Two tier democracy

Paul Martin says we must have higher expectations of our PM than we do of our MPs. The Prime Minister must not contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- but individual MPs are welcome to their own 'vision'.

It's funny, but he didn't think all of his MPs were entitled to their own 'vision' when he imposed his vision on Cabinet Ministers and made them vote with him on same-sex marriage under threat of expulsion.

That the same-sex marriage issue has exposed the 'bigoted', 'ignorant', 'regressive' opinions of individual MPs who represent the Liberal Party, doesn't phase Mr. Martin. Their rejection of the 'Charter' is not a worry to him because only HE is obligated to uphold the Charter -- but then, if Mr. Martin accepts candidates who believe that certain Canadians are not entitled to Charter protection -- is he really defending the Charter? It would appear that in his rush to vilify Mr. Harper, Mr. Martin has illuminated the dark secret of the Liberal Party -- some Canadians who are represented by Liberals, are represented by people who would not stand up for their 'Charter rights.'

From the Toronto Star:

Last spring, 34 Liberal MPs voted for a Conservative motion that would have halted Liberal legislation to extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians. Martin brushed aside the apparent contradiction, saying, "The issue is not what does an individual MP say — an individual MP is entitled to his or her vision. "The issue is what is the role and responsibility of the prime minister of the country. And the role of the prime minister of the country is to support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is not in any way, shape or form to call the Charter into doubt, that's the fundamental difference."

The inconsistency of his position seems to be lost on Martin. Apparently, he doesn't understand that in this twisted view of the world, he would actually be 'defending the Charter' from his own MPs. And if these men and women are against fundamental Charter rights for a segment of the population -- then how does he justify allowing them to serve under his party's banner?

Could it be that Martin knows in his heart that the issue of same-sex marriage -- far from being a Charter issue -- is actually a legislative issue. His assertion that same-sex marriage is a Charter right goes out the window with his acceptance of any members of his caucus voting against it. A right is a right, and if Martin truly believed that gay marriage was a 'right' he couldn't allow dissent on the issue.

Martin has proved this weekend that he doesn't even believe what he says on the same-sex issue, but it provides him with the ammunition to call Stephen Harper all sorts of names: 'unfit' 'regressive' and to spout off about 'rights' as though if it weren't for Liberals, Canadians would have none at all.

Charter rights, are 'human rights' and cannot be a matter of opinion. They can't by opted out of by churches on the basis of religious freedom, they can't be opted out of by MPs on the basis of freedom of conscience. Charter rights are rights about which there can be no choice. The either exist or they don't -- an individual's 'vision' doesn't come into it.

Mr. Martin has proved he knows this -- and yet he still wields his sword of disingenuous piety. Martin is a man without principles. His stand on this issue stretches credulity -- and yet he had the effrontery to suggest Stephen Harper was unfit for the PMO.

Martin's views are offensive to those on both sides of the issue and his lack of a core belief system is scary when put in conjunction with the enormous amount of power concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office.

canadianna

Paul Martin's actions don't match the yatter

As Paul Martin dons the cloak of self-righteousness and proclaims himself the champion of the Charter and of 'rights' in general in Canada -- he might want to re-think the validity of his position.

Martin has suggested that Stephen Harper is not fit for the PM's Office because he will re-introduce the same-sex marriage issue to the House and allow a free-vote.

If Harper is not fit to be Prime Minister due to his stand on this issue, what about the Liberal MPs who voted against same-sex marriage? (And who would likely welcome the opportunity to do so again in a truly free vote?) MPs like John McKay, who as a Parliamentary Secretary, asked for, and obtained from the PMO, a special dispensation to vote against Cabinet and against same-sex marriage? If same-sex marriage is a Charter right -- why did Martin allow any members of his party to vote against it? Was it because he knew he had the numbers, so it didn't matter? If it's a right -- a Charter right-- it matters.

Over the past quarter century (maybe longer) the Liberals have managed to convince the Canadian public that there is only one right view on many subjects -- the Constitution/Charter, bilingualism, health care, immigration, and same-sex issues among them.

What Paul Martin has made clear in his diatribe against Harper, is that his view of the nation and its future is so narrow as to only include those who subscribe to a collectivist Liberal-defined (John Duffy-defined?) vision.

The Prime Minister of Canada has proclaimed Stephen Harper unfit to lead the country because he holds an opposing view on what Martin, by his actions, has proved he knows to be a morality or legal-rights issue -- not a Charter, or human rights issue.

When Martin says that same-sex marriage is a Charter issue -- he is saying that any opposition to it is unConstitutional. You can't 'cherry pick' Charter rights, right? Which means the vote in the House was moot anyway -- the decision was already there in the Charter and Parliament was simply affirming it.

But if that's the case, if same-sex marriage is a Charter right, then it was a Charter right prior to the vote -- then what of the Liberal dissenters? How does he allow them to run again when they have voted against the Charter rights of their fellow Canadians? Or, is only the Prime Minister obligated to defend the Charter and not his members? But how does a man defend the Charter, when members of his own party continue to believe and act in a manner that goes against the Charter?

Either same-sex marriage is a right, and it is unconscionable to support the candidacy of anyone who would vote against it -- or it is a legal issue to be decided by parliament. Paul Martin is trying to have it both ways by imposing a one-dimensional Liberal-framed vision of what constitute rights and what is wrong.

Even if you are for gay marriage -- Paul Martin's impassioned 'Charter hero' rhetoric doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He shouldn't be given a pass on the inconsistency between his actions and his words.

canadianna

Polite society and a woman's place

If you can't stand the heat . . .

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone just to sit there and
agree with me, that's not their job. -- Margaret Thatcher

During tonight's debate, in response to a question about the lack of civility in the House of Commons, Jack Layton and Paul Martin concurred that if you want parliament to be more civilised, the answer is to elect more women.

Maybe we could make Question Period one big coffee klatch. We could all bring our knitting, and when things are going bad we'll share cheesecake or ice cream and when we're done for the day we can do the group hug thing. We could discuss movies or books instead of politics, because in politics people disagree and that would be mean. We can't have mean. No, not with ladies present. --What a shockingly sexist attitude.

Some of the nicest people I've ever met were men and many of the nastiest were women. Rude comes in both genders and is irrelevant to an ability to govern. Polite people would elevate the tone of the house -- not just polite women.

Paul Martin actually suggested that women he's met have said to him that they would consider running for politics except for the behaviour in the House of Commons at Question Period.

Most women I've seen in action in the House could hold their own -- and anyone who can't doesn't deserve to be there. Diane Albonzy, Rona Ambrose, Sheila Copps, Elsie Wayne, Libby Davies, Deborah Grey, and even Carolyn Parrish -- strong women have served this country without fretting over the verbal sparring that occurs when the government has to face its critics during QP.

Too many people have a misguided notion of what QP is all about. It's all theatrics. The questions are submitted ahead of time and the answers are well-scripted by research teams. It's raucous and generally unproductive -- but it isn't what 'makes this government work'. All the work is done behind the scenes in committees etc.

The suggestion that women would elevate the tone might have been an attempt at flattery, but it reeks of paternalism and condescension. It stereotypes woman as gracious and sweet -- virtues yes, but hardly universal to the gender and the implication by two political leaders, that these qualities are exclusive to women and might somehow transform the workings of the House, does a great disservice to the gentlemen and strong women who already participate in the governance of this country and manage to do so with good manners.

The most shocking thing about this, is that while Jack Layton and his members do seem to try to maintain dignity and decorum in the House, the most vilely offensive comments most often come from the Liberal side -- and more often than not they are directed at women on the Conservative side.

Women, though perfectly capable of all aspects of governing -- are not the answer to changing the timbre of the House. If we want members of parliament to be respectful to one another, they must first be respectable. With our current governing party, this is not the case.

Scott Brison for one, has proved to be as uncivilised out in the real world as he is in the House. It isn't a matter of gender, it's about manners. I'd much prefer the antics during question period to having a sitting MP tell a member of his constituency that she could kiss his ass. Politics is a dirty game but it's this sort of trash talk outside of the House the Liberals should be worried about -- and if he's so concerned about the sensibilities of women -- why has Martin remained quiet about this ignorant remark made to a woman by one of his Cabinet Ministers? Why has there been no apology forthcoming?

And while we're at it, why was it a woman (Jean Augustine) who was asked to step aside in favour of Michael Ignatieff?

Women don't need a patronising attitude from two liberal political leaders in order to be confident about our abilities to serve in government -- we need to be given strong roles where our voices will be heard. The NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives all realise this and have given women significant and prominent roles. Of all the parties, the one severely lacking in that department is the Liberal Party.

More talk, less action -- the Liberal way of governing.

canadianna

Is Martin really standing up for Canada?

Even conservative bloggers had difficulty with the US envoy's speech to the Canadian Club, most believing that he hovered very close to the line of interfering with an election. Some even believe Watkins' remarks will do the Liberals more good than harm, because Martin is seen as standing up to the US, playing into the anti-American sentiments that seem to surge at election time.

In response to the rebuke, Paul Martin says:

"I will defend Canada -- period. I will defend the Canadian position, and I will defend our values, and I will defend our interests against anybody."

But he's not defending Canada. He's defending himself -- and what's more, he's defending himself with yet another lie.

Martin is trying to pretend that the envoy was calling him out for talking about the softwood lumber issue:

He (Martin) acknowledged he has been critical on two issues -- the U.S. refusal to accept a panel decision in favour of Canada in the softwood-lumber dispute, and the Americans' foot-dragging on climate control. However, he denied he's raising the issues to score political points.

"The position that I have taken on softwood lumber -- that the Americans ought to honour their agreement [in the Free Trade Agreement] -- is a position that I took, that I have taken for some time, long before any election campaign was contemplated."

Now, please correct me if I'm wrong -- but since the beginning of the election campaign, I haven't heard Paul Martin mention softwood lumber -- not until now. And now it is only being brought up to deflect from the fact that last week he very publically insulted the US on the global stage at the UN conference on global climate change.

Not once after the PM's quote in this news article, nor in any other coverage I've read, does the reporter make his/her way back to the point that Martin's speech on the US environmental record created this animus in the first place. They just let him blither on about softwood lumber as though it had something to do with anything.

None of the quotes I've seen from Wilkins' speech even contain the words: softwood lumber. Wilkins made no defense of the US's actions or stands on this -- but he vigorously pumped their environmental record compared to ours. But Martin's comments to the media in response to this speech shows he is trying to dodge the bullet. He's pretending that Wilkins' remarks to the Canadian Club were in response to something Martin might have said back in October about softwood lumber -- and much of the media coverage has just let that slip by as though it were true.

Surprisingly, the Globe & Mail editoral makes the point well.

The US envoy has no place in our politics, but Martin doesn't deserve a pass for the very public ripping he gave them last week. He used innuendo, lies and evasion to promote a negative image of the US on the world stage. It might get him the votes he wanted, but it has also drawn negative attention from the US -- not just government, but the public as well. That's hardly the way to defend Canada's interests.

If Paul Martin is going to defend Canada's interests, who is going to defend our interests from him?

canadianna

2 + 2 = whatever liberals say it does

Today in the NP (subscriber only) John Duffy (beer & popcorn co-believer) enlightens readers by 'decoding' Stephen Harper.

Apparently, there are 'carefully constructed' secret phrases all of us right-wingers use to send out coded messages to those who are 'us' -- all the while sending 'reassuring signals' to 'them' (those poor sods who didn't get that special decoder ring in their box of ammo.)

I won't worry about copyright. I'm almost certain Duffy would want to get his message out, lest we all fall for Stephen Harper's cryptic verbal cyphers:

Mr. Harper says: On child care, I will give parents a choice.
He means: I will immediately dismantle the Liberal national child-care program, which is flowing billions of dollars somewhere (who really knows where, after all this is the Liberals we're talking about. Daycare programmes are provincial jurisdiction so the money the Liberals are sending could go to build daycare centres or it could be going to create jobs for bureaucrats who are friends of Liberals or maybe it's going to be stuffed into plain brown envelopes and left on restaurant tables, or perhaps it'll go to buy beer and popcorn).

Mr. Harper says: I will have a free vote in parliament on same-sex marriage.
Mr. Harper means: I know, free is a word that successive Liberal governments have tried to expunge from the memories of Canadians. What I mean, is that each member of parliament will be allowed to vote his or her conscience. Conscience is another word that kind of got messed up under the Liberals. Anyway, a free vote gives legitimacy to which ever side wins the vote. If same-sex marriage wins, then opponents won't be able to say the vote was illegit. If the traditional definition of marriage were to win, we'd have to see. By the way, the 'notwithstanding clause' is not scary. It is a legitimate tool of our Constitution -- or else, why did the Liberals (who were in power during the drafting of the Constitution) allow it to be put there?

Mr. Harper says: On abortion rights, my party defeated a resolution to strike them down.
Mr. Harper means: My party has a policy on abortion -- even though many of our members are personally against abortion on demand, our policy states that the issue won't be visited by us when we form a government. We allow differing opinions within our party, but we realise there are some we can't act upon. A quick search of the Liberal website says they have no such policy. Why aren't Canadian women terrified?

Mr. Harper says: I will cut the GST by 2%; you deserve a break.
Mr. Harper means: Tax cuts of all sorts are a conservative idea. You know, lower taxes, small government. Remember, a surplus is only a good thing when it comes to your family's budget -- not the government's.

Mr. Harper says: I will get tough on polluters.
Mr. Harper means: The Liberals believe that treaties and speeches are good for the environment. Since signing Kyoto, Canadian greenhouse gas emissions have gone up 24% over 1990 levels – that’s 30% above target. (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change report entitled Key GHG Data) Apparently Mr. Martin's hot air isn't working.

Mr. Harper says: My priority is tougher enforcement against criminals.
Mr. Harper means: I won't confiscate the legally owned, legally used property of Canadians, because I believe in property rights. The gun registry hasn't prevented 50 gun murders in Toronto this year, but it has cost a couple of billion dollars. Call me anything but Liberal, but I don't think that's value for the money.

Mr. Harper says: It is the responsibility of a prime minister of any party to have good relations with the US.

Mr. Harper means: Paul Martin is an idiot. You don't tick off your closest trading partner in order to score cheap political points in an election. Whether you like George Bush or not, the US is going to be next door for a long time after him, and after the Liberals are out of power. It's irresponsible to consistently antagonise an ally to try to provoke a fear response in your electorate. You can respectfully disagree on issues. Not all arguments have to be about creating fear and putting other people down. If you want to work with another nation on trade, it isn't good business or politics to spread innuendo and lies.

Okay, maybe this isn't exactly what John Duffy wrote, but if you have your decoder ring handy, you'll know what he meant.

canadianna

Diversionary attack

I got this from Canoe.ca, but since it's a CP story, you'll find it anywhere, likely with the same mis-information. It's Martin trying to divert attention from Scott Reid/Income Trusts/anti-American environmental statements/handgun banning (take your pick) and put some heat onto Harper about the same-sex marriage thing:

However, Martin notes the law allowing same sex marriages in Canada cannot be reversed without using the notwithstanding clause.

Harper has been fairly quiet about his plans to repeal the same-sex marriage legislation since he was asked about it at the beginning of the campaign for the Jan. 23 election, and said a Conservative government would put an end to the practice. (emphasis mine)

Martin's scaremongering is vile, but typical. The media mis-information is also typical, but I find it much more disturbing.

canadianna

Why do Liberals hate Canadians?

When Scott Reid suggested that Canadian parents would use Stephen Harper's Choice in Child Care Credit to buy popcorn and beer, he was not using the wrong words to make his point about Harper's promise -- he was making a point about what he thinks of us.

It's no wonder the Liberals fear democracy -- they loathe Canadians.

They pander to us, bribe us, scare us in to submission -- all because they don't trust us to make decisions about our own money, about our families, about our society, or even about our use of words.

They close off any avenue by which people might express an opinion contrary to the Liberal way -- and they do so by demonizing any opposition to their way of thought as un-Canadian. I used to think this was just a lust for power and control, but I've come to realise that the thought process of the Liberal Party was apparent in Scott Reid's unguarded comment. He is representative of the Party because the Liberals have demonstrated through their manner of governance that Liberals have no respect for the people they govern. From election gag laws to hate speech laws, the Liberals have proved that they don't trust the average Canadian to exercise 'proper' judgement even in areas where the government really has no place.

And now, rather than allowing us to exercise our own judgement about the care of our children, they accuse us of preferring to squander money on trivialities.

An apology is not enough. Scott Reid could have said: car payments, mortgage payments, snowsuits, winter boots, dental visits, piano lessons, heating bills, putting gas in the car . . . He might have used any example of not using the money for daycare, in order to suggest that the money in the Conservative plan might not be used by parents to pay for child care -- he chose to say 'beer and popcorn' because this flippant, off-the cuff comment is precisely what he and his party really think of us.

canadianna

Announcement or Campaign Promise -- There is a Difference

Read these two quotes, keeping in mind that although Paul Martin is still Prime Minister, the government has been dissolved and we are in the midst of a hotly contested election campaign.

Audio Link: "That's why I'm here today on behalf of the people of Toronto, to thank the Prime Minister for his announcement and to thank the Attorney General for his announcement, because today's announcement will start getting those guns off the streets of Toronto (...) Mr. Prime Minister I could not think of a more important announcement for the people of Toronto than the banning of handguns, and I want to thank you for your leadership."
-- David Miller, Mayor of Toronto

Audio link: "Prime Minister, a handgun ban, you can count Ontario in! (...) Ontario supports a handgun ban and will work with the federal government to implement a handgun ban. . . and now with this information we will have the opportunity to have additional RCMP Officers to boost our law enforcement arsenal" --Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario

The Prime Minister's promise to ban handguns is nothing compared the audacity of our Mayor and the Ontario Attorney General. They flanked Martin yesterday during his 'announcement' and did not simply endorse any old election promise, but rather, they welcomed the information -- and in the case of Miller -- did so on my behalf!!

The statements of Miller and Bryant are irresponsible. Given the staging of yesterday's event, an observer might be forgiven for believing that Paul Martin had the power to enact a handgun ban effective immediately by proclamation.

David Miller and Michael Bryant have overstepped their positions, not simply by endorsing a party and a candidate for Prime Minister -- but by attending a campaign speech in their respective roles of Mayor and Attorney General, and pretending a campaign promise is a major announcement of actual legislation.

canadianna

Where have you been, lo these many years?

The way Paul Martin talks, you'd think that gun violence was a new phenomenon and that he was moving quickly to quell it before it got out of hand.

Newsflash, Mr. Prime Minister -- gun violence in Toronto is entrenched in the culture -- why? Because for years, the Liberal governments who might have done something to prevent its escalation, ignored it.

There is more to gun violence than guns. It's that simple. People who don't value human life, or who believe their needs trump the rights of another person to live -- these people will continue to exist and kill regardless of whether they can get a hand gun to do it. Does Mr. Martin think the criminals are going to come in and hand over their guns any faster than they 'registered' them?

The breakdown of families and core family values are far more important detering violence than banning a gun will ever be. Lynda Hurst wrote about this in the Toronto Star on the weekend and it's worth the read.

Today Martin announced tougher sentencing, great, but where have they been the past twelve years? If they were really serious, this would have been a preventive measure, rather than an attempt to stem the flow of blood on Toronto's streets. Besides, the Tories have already promised tougher sentences and given the track record of the Liberals, it's the Conservatives I would trust to follow through.

The Liberal Party is the party of the 'Faint Hope Clause', and the ineffective Young Offenders Act (since replaced by the Youth Criminal Justice Act -- also ineffective.) Their stance on crime seems to have been 'if we ignore it, maybe it will go away' and now suddenly, after playing ignorant for all this time -- they come riding into town, platitudes ablazin' and they're going to get tough on crime --as though it's someone else's fault that things have become this bad.

Maybe it's because so few Liberals live in the real world. They are beyond street crime, because their lives never meet the street. Their experience with our daily reality, ends when they close the newspaper. They don't fear drive by shootings or stray bullets in school yards. They don't fear letting their kids walk places, or travel alone because of perverts. They don't fear walking home from a bus stop after dark -- they will never be in circumstances where these kinds of things are issues.

Take away all the handguns. Drop them in the ocean. Is Toronto going to be any safer?

Gun violence is only one of the many life-destroying crimes that plague this country. What makes a society safe is the knowledge that our governing members refuse to accept certain behaviours. As a society, we have to show our intolerance for child molesters, murderers and other villains by locking them up and throwing away the key. A Liberal government will never do that.

Successive Liberal governments have shown their empathy lies with criminals, rather than victims. Whatever solutions they propose to combat crime are irrelevant -- because they are part of the problem.

canadianna

Daycare -- Univeral access and shifting expectations

In short, this program (universal child care) is here to stay – because it’s right for Canadian families, and it’s right for our children. (. . .) Government supported child care means that your children will go to regulated facilities that are safe, secure and inspected. It means that your children will be cared for by people who are properly trained. -- Paul Martin

At the inception of our universal health care system, the idea was that the government would be obligated to pay for the health services of citizens. It has evolved to the point where citizens are obligated to accept the health care services of the state.

We live in a country where most people believe it is 'unfair' for an individual to pay for his own medical treatment.

Under the Liberal plan, how long will it be before the obligation is no longer on the government to provide state run daycare -- but on a parent to accept it?

It means that your children will be cared for by people who are properly trained.

Read those words carefully and remember that just this summer, Ken Dryden said that parents and family members:

(could be trained) "so long as the end result is something that meets the standards of regulation and meets the standards of the QUAD [quality, universality, accessibility, developmental] principles."

Who's scary?

canadianna

The subtlety of media bias

There are columnists who blatently bare their political souls, but many people reject the idea that media in general is inherently biased in favour of the Liberals.

In their Decision Canada pages in the National Post, an article by Mark Kennedy displays the back-handed derision displayed by many in the media when writing on Martin and Harper. The article itself seems neutral -- it's simply pointing out that Harper is making his agenda clear, quickly --in order to avoid a repeat of the last election when he allowed Martin to define him. The following quote is a betrayer of the underlying sentiments of the author, and in my opinion, makes characterizations that are unsupported and unsupportable:

Plagued with how the sponsership scandal has tarnished the Liberal brand, it appears Mr. Martin hopes to run on his own leadership traits of honesty and good intentions. All the while, he's praying for Mr. Harper's hubris to be his undoing.

This is written as though the statements are facts that everyone takes for granted -- and maybe that's why so many people do.

canadianna

Why doesn't Paul trust us?

Paul Martin has done nothing to earn my trust, and yet he wants me to trust him to create a childcare program that is so all encompassing that it will be on a par with medicare in terms of scope and breadth. Part of our 'social fabric' he calls it.

He says that like medicare -- childcare is a 'public right'.

Excuse me?

What about the right to raise your own children?

Not possible in many cases, you say? Families can't afford it?
Well, instead of making 'daycare' a universal 'right' -- why not create the circumstances where families can decide for themselves whether they want to be the primary caregivers to their own children?

We all know what a mess health care is in, right across the country -- costs are high, services are insufficient and delays are the norm . . . and yet Mr. Martin wants us to have faith that he and his government will serve our children adequately in early child care and early childhood education.

The GST lie, the free trade lie, the Sea King debacle, HRDC billion dollar foul up, the Gun Registry, the 1995 referendum (precursor of the sponsorship scandal), and the Radwanski, and the Dingwall affairs -- to name a few -- are all examples of the way Liberals do business -- and we're supposed to trust them with our kids?

Why doesn't Mr. Martin trust us to raise our own children? His urgency to commit more (but still insufficient) money to his universal daycare scheme in the wake of Harper's announcement -- says that Martin and the liberal elites in this country are trying to create an environment where there is no choice --- where daycare is not the norm -- but the ideal.

Why is it so hard for him to understand, that if money were no object (as is the case in his world) that many families who rely on daycare would prefer to have one parent stay at home?

Daycare is not a right. It should be choice. In Paul Martin's Canada -- it's a choice the government wants to make for us.

canadianna

The problem with conservatives

Conservative commentators are never happy.

They don't like the governing party -- not what they've done, not what they plan to do -- but they seem to like the Conservative Party even less.

Greg Weston of the SUN and Don Martin of the National Post, write twin columns today, suggesting that Harper's health care plan was ripped from the pages from the Liberal policy book. Their columns drip with contempt for Harper and his un-Conservative vision. They dismiss any positive reaction to Harper's announcement, and overlook the fact that even Harper-haters like Adam Vaughn of CITY TV (Toronto) are beginning to see the Conservatives as legitimate contenders in this election race.

Also in the National Post today, Andrew Coyne takes aim at Harper's plan to reduce the GST. He chastises Harper for committing to cut a consumption tax, because income tax reductions promote investment, blah, blah, blah.

It might be news to these fellows, but Harper had no choice with health care. He didn't remove the concept of private delivery -- he simply said that either the public system puts up, or people can go elsewhere and have it paid for by the public system. This works as both a safe-guard for those who need timely care, and an incentive to the public system to work to reduce wait times. In a country like Canada, where public health care is sacrosanct -- what else can he do? If it is similar to the current Liberal plan, so what? I believe that the Conservatives will work to get things moving. Shooting him down is the typical conservative media reaction to any positive step Harper makes. It's like they put their hate for the man ahead of their hopes for the future of the country. Disagree with the policy if you like -- but right now, in this country, Harper has chosen a compromise that is bound to please voters -- and isn't that the point?

As for Coyne and the GST -- First -- Harper didn't reject income tax cuts. It isn't a case of 'either this or that'. A cut in the GST in conjunction with income tax reductions is unlikely to break the bank -- not when we have massive surplusses that end up enabling the government to behave as though public money is their personal piggy-bank.

Coyne, like many of those who come from comfortable backgrounds, forgets that many of us will never be able to 'save' let alone invest. Our 'disposable income' is not disposable at all. It goes to pay our bills and to buy our kids Christmas presents and put them to lessons, or sports.

For the vast majority of us, there is nothing left to save at the end of the month, let alone to invest. Our investments, if we are fortunate enough, come in the form of buying a home for our family -- and 2% off the price of a big-ticket item like a home, or the furnishing to put in the home, or a new(er) car that won't fail emissions tests (on which we pay GST) -- that 2% is a big difference.

When you have money, it's difficult to envision being one of the lowly masses who lives paycheque to paycheque. But people like Coyne would do well to remember that there are many of us for whom a reduction of income tax really doesn't mean anything -- but a drop in the price of gas, or in the cost of a new hockey stick, or in any of the number of things that aren't exactly 'necessities' but which make life liveable -- that 2% makes a big difference to us.

When conservative commentators start to realise that it isn't just about them and their class of people -- the investor class -- the professional class -- the governing class -- then maybe they'll see that Harper seems to realise that if he wants to be the Prime Minister -- he will be the PM to all of us -- the working class, the working poor, people on welfare -- all of these people are citizens and voters too; for us, these two announcements are good news. These conservative commentators seem to be trying to take the wind out of the sails of a positive start to this campaign for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party and it's beyond me why they'd want to do that.

canadianna

Hey, Paul! I can't hear you!

Martin says Harper is silent on the the issues.

Okay -- truth is, I've been too busy to be following much election news. I've scarcely read a paper, barely scanned a few blogs, and I've hardly been around a television.

But -- since the election call, I have heard:

Harper re-stated his intention to call a free-vote on SSM
(in my opinion to prevent the 'hidden agenda' nonsense had
someone had to ask the question -- and let's be realistic here -- he's
always said he'd do this)

Harper is lowering the GST to 5% over two years. (Economically sound or not, lowering a consumer tax near Christmas is very appealing to consumers).

Harper would allow publically funded, private delivery of health services if timely treatment wasn't available. (Thank God he's finally said it.)

From Paul Martin I've heard:

That Stephen Harper is silent on the issues.

Oh, there was some other stuff about giving money to people in Cornwall to train for jobs that don't exist. Same old, same old.

Paul Martin seems more interested in talking about Stephen Harper than about any vision he has for Canada (of course, I realise the implications of that). His newest plan, rather than talking substance and policy, is to help NDPers to vote strategically to keep the Conservatives out of government.

I hope Martin continues his slams against Harper. The more Martin talks, the more obvious it becomes that this is all about power for him. He's in politics for one reason -- to be and stay PM. He has no plans, no ideas -- all he can talk about is not having a Conservative government and ways to prevent it.

In my neighbourhood (Scarborough-Guildwood) I've seen a ton of Conservative signs, but not one Liberal or NDP. I know it's early days, but it is a far different sight than 2004.
The other night, I was in a Mr. Sub and another customer was talking with the proprietor and both were counting the days till we get rid of the Liberals. These two men were vastly different ages, two different races, and very different walks of life -- but both were emphatic that they will be voting for Harper.

Martin is convinced that if he keeps saying that Harper is silent on the issues, people will believe him in the same way they chanted his 'let Gomery do his work' and 'Canadians don't want an election' mantras last spring.

Martin didn't count on Harper giving people reasons to vote for him.

No wonder Paul is pretending he can't hear.

canadianna

The 2% solution?

Funny, I thought everyone hated the GST. They hated it when the Progressive Conservatives proposed it under Mulroney. They hated it when Chretien promised not to implement it. They hated it when Martin proved the Liberals liars and imposed it.

It was accepted, grudgingly -- but everyone hated it.

I'm amazed at how many people say reducing the GST by 2% is sound politics, but bad policy. I've read where people are disputing the $400/year savings Harper says would benefit the average family and suggesting that it's a negligible, so why care.

To me, $400 is definitely not a pittance, but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be higher that $400/ family.

For example:

Every raw material that goes into building a product is GST-able. If a builder buys $100 worth of wood, it costs $107. Won't he recover the 7% he's paid in GST (on each product and service used to build the house) by incorporating it into the price of the house?

Wouldn't this 2% reduction also decrease costs for hospitals and schools--- or are they already GST exempt?

Who could find fault with an idea that would give Ottawa less of our money?

canadianna