just happens to make the Liberals look bad (if it's real anyway). Yeah whatever. Come talk to me when an independant investigation has been completed, and we know if someone is guilty. Until then, I give less than a crap. (Not that all these newly-discovered "scandals" are giving me the irrits or anything...)

The accusations, by the opposition, that the Finance department was involved in insider trading because Goodale met with investors the day he made a key announcement about Income Trusts is another such "scandal".

I think someone out there is just preying on people's not-entirely-unfounded perception that the Liberals are corrupt. There is also a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude in the media and society in general.

An unfounded accusation could damage the Liberals now, and be proven false after they lose the election. An innocent verdict would be too late then.

When I first heard about the investigation against the Finance department, I was mad. Then I thought, well, let's wait until the investigation yields something. (I do think Goodale should step aside during the course of the investigation though.) Now, I think the whole thing was maliciously timed.

The Option Canada "scandal" is about as subtle as a brick in the face.

I'm getting a bit sick of this election, but I still don't quite know who to vote for. I'm leaning very strongly to the NDP, though I haven't ruled out the Greens or the Liberals.

At the beginning of the election I never thought I'd vote NDP. Their reputation doesn't give them a lit of financial credibility, but let's look at the competition. The Liberals have been awesome with the economy and minimizing the national dept, but the Sponsorship Scandal wasn't exactly the pinnical of financial responsibility. Harper has made various promises throwing money at voters and the military. He would cut the GST to 5% (his best idea, but that doesn't say a lot), give people a 500$ tax decudtion*, and increase our reserves and navy.

*This is actually $500 off your taxable income rather than giving people that much money. If you made $40'000 per year you'd only pay tax on $39'500 of it. People who make more money will still pay more tax, but interestingly, the amount of tax someone would get to keep would be more if they made more money, since it comes off the highest tax bracket.

So the NDP would spend a bunch of money too, but they would do it on things I believe in like social programs for youth and elderly, and health care. That's not really a bad idea anyway!

[rohirrim TR]

does "liberal" have the same meaning in Canada as it does in U.S?

What does the "green" party have goin for it? the last election we had here one of the U.S."green" party leaders described himself as a "'watermelon' green on the outside, red (communist) on the inside."
that finished the "green" party for me. but i'm wondering what they claim to stand for in Canada.

[Nurvingiel]

I'm not sure what Liberal means in the USA RohirrimTR - probably mainly the same thing though. The Liberal Party of Canda's colour is red, like the American Republicans. However, their policies are very different. The Liberals don't spend a lot on the military, and didn't support Iraq. They passed the gay marriage law and I don't think they are anti-abortion (though even Stephen Harper won't touch that issue with a ten foot pole). Liberal usually means "left wing" I think, except here the NDP and the Green party are more "left". The Liberals are actually quite central.

The Liberal candidate for Vancouver Quadra (my riding) is a strong advocate for social justice and also very green with environmental policies, but even he can't quite make up for the rest of the party. (I'm a little upset with the Liberals right now.)

We also have a candidate for the Marxist-Leninist Party. Now that is a communist party. Canada also has a Communist Party. Fun!

The Green party was created to promote environmental issues. Now they are quite popular across the country, though they have yet to win a seat. They do not seem to have any opinion about communism. Their number one priority is to protect the environment, so I doubt communism is high on any nation's Green party list of priorities. I'm sorry about your local Green candidate - it sounds like he blew it, when really, the Green party is a perfectly respectable and sound place to put your vote in Canada, the USA, and other nations.

I might not necessarily vote for them, but I think they rock. Right now I'm strongly leaning towards the NDP - local candidate: David Askew. I'm going to visit his campaign office tomorrow after class.

In the Globe and Mail today, there was an article about the NDP's platform. It's nice to see a breakdown and discussion of party platforms. (I'm guessing subsequent newspapers will have the other parties.)


From today's Globe and Mail:

I like:

• $400 million for [Mountain] Pine Beetle Emergency fund for BC's forest industry.
  - We really need this money; it will take us a long time to recover from the epidemic.
• Create a federal student grant program worth $250 million per year.
  - Students everywhere celebrate by splurging on ketchup for their Kraf Dinner.
• $2.5 billion in additional post-secondary education transfers to the provinces.
  - And weiners.
• $50 million in compensation for immigrants who had to pay the Chinese head tax.
  - It's about time eh?
• $1 billion for a Farm Income Stabilization fund
  - I think it's important that farmers don't get screwed when crop prices drop. We need to encourage people to farm and this fund is a step in the right direction. I hope that sustainable farming practices would be explored with this fund. Agricultural sustainability is one of the most important ways to ensure long-term farming income stability.

Neutral or Unsure

• $40 million over five years to train more border guards
  - I don't know whether or not more border guards are necessary, so I have no opinion on this issue
• $7.2 billion more over five years for steps [to] fight global warming and meet Canada's commitment to cut its greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.
  - Though I don't necessarily support the Kyoto Protocol (anymore), I do think it's a good idea to cut emissions. What kept this point out of the "I like" pile is the buzzwords* 'global warming'. What exactly is $7.2 billion going to be spent on? It could be useful things like alternative energy sources and the improvement of mass transit (within and between cities). However, why not have this vast sum go to environmental issues? Safe disposal of nuclear waste, protecting wetlands (like Burns Bog), and improving national recycling are all important issues that are unrelated to global warming. This is something I'll clarify with David Askew's campaign office tomorrow.

*Global warming is a real event, but the term is sometimes thrown about superficially to seem scientific and environmentally-minded when this is not necessarily the case.

I have reservations to say the least

• $1 billion over five years for a tough crime package including a witness protection program, mandatory minimum sentencing for illegal possession and sale of restricted firearms, and adult court for people as young as 16 who are charged with gun offences.
  - I don't have a problem with the first two points, but I don't want to see 16-year-olds tried as adults for gun offences. This could lead to teens being convicted as adults, which I think only hastens teens becoming hardened criminals. I do think young criminals should be punished, but I believe a different approach is necessary towards youth as opposed to adults.
• $100 million for a fund for victims of terrorism
  - The way it's worded is odd. Let's say a terrorist blew up my house. My insurance would pay for the value of my belongings. If I died, my parents would collect my life insurance (I'm pretty sure my student health plan has some) but $100 million wouldn't bring me back to life.
  It would make more sense to have a fund to rebuild infrastructure damaged or destroyed by an act of terrorism. And why not broaden the fund's usage and make it for all infrastructure-destroying disasters? If a large portion of the 401 (Canada's busiest highway, in Ontario) was wiped out in a freak flood, it's just as important to rebuild the highway as it would if a terrorist destroyed it. This promise stinks. I mean, the NDP are spending a lot of money here, but we should prioritise. IMO, this one doesn't make the cut.

Complete NDP platform [.pdf]
Some excerpts of points I like:
- Phase out subsidies for non-renewable energy production and consumption, and invest these public dollars into renewable energy sources all within a revenue-neutral framework. (p. 18)
- We favour respecting consumers’ right to know through mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). (p. 19)
Plus, all I have read so far about Aboriginal rights and support (p. 20-22)

These are all my opinions about the NDP platform. You guys, of course, are free to form your own opinions about what you like and dislike. I love diverse politics, which is why I love Canadian politics.

Imagine if there was a Conservative minority government. What would they do? Make peace with the Liberals (ha!) or comprimise with the NDP? The latter is the more likely scenario, and also more fun to watch IMO.

edited to add:
The complete Liberal platform
Complete Bloc platform (though there seems to be something wrong with this file)
The Conservative platform is not yet available on CBC (!?), but here is where there will be a link to it. The Conservatives Key Documents page of their website doesn't even have the official platform, so it must not be done. Get your crap together guys, wow.
Green Party platform The CBC did not link this, and did not allow Green leader Jim Harris on the national debates. I think this stinks. Maybe I should email the CBC... In the mean time, the Green party have released their platform.

[Nurvingiel]

Okay, this is the last thing and then I'll let you guys respond to my long ass posts.

11. Replace clear-cutting with selection logging and conserve old growth forest ecosystems.

This is from the Green Party's official platform, linked previously. (p. 6 of platform)

I ranted about banning clearcuts before, so I'll just say this is the worst idea anyone has had in this election. Even Stephen Harper's dumb idea to put gay marriage to a free vote ( ) is better than this. Why? Because a stupid referendum would merely annoy a lot of people and waste millions of dollars for no purpose whatsoever. Banning clearcuts would severely damage BC and Alberta's (and probably Québec's, Saskatchewan's, Ontario's, and Manitoba's) forest industries for reasons that are not even the tiniest bit based on science.

I'm going to talk to or visit Ben West, the Green party candidate. Perhaps this point means no clear-cuts in old growth forests like I speculated before. In that case I must ask, how do you define "old growth"? (It's not as easy as it sounds.) [/rantage]


Alright folks, post away. All comments and Mooters are welcome.

[Drgnslyer]

Considering i'ts 1am, i'll avoid making this a long, drawn out rant

I watched Paul Martin on "the national" today, taking questions from an audience, and taped questions from around the country. He did a pretty good job...regarding the sponsorship scandal, he pointed out that judge gomery exonerated himself and his cabinet from fault in the sponsorship, and that the finance minister's job is to allocate funding, not monitor how it's spent. The most reasonable argument towards martin not being a crook in the whole matter...imho with the sponsorship scandal...you can debate it until the cows come home, so atm it's almost a moot point to argue over it anymore...

well..that's not entirely the case, perhaps i'm just sick of hearing about it every two seconds.

as well, with the latest 'criminal investigation', martin pointed out that the conservatives had an allegation/accusation, which the RCMP had to follow up with an investigation, otherwise they wouldn't be doing their job...

"sorry mr harper, i canna' be arsed....i'm meeting officer mckenzie at timmys for coffee"

...yeah..so they looked into it, and the conservatives launched this big ad campaign about how the liberal cabinet is under a criminal investigation...i suspected that from the getgo after hearing about it...a stupid plot blown out of proportion.

I'm stuck between liberal and NDP. Myself, I tend to be relatively left wing as well...iv'e been a big fan of the liberals for years under Cretien, who IMHO did an amazing job as PM, and tho i'm not as big a fan of martin, I still believe in his ability to lead this country...my only fear is that harper's dummed down campaign is going to get the edge, and he would possibly end up as our next prime minister....*shudder*


I've always -liked- Layton, although i've never been overly -impressed- with him either...in my ideal setup, Liberal minority with NDP official oposition...tho it's an absolute longshot...and with those wishes, i may as well go out and take a chance on the 649....

[Nurvingiel]

Someone posted! I feel loved! Canadian flags for all! I really appreciate your contribution Drgn.

If you're going to buy a lottery ticket, I should probably buy about a hundred! I want the NDP to win the whole election!

In reality, I also want the NDP to be the Official Opposition. I think this is remotely possible. I believe in many of their ideas and it would be great if a minority government implemented some of them as part of a comprimise.

There has been a controversial political ad from the Liberals that they say (after the fact) that they never meant it to air. That I can believe, since it's a lot more banal and stupid than the rest of the ads out there. [link] (Follow the video link on the right called "Liberal attack ad about Harper and military presence 0:30", fourth from bottom.)

The script:
(Starts out grey screen. Sentences appear one at a time, in black Courier New, with a dramatic slow drumbeat in the background.)

"Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up. Choose your Canada."

(The screen fades from grey to a very unflattering picture of Stephen Harper with his mouth open. Ends with Liberal Party logo.)

Soldiers have guns? Canadian cities are in Canada? Wow, what an eye-opener. In other news, the Earth orbits the Sun.

edited to add: Plus, we already have soldiers (with guns!) in our cities. Duh.

Originally Posted by Drgnslyer

"sorry mr harper, i canna' be arsed....i'm meeting officer mckenzie at timmys for coffee"

...yeah..so they looked into it, and the conservatives launched this big ad campaign about how the liberal cabinet is under a criminal investigation...i suspected that from the getgo after hearing about it...a stupid plot blown out of proportion.

I agree with you 100% Drgn. It is suspiciously timed, and so far, has revealed no damming evidence. I'm not going to waste any time on it.

There are other reasons why I shy away from the Liberals. I feel they have grown complacent, they've engaged in mudslinging (not the only ones though), and their ideas are lackluster.

Their ideas aren't terrible, but they don't get me excited the way the NDP platform does.

I share your fears about Harper as PM. However, I will not be cowed. I will not engage in strategic voting. I'm going to vote for the party I believe in, even though they don't have a hope in hell of beating the Conservatives.

I'll post more in response to your post later, I have class tomorrow. And it's 1:30.

[The Gaffer]

Just a wee blurt in general about governance (I am following your blog with interest, Nurv, just don't have much to add as you are mostly off in detail that is lost on me): usually the finance ministry IS involved in monitoring of spending, in partnership with the relevant ministry. That is, the Ministry of X should account for its spending to the Finance Ministry. It's usually up to the Finance ministry to ensure that mechanisms are in place to make sure that this works. Of course, they can't be held responsible if someone simply lies to them.

Here in the Land of the Sane, liberal still means "centre" not left-wing, though Bliar is doing his best to eliminate the word "socialism" altogether

[Nurvingiel]

I really should have put this in a blog...

Sorry about all the detail non-Canucks. I was hoping the few Canucks on this board would want to discuss the details, like Drgn did above.

You bring a good point up Gaffer. On the one hand, it isn't Martin's fault that the guy who perpetrated the scandal did so without his knowledge. But how did the situation come about in the Finance department the crooks felt they could pull this off?

And he did, since the money disappeared before the guy was caught. It seems like there was a lack of checks and balances. Whoever was supposed to sign off on the grants either didn't (so why did they go through?), didn't check properly and signed, or was in on it.

This chain of either incompetence, stupidity, or fraud was finally broken and the scandal was revealed. People are mad because this happened underal Liberal governance. I also feel like Martin was a bit responsible because it happened on his watch.

The Liberals are having trouble in other areas of the campaign as well (as I outlined in unnecessarily exhaustive detail previously ).

Originally Posted by Drgnslyer

"sorry mr harper, i canna' be arsed....i'm meeting officer mckenzie at timmys for coffee"

By the way Drgn, that was hilarious!

Your joke makes me think of something more serious. How did the Conservatives level an accusation that warranted an investigation? (I'm referring to the accusations that the Liberal Finance Minister, Ralph Goodale, engaged in insider trading. He met with investors the day he made an important announcement about Income Trusts.)

Did they have some evidence? Was this evidence real or fabricated, and where does it lead? I'm looking forward to this investigation being over and we can have some answers. I suspect that Goodale didn't do anything illegal, he just make himself look bad with a poorly-timed meeting with investers.

They must have had something concrete to give the RCMP. After all, Harper said the Liberals were involved in organised crime before and that didn't lead to an investigation. (Why no, I'm not going to let him live that down. Harper hasn't said anything dumb in a while though, and he's surging in popularity, and I think I'll confront my Prime Minister Harper fears by clutching my teddy bear.)

I really want some Americans to post in here. RohirrimTR and other Americans, what do you guys think of Harper? Who would you like to see as PM?

How do our leaders act towards non-Canadians? How will they handle USA-Canada relations? Do you guys think Jack Layton would be an effective PM?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Soldiers have guns? Canadian cities are in Canada? Wow, what an eye-opener. In other news, the Earth orbits the Sun.

edited to add: Plus, we already have soldiers (with guns!) in our cities. Duh.

The question I'd be asking is why you'd want more soldiers in your cities, with guns, in the first place. Is the police not up to the job anymore or something?

[Nurvingiel]

Well the reserves and the army need to be stationed somewhere right? We don't have a lot of soldiers in our cities, but there are bases in cities as well as remote locations.

I don't think we need more soldiers and reserves in the cities though. Harper plans to increase their numbers (through undisclosed means. I'm sure he's just going to spend more money but he's avoiding saying how he'll increase the reserves in the cities).

Our police are up to the job.

[Earniel]

Yes, I'm aware they'd need a place somewhere. I suppose I'm just a bit confused as to why put them specifically in the cities and why somebody else would put money into making a daft ad about it like it's a big issue? Politicians...

[inked]

Oh, Nurv! Oh, Canada! uh-oh...

So Prove It, Elf-Boy!
In Canada, so-called ‘mercy-killing’, unlimited abortion of the unborn, same-sex ‘marriage’, and other carefully prepared-for innovations have jumped to the forefront of national debate. A radicalized political and judicial establishment has taken up these causes, so that the current Prime Minister can say the following in public this week:

“Let me be very, very clear. The fact is that same-sex marriage and a woman’s right to an abortion are the kind of Canadian values that built this country. They are the values of my father and great Canadians like Tommy Douglas and I will not be the Prime Minister who goes down in history as having taken them away. The fact is that they are fundamentally more important than the preservation of Canada’s single-tier public health care system.”

Indeed– “more important” than anything, since the Prime Minister’s proposal would utterly mutate our democracy by giving the government-appointed Supreme Court absolute rule over Canada in all matters, unfettered by the voice of the people, or the legislative branch– as guided by the noisiest and most radical special interest groups (tax-funded, of course). How bizarre. Such ‘values’ did not build Canada, are not preserving her, and cannot give her true life in the future.

As for the ‘values’ of his father’s generation, a longtime Martin family friend, L. Earle Wicklum, stated in an open letter to the Prime Minister, “I wept when I read about the enthusiastic endorsement that you, Prime Minister Paul Martin Jr., gave to a bill going through parliament legitimizing same-sex ‘marriage’.” A generation ago, Paul Martin Sr. refused to go along with then Prime Minister “Pierre Trudeau’s legalization of abortion and was banished to the Senate for his principled stand.”

Therefore, what Paul Martin claims and asserts in the above quote is actually ahistorical and unCanadian nonsense, and just as much a fiction and fabrication as the ‘finding’ of a new ‘right’ to same-sex ‘marriage’ in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He appears to be just makin’ stuff up, to justify what others have told him are good things.

http://www.anglican.tk/

And while there, Nurv, check out "You Done Been Warned", too!


edit: Is the Canadian national anthem "Down by the Old Maelstrom"?

[inked]

It is for the anglican church in Canada, anyway....

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=3491