One year anniversary in Toronto

After having lived 25 years of my life in Vancouver, last year, I for the first time in my life moved to another part of the country. As today marks the one year anniversary, I think it is time to reflect on my first year in Toronto and the city relative to Vancouver.

Toronto is over 2,500 miles away from Vancouver meaning it is a good 4 day drive assuming you drive on the interstate highways or Trans-Canada highway and 12 hours each day or a 5 hour flight, so one would expect the differences to be quite vast, but in reality they aren't. Sure it is more cosmopolitan, not as beautiful as Vancouver, has a more extreme climate, has more business headquarters, and is closer to far more other large cities, but in terms of the people, I don't feel like I am in a different country at all. I found the differences between Munich and Berlin; Strasbourg and Nice on my most recent trip in Europe more noticeable than Vancouver and Toronto, despite the fact the cities mentioned above are also in the same country and much closer. Even when I go to Buffalo from Toronto, I find the differences more noticeable than Vancouver despite the fact Buffalo is only 90 minutes away and by the same token the same thing could be said about Vancouver and Seattle, vs. Vancouver and Toronto. This has if anything made me less regionalistic and a bit more nationalistic. This is why more than ever I believe it is important to focus on what unites us as Canadians rather than what divides us. This is why I get so upset at those who try to bash other parts of the country as well as I will argue vigorously with those who believe that further decentralization of our country is the answer. The idea of a country is not one based on ethnicity or language, but rather values and culture and clearly there are enough similarities between the two cities to warrant having a common government in several areas, not just a few select as some decentralists argue. In closing on this topic, I think we would be a far more united country if Canadians were more mobile and every Canadian lived in more than one province during their lifetime as it would allow us to realize how our differences are small and are similiarities are numerous.

Today, the Tories delivered their fall economic update. I fully support the corporate tax cuts, which ironically Dion proposed quite recently, as this will allow us to be more competitive globally. It will also allow firms to invest more in expansion which will make them not only better able to compete globally, but less susceptible to foreign takeovers. I do agree with the income tax cuts, but feel they were too small and condemn the Tories for raising them in the first place as we are simply back to where we were in January 2006. I am glad to see the minimum tax threshold raised, but I would like to see it even higher. Much like BC has done provincially, the government should set the goal of within 5 years ensuring no one living below the poverty line pays income tax. I do however, think the GST cut was an incredibly dumb idea and wish they had not done so. While I am not against a GST cut per se, it ranks as a very low priority as it is the least effective tax cut for stimulating economic growth. Almost every economist believes this is the last tax that should be cut.

Reasonable Accommodation

Recently the issue of reasonable accommodation has become a major issue in Quebec, so I thought I would weigh in on the issue. Before giving my opinion on the issue, I would like to condemn the town council of Herouxville, Mario Dumont, Pauline Marois, Gilles Duceppe, and Stephen Harper for trying to play into the fears of some about immigrants and minorities in order to garner more votes. To all the above, I say shame on you. In the case of Stephen Harper, I am not totally sure what to make of this, since he has put a lot of effort on winning over the "ethnic" votes in English Canada, but at the same time he will need to gain more seats in Quebec to win a majority and this won't come from Montreal, but rather from Rural Quebec, which is the same area Mario Dumont won several seats last spring on the issue of reasonable accommodation. Once again Harper, is putting electoral gain ahead of principles, with his recent making Muslim women wearing veils show their face as a big issue as well as his refusal to condemn Pauline Marois' policy of barring those who cannot speak French fluently from running for any public office even at the local level, despite the fact Harper, rightly in my mind, vigorously opposed Bill 101 in the past.

Before diving into this issue specifically, I would like to give my specific opinions on bilingualism and multiculturalism and these are my opinions only and not that of the Liberal Party necessarily. In respect to multiculturalism, the government should neither favour nor oppose either maintaining one's culture or assimilating. The decision to preserve one's culture or assimilate should be the decision of each and every individual and likewise how many generations down the line they wish to preserve their culture should also be the decision of each individual. I myself have some Swedish and Norwegian background, yet I speak neither language nor have I preserved any elements of either culture, while in the case of my English and Scottish ancestry, I may speak the language, but I don't consider myself either of those. Indeed my family has been in Canada since the early 1900s so I consider myself Canadian only, However I would not disrespect someone who choose to preserve their heritage even if they have been in Canada longer than me. By the same token the vast majority of my friends' families came to Canada even more recently and some have chosen to maintain their heritage while others not.

On the issue of bilingualism, I think it is important to remember that bilingualism was not about appeasing Quebec, but rather about ensuring both Francophone and Anglophone minorities had access to the government in the language of their choice. If anything bilingualism was more about protecting the rights of Francophones outside of Quebec who often had difficulty getting service in their own language prior to the official languages act of 1969. By the same token, bilingualism also protects the rights of Anglophone minorities in Quebec. This is why I totally condemn Pauline Marois' position that only those who speak French fluently can run for office at any level in Quebec. For starters, it is very difficult to get elected if one doesn't speak the predominate language in the community they represent, so the only areas a unlingual Anglophone could realistically get elected in Quebec is a few communities on the West Island of Montreal and some towns in the Ottawa Valley such as Shawville. I highly doubt Harper would have won his ten seats in Quebec if he didn't speak French, nor would have Mulroney won most of Quebec if he was a unilingual Anglophone. By the same token, Chretien wouldn't have won three back to back majorities nor would have Trudeau become prime-minister if either were unilingual Francophones, therefore I say leave this issue up to the electorate instead of imposing laws that deny Canadian citizens their fundamental right to run for office.

Now on the issue of reasonable accommodation, I generally believe that immigrants should be free to practice their customs as they wish so long as they don't harm others. In the overwhelming majority of cases, practicing their customs causes no harm to others and therefore we should not make an issue of it. In the few cases where it interferes with others, we should do whatever is possible to accommodate them and only prohibit it if accommodating it is not feasible. For example, when I was in High school, boys had to be clean shaven and likewise when I worked at a grocery store while going to university, males could only have moustaches. This could have been problematic for Sikhs and Orthodox Jews as their religion prohibits shaving, but in both cases they made exceptions for those who could not shave due to religious reasons. Since having facial hair harms no one, I support this exception. However, on the issue of allowing Sikhs to carry Kirpans to schools, this is a little more difficult as a Kirpan could potentially be used as a weapon. In this case, I believe the proper solution is either require them to use a non-metal Kirpan or have the Kirpan locked so no one can steal it and require the key be kept in a safe location. This would ensure schools remain safe while at the same time accommodating one's religious beliefs to the best they could in that same circumstance. In the case of those who have different sabbath days, I believe the company should do whatever possible to ensure they work other days in exchange for getting their sabbath day off, although I do realize this could be problematic for companies only operating Monday to Friday if the Sabbath day falls in one of those days. The important thing here, is the firm does whatever possible to accommodate them and only refuses if not plausible. On the issue of Muslim women wearing a veil showing their face, I should point out the overwhelming majority of Muslim women don't wear veils so we are dealing with a very small portion of the population, which is why I think this issue is blown well out of proportion. However, since we allow voters from overseas to mail in ballots without showing their faces, it seems a bit hypocritical to require them to show their faces. However, if we are going to require them to show their faces, I don't see why, as Dion suggested, we couldn't have them show it to a female election worker in private as opposed to requiring them to take off their veil in public in front of everyone else. The point of all this is we are a nation of immigrants since all of us except the First Nations are either immigrants ourselves or descendants of immigrants so if those of us who came here earlier from Britain or France refused to adopt the First Nation's culture, isn't hypocritical to ask more recent immigrants to fully adopt our culture. By the same token, everything has reasonable limits, but as I mention above we should only restrict cultural practices if they harm others.

Throne Speech - My advice is to vote against it

The government has now brought down its throne speech and it is now time for the opposition parties to decide how to vote. The Bloc Quebecois and NDP will almost surely vote against it, while the Liberals still haven't said how they will vote and I get a feeling many want to let it pass just to avoid an election. There is no question the situation for the Liberals is not ideal, but that does not mean the Tories should get a carte blanche to do what they wish just because the conditions are not ideal for the Liberals. We will not win the next election, by waiting for the polls to turn in our favour, we will in it by standing by our principles and clearing explaining them to Canadians. Clearly Harper has taken advantage of his poll numbers in the hopes of either

a. The Liberals abstain or vote for a speech that smacks in the face of their values making them look weak

b. The Liberals vote against the Throne Speech and an election is triggered, which the Tories think they can win.

I've watched enough elections to realize that polling numbers are simply a snapshot of where things are at a given moment, not a predictor of how things will turn out.

There are three reason why I believe the Liberals should vote against it.

1. On the environment, it simply talks about vague platitudes of tackling climate change, but clearly calls for Canada to pull out of Kyoto, which is something we have strongly opposed. If the speech said we cannot realistically meet our Kyoto targets, but we will compensate for this by making up for it in the second round, I would say it would be an acceptable compromise, but saying we are going to pull out altogether is not.

2. On Afghanistan, it clearly states we will not pull out in 2009, but instead stay until 2011. The Liberals have been unambigously clear that we should not stay in Kandahar beyond 2009. If the speech recognized the parties have different views and would resolve it by a vote and accept the vote, this would be an acceptable compromise, but by voting for it, we are impliciting endorsing staying beyond 2009.

3. Finally the most serious of all them, which needs to be brought to the public's attention is the government's decision to limit federal spending power in provincial jurisdiction.

This is something we must not only oppose, but we need to explain to the Canadian public what this means. Of all the three, this is the most dangerous of them and could have the ability to alter our federation for the worse for many years to come. Many Canadians may like the idea on the surface, since some feel the federal government is not in touch with local needs and too often sticks its nose in areas it knows little about. However, I am convinced that when we explain what this would mean to Canadians, Canadians from coast to coast and of all political stripes will agree with our assessment. Canada is already one of the most decentralized countries in the world, so further decentralization is not the answer. In fact this would in some areas give the federal government less power than the European Union holds, and the EU is not even a single country. Important programs such as medicare would have never come about if the federal government had its spending power restricted. This will handcuff any future government from introducing any new programs or making any major changes to existing ones. Even those who believe government is too big as it is should still oppose this, as this is fundamentally anti-democratic, but also goes against the whole idea of a united country. If a government implements a program the public doesn't like, the program can always be scrapped by defeating that government and having the next government scrap the program. However, saying that the government cannot create any more programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction even if this is what the public wants is anti-democratic and goes against the idea of what is means to be a single country. We are more than a union of 10 provinces, we are a country united in common values and dreams yet respectful of its diversity. This would prevent the Liberals from re-introducing a national childcare program as well, which although I oppose the creation of a national childcare program, I believe it is wrong to prevent a government from introducing such program if the public so desires it. Of the three issues I mentioned, this is the most serious and this alone is why the throne speech needs to be voted down. Voting for it or abstaining may avoid an election we don't want, but will do more harm to the Liberals in the long-run, as it will show we lack principles and are more concerned solely about winning than standing up for what we believe in. Our main problem is lack of unity, but now is the time for all the Liberals to role up their sleeves in unite behind our leader Stephane Dion in order to remove Stephen Harper from office.

With the election over, where the parties need to go now

With the election over, the question now comes what the future holds for each party and what they should do. I'll start with the minor parties as well as briefly touching on the issue of MMP before going to the bigger parties.

Green Party

One could argue their strong showing was more a result of Ontarioans lack of interest in the two major parties, but when one considers that the Greens have seen their numbers improve in both provincial and federal elections, I think there is a clear message here. People see the environment as a major issue that they want dealt with and they also want change how politics is run. I have generally argued people should vote for one of the two major parties as they are the only ones that can deliver change, however one should never ignore the message of smaller parties that gain votes.

NDP

They gained votes, but still fell short of what they had hoped for. After three lacklustre performances, I believe Howard Hampton should call it quits and let someone else take over. The bigger problem the party in general faces is they have the mentality of a perpetual opposition party and therefore make unrealistic promises that they could never deliver on if they formed government. As long as they stick to the socialist ideology, which has largely been discredited, they will continue to languish in opposition.

MMP

Not only did it not pass, the fact over 60% voted against it should hopefully slam the door to another referendum on the issue in 2011. In BC there was some logic in having a second referendum on STV since it did get over 50% just not 60%, but with under 40%, the issue is dead as far as I am concerned. That doesn't mean the idea of electoral reform is dead, but perhaps more modest changes rather than major overhauls should be considered in the future.

Liberals

One can argue whether the Liberals won because people were pleased with the job they were doing or simply found them tolerable and better than the alternatives. Whichever one it is, I do believe they have the mandate to stay the course, but they shouldn't pursue anything too radical or dramatic. In addition they need to stay close to the centre as any move to the left could leave a large opening for the Tories as well as increase the chances of the Tories winning even if they choose a more right wing leader next time around. Ontarioans are generally close to the centre and often go for the party closest to it, so the further to the left they go, the more to the right the Tories can go.

Ontario Progressive Conservatives

John Tory is a decent person and I believe has the potential to be a good premier, but he simply made too many fatal mistakes to warrant getting elected this time around. Unlike Harper, who doesn't deserve to be in office period, John Tory just isn't ready to govern at the moment. That means should he stay on and have a better platform next time around, I would consider voting for him. By the same token, I think it would probably be a mistake to stay on considering that he got fewer votes than Eves did in 2003 and fewer seats (if you take into account the re-distributed results, since Eves would have won 29 seats).

As for the next leader, there are many possibilities, although some of my suggestions would be Elizabeth Witmer, Laurie Scott, Ted Arnott (who all hail from the moderate side of the party) as well at the federal level Mike Chong would be a good choice if he is interested and heck even Garth Turner would be one I could support although being a federal Liberal now that won't happen. I would advise against the party choosing someone from the Harris mold since whatever one thinks of Mike Harris, there is clearly no appetite in Ontario to return to the Common Sense Revolution. Despite being more of the Bill Davis mold, people's memories of Mike Harris still probably hurt John Tory to some degree so the further the party distances itself from him the tougher it will be for opponents to compare the leader to him. The next leader should essentially be like Mike Harris when it comes to having a clear vision of what direction they want to take the province, but like John Tory in their philosophical approach as well as trying to bring people together as opposed to conquer-divide tactics. The reason for the loss was partly because the party never clearly stated what they would do, but instead spent more time attacking thae Liberals than stating what they would do.

Although I have quit the federal Conservatives and proudly joined the Liberals I do plan to remain a provincial PC in the hopes of preventing the party from swinging too far to the right (which unfortunately I failed to do federally) so that Ontarioans can have a viable moderate right of centre party.

Ontario Election - Live Blogging

After coming home from work, I voted today and despite not being registered, it only took a few minutes. I was a former Progressive Conservative federally and have generally been supportive of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives and therefore was initially looking forward to supporting John Tory. However, with the defining issue by about extending funding to other religious schools and little else to distinguish McGuinty with Tory, I could not in good conscience vote Ontario PC this time around, therefore just as I entered the polling station I made up my mind to vote Liberal. I believe John Tory has many good ideas and is not too extreme unlike Harper, but due to my strong disagreement on the most pivotal issue, I could not vote for a party who I disagreed so strongly with on the most pivotal issue, even if I agreed with them on most other issues. I don't believe Dalton McGuinty has been a great premier, but neither has he been a bad one, so I can live with him as premier for another four years if there is no better alternative.

I should also note that I would have voted PC in some ridings where the PCs had a realistic chance of winning and a decent candidate, but in my riding, Trinity-Spadina, it is between the NDP and Liberals and I off course prefer the Liberals. More importantly I would rather have a Liberal majority than a Liberal minority who would have to rely on the NDP to prop them up.

On the referedum, I voted No and without holding up my nose. I have no idea how this will turnout, but hope it goes down in defeat.

UPDATE at 9:11PM

The Liberals and Tories are tied. I also heard the internal polls from the three parties showed the Tories only 5-7 points behind, so the Liberals still being re-elected, but not by as much as expected. Perhaps maybe when it became clear the Liberals were going to win, some people went back to the Tories since they didn't want McGuinty to win another large majority. Also MMP seems to be losing badly, which is a good thing, lets hope it stays the way.

UPDATE 9:15PM

CTV projects a Liberal win, but won't say whether it is a minority or majority. Although with the Liberals being 20 and PCs 19, a minority still looks possible.

UPDATE 9:16PM

Now 25 Liberal, 20 PC, so the lead widening slightly, although still closer than expected. However, I would have to look at which ridings are reporting and what part of the ridings the polls are coming from to get a better gage of how things are going.

UPDATE 9:23PM

First elected MMP, Rick Bartolucci of Sudbury, for the Liberal Party of Ontario. So far the Liberals are at 38, Tories 24, and NDP 3, so not looking good for the NDP, while the Liberals have pulled into a more comfortable lead.

UPDATE 9:27PM

Howard Hampton wins his seats, no surprise. I also think at this point with 46 Liberal, 26 PC, and 7 NDP, I am going to predict a Liberal majority. Lets see if I am right.

UPDATE 9:32PM

CTV predicts a Liberal majority, so it looks like the pollsters were right.

UPDATE 9:41PM

CTV Predicts referendum will fail. Good is all I can say.

UPDATE 9:59PM

Dalton McGuinty re-elected in his riding, no surprise.

UPDATE 10:13PM

My riding goes NDP, Trinity-Spadina, ugh.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The final results are still not in and we still don't know if Tory has won his riding, but now time to weigh in on the results. The Liberals have a large majority, while the PCs absolutely bombed this election and may even do worse than Ernie Eves not just in share of the popular vote, but also seats (under the re-distributed results, Eves would have won 29 seats). Some Liberals will say it is a result of their good governance, but I would argue tonight's results were due to two factors.

1. People weren't overly happy with McGuinty, but they weren't overly angry either so a lot depended on who his opponent was.

2. John Tory with funding of religious schools caused his campaign to self-destruct and the Liberals to win. In fact in terms of popular vote, the Liberals fell by almost as much as the Tories and it was third parties (NDP and Green Party) gained the most. This suggests there were many voters who were unhappy with both parties.

My congratulations to McGuinty and I wish him best of luck in his second term. Although I don't agree with him on everything, I can't say there is much to complain about how things have been going. As for the PC, it is clear with these disastrous results than John Tory needs to go as leader. Had he formed a stronger opposition, I would argue he should stay on, but with results even worse than Ernie Eves' disaster in 2003, he needs to go. In order to succeed, the party should do two things.

1. Find issues that will separate them from the Liberals and issues that reasonate with voters

2. And don't move to the right. Many are tempted to return to the Harris era of more right wing policies, but I would argue that is not the way to go as there appears to be no appetite for a more conservative government unlike in 1995. Unfortunately I fear they will go in this direction, but I hope I am wrong.

UPDATE 10:49PM

I have seen Dalton McGuinty's speech was so far has been good and generally positive like much of his campaign. It is though rather odd to have the premier speak before the leader of the opposition, but I guess John Tory is waiting until his riding is decided before speaking. It will be interesting to see if he resigns on the spot after the disastrous results tonight.

UPDATE 10:56PM

John Tory has lost his riding and the Ontario PCs have been shut out of Toronto once again.

UPDATE 11:00PM

John Tory is speaking now and is conceding the riding of Don Valley West. It looks as though John Tory is staying put as leader for now, although I wonder how long that will last. He has said he will consult with his party in the coming days to decide what to do about the future.

In closing here, it will be interesting how the federal parties view the results. While those results do look promising for the federal Liberals, Ontario does have a long history of going one way federally and another provincially, so I wouldn't read too much in them. In addition, voter turnout was about 15% lower than the federal level so I wonder how many Tory voters just stayed home because of John Tory's lousy campaign. Also Saskatchewan will be having an election on November 7th. In all likelihood, the Saskatchewan Party appears to be in the best position to win, but that assumes that don't bomb the campaign much like Tory did. Considering the Liberals are not that competitive here and the fact I am a Blue Liberal/Red Tory, I am hereby endorsing the Saskatchewan Party, although I do hope the Liberals win a few seats and would vote Liberal if I lived in a riding they had a legitimate shot at winning.

Nova Scotia and Feds reach deal

After months of wrangling, Nova Scotia and the federal government have finally reached a deal on the Atlantic Accord. Whether it is a good or bad one is tough to say as the devil is always in the details, however, it does appear to at least be better than what they had before, although still questionable if as good as the original Atlantic Accord. While by no means this guarantees the re-election of Peter MacKay and Gerald Keddy, I would say their chances have greatly improved, although they still could each lose their seats. This also would have been a good time to consider re-admitting Bill Casey to the Conservative caucus and I am disappointed that Harper has refused to consider this. Regardless of his political party, I've always found Bill Casey to be an honest, hard-working MP with a lot of integrity. We need more MPs like him, not less. Hopefully he runs as an independent if the Tories won't take him back or even better, defect to the Liberals.

Danny Williams is off course claiming the deal was a bad one and knowing how much he hates Harper, I would be very surprised if a deal is signed with him. In addition, I think Harper realized that he is going to get shut out of Newfoundland & Labrador no matter what he does so that is why he focused on Nova Scotia instead. Still I believe he should not be vindictive and try to work out a deal with Newfoundland & Labrador.

I will have more on the Ontario election as the results roll in this evening.

Danny Williams re-elected in a landslide

As expected, Danny Williams was re-elected in Newfoundland & Labrador garnering almost 70% of the popular vote and all but 4 seats. While it is never good to lack opposition, I still believe Danny Williams deserved to be re-elected, although the size of the victory was probably a little too much.

During his time in office, the economy has turned around, the deficit was eliminated and finally the possibility of Newfoundland & Labrador becoming a have province is no longer a distant dream, but a distinct possibility in the near future. He did have a rocky relationship with the federal government, although seeing another former Progressive Conservative like myself go after Stephen Harper like he did is always good to see. I certainly share his views about Harper and I think a large number if not the majority of former Progressive Conservatives feel the same way. While normally we would expect the federal Tories to celebrate the victory of one of their provincial cousins, I don't think there will be too much happiness amongst federal Conservatives over this victory since Danny Williams has promised to campaign against them and considering how popular he is, I wouldn't be surprised if the federal Tories get the same thumping the provincial Liberals did.

Tomorrow we have our election here in Ontario, so I will comment as the results role in. My predictions are: Dalton McGuinty wins another majority with slightly fewer seats; John Tory wins a smaller share of the popular vote than Ernie Eves did in 2003 but more seats; Howard Hampton gains votes and seats; the Green party acts as a spoiler in many ridings, but wins no seats, and finally John Tory fails to win his own riding and is forced to resign as leader shortly after.

Conservatives failed Drug policy

To date I have written little on the Ontario election as there doesn't seem to be any other major issues besides extending funding to religious schools, which is getting a lot of attention, so since I have already written on that, I really have not much else to say. However, the big news today was the federal Conservatives unveiled their anti-drug strategy. While the Tories on many issues have been willing to take more moderate positions to try and make themselves more acceptable to the generally liberal to centrist population, this was clearly an example of the party basing its decision on ideology above facts. It is one thing to take a right wing position because it works such as balanced budgets and tax cuts, but it is just plain stupid to adopt a policy based on ideology when all the facts show it won't work.

The War on Drugs has been tried in the United States and despite this, the US still has by far the highest crime rate of any industrialized country and drug use is amongst the highest in the developed world. In fact, the Netherlands, which has a very liberal attitude towards drugs, has a lower crime rate than the US and less problems with drug abuse. If anything we should be moving towards a Dutch style drug policy as opposed to a US one. I am not one of those who believes in opposing anything just because it is American, but if we do adopt policies the US uses, they should be ones that work, not ones that don't. In fact even many libertarian style conservatives have condemned the war on drugs and argued for a different approach.

I support the four pillar approach which does involve more policing and a crackdown on drug dealers and smugglers. However, I don't believe drug addicts should be sent to jail as drug addiction is a medical problem, not a criminal one, therefore treatment not punishment is the proper solution. Throwing addicts in jail will not solve the problem and only turn them into hardened criminals when released. We should instead put more money into detox and rehab centres to help get drug addicts off drugs so that they can once again become productive members of society, rather than locking them up and ensuring they continue to be a burden to society for the rest of their lives. I was initially opposed to the safe injection site since I worried it would lead to more crime, but I am always open to changing my view if the facts turn out differently than expected and in this case, I believe the safe injection site should stay open. It has reduced the cases of HIV/AIDS amongst addicts and has not led to higher crime rates in the area. This doesn't mean every city should have a safe injection site, however, this decision should be made locally and the federal government should only be responsible for ensuring it is permitted if the community wants it and funds its. It should be noted both mayor Sam Sullivan and premier Gordon Campbell support the safe injection site and both are right of centre philosophically so one doesn't have to be on the left to support this.

In terms of marijuana, I support full legalization and this is coming from someone who has never smoked marijuana and never plans to even if legalized. Just as prohibition in the 30s was a disaster, it has been shown that by legalizing dangerous substances but heavily controlling them, you have far fewer problems than when criminalizing them. Making marijuana illegal doesn't stop its use, it only leads to a thriving black market and organized crime, whereas if legalized it would be regulated and taxed. Like alcohol and tobacco, marijuana should only be sold at licenced dealers to those over 19 and should be taxed like alcohol and tobacco is. Also there should be strict penalties for unlicenced sales, selling to minors, and driving when under the influence of marijuana. I also think giving people who smoke marijuana criminal records is counter-productive. Smoking marijuana doesn't harm others and as a libertarian leaning liberal I don't believe governments should ban things that don't harm others. I know many people who have smoked marijuana and gone on to lead very successful careers as well as have friends who are both good people and productive members of society that have smoked marijuana. Having a criminal record for these people could make finding employment more difficult, which in the long-run means they will earn less and pay less in taxes in the future. Harper needs to accept the reality that regardless of what he thinks of marijuana, recreational use is here to stay. Finally I should note that the Netherlands where marijuana is tolerated has hardly suffered due to it. Its crime rate is in line with most other European countries, it has one of the lowest poverty rates in the world, a high standard of living, and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the EU. It may not have as high a GDP as the United States, but the gap between the rich and poor is far less. I myself felt far safer walking down a street at night in Amsterdam than I do in most American cities.

In summary, the Tory position has failed elsewhere and won't work here and therefore needs to be stopped. I urge the opposition parties to defeat or seriously amend any legislation on this issue. If it is done through an order in council, then bring forward a private member's bill on this topic, since if passed by parliament, then the government cannot follow through on its plans.