I've been reading about how inconsistent Harper is being by suggesting the SSM vote was a result of a deal between the Liberals and the separatists.
The point he's trying to make is that when the Bloc and the Conservatives (and even the NDP various times in this parliament) voted together to hold the Liberals to account, they were doing what a vigorous opposition should. They were making the government accountable, and following the will of their constituents.
The Bloc is not a national party. It is a regional, protest party. The majority of those who voted for the Bloc were not voting in a separatist agenda, they were voting out Liberal corruption. They were not necessessarily voting for the Bloc policies on anything, let alone SSM. They were voting against the Liberal Party. To infer wholesale agreement with the SSM issue based on the outcome of the last election, is taking license.
When the Bloc and the Conservatives voted together against the budget bills, when they attempted to push through non-confidence votes -- each party was acting consistently with its mandate. They were expected by their constituents to challenge government assaults on democracy ( the removal of the opposition days) and then to vote against spending they felt to be either imprudent, or not beneficial to their constituents. They fulfilled that obligation.
When the Bloc voted for closure on C-48 on Thursday, thereby guarenteeing it would pass, they were throwing their principles out the window. Some might say they have no principles because they're separatists, but I disagree. They were also guaranteeing SSM would pass because the numbers were there. But the numbers were only there because of the circumstances leading up the the last election.
Although same-sex marriage has the highest level of support in Quebec (polls show anywhere from 54% to 60% in favour). I didn't see 40% of the Bloc standing up against it.
I realise the numbers are not as simple as that, but I think Harper's point is that the although the Bloc represents the majority of Quebecers in Parliament, they are not uniformly representative of Quebeckers views on anything except Liberal corruption. The Bloc has inferred an endorsement of same-sex marriage by their constituents, but if the polls are to be believed 40% of people in Quebec remain opposed.
If Liberal corruption, and an unestablished Conservative entity had not made Quebeckers feel compelled to purge the corruption by using the Bloc as their means of protest, the SSM vote might have gone very differently. Even if Conservatives remained without a seat in Quebec, if Qiebeckers hadn't had the need to punish the Liberals, they might have voted in Liberal candidates who reflected their views on this kind of issue.
The polling numbers show nationwide are almost a 50/50 split -- sometimes 47/53 one way or another, but the numbers are close.
If the Bloc had accurately reflected their constituents, about from 17 to 21 of their members might have voted against the bill. Add to that the number of Cabinet Ministers who would have voted against if a true free-vote had been allowed by the Liberals, and this bill might well have failed.
canadianna
16 comments:
There's an unfortunate assumption in your quotations of support for SSM in Quebec: you seem to be assuming that the 40 percent of Quebecois who opposed SSM would have voted for the Bloc to begin with.
As it stands, however, there were 5 Bloc MPs who voted against C-38: Robert Bouchard, Serge Cardin, Roger Gaudet, Gilles Perron, and Louise Thibault. That's about 9 percent of the BQ Caucus, but it's still significant representation for anti-SSM Quebec.
vw -- I already qualified my position by saying that I realise the numbers are not that simple. I know that 40% disagreement within the province is not automatically going to translate into 40% of the votes in the House.
QP -- I think you've missed my point. The Liberal Party might be against SSM, but there are obviously a number of Liberal MPs who are against it. Every Liberal running in Quebec, who lost because of corruption, might or might not have voted for SSM. The Bloc is more of a socialist party, in line with the ideologies of the NDP.
Because of it's size and influence, a lot of people who just wanted rid of the Liberals, voted Bloc in protest.
If you don't believe that could happen, then explain the election of Bob Rae in Ontario. It was a protest vote. Those who voted for the NDP in that election were not endorsing their policies, they were getting rid of Peterson.
Protest parties bring an agenda. Just because people vote for them, doesn't mean they support the agenda.
This is the percentage of support both pro and con with little to no PUBLIC DEBATE. What would the numbers be like after debate?
That is why liberals had to ram this through as fast as possible, knowing that the public once engaged and informed would decrease its support of what it was not fully cognizant of.
This is a classic case of democracy being thwarted by the liberals.
There was no debate. Debate implies listening on the side of the opponent. That didn't happen here.
Time was allotted, people spoke and the government yawned, tapped its foot impatiently, ignored everything that was said and pushed through a bill that at least half the country doesn't want.
Yes, pushed through. If it was so right, and so important, you'd think even your side would want to make sure that there were no outstanding issues, and that no one could ever accuse them of shutting down debate - but they did.
And don't get me started about gay marriage being a 'human rights' issue. How many people have died from being denied marriage?
How dare the NDP suggest that half the people in this country are against human rights? If that is so, how do you pretend this bill will protect a religion if it refuses to marry gays -- how can any religion be allowed to perpetrate human rights violations in the name of practising religion?
Gay marriage is a legal right in Canada as of last night. It is not, and never will be a human right. Human rights are not subject to the whim of state or religion -- they apply whether the government or church says they do or not.
Marriage is not a human right. It is subject to limitations by the state -- it is a legal right -- so get off the 'human rights violations' and the implication that anyone who is against gay marriage is against human rights.
You are offending a lot of people, at least one of whom was shoved to the back of the chamber for expressing an opinion that went against the party line.
Nadine, would you care to test your theory with a referendum?
You have some good points, Canadianna - and I agree with the ramming it through Parliament angle. Parliament was extended to be a special session just to pass this bill - something normally done for emergency measures, not normal legislative debate. Since (as so many on the left argue) it's already a fait accompli due to courts in 8 jurisdictions, what is the big deal to pushing this through before summer? Both the CPC and the Liberals did what they did for political (in addition to other) reasons - the CPC (in part) wanted a thorn in the Liberals' side over the summer, the Lib's didn't.
One unfortunate aspect of your logic, Canadianna, is that while there should probably be more BQ candidates (as well as NDP and Liberal) voting against C-38, there should also be more CPC candidates voting for it, if the party numbers were to break down as nicely representative of the overall population.
I don't think C-38 would pass in a referendum (I'd be surprised if more than 40% of Canadians supported it in one), and NOT out of animosity towards gay people. Most of us realize that heterosexual marriage, even with its many flaws (such as easy divorce), deserves to be elevated and promoted in order to provide the best environment for the begetting and raising of the next generation. SSM, while a problem in itself from some perspectives, is really just an extension of the problem that began when we began accepting the easy breakdown of the family through divorce and the like. SSM cements this view, that marriage is primarily for the adults involved, and secondarily for the children; which is completely backwards of why society has always promoted hetero marriage.
One of the biggest failures of leadership in this whole affair was the unwillingness of government to appeal the court decisions that allowed SSM in lower jurisdictions in the first place. For those who argue this to be a Charter right, why not pursue this to the Supreme Court with a bona fide case, instead of the goofy reference question from PM? ESPECIALLY in light of the clearly-expressed majority in the 1999 vote (a scant 6 years ago now)(wasn't it something like 200 to 50?) - PM had an obligation to defend that vote up to the SCC.
Here's an interesting question asked elsewhere: if the CPC form the next government and successfully repeal C-38, what will/should be done about all the homosexual marriages that have already taken place?
Cyrano, you're right. The Conservatives voted overwhelmingly against, but my argument is that the Bloc was not elected on policy issues. It was elected as a protest. Because the Conservatives have the potential to form government, I believe it is less likely that people voted for them as a protest, therefore, their voices on this issue are legit.
The numbers in the House are never going to completely reflect the reality out in the country, but I think Harper is right, that the Bloc being nothing but a protest party skewed the vote. You can't really say that it was illegit, but it was skewed.
Had this vote taken place in last year's parliament (when the Libs still had a majority), and if a completely free vote had been allowed -- I wonder would it have passed?
Although same-sex marriage has the highest level of support in Quebec (polls show anywhere from 54% to 60% in favour). I didn't see 40% of the Bloc standing up against it.
Let's assume for a minute that SSM is an issue where the opinion of the majority means anything.
BQ MPs represent constituencies. If 55-60 % of Quebecers support SSM, then in each riding represented by the BQ 55 - 60 % of Quebecers will support SSM, and thus each MP will vote in favour.
I respect that those figures can vary slightly riding to riding...some ridings will be prominently made of religious immigrants that could cause a majority opposition to SSM, for example...but as a whole, to say "40 % of Quebecers oppose SSM and thus 40 % of BQ MPs should oppose SSM" is flawed logic.
To everyone who thinks this was "rammed through" - the numbers existed in the Commons to stop the bill. Only 39 (I think that is the number off the top of my head) Cabinet Ministers had to vote in favour of the bill and any of those Ministers were free to leave Cabinet if they wanted to vote against the legislation. This was not a case of most MPs having an agenda to pass SSM beforehand and then waiting for the chance ot ram in through. Every single MP except for Cabinet Ministers had many chances to form opinions, and many Liberals formed opinions contrary to their leader.
To say the govenrment "impatiently tapped its foot" without "listening to the other side" amounts to saying that anyone who disagrees with the "other side" wasn't listening, and that is a sweeping generalization and simply not true.
QP -- touche.
Evil Left Winger (that's cute BTW) -- First, you might try reading the post before commenting.
I realise the numbers are not as simple as that, but I think Harper's point is that the although the Bloc represents the majority of Quebecers in Parliament, they are not uniformly representative of Quebeckers views on anything except Liberal corruption.
When the first commenter pointed to the very same number issue, I responded, saying
vw -- I already qualified my position by saying that I realise the numbers are not that simple. I know that 40% disagreement within the province is not automatically going to translate into 40% of the votes in the House.
I didn't ever say in the post that if it hadn't been for the Bloc the legislation would have passed.
If the Bloc had accurately reflected their constituents, about from 17 to 21 of their members might have voted against the bill. Add to that the number of Cabinet Ministers who would have voted against if a true free-vote had been allowed by the Liberals, and this bill might well have failed.
So, I suggested it might have failed. That makes my 'logic flawed'? It makes me a Monday morning quarterback; it means I'm beating a dead horse; it means I'm trying to rerun the race in my head -- but it does not make my logic flawed.
As for Liberal cabinet ministers resigning en masse--give your head a shake. Most of these people aren't going to risk career and pension for principle. Please. I was pleasantly surprised about the NDPer though. I've always thought NDPers were people of conviction (they had to be because they had so little chance of forming the government) and this one was.
As for my 'sweeping generalization' I never refered to people from your side, I explicitly said 'the government'. By the government, I meant, well, the government.
How that would imply to you that I meant regular people on the other side, I don't know, but if the shoe fits . . .
As for the government, they shut down the committee last year and would not let it report to parliament. They invoked closure on the debate this week. They have ignored thousands of letters, emails and a multitude of petitions as well as the concerns of some of their own caucus members.
Had the situation been reversed -- had the pro-side been under-represented in the House, would you have agreed with those tactics?
Of course you would, because you're a left-winger and infinitely fair and reasonable.
All of us bigoted, right-wing, religious wackos are lamenting the loss of something that was important to us. Your wish to celebrate your victory is fine; your celebrating by looking for opportunities to gloat is immature.
"Let's assume for a minute that SSM is an issue where the opinion of the majority means anything."
You're so right. Now that we're living in a dictatorship rather than a democracy, who gives a damn about what the majority might want or believe in?
Canadiana, the premises for your argument is that 17-21 Quebec ridings would have more than 50 % opposition to SSM. I think that may be a bit of a stretch in that province.
As far as Cabinet Ministers go - heading into this Parliament, everyone knew that SSM legislation would be tabled. If Cabinet Ministers had suspicions about how they'd be made to vote, there was more than ample opportunity and resaon for them to explore that before agreeing to join the Cabinet.
That is still however said assuming that the majority gets a say in SSM. It is a minority-rights only issue with no bearing on the heterosexual majority.
The government can only use procedural tactics to get legislation to a certain point, and the "government" as far as this particular vote goes is only 39 (though the number could be lower, I am going on memory) MPs.
If the opinion of the House was that this legislaiton was being "rammed through" and the other side was being ignored, the House could have very esaily voted to stop this legislation. To say that the government somehow rammed htis through is absurd when the overwhelming majority of MPs that supported "ramming" this through are not part of the government - in most cases they were the government's harshest critics (NPD, BQ, 4 COnservatives).
If there had been ANY doubt in the majority of MPs minds about this Bill, it could have very easily been defeated.
As far as the government "ignoring" thousands of letters, petitions and so forth...they didn't ignore them. They just chose to agree with the other guys in this debate, who were sent just as many letters and made just as many phone calls.
No, ELW -- they didn't receive a fraction of the amount supporting the legislation.
Again, I wasn't making an assumption about the numbers. I never once said that anything was a gimme. I'm not going into it again; either you get it or you don't.
Your talk about the Cabinet ministers belies a fundamental misunderstanding of how government works (I'm not talking parliament here, I'm talking the backroom stuff). You work your tail off to get where you are, and they offer you Cabinet. Not only does Cabinet pay more, have more prestige etc. but it also gives you a 'say'. You have a seat at the table. It doesn't mean you're important, or that you'll get to make 'big' decisions, but you won't be some no-name, unheard backbencher.
So, they tell you if it comes to it, you'll have to vote a certain way on certain issues. You weigh your options. There might be others who feel like you and share your circumstances -- but are they going to sacrifice everything for their conscience? A couple might, but you can't can't on them doing it en masse. The government has ways of enforcing discipline -- incentives and punishments. If it's just you who's got the conscience to not accept the role in the first place, or to resign the role if this circumstance comes about later -- you make a choice. Young people might think they'd make the principled choice and not take the job in the first place, or quit and vote their conscience if need be.
Most adults are shocked that even one resigned -- why? Because one man couldn't sway the vote. Why throw away a perfectly good job and all the perques for a vote where you're one nay isn't going to make a whit of difference. On a personal level and on a professional level, most Cabinet ministers who disagreed with this legislation decided it wasn't worth it to throw away it all in the end.
Yes, there was plenty of time, and yes there was plenty of opportunity, but you are projecting your youthful optimism on politicians. Most of them are good people, but they know how it works. If they cross the guys in power, they will lose big time.
Your MP who voted against in the end, risked a lot, and Layton punished her. The vote still lost. She's on the record against it, which might not bode well for her depending on her constituency -- and she has nothing to show for it except integrity. For some people that is enough. For most, it isn't. I think she did the right thing (not because she voted against, but because she chose to follow her principles) but party discipline happens so others will not be tempted to follow that example.
Your talk about majorities not having a place in a minority rights issue is valid, but not in this case.
Very few in this day and age would suggest denying a minority rights. Voting, the right to work, the right to chose where to live, free speech, freedom of association, freedom from persecution etc.
But marriage is not an inalienable right. It is a right contingent on certain criteria. One of those criteria is an opposite sex component. You might argue that at one times blacks couldn't marry, and at one time interracial couples couldn't marry -- but the difference is, a black hetro couple or an inter-racial hetro couple, already fit the criteria for marriage. The definition had to be fudged in the first place in order to exclude them. Gay couples, as loving and committed as they might be, don't fit the criteria. The criteria had to be changed in order to accommodate their special circumstances. They have not been included in marriage, marriage has been adapted to suit them.
You will likely continue to believe that is the correct thing to have done, but this is not a case of the 'tyranny of the majority' being thwarted -- this is a case of the tyranny of the minority being instituted.
"They have not been included in marriage, marriage has been adapted to suit them."
"...this is not a case of the 'tyranny of the majority' being thwarted -- this is a case of the tyranny of the minority being instituted."
Bravo! I'll second that -- well said.
Happy Dominion Day, Canadi-anna, from the Birthplace of Confederation!
Thanks for answering for me Linda, and saying it better than I could have.
Happy DOMINION Day all!
Great post, very (oops, I forgot how much I hate that word)good debate. How in the heck do you add those "I Support Harper" pics on your blog?
I had trouble with that too.
What I did was get one of those free photo hosting accounts. (I used www.photobucket.com)
You copy the pic onto your harddrive and submit it to your album. Then you copy the tags they give you and put it on your template then add whatever words in you want.
There are others like Peter Rempel, http://www.rempeliaprime.com/ who have way cooler pics (they cycle etc.) so you might want to check what kind of script they use.
Not all providers are required to have Child Care licensing. Child Care Providers who are not licensed, however,do nor receive inspections for Health and Safety and may have different staffing and ratios, training, and experience.
But, Child Care licensing may not be needed in all cases.
Link to my site: child home day care
Post a Comment