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.
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.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 4:35 PM
6 Comments:
Some people are saying that it's impossible for one parliament to bind future one's. If that isn't true, then I think yes we have something to worry about if Harper is serious about carrying them out
If it is simply legislation, then yes it can be repealed, but if it is put in the constitution, then no it cannot easily be repealed. In addition the mere intention of putting it in a legislation is only a stepping stone as Harper has been clear he wants it eventually put in the constitution.
1. Kyoto targets can not be met. That is common knowledge. Lizzy May says 'we can swallow it, fight another day'.
2. NATO is committed to Afghanistan until 2011. We can not reach our goal of training Afghans by 2009. The panel will give parliament recommendations, parliament votes in Feb 08.
Dion asked for an end to the combat in Kandahar, not an end to the mission.
3. Duceppe came out against 'limit federal spending power in provincial jurisdiction' because... said it was the same as the Liberal proposal a couple of years ago.
If Libs want to get rid of Dion, ask him to resign, rather than cost taxpayers a tonne of money to fix what is a Liberal, not Canadian problem.
With all the troubles the Libs have had recently, that is likely how Canadians will see it too.
Wilson - The issue here is not whether we can meet or not meet Kyoto targets, it is the fact we are not going to even try. As I said before, if the speech said we cannot meet Kyoto targets, but will compensate for this by agreeing to more aggressive targets in the second round, that would be fine by me.
On the issue of Afghanistan, the Liberals didn't say we should pull out of Afghanistan in 2009, they said end combat operation in 2009. In addition we have been in Afghanistan now longer than we in World War II, so I think saying we should end combat in 2009 is quite reasonable and it what most Canadians want.
As for limiting spending power in provincial jurisdiction, the Liberal plan allowed provinces to opt out if they created similiar programs, but it doesn't prevent the federal government from initiating new programs in provincial jurisdiction. If you were to ask my personal opinion though, I think we should have programs such as health care done exclusively by the federal government and get the provinces out of them altogether as this would save all the bickering and be cheaper due to economies of scale.
Said you:
I think we should have programs such as health care done exclusively by the federal government and get the provinces out of them altogether.
hehe, good luck with that. The constitutional amending formula is a guaranteed non-starter for any idea such as this.
Truth is, the provinces are doing a pretty good job with health. I shudder to think what our hospitals would be if they were run by the feds. Yikes! Careful what you ask for Miles.
Anonymous - It is true that it is not realistic and I am not suggesting the feds run it directly. The local health boards or authorities would do that however, the federal government would do what is now done by the provinces. For example, when I moved from BC to Ontario, I had to switch health cards as well as the services covered and not covered are different. If done by the feds, you wouldn't need to switch cards everytime you switch provinces and the same services would be covered as well as there would be uniform standards.
Besides since health care didn't exist in 1867, I would suggest bringing the issue to the Supreme Court first and see if it can be done without a constitutional amendment. John A. Macdonald was in fact for a strong central government and against giving too much power to the provinces. It was the privy council ruling in 1891 that asserted the province's rights and this was more because it suited Britain's interest to have a decentralized country as opposed to Canada's.
Post a Comment
<< Home