Decision Canada 2006

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Liberals and Values? HAH!

Before actually debating the worth of any of the “values” that “whatever” listed below, maybe I should do readers of this blog a service and dispel some of the, well, lies.

“The Conservatives proved that they don’t accept all people because of their efforts to make gay marriage and abortion illegal”

Not quite. On abortion, in his keynote address to the Conservative Party policy convention in Montreal this year, Steven Harper was very clear, saying “I will not introduce legislation which would limit access to abortion”. The 2000-plus delegates to the convention took that one step further, passing a resolution which read, “A Conservative government would not support legislation which will limit a woman’s access to abortion.” But, let the left believe what it will.

It is true, the majority of the delegates to the convention did not support gay marriage – around ¾ of them. However, what we did support (and is party policy) is a free vote on this (and all other issues other then those of confidence); and that in the event that same-sex marriage was not allowed in Canada, we would establish a type of “civil union” to provide the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples as opposite-sex couples currently enjoy. Giving them the same rights… not quite discriminatory, eh? But, let the left believe what it will

“I’m sorry, but there is no way that the Conservatives would provide more foreign aid than the Liberals with their tax cuts.”

Well, when there are hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars no longer going to the Liberal Party, useless programs like the registry for farmer’s shotguns eliminated, and Dingwall no longer being entitled to the entitlements to which he claims to be entitled to, that frees up a bit more money for foreign aid. The delegates at the 2005 Convention were very clear – our party supports giving 0.7% of GDP… try finding that with the Liberals. But, let the left believe what it will.

“Now the Conservatives want to cut healthcare spending and create a private healthcare sector.”

Now, just because the Conservative Party is not in favor of legalization of marijuana, doesn’t mean you have to go smoking it before you write a rant against them. Truth be known – the NDP have actually come out to the right of the Conservatives, now. Layton stated pretty clearly that he does not care about private health care, as long as they do not take money from the public purse. So, no P3’s (which could be completely within the Canada Health Act), but a nice step towards that “evil” “private, parallel health care system”. But, because we are "Conservatives", we must be bad. Let the left believe what it will.

Those “Values” are ones that the Liberals have paid a lot of lip service to over the past 12 years – and it will take a Conservative government to see action.


  • I personally am loving this debate. So I have to get my side out once again. You never did say that Conservatives would provide MORE foriegn aid, you just critized Liberal programs. On the same sex marraige issue, some people would like to be called "married" instead of the other technical term you mentioned earlier. On the issue of abortion, sorry if this seems untrusting and paranoid, but hwo often do politicians keep their word. Harper obviously believes these religious values and if he did come to power he would most likley try to enforce them.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:17 PM  

  • Now Greg P,your argument against privae healthcare, which I never called "evil" sin't much of an argument. Well your first part of it is that I "smoke pot" before writing these. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that you need to resort to low-level insults. You also never disagreed that the lower financial half of the population would recieve lesser healthcare. And you never argued that it wasen't unintentional discrimination. The argumnet "let the left believe what they want to beleive," does not satisfy me.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:22 PM  

  • Well, I did say that the Conservatives will provide more foreign aid, based on the Montreal policy convention - 0.7% of GDP. The Liberals have not made that commitment - Martin's pretty busy ducking Bono et. al. When the CPC says that they will give 0.7%, and the Liberals say nothing beyond the, what is it, 0.4% or so (?) that Canada gives now - yes, that means that the Conservatives will give more. 0.7 - 0.4 = 0.3% of GDP more that the Conservatives will give.

    As far as SSM goes - if they get the same rights, in my opinion it is not discrimination. Because we call members of the First Nations "members of the first nations" does not mean that they are lesser then caucasians, right? Because we call females "women" does not mean that they are lesser then men, right?

    With regards to abortion - we are at an impasse here. Harper pledged pretty distinctly, on at least one (and I would be willing to go out on a limb and say several, but can only directly source one) occasion, that a Conservative Government will not introduce legislation which would limit access to abortion. A majority of the delegates (actually, double-majority if you want to get technical, majority of delegates plus majority of provinces having 50%+1 supporting) at the convention supported a motion which states that a Conservative Government will not support legislation which would limit access to abortion. You state, basically, "promises mean nothing, he will impose his religious beliefs on the Country". Not everybody who is religious wants to impose their beliefs on others. It's this funny thing called "free choice" that some of us religious-folk support.

    With regards to the pot smoking issue - I apologise, that was a cheap shot. However, I am at a loss for how you came up with the notion that the Conservative Party of Canada wants to cut health care spending and create a private health care sector. Because that concept has never been published in any CPC policy document (in fact, the contrary has been published, as I stated earlier), I assumed you must have been using a hallucinogen or other perception-altering drug (and the marijuana line rolled off the tongue a bit too easily)

    As far as the characterisation of it as "evil", I should perhaps have used single-quotes, as I was trying to capture what seems to be a pretty common stream of thought on the left, rather then a direct quotation.

    The lower-middle and lower income class might indeed receive a lesser quality of health care - but I do not think that it would be any worse then it is now. As I stated, there is a pretty high bar set for physicians - you can't just walk into a hospital off the street, fill out a couple forms and start a heart transplant operation. In fact, I would argue that the quality of service that all patients (those receiving private and public health care) would receive would improve (as compared to now), as physicians try to improve their skills in order to make more money.

    As for, to put it bluntly, the poor intentionally getting worse health care then the rich... in as much as, simply, capitalism rewards the more highly skilled individuals by them earning more money; and the rich may be able to pay more for their health care then the public system can afford to pay - yes, the rich will get better health care then the poor. Still, the poor will get pretty good care... maybe better, because a higher portion of the public health care dollars will go to their care.

    By Blogger Greg P, at 5:10 PM  

  • Most people in Canada are sadly liberal when a lot of them don't really know all the facts. Just like the americans who are actually liberals (according to michael moore). Because of living next to a conservative giant (government), Canadians get paranoid that they are getting to be like the Americans which unfortunately is a bigger issue than it needs to be. This is a problem because it blocks them from seeing our conservatives for what they really are. A party that is NOT a facist dictatorship and will fight for the identity of Canada. It is also a party that CAN take the initiative and lead this party on a a set of moral values while respecting other people's views. Better than getting owned by the americans all the time because of our current wussy government that has failed on many issues (aka. softwood!).

    By Blogger blazer, at 12:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home