|
The Federal Debate on NOW (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dmatrox |
Martin stated that in the past the notwithstanding clause (of section 52.1 of the constitution act 1982) was never needed to be used. I dont beleive he will be using it.
Im not particulary happy with military spending from harper. I agree with the liberals on military that its emphasis should be on peacekeeping. |
|
|
| JRinger |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Short of pulling out the math and calculator he did say that several financial analysts have seen it and deemed it feasable. He even went so far as to name several of them who said this. |
He has no solid numbers to back up his figures, nor has he ever produced any. We have basically been asked to take him at his word that it is doable. I am not convinced, nor are many other people.
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
As for notwithstanding, he said flat out that he would not support a bill that took the right of marriage away from gay and lesbian people. I think that would also answer the notwithstanding issue dont you think? |
a) I don't think that does, in fact, rule out the use of the notwithstanding clause.
b) This would also seem to fly in the face of his statement that he would allow free votes on the issue. If he doesnt support a bill on the issue, then what is there to vote on? |
|
|
| malek |
we all know what kind of stunt the conservatives will pull... come on.
they'll lower the taxes and then some will happen with the economy. So instead of bringing back up the taxes, they'll cut eeeeuh sorry "control" the services offered to Canadians...
as for gay mariages, some dofus will put forward a motion agains it, and the conservatives will allow a free vote. It will be aproved and then gay mariages will be history.
same thing could happen with abortions... but that issue is a bit more difficult to submit to free vote. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Where are martins numbers? All i heard from him is why Harper is the supposed boogie man..
as for his support of free votes. I completely agree with it. Im sick of having the prime minister dictate to his party how they should vote. This flies in the face of how the parliamentary system was designed in the first place.
If someone were to table a bill on same sex marriage, that someone could be from the NDP, COnservative, Liberal, whomever. Harper said hed allow a free vote whereas the other guys said theyd force their party members to do as they say.
Harper supports democracy as do i. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| As for the military, harper raised a good point. He said that it was a shame that we had to hitch a ride with the americans to get to afghanistan. This is not a sign of a nations sovereignty. I think our military is a sad joke and needs to have money put back into it. Does anyone remember the Sea King helicopters? |
|
|
| malek |
how about he submits international accords to free votes too ?? like the missile shield or the star wars accords?
he's willing to let things go into "free votes" only if it suits him... thats not a real democracy. It's worse. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
My impression is that he is willing to submit EVERYTHING to a free vote.
Even if it were only half though its still a better record than what dictator chretien allowed. |
|
|
| baystreetboi |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
as for gay mariages, some dofus will put forward a motion agains it, and the conservatives will allow a free vote. It will be aproved and then gay mariages will be history.
same thing could happen with abortions... but that issue is a bit more difficult to submit to free vote. |
...that makes two assumptions.
First, that the Conservatives will have a majority. I think most people will agree that it's far more likely they'll end up with a minority, in which case such a bill could be easily voted down.
Secondly, even IF the Conservatives ended up with a majority, it assumes that every single Conservative would support such a bill. As awful as the Liberals / NDP are trying to make the Conservative party look, there are certainly more than a handful of people in the party that support gay marriage and would vote against such a bill. I know my Conservative candidate in Toronto-Centre is one of those. |
|
|
| malek |
wasn't Duceppe pressing forward that same question and Harper seemed evasive??
Both liberals and conservatives aren't honest. It shows, just look at their leaders and their vague answers. How hard is it to say "i'm against this" or "I'm for this".
The thing is, the conservatives are much more frightening to have in power than the Liberals. Harper's agenda is clearly pro-american, talking about INTEGRATING (merging) our security agencies with the US... this means sharing our identities to Big Brother south of the border. Harper never even said that he's against the armement of space. He's all for more armements, more soldiers and the contreversial missile shield. His foreign policy is shady at best, if not all out pro-american. I mean for once, Canada was able to stand apart and say no we're not going to war, are we willing to loose this?
And I'm not even talking about the social issues and the future defecits ahead! |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by baystreetboi
Secondly, even IF the Conservatives ended up with a majority, it assumes that every single Conservative would support such a bill. As awful as the Liberals / NDP are trying to make the Conservative party look, there are certainly more than a handful of people in the party that support gay marriage and would vote against such a bill. I know my Conservative candidate in Toronto-Centre is one of those. |
yes, but some liberals are against those mariages too... maybe even half of them ( no one knows for sure !). So, what I meant, is that if he's willing to do a free vote on it, he has a good idea about the proportion of the PRO/CON and he has some good chances to win. |
|
|
| smuncky |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
Both liberals and conservatives aren't honest. It shows, just look at their leaders and their vague answers. How hard is it to say "i'm against this" or "I'm for this".
|
i think jack layton had the most concrete answers out of the debaters. even though u could say he did avoid some questions, he answered much more than martin or harper. |
|
|
| JRinger |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Where are martins numbers? All i heard from him is why Harper is the supposed boogie man.. |
Martin is not the one making preposterous claims about spending and tax cuts. He isn't the one who should be providing the numbers, nor is he the one who was asked the question.
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
as for his support of free votes. I completely agree with it. Im sick of having the prime minister dictate to his party how they should vote. This flies in the face of how the parliamentary system was designed in the first place.
If someone were to table a bill on same sex marriage, that someone could be from the NDP, COnservative, Liberal, whomever. Harper said hed allow a free vote whereas the other guys said theyd force their party members to do as they say. |
You are not addressing my point. The issue was the use of the notwithstanding clause, not free votes.
My point was that he did NOT rule out the use of the notwithstanding clause, as you believe he did. You say his statement that he would not support a bill against same-sex marriage equates to the ruling out of the use of the notwithstandign clause; I don't believe that is a true statement. I raised the free vote issue because I believe that if that statement were true, then there is a contradiction - he won't support a bill against same-sex marriage, but yet he'll allow a free vote on the issue if it's tabled by another party member?? Seems to me that offers him an easy out. |
|
|
|
|
