Toronto the not-so-good

Greater Toronto Hotel Association President Rod Seiling, and Bruce MacMillan, President and CEO of Tourism Toronto, are lamenting the lack of tourism and suggesting that both the provincial and federal governments should fork over cash to revitalize the tourism industry in the city.

Both men seem to believe that the tourism numbers are low due to lack of marketing, suggesting that Americans still think we're all about moose, Mounties and mountains. This shows an utter lack of critical thinking skills, a myopic perspective of recent events and a sterotypical view of Americans as ignorant. Gee, I wonder why they aren't coming?

In the days of old when Toronto was a tourist destination for Americans, there were three important things that drew them here:

1. Toronto was safe and clean.
2. The Canadian dollar was cheap, so sight-seeing and shopping didn't break the bank.
3. Most importantly -- Canadians were seen as a friendly people, polite to a fault.

Times have changed and so has Toronto.

Toronto is not perceived to be safe anymore, and it definitely is not clean. We might not be unsafe compared to large American centres, but if we're no safer then we've lost our more favourable comparison.

And it isn't just the gun violence. The city is rife with panhandlers and the homeless. My daughters and I went to see Hilary Duff a few weeks back and I was shocked that as we left the ACC and walked through the tunnel linking it to Union Station, there were no less than four scruffy men blocking the crowds and asking for money. Back home in Scarborough there are some stores and malls that you can't exit without being asked for cash.

The garbage situation in Toronto is a joke. Most major western cities have garbage pick up at least twice a week. In Toronto, recycling and trash are picked up alternate weeks, with a limit of six items on trash days. Compostables are picked up weekly. Dumping in ravines and parks is fairly common, at least in part because of the item limit on trash days. The 'green bin' which is to hold all the 'stinky' garbage, can be opened by raccoons, so having putting it out the night before is not a good idea and if you happen to miss getting it out on time, you just have to hold on to it for another whole week.

But worst of all is the blue box. Tins and bottles littering boulevards and curbs are common sights. Strong winds blow them out of the boxes, or if they fall out of the box while being dumped into the truck, they are simly left where they land. Apparently it isn't in a garbage man's job description to pick up recycling that spills from your bin on its way into the garbage truck.

World-class cities don't operate this way. Civic pride is important, not just for citizens, but for workers. Our city council is living in another century when it refuses to even talk about incineration as a viable solution to our garbage problem and a potential solution to our energy needs.

The rise in the Canadian dollar is another factor that must be contributing to lower tourism levels. If we aren't safer, and we aren't cleaner, then why should they come if we aren't cheaper?

And the final reason -- incivility.

Torontonians are nice, but from some very public comments of our mayor, some big-mouthed former MPs and our former Prime Minister, you'd never know that. These people, elected to represent us, have verbally abused the US, either because they are ignorant, or to score political points. Among other things, Mayor Miller continues to publically blame the US for our gun problems. Add to that, the series of undiplomatic sentiments expressed by various members of government , both elected and appointed, since Chretien was in power. Time has not diluted the negative affect of the "Americans, I hate those bastards" statement by Carolyn Parrish, not least because Paul Martin engaged in America-bashing during the election. It wasn't just at the Climate Change conference; his television ads suggested that a US friendly Prime Minister would be greeted with hositlity by Canadians and that some evil American cabal was funding his competitor.

If Toronto needs something to help increase tourism, that something isn't multi-million dollar marketing. This city needs to take a good look at itself and the people it chooses as representatives. If Americans aren't coming here to visit, it's because we aren't giving them any reason. Dressing our city up in a slick advertsing campaign isn't going to solve the problems that make our city inhospitable to tourists from south of the border.

There are American cities with abundant arts & culture, great restaurants, sporting venues, green spaces close by, historic attractions, and amusement parks -- why should they bother spending their money in Toronto? They used to do it because it was safe, clean, cheaper and nice. Now that it isn't any of those things, what exactly are we offering?

Seiling is wrong. He thinks Amercians have an old-fashioned idea of what we are all about and that's keeping them away -- but maybe, that image of moose, Mounties and mountains is what the Americans liked about us. You could count on things to be a certain way in Canada -- clean, safe, nice. We, as Canadians used to feel that way about ourselves, but I think most of us don't anymore. Could it be that Americans have noticed the changes in us too, and they don't like what they see?

canadianna

The media and blogs

Darcy of Dust my Broom points to a column in Winnipeg Free Press which, like so many others before it, dismisses political bloggers (conservative bloggers in particular) as the stereotypical 'guy in his pyjamas, typing away in the basement of his mother's home'.

Earlier this week in the National Post there was a piece about blogging. It suggested, as does the piece in the Free Press, that bloggers over-estimate their sway and are largely irrelevant in Canada. The two pieces begin with the premise that bloggers hope to influence events. I believe their theory is inherently wrong.

Some blogs are very good at disseminating information, breaking stories or pointing out the absurdities of government, others take aim at the news that's already out there and give a perspective typically unavailable in the mainstream media. Some blogs reflect on the current realities of the world, while others are simply a place for their authors to vent.

Most bloggers seem pleased to know their efforts are read, but don't succumb to the illusion that they are changing anyone's opinion. We know we are mostly preaching to the converted and though we enjoy visits from commenters from the other end of the political spectrum, their challenges aren't about to change our minds any more than our posts and comments are going to change theirs.

I think the media has missed the real power of the average political blog.

For me, blogging has been a remarkable discovery of like-minded people in a country that I believed had very few conservative thinkers (especially east of Manitoba or Saskatchewan).

Through blogging, I have 'virtually' met people from all across Canada and parts of the US. We've exchanged ideas, learned about each other and sometimes surprised ourselves at how much we have in common despite diverse backgrounds, geography and life experience. We've discovered how much our neighbours to the south know about us, and care about our politics. We've agreed or disagreed as the issues demanded, and we've shared concerns and frustrations, as we laughed at the lunacy of politics, politicians and pundits.

Far from being irrelevant, blogging has connected people who would likely never have met and allowed us to voice our shared worries, hopes, goals and vision. If nothing else, it has been a uniting tool, helping Canadian conservatives to see that they aren't alone and giving us a place and a public forum at a time when we've felt silenced and marginalised.

Bloggers might not change the world or influence the way the public thinks, but it's been heartening to find that there are other people out there whose view of the world isn't skewed left. When assessing the value of any medium, understanding the intentions of its users should be the first step. Professional journalists who discount the importance of political blogs, have approached this from the wrong angle.

canadianna

Less than I hoped for, better than I thought

By Sunday, I was losing faith. I'm not sure whether the public was affected by the Liberal attack ads, the reports of 'hidden candidates' or the brief suggestion that Stephen Harper had stopped talking to reporters, but it all dampened my spirits.

Last night as I watched the results, I was really disappointed. Then, I heard Stephen Harper speak. That was when I realised how big this win is, not for conservatives, but for Canadians.

Harper's minority government represents hope to many who had begun to despair of our political system. Right or left, conservative or 'progressive,' are not so important as seeing that there is a credible alternative to Liberal hegemony. Despite what Liberals want us to believe, we all know that One Party Rule is never a good thing in a democracy.

Some Liberals equate this experience for them to a 'time-out' or a stint in the 'penalty-box'. This implies that when the Liberals have finished their renewal process, that they will assume their traditional role of 'natural governing party.' I don't see that in the results and I hope it's bravado talking, rather than a true sense of entitlement.

In the months to come I expect that Stephen Harper and his team will prove themselves to be a safe and viable choice for voters, and not simply a temporary surrogate. Depite all the campaign rhetoric, the Conservative policies (despite being different from the Liberal policies) are not radical or right-wing and will be easily supported by many right-leaning Liberals.

All of the parties faced disappointment last night, none of them achieving their ultimate goals. The Conservatives have a fragile minority, rather than the strong one they'd hoped for. The Liberals lost both seats, and popular support. The Bloc failed to meet its target in the popular vote, and elected fewer MPs, and Jack Layton and the NDP, despite a two percent gain in the popular vote and a ten seat increase in the House, no longer hold the balance of power.

The irony of all this is that power still rests with the Liberals. It will be Liberals Stephen Harper will look to for support of his budget and other programmes, and for the most part I think they'll sign on. Financially strapped and without a leader, they'll be in no hurry to bring the government down. Likely, many are still stinging from the very public and vulgar bashing of their values by Paul Martin as he pandered to the 'progressives'. These MPs will be loyal to their party, but they'll want it to have time to be dragged back to the centre from the outter left fringes where Paul Martin left it.

canadianna

Moderates have no place in the new Liberal Party

What moderate thinking person, in their right mind, could vote Liberal?

This final week of the election campaign has done more to damage the Liberals than all of their scandals put together. In his final push to maintain power, Paul Martin has targeted 'progressive' voters and in the end he has destroyed any credibility his party might have had on sensitive social issues. People might have been able to look past the 'corruption of the few' or the ineptitude of many, but they can't ignore the seismic ideological shift to the left.

It remains a mystery why Paul Martin would think 'progressive' voters would vote for a tired and volatile Liberal Party, when they have the alternative of the NDP - a party free from scandal, with a youngish, energetic leader and MPs who seem both committed and bright. And by soliciting votes from the more extreme left, Martin will have alienated those liberals who still consider themselves centrists. If Martin's Liberals feel comfortable embracing the extreme left, then what can be there to hold people with moderate social and fiscal views?

The answer is nothing.

Moderate voters have no longer have a place in the Liberal Party. Their leader has marginalised his own candidates with his vicious and radical rhetoric on social issues and has insulted the voting base by saying that the opinions of these candidates (and by extention, their voters) don't matter and won't be listened to if the Liberals were to remain in power.

Paul Martin is a politician of exclusion and division. In his lust for power, he has become like a giant sponge, soaking up policies and ideology from the NDP, leaving moderate voters no choice but to abstain, vote Conservative or be left behind.

Happy voting.

canadianna

When a non-issue becomes THE issue

Paul Martin is making hay about Conservative candidates who are being 'hidden' because of their 'extreme right-wing' views on social issues.

These candidates are being hunted by the national media to talk about issues that are not on the table. We've already seen Harper state that his opinion is irrelevant because he has promised not to introduce legislation, and not to support legislation on the issue, and yet he's being damaged by the suggestion that 'if' a private members bill was put forward, and 'if' it came to a vote . . .

Never mind that everyone knows private members bills are incredibly hard to get on the docket. Harper is being smeared because of what he might think. Nothing Harper has said, and nothing he has done, or would do, even suggests he'd change the status quo on abortion, but how well would a local candidate do, trying to field loaded questions from a socially 'progressive' media?
No one in the media is running around asking John McKay et al. how they'd vote on abortion and the stance Martin has taken on this has simply hurt and offended people who are not part of his definition of 'caring,' 'compassionate' Canadians'

Everyone is worried about the Conservative candidates who aren't talking, but here we are, only two days to go in this election campaign, and Paul Martin has yet to reveal which MPs received taxpayer cash diverted from the sponsorship programme to help their 2000 election campaigns. We know these people exist -- but he won't tell us who they are. Why hasn't he given the names so people can ask whose money they're using this time?

Babbling Brooks points to Tiger in Exile who contrasts the positions of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper on issues like abortion and gay marriage. No wonder Harper is frustrated, and Martin is elated. The information here is readily available to anyone who goes to the effort (thanks Ben) of looking -- but instead of doing their research, much of the media coverage just shows Martin and his ranting.

I don't know who Martin thinks his constituency is, but if people want government from the left, the NDP isn't tainted by corruption and desperation. If the Liberals are looking for voters in the centre, Paul Martin's offensive style of campaigning and marginalizing differing opinions, will not endear him to people with moderate views.

Paul Martin is musing about Conservative candidates who aren't talking to reporters. When the votes are counted on Monday night, the Liberals might realise that Paul Martin has made the mistake of talking too much.

canadianna

Expressing my views and advancing my cause

What's going to happen after the election? Are these social conservatives going to stay in hiding ... (or) are they going to come out and start expressing their views, advancing their causes?" Paul Martin, speaking in Atlantic Canada today

I am a 'social conservative' -- not a radical. In fact, my views are moderate. I have no extremist vision and no desire to impose my values on anyone else -- unlike the radical left that Paul Martin has come to extol.

I believe that there should be some regulation on abortion based on the age of the fetus.
I believe that gays and lesbians are entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. I do not believe marriage is a right. I believe civil unions or registered domestic partnerships of some sort would allow the same benefits as marriage, and would respect the dignity of gay people.

How are these positions controversial? They are in line with the mainstream, modern views of countries like Britain, Finland, Switzerland and France. Very few western democracies allow completely unfettered access to abortion and at least 17 modern, civilized, forward-thinking nations recognise civil unions between gay couples, but not gay 'marriage.'

My views on marriage and abortion are not related to my religion. I have no idea about the Anglican church's view on abortion, and on marriage, they are impossibly divided. I believe that most people who are against abortion or against gay marriage concede there must be compromise -- not so on the 'yes' side. The pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage contingent are so rigid in their views one might call them dogmatic, or even fervently religious to the point of intolerance.

When Stephen Harper says the issue of abortion won't be on the table should he become Prime Minister, I believe him. Why? Because this is a toxic issue for Conservatives. Should he want a solid mandate or second term (whatever the case may be) he can't touch the issue. He knows it. Paul Martin knows it. And yet Martin runs around Canada in the name of women everywhere, telling anyone who will listen, that my opinions are so extreme that they are frightening.

Whatever side of 'rights' issues or 'social' issues you come down on, it should be unsettling that the prime minister of our country has such contempt for so many of the citizens he is supposed to represent. A prime minister is supposed to be the Prime Minister of ALL of the people, not just the people who agree with his narrow world view, and fit his exclusive definition of Canadian.

Buzz Hargrove says that Albertans are not quite Canadian -- Paul Martin doesn't distance himself on that comment, and the media is still writing about the abortion non-issue.

Paul Martin keeps stressing there is a 'fundamental difference' between himself and Stephen Harper. Well, in Stephen Harper's Canada, people are entitled to express diverse opinions on matters of conscience and not be subject to ridicule or derision.
In Paul Martin's Canada, when the government wants your opinion, it will tell it to you.

Choose your Canada.

canadianna

Liberal appointments and Stephen Harper

Could it be that when Stephen Harper vowed he wouldn't use the notwithstanding clause to 'force' through the traditional definition of marriage is because he knew, that like the attempt to pass an abortion law in the 90s, it would be stalled by the Senate.

Could it be that Stephen Harper mentioned that the senior levels of the civil service are composed of Liberal appointees as one of the 'checks and balances' he referred to was to assure this senior level of bureaucracy that he had no plans to universally and swiftly fire them the way that the Liberals fired Conservative appointees when they swept in to power in 1993.

Could it be that when Stephen Harper suggested that the judiciary was dominated by Liberal appointees, he knew that there was only one vacancy in the nine judge court, and he was assuring both the NDP and the Bloc -- both of which favour an overhaul of the vetting process, that he intends to follow through with the ideas that the three parties put forward (which were rejected by the Liberals) and will not appoint judges based on their political world view but on their interpretation of the law.

No one is saying they want an American-style inquisition type process of determining the credibility of judges, but all three opposition parties agreed on needed changes.

Canadians would do well to remember that even with a majority government, there will be constraints on Conservatives. There is no such mechanism in place to keep Liberals in check should weak-kneed people decide to maintain the status quo.

canadianna

Activist judges -- never!

Centrist
n. One who takes a position in the political center; a moderate.
adj. Marked by or adhering to a moderate political view.

For the longest time I've believed that activist types have been yanking the political spectrum to the extreme left, and re-labelling it 'the centre'.

Paul Martin and the Liberal Party are the self-proclaimed centrist force in Canada. They say they embody Canadian values and represent the opinions of the average Canadian.

Paul Martin makes a point of saying that Stephen Harper once said 'you won't recognise Canada when I get through with it.' He castigates Harper for pointing out that the judiciary and the Supreme Court are stacked with Liberal appointees, and yet the social fabric of Canada has changed over the past 20 years -- based entirely on decisions of a Liberal heavy judiciary and the Liberal laden Senate.

In twenty years with a majority Liberal appointed judiciary, Canada has gone from a country that had a law regulating abortion, needed no law respecting the traditional definition of marriage because for centuries it was simply understood, upheld the standards of public decency, and held possession of child pornography to be illegal.

No more.

Liberals have set the agenda and changed Canada over the past twenty years - not through elected members of Parliament, but in the two unelected, unaccountable branches of government which are dominated by Liberal appointees. Are they impartial? Maybe they are, but the fact remains that the lack of abortion law, and the laws regarding child pornography, same-sex marriage and community standards all reflect an extreme liberal, rather than centrist view of social issues. They have sought not to balance justice but to force it. By reading rights into the Charter, they have indeed been 'activist', and gone beyond interpreting law and are now making it.

The radical social agenda has always belonged to the Liberal Party and they have managed to implement it -- particularly over the past twelve years. Not because they believed it was right, but because it was a way to differentiate themselves from the 'Christian right' they pretend lurks in the shadows of the Conservative Party.

Should the Conservatives win a majority, there is nothing Stephen Harper or the Conservatives would be able to do to transform Canada into the theocracy Paul Martin is prophesying, but Martin's current denunciations of Harper and all things conservative will likely have influence, at least here in Toronto.

Come on, Tuesday.

canadianna

Questionnaire for Liberals

Q. Why do you call your child care transfer payment to the provinces a 'Universal Child Care Plan' when it isn't universal and parents will still pay market value for daycare just like they do now?

Q. If the Liberals and NDP are both against privately delivered health services, why don't they object to publically funded, privately delivered abortions?

Q. If Buzz Hargrove was speaking out of turn when he said that Stephen Harper is a separatist, why did Paul Martin approve the ad that says:

Gilles Duceppe and Stephen Harper worked together to bring down the government.

Lots of late night secret meetings.

Apparently, they're quite a team.

Which is great.

Because if Harper wins this election?

He'll need to work very, very closely with Gilles Duceppe.

Unfortunately, their unity won't do much for Canadian unity.

Apparently Buzz was just parroting the Liberal Party line, so why is Paul Martin lying to Canadians when he says that what Buzz said, isn't what he meant?

Q. Why do the Liberals think it's a bad thing to want to have a positive working relationship with our closest and largest trading partner, the US, but it's good to encourage trade with Communist China despite human rights abuses and the potential flood of our market with cheap goods (cars, etc.) at prices we can't compete with?

Q. Why do the Liberals think that Stephen Harper will defer our sovereignty and independence to the whims of George Bush -- is it because the Liberals know that they have never been able to say 'no' to their friends?

Q. Why is Paul Martin all in a tizzy because Stephen Harper mentioned that the Senate, Judiciary and Senior levels of the Public Service are Liberal appointees -- Does Paul Martin forget Art Eggleton, Glen Murray, David Dingwall, and Rosalie Abella and is he pretending that they are not all Liberal appointees, and liberal thinkers?

Q. Does Dalton 'health premium' McGuinty really think his opinion matters to Ontarians or that we believe a word he says? Is he saying he won't try to work with Mr. Harper if the Conservatives are elected?

Q. Why are the Blogging Tories being referred to Elections Canada for violation of the 3rd Party advertising law -- but not the Toronto Star?

You don't really have to answer.

canadianna

Glass-house nation building

At the request of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Paul Martin has pledged to create the Canada Centre for Peace and Democracy -- its purpose is:

. . . to serve as a concrete symbol of Canada's dedication to supporting Palestinians in their nation building (. . .) Canada has already allocated over $36 million this fiscal year, as part of its enhanced program of assistance for the Palestinians, to supplement the growth in volume of our assistance and to supplement our diplomatic presence with a broad-based facility that can support our activities in Gaza, the West Bank and throughout the Middle East. (PDF file from liberal.ca)

Martin's announcement comes as Ariel Sharon remains gravely ill and the uncertainty and tension of the political situation in Israel is palpable. Aside from the bad timing, Martin's plan is as presumptuous as it is arrogant.

Canadians strive for 'peace, order and good government', but our current ruling party hardly embodies these noble goals -- yet it feels competent to pass along its vision of democracy to a fledgling Palestine.

Liberals would say the goal is to establish democratic principles and infrastructure prior to the formal creation of a Palestinian state. They would tell us that if Canada can work with Palestinians to create the foundations and the institutions -- democracy will follow.

Canada, under the Liberal Party, is a country divided. We are 'a nation of minorities', we are fractured regions competing for papa's money and attention; we are independentt nations wanting to secede and disrespected citizens angry and sometimes bitter that although our votes don't count, our taxes sure do.

The Liberal Party's handling of Quebec and Alberta over 30 odd years are enough to show that they have no place in nation building. Add to that the stench of corruption and incompetence still clinging to this stale government -- and Canadian should know that this initiative is not the right thing -- not now -- not under this flaccid and tainted administration.

Under the Liberal governments of Pierre Trudeau (1980) and Jean Chretien (1995) we had referendums on Quebec sovereignty. The second mightn't have been necessary, but for the fact that in 1982, Trudeau patriated our new constitution -- without Quebec's ratification. What other democratic nation would be so intent on having a new constitution that it would consider going forward without full participation from its provinces? If it took twenty years to negotiate a resolution satisfactory to all parties, it would have been better than the limbo the framers have left for Quebeckers and for the rest of Canadians who look on helplessly. All because another Liberal Prime Minister wanted a legacy. Brilliant.

Western alienation isn't taken as seriously by the Liberals because despite rapidly growing populations, the provinces in the west still don't have enough seats to hold political sway. Albertans in particular seem to feel isolated and the only appeasement the Liberals offer is in the person of Anne McLellan. Even a Liberal strategist was said to have told a reporter "Alberta can blow me." Alberta's alienation is hardly an effective and positive representation of democracy.

If the Liberal government can't lead by example -- which obviously it can't -- it also loses credibility because of its failure to support Israel at the UN. If Canada is going to take a hand in promoting democracy in a new state of Palestine, certainly goodwill toward its neighbour is important, but the trust of Israelis is paramount -- Canada can't offer a positive role model on this front either.

"We will continue to press for the kinds of [UN] reforms that will eliminate the politicization of the United Nations and its agencies and in particular, the annual ritual of politicized anti-Israel resolutions." - Prime Minister Paul Martin, November 13, 2005

Despite that assertion, Canada's voting record has not improved, and the attitudes about sensitive issues like Jerusalem remain rigid and one-sided:

• Canada holds that any actions taken by Israel to enforce its laws, or assert jurisdiction over the Holy City are illegal saying Israel has no jurisdiction over any part of Jerusalem. In 2005, Canada withdrew all passports that had "Jerusalem, Israel" as a place of birth.
  
• In April 2002 Canada accepted the "Jenin massacre" hoax as fact, and has not apologized.
  
• Canada has called upon Israel "to cease obstructing the movement of the staff, vehicles and supplies of [UNRWA]." Canada supports this "free movement" even after wire service videos show UNRWA ambulances being used to transport terrorists, and an admission by UNRWA's secretary-general that some of their paid employees might be Hamas members. Canada has never called for UNRWA to end its involvement in terror.
  
• Canada says Israel has obligations to Palestinian Arab refugees, with no obligations to displaced Palestinian Jews for the same period.
  
• Canada has re-stated calls for the prevention of all acts of violence by Israeli settlers, with no call for an end to offensive Palestinian violence against innocent civilians.
  
• Canada accepts the idea of a Palestinian state without insisting the PA end terror.

Israel is a fragile nation in the midst of great hostility. Its government is in a state of suspended animation with Ariel Sharon's condition uncertain, and his successor unclear. Iran's enmity and capabilities are both heating up, and Paul Martin wants to inject himself into this volatile mix.

How can the Liberal Party of Canada be a credible nation-builder or peace broker with their credentials? To be an example to developing nations, Canada must be free of scandal and able to demonstrate that its own electorate is up to the task of holding government to account. The only way to do that, is to extract the Liberals from their grasp on power, and start rebuilding our own battered democracy. That can't happen with Paul Martin as Prime Minister.

canadianna

Whose promises do you make and keep?

Is a treaty or a promise made by a government, binding on successive governments?

Apparently, the Liberals don't think so -- Paul Martin's Liberals, who ran on a promise to scrap NAFTA, are now worried about Stephen Harper's commitment to scrap Kyoto -- because he's concerned about Canada's world image. The fact that Martin and the Liberals reneged on this election promise is irrelevant. He believed that deals signed under a previous government were open to renegotiation or reversal -- decisions made by governments are not written in stone.

Paul Martin was also part of the team that promised to scrap a the previous government's helicopter deal -- the cancellation penalty of $500,000,000 was taken from the military budget -- not general revenue. Taxpayers will have to pay the increased cost for replacement helicopters, which still haven't been delivered despite the Sea Kings being 13 years older and more decrepit than they were back then. Martin felt no obligation to honour an existing contract then -- even when it was financially imprudent to cancel.

The same Party that tore up the agreement for an essential tool for our military is bleating that the Conservatives will scrap a daycare scheme which will cost billions of dollars and benefit less than 20% of children.

The interesting thing about the Liberal plan is that it is modelled on the Quebec $7/day daycare plan(which costs considerably more than $7/day to run) -- but while the Liberals have said they will create more spaces, I haven't heard anything about it being more affordable (like the Quebec $7/day plan) Could it be that they didn't negotiate this part of the plan with the provinces -- so they have no idea how much parents will be charged?

The big red book of doom says that the essential principles of their daycare scheme are QUAD principles 'Quality, Universally inclusive, Accessible and Developmental'. So the 'A' doesn't stand for affordable. Some plan. They're transferringg money to the provinces and calling it a child care plan. At least with the Conservative policy, Quebeckers will only have to fork over $10 a week for their full-time childcare arrangements instead of $35, because they'll get the other $25 directly from Ottawa under Harper. With Martin's plan, who exactly is better off except maybe bureaucrats and daycare workers who will now be under the government employee umbrella?

Martin scarcely keeps his own promises, and even those he has kept are not kept in a timely fashion. Yet, he blusters about Stephen Harper's plans and pretends that Harper's decision to follow the Conservative's platform, rather than maintaining the status quo and enacting all of Martin's plans, is shocking.

Paul Martin is so arrogant as to think a Liberal signature renders something holy and untouchable.
His habit of keeping most of the wrong promises and breaking most of the right ones makes his indignant act even more comical.

However this week turns out, I can't wait until it's over.

canadianna

Whose values are these, anyway?

Paul Martin has framed this election as question of vision and values, which begs the question -- what are Canadian values?

A nation displays its values most specifically and most obviously through its laws. The things we ask our governors to enshrine in legislation are the things we believe are important. Our national character doesn't grow from legislation, legislation is derived from our national character.

Paul Martin says the 'fundamental difference' between him and Stephen Harper is that Stephen Harper's values coincide more closely with the 'far right' in the US than anyone in Canada. Martin believes that there is but one vision of Canada, and he is the arbiter.

"“I don't believe that Canada was built on American conservative values,"” said the Prime Minister. "“It was built on compassion, on generosity, on sharing and understanding."

The implication is, of course, that compassion, generosity, sharing and understanding are antipathic to American values, to conservative values and to Canadians who share their values -- particularly when a Christian Republican lives in the White House.

The first negative ad in this election campaign aired on December 2nd. Bardish Chagger, Liberal, said:

"(the Liberals) allow Canadians to express their voices and they provide rights to people and to minorities that otherwise would not be granted rights."

The governing party of Canada believes and promotes the idea that they are responsible for its citizens having rights -- which implies that these rights don't exist outside the framework of their governance. The Liberals argue that they doubt the Conservatives would preserve, protect, or recognise our rights, but that is both ignorance and arrogance. Conservatives have a long history preferringing smaller, less intrusive government and of valuing individual over collective rights.

When the power structure of society believes it has endowed 'people and minorities' with rights, it seems unlikely that the actions of those in power will reflect the values of the people they supposedly represent. More accurately, they see themselves as the purveyors of Canadian values, and maybe as they have anticipated, public opinion has actually followed their lead.

The following is a sampling of Canadian values as defined by the Liberal hierarchy:

• Marriage is a legal recognition of commitment of people who copulate and are financially inter-dependentant. Number and gender, irrelevant.
  

• Human life begins when a full-term baby takes its first breath outside the womb, or when a pre-term fetus is wanted by its host.

• Paying other countries money in exchange for not reducing our greenhouse gas emissions means we are doing something about the environment.

• Elected representatives should not be able to put any limits on rights or freedoms. Rights are whatever the Supreme Court of Canada says they are - their opinion supersedes the Constitution.
  


• Supreme Court Justices should not be subject to a serious vetting process because we implicitly trust the governing party to do the right thing. Nine people, in a country of 30 million should make all rights and freedoms determinations.
  

• All laws passed by elected representatives should be subject to the approval of a Senate, comprised of political appointees whose credentials are not subject to public scrutiny or confirmation. At least some of these Senators should give up their seats in the House of Commons if they involved in scandal, so that someone better could run in their riding.
  

• Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens will prevent crime. We are just one break-in away from a murder. We are also one drawer pull away from murder. Maybe we should ban steak knives too.

• Health care is free. No one should be allowed to receive diagnosis or treatment from a 'for-profit' facility. Health care is free, but Canadians should not be free to opt out of the public system.

• Tax cuts are only good when Liberals propose them. Conservatives are mean, therefore the tax cuts they propose aren't nice and won't benefit anyone.
  

• De-criminalizing marijuana will reduce crime because government can control it and criminals only deal marijuana, not crystal meth, crack or cocaine.


• National unity can and should be bought.
  

• There is no Canadian. We are a nation of nations. We are a nation of minorities. The majority is a tyranny (and must be conservative).
  

• America bad.

• Anything to win.
  

Whose values are these, anyway?

canadianna

I have changed one word. 'displays' used to be 'defines'. A commenter questioned the statement's original form, and he was right. We don't define ourself through the constraints we put on our society, but legislation is an outward indication of our priorities or values. I've changed the word to clarify the thought --canadianna

No wonder people are cynical

The Liberals have promised a $250,000 cash pay out to families of first responders who die on the job, retroactive to January 2005.

Today's press release says that they will provide a tax deduction to cover the costs of clothing and training, and spend $140 million over five years for the Canadian National Exercise Program and the Joint Emergency Preparedness Program. They also plan to provide $10 million over five years toward the establishment of a centre within Statistics Canada to collect, analyze, publish and disseminate information related to Canada’s first responders.

None of this is in their Platform (pdf).

How are they going to pay for all these things for which they have not budgeted? The Liberals have no focus and no direction. They condemn Harper for saying he won't honour many of the promises the government made when they were in their gasping days, and yet they continue to make more unscheduled, uncosted promises.

UPDATE-- Stephen Taylor posts about this same issue, but mentions an interesting fact of which I was unaware. (1:51 p.m.)

canadianna

Defending Stephen Harper

Conservatives are scary. Everyone knows it. They're fanatical, radical, evangelical . . . or not.
But what do the facts matter in politics.

Just like there are fanatical, radical, evangelical conservatives, there are also fanatical, radical, evangelical socialists. Our country has been run by the latter for the better part of 40 years, so it is not entirely unreasonable that a couple of generations of Canadian children have grown up without ever understanding that there is a middle ground -- and that in many ways, especially recently, it is the Conservative Party of Canada that holds that middle ground.
Just like 2004, Paul Martin is using this election to attack my values and tell me that I don't belong. He's aiming his vitriol at Stephen Harper, but most of what he says applies to me as well and since the shoe fits . . .

We have been challenged by NDP Nadine, a sometimes commenter on this blog, to defend or justify some of the concerns of people who still 'fear' Harper. Here is her comment:

I have yet to see on a Tory blog a reasonable response by Harper about things he said in his past . . . What is his agenda exactly? Gordon O'Connor admitted on Mike Duffy that the Conservatives have no problem with missile defense. What's next, troops in Iraq? So I invite Conservative bloggers to try and sway me on Harper by addressing legitimate concerns raised by the Liberal ads. Issues like BMD, Iraq, his campaign contributions during the Alliance leadership race, social safety net, minority rights, friendship with the Republican and other right wing groups etc. And please don't resort to patriotism or hyperbole, I'd like concrete answers. RIght now, I'm quite scared and I know others are too!

This 'scared' thing really offends me. My political philosophy might differ from yours, but that does not make it scary. We live in a democratic country where elections are mandatory, where rights are spelled out in the Charter and when there is doubt, there are mechanisms to address wrongs and injustices. None of that will suddenly change under a Conservative government -- minority or majority. Probably less so than it did under successive Liberal governments. To suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest, or to be ignorant. You'll have to choose for yourself.

A Conservative government would be excruciatingly aware of the implicit mistrust held by some people, for no other reason than that they are Conservative. This would no doubt compel them to act in such a way to dispel the fears of that 'frightened' minority who react, rather than think. The party would likely end up moving even further left, causing disenchantment to traditional conservative voters, but likely still not pleasing liberal ones.

I'll answer what I know, or what I believe I can explain, but we all know that those answers will never satisfy those whose political philosophy is diametrically opposed to mine.

What is his agenda exactly?

He does have a policy book. It will be released in the next day or so and you'll see the Conservative Plan spelled out -- that is, if you haven't already figured it out through the daily policy announcements. The fact is though, you'll look at the policy book and believe it's a lie because somewhere deep down you want to believe that liberals (small l) have a lock on compassion, are the only ones who care about the little guy, the only ones who understand women and minorities -- the only kind of values you can trust. For me to go any further, when there is already so much out there available to you, is to pretend that it would really make a difference to your opinion.

Gordon O'Connor admitted on Mike Duffy that the Conservatives have no problem
with missile defense.

The Americans are going to do missile defense whether you like it, whether I like it, or whether our government likes it or not. All Paul Martin has done by opting out, is to remove our chair at the table. We no longer have a place in the planning to say 'hey, not in my air space' or 'Canadians don't want this'. Instead, we will hear about things after they are done, and bleat and complain how the Americans acted unilaterally.

The US wanted no money. They didn't ask our permission. They said, 'we're doing this and it might affect you -- you're welcome to sit in on the planning'. We stomped our feet and ran away.

Stephen Harper's personal opinion, and the opinion of the Conservative Party are entirely irrelevant to missile defense -- just as Paul Martin's and Jack Layton's are. But Stephen Harper would have us aware of what was going on instead of shut out and uninformed.

What's next, troops in Iraq?

Stephen Harper said many things on Iraq.

"We should have been there shoulder to shoulder with our allies. Our concern is the instability of our government as an ally. We are playing again with national and global security matters.'' (Stephen Harper, Canadian Press, April 11, 2003)

"I don't know all the facts on Iraq, but I think we should work closely with the Americans." (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, March 25, 2002)

"What Mr. Day said was a position I agree with which is Canada should be part of the pre-deployment exercise because Canada should be working with British, Americans and other allies to ensure maximum pressure is exerted on Saddam Hussein so he understands he must disarm." (Stephen Harper, Media scrum, January 28, 2003)

"Canada remains alienated from its allies, shut out of the reconstruction process to some degree, unable to influence events. There is no upside to the position Canada took." (Stephen Harper, Maclean's, August 25, 2003)

There is only one quote where Harper implies we should have been fighting in Iraq. It could be read that he meant metaphorically. I really don't know because I've never read the context of the quote. The rest are philosophical responses. I often hear and read that 'Harper voted to send troops to Iraq'. There was never a vote on whether Canada should send troops to Iraq. The question before the House was whether we supported the United States and the other members of their coalition in their plan to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not comply with the UN Resolutions, and disarm.

It could be argued that if Canada had voted 'yes' to support the American position, that Saddam might have taken a serious look at complying. We consider ourselves 'peacemakers' and pride ourselves on the belief that other nations look to us for moral authority or guidance. Our refusal to acknowledge that the United States had legitimate grounds to invade Iraq and was willing to shoulder a burden that the United Nations had shirked, gave credibility to Saddam's position that he didn't have to comply. Our 'yes' vote, supporting the US position, would have brought more pressure to bear on Saddam and on the world community to take the US concerns seriously.

There was never a question of our troops going to Iraq -- but if we'd had enough of them, Paul Martin implied he would have sent them.

(H)is campaign contributions during the Alliance leadership race,

I don't know, but I don't believe the Liberal implications that Harper is receiving money from some evil right-wing cabal. I tend to worry about Liberals and who's buying them, though -- so I guess we're even on this one. If anyone else knows where to get this info -- please post.

social safety net,

A social safety net should be available for the protection of Canadians, and Harper and the Conservatives have agreed to maintain and in some cases, increase this 'net'.

The Liberals pretend there is only one, universal health care system in Canada. The NDP accepts that private care exists, and wants the government to legislate it out of existence. The Conservatives accept that it exists, and have decided to find a way to make it work for the citizens.

Outlawing private care would take away a fundamental freedom under the Charter. It would deny our right of security of person. The Conservatives say that we as citizens deserve choice when it comes to private matters like health care. They know the rich already have choice, and their plan says that if the public system can't serve us in a timely manner, we have the right to receive health care at a private clinic -- paid for by the government. The NDP doesn't seem to have a problem when it's private abortion clinics being publicly funded -- why the difficulty when it comes to hip replacements?

Conservatives in general, believe that social safety nets can become self-perpetuating. You have a system that keeps existing because -- well, if you build it, they will come. Canadian conservatives understand that there are certain social programmes which are entrenched in the Canadian psyche and they, like other Canadians are okay with that. In fact, most Canadian conservatives would not want to change it because they are aware that the private sector has not been expected to play a big role in support systems and has not developed as a partner. The Conservatives are looking to expand the private sector role in some areas like child care, because it is in the interest of the private sector to have a workforce that is prepared and productive. Providing daycare for their employees, benefits both employers and workers -- and it ensures that the government doesn't simply create another bloated bureaucracy.

Conservatives also understand that Canadians have more expectations of government than say, the United States. In the US, private foundations build and fund universities, they build and fund libraries, they build and fund hospitals. Here we look to government and the Conservatives will continue to fund those things Canadians have come to expect. You might not like the sound of it, but that makes us more of a socialist state.

minority rights,

I'm not getting into the SSM thing. Anyone who wants to, can dig through my archives and find all I've said on the matter.

I will say this: You think it's a human rights issue. I don't. Therefore, anything I say about it is automatically wrong as far as you're concerned.

There is no chance of a country like Canada going back to the days where homosexuality is outlawed, but I fear the day will come when expressing the opinion that gay marriage is wrong, will be outlawed. All citizens have rights, not just minorities. Too often when we think of rights in Canada we think of 'minority rights' but if, as Paul Martin says, we are a nation of minorities, then our rights should be equal -- all of us being minorities of one sort or another. Don't get me started on the 'tyranny of the majority' -- that phrase is an insult to all Canadians.

As for 'a woman's right to choose' -- much to the consternation of many conservatives, the Conservative party voted against putting forward any legislation (from the government or the backbenches). The Liberal Party has no such policy.

friendship with the Republican and other right wing groups etc.

People often believe that the Canadian equivalent of the Republican Party is the Conservative Party. Typically, ideologically, that's correct, but in reality it's plain wrong. Our Conservatives are far more left wing than American Democrats. Even the Reform Party was not the peer of the Republicans, because it was a populist party.

The speech that Stephen Harper made (you know, the ultra secret one that has been available for a few years now) was made in 1997. The non-threatening Bob Dole was the most recent Republican leader -- having lost the election to Bill Clinton in 1996. George Bush was only three years into his term of Governor -- and wasn't even a gleam in the eye of the federal Republicans.

Harper was watching the Canadian conservative movement fail. The Progressive Conservative Party had been decimated in the election of 1993, and the Reform Party was still a 'western rump'. It was in that situation that he told American conservatives that their conservative movement was an inspiration. He also said that America was a light and inspiration to the world and although some Canadians might dispute this -- it is a fact - -world wide, people want to live the 'American Dream'. They might romanticise it, the obviously idealize it, but they also aspire to it. Harper was right.

Wanting a better relationship with the United States makes sense. Not only are they our largest trading partner -- we should want it to remain so. Increasing trade with China simply because we've alienated the Americans might seem like good policy to the Liberals, but China is a communist state, still perpetrating human rights abuses. Both China and India have a lower standard of living and pay their workers far less than Canadian workers make. Their markets might be larger, but their costs are also less. Maintaining civility with our neighbour is essential.

The quote the Liberals left out of Harper's speech to the American group was this:

Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. -- (Stephen Harper in his scary speech.)

That's it. Still scared?

I've said this before about Harper: Harper appeals to me. He's a thinking woman's kind of guy. You know he's safe. He'd probably never raise his voice, let alone hit someone. He doesn't cheat on his wife; I'd bet he helps tuck in the kids at night -- and makes every effort to do the right thing so he'll be a good example for them. And he's smart, and he's funny, and private. These qualities are the kind of qualities adult women look for in a man. It's teens and twenties who look for the charm and 'charisma'. Maturity looks for decency and Harper is the personification.

Disagree with Stephen Harper. Believe that his policies will not benefit our country. Believe that his platform does not benefit you -- but these 'scary' accusations just don't hold water and they are offensive to everyone who believes there is a political alternative to socialism and corruption.

canadianna

Get a load of them

Back here I wondered how long before the Liberals went negative. I guessed they'd wait until after the debates were over. Drop the 's' and I pegged it.

I only mention because I seldom make predictions so I'm very happy to be correct.

What strikes me about each of the ads is their attempt to be just like us and use the common vernacular. When people who want to represent me and my interests attempt to speak my language, I resent the fact that they think I'm a dummy.

"No. We did not make that up. We're not allowed to make stuff up."

Do they think we're all eight?

"Wow. He's not even elected yet. And he's already running a deficit."

I like the 'yet' part, but gosh golly, the 'wow' is not necessary. If it's really a 'wow' situation, we'll think the 'wow'; they won't have to put it in for us.

Then there's:

"Seriously, that's what he said." And: "At least someone will be happy, eh?"

Seriously, they're just like us, eh?

I'm not shocked by the negativity of the ads; that was to be expected. What does surprise me is how pedantic they are. The attempt to give Harper a Hitleresque look in at least three of them (Diversity, Atlantic and one other) is just so juvenile. I bet they're still giggling.

The one they pulled about Stephen Harper using our military as his own toy soldiers was dazzling in its stupidity -- and contrary to what John Duffy tried to say on Countdown -- the ad was released. It was pulled back, but once they uploaded it to their website and circulated to the media, it's out there. Election campaigns use the media to gain free exposure for their ads. The fact that journalists questioned this one immediately gave the Liberals second thoughts about actually finding paid space for it, but it doesn't negate the fact that the ad was written, crafted, and distributed before anyone realised it just might be a tiny bit over the top.

Duffy tried to make the analogy of a draft of a memo. This was no draft. That ad was their magnum opus -- they'd have used it often and proudly if the media had remained impassive, but members of the press were disturbed by it's exploitation and portrayal of the military.

I've no doubt that some of this negative advertising might work, but these ads say a lot more about the Liberals than they do about Stephen Harper.

canadianna