News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 2.2K     14 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Bayview Village Resubmission More Than Doubles Height Near Bessarion Station
 2.6K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Drone Flight Captures Cladding Progress at Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon
 774     0 

Globe Editorial: Another flip-flop from Harper

Things I like about Harper's agenda:

-much of the ethics package. Needed reform, IMO.
-increased whistleblower protection.
-increased support for military and moving toward more focussed deployments. Not sure whether we can credit Harper for this, or Martin.

This I (strongly) dislike:

-GST cut. A atrociously terrible idea. Not because I'm opposed to tax cuts, but because I think consumption taxes are good (and most economists agree). I'd rather a corporate/investment tax cut coupled with minor personal tax reductions (for political expediency).

-Child care plan. Harpers proposal will do almost nothing to improve the current situation. A glorified tax cut for families...

-Canning the gun registry. I've already explained why.

-Reneging on Kyoto. Finding a "made in Canada solution to GHG" is a Bushism translating to do nothing. I'm not impressed. He has also canned the One Tonne Challenge, which I thought was a good education programme. He promises to replace existing programmes with better ones, but I don't really buy it.

-His stiffened penalties for criminal acts I am ambivalent towards. Increased sentences really just translates into larger prison budgets.

-Border security cards. He folded like a house of cards on this issue, despite the fact that the economic fallout from this could dwarf the softwood lumber tariff. The passport requirement is totally unnecessary for this border, and is only being imposed to feign fairness to Mexico WRT its border.

-Holding a free vote on SSM. The issue has been dealt with. Holding another vote implies Harper (or his backers) are dissatisfied with the current legal standing of SSM and want the decision reversed.

-He looks like he's leaning toward increased equalisation as the solution to the fiscal imbalance in order to buy votes in Quebec with Ontarians' taxes. This is totally unacceptable given Ontario's current fiscal situation and inability to provide services similar to those in other provinces (Newfoundland spends 50% more per resident than Ontario).

That's all the gripes I have right now... I'm sure more will develop as his reign continues. A general complaint I have is his iron-fisted control of his government. For someone who claims to support independent thought, government transparency and whistleblowers, he seems intent to isolate Canadians from their government, except via the party mouthpiece and the PMO.

I would also say that I'm not that fiscally liberal. I believe Canada can have a strong economy while protecting the environment and providing a strong social safety net and public realm. It's a matter of making smart choices and investing for the future. I'm also a social liberal/fiscal conservative (small c) who finds the Green Party the most comfortable. I support the Liberals because they are the best mainstream alternative to the neoconservative CPC and tax-dumbly-and-spend-dumbly NDP.
 
I pretty much agree with you, afransen, though I think there are serious problems with the accountability act. As someone who has worked in government, I can tell you that this law will make it necessary to fill out ten forms and wait two weeks for approval to change a light bulb. As for the military, I suppose I'm glad that he intends to boost their funding, but much of what he aims to buy isn't even wanted by the generals. For example, General Hillier doesn't want to buy massively expensive C-17s when it will mean deferring much needed replacements for the Hercules aircraft.
 
The thing is that both the accountability act and whistleblower legislation are such double-edged swords. On the one hand, they can be used to solve problems; on the other hand they generate new problems all of their own making.

Some issues of accountability can stem from a myriad of practices that could be solved by others means. All-encompassing legislation can hamstring daily government functions. Filling out a form to change a lightbulb may sound flippant, but it can get pretty close to the truth. The irony is that the Conservatives (who believe in less regulation), have just introduced a trigger to an immense amount of regulation within government. The accountability act is just the trigger; the "regulatory" mechanics are yet to come.
 
I've never understood this fuss about the identification required to cross the border.

If you're leaving your country, and entering another, WHY wouldn't you need some proof of identity that verifies your citizenship? A driver's license does not meet this critera, and thus should have always been rejected.

Who doesn't have a passport? Half of Canada's population seems to have come from somewhere else. Within six months of my children's birth they all had their Canadian passports, so that we could travel back to Europe.

If this issue is that Americans do not have passports needed to re-enter the USA, and therefore will not travel to Canada to spend their tourism dollars, well, then that's too bad, but it's an American law, being applied to Americans; so we just have to accept it.

As for Canadians....stop your complaining and get your passport. If you can't afford the $90 for adults and $45 for kids every five years (that's $18 a year for adults, $9 for kids) then you likely don't need to go the States anyway, since gas from Toronto to Buffalo and back (even if divided over a family of five in one vehicle) will likely cost you far more than the annualized cost of five passports.
 
I don't get the fuss either...Canadians, in typically contradictory fashion, love to emphasize their distinctiveness from the US, but at the same time want to be able to enter and leave it with marginally more fuss than crossing from province to province. It's another country, and you need a passport. Period.
 
Ya, but for a lot of Americans that extra step, to get a passport (they are an inward looking people and a huge percentage don't have passports) will keep them from visiting. Which if i read those Lord of the Rings and etc threads right, is important. They should have passports already, like any civilized person, but they don't.

--

I miss the Red Tory's.
 
Yes, and that's why I said above
If this issue is that Americans do not have passports needed to re-enter the USA, and therefore will not travel to Canada to spend their tourism dollars, well, then that's too bad, but it's an American law, being applied to Americans; so we just have to accept it.
Click to expand...
It's an American law. What should we do, have the Canadian ambassador in Washington complain to President Bush that American citizens should be allowed back into the USA from Canada without passports or proof of citizenship? Let's worry about things we can control first, and this isn't one of them.
 
I think Canada should advertise that we don't require passports from Americans to enter Canada. Once they are here if they can't get back that is an American problem. The good news is that people trapped in Canada will need a place to stay and food to eat while everything gets sorted out :D
 
I'm curious to see if the Conservatives can both flip-flop and split hairs at the same time while defending their actions. Harper is doing the latter while defending his $500 a plate fund-raising efforts.
 
Coverage of fallen soldiers banned

CFB Trenton bars media from base
'U.S.-style tactics' condemned

Apr. 25, 2006. 07:33 AM
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA - The Conservative government is refusing to allow media to cover tonight's return of four Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan, a surprise decision that has critics accusing Prime Minister Stephen Harper of adopting American-style tactics to limit public exposure to Canada's casualties.

From the start of the Afghan mission four years ago, media have been permitted to cover the solemn ceremony that surrounds the unloading of the caskets of soldiers killed overseas.
But tonight, reporters and television crews attempting to cover the return of the bodies of the soldiers killed by a roadside bomb north of Kandahar on Saturday will find themselves barred from the base on orders of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

O'Connor defended the decision, saying he kicked out media to respect the privacy of the families.

"It is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces," a defence spokesperson said on behalf of the minister.

Opposition MPs immediately accused the Prime Minister of adopting American-style tactics to limit public exposure to Canada's mounting death toll — now at 16 — in Afghanistan.

"I can't imagine any other Canadian prime minister trying to manipulate public opinion by hiding the caskets of fallen soldiers," said Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South), the party's defence critic.

"He has borrowed a page from Bush's book," Dosanjh said, accusing the government of following practices of the George W. Bush administration, which has sought to limit media coverage when American casualties are brought home from Iraq.

"I find it absolutely un-Canadian," Dosanjh said. "He hopes that out of sight is out of mind. Canadians are not going to accept that."

It's also known the Prime Minister's Office is not happy having reporters embedded with the military in Afghanistan because of the high profile the mission is getting back home. Yesterday's action spurred further questions on whether the government will bar media from the Afghanistan mission entirely.

The bodies of Cpl. Matthew Dinning of Richmond Hill, Ont., Bombardier Myles Mansell, of Victoria, B.C., Lieut. William Turner of Toronto and Cpl. Randy Payne from CFB Wainright, Alta., are expected to arrive at CFB Trenton today.

More than 50 years ago, the toils and tolls of Canadians in the Korea conflict were front-page news for newspapers in the early 1950s. For instance, the leading headline of the Toronto Daily Star on March 1, 1951 blared that Canadian soldiers (of the Princess Pats regiment) who were wounded overseas were being flown home.

Now with the worst combat toll for Canadian forces since the war in Korea, the new Conservative government is making a concerted attempt to dampen the ceremony that surrounds military deaths abroad.

No more will the Prime Minister fly to CFB Trenton to greet the bodies of troops killed overseas, as former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien did in October 2003, when the bodies of two soldiers killed in roadside blast in Kabul were returned home.

Instead, just O'Connor and Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, are expected to be on hand tonight with family members when a military Airbus arrives in Trenton.

No more will the flag atop the Peace Tower in Ottawa be lowered to half-mast when a Canadian soldier is killed, a tradition that started under the Liberals.

Yesterday, as MPs returned to the House of Commons for the first day of business since the deadly attack, they held a minute of silence to mark the Armenian genocide, but not for the Canadian deaths.

"I think that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he's very concerned about the situation, he's made his statement and that's all I can say about that," Justice Minister Vic Toews said when asked about the lack of tribute in the Commons.

Now the government finds itself in a flag flap as opposition MPs pounce on the decision not to lower the flag as a lack of respect for fallen soldiers.

"The opportunity to be respectful to those soldiers who have fallen is very important to Canadians. I don't know why the government would be backing off the tribute, the commemoration," NDP Leader Jack Layton said.

Two weeks ago, Lincoln Dinning, of Winghan, Ont., wrote to the Prime Minister asking the government to lower the flags on Parliament Hill when a Canadian soldier is killed in the line of duty. But in a cruel twist of fate, Dinning's son, Cpl. Matt Dinning, was among the four soldiers killed in Saturday's blast.

Interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham wondered yesterday whether there were other motives driving the Conservative push, a government that has already made clear it rues any distractions from its five priorities — even if that distraction is a far-off war.

"I have heard it suggested that the reason is that this way, people's attention will not be drawn to the unfortunate death of our soldiers in combat," Graham told reporters yesterday.
"I think there is a concern that it will be perceived by the troops themselves and by Canadians as a lack of respect for the sacrifices they are making," he said.

According to the Canadian Heritage Department, which sets the protocols for the lowering of flags, "the act of half-masting is a dramatic visual statement that speaks to the sense of loss that is shared by all their citizens."

But the government has veterans in its corner, who prefer to see fallen soldiers honoured on Remembrance Day, rather than "glorifying a few."

"When the troops were in Korea and they got killed, there was nothing for them. You'll find most Korean veterans will think the same way," said Terry Wickens, Ontario regional president for the Korea Veterans Association of Canada.

He said the big difference with Afghanistan is the television coverage — and the instant dissemination of bad news when it happens.

"That's what's making it seem worse, I think," said Wickens, who served as a signaller in Korea for 15 months.

He thinks the wall-to-wall coverage of deaths and injuries in Afghanistan can hurt public support. "If there wasn't so much media coverage, I don't think you'd have all this hoopla about bringing the troops home," Wickens said.

"People join the forces, they expect to go into action at some time in their career and this is unfortunately what happens," he said in an interview.

There are pros and cons when the conflict and its cost hit the airwaves and the front pages, admits retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie.

He lauds media coverage of the work of the soldiers in Afghanistan. But he says that many Canadians are still in the dark about the purpose of the mission and, as a result, he worries the dramatic publicity surrounding combat deaths will undermine support.

"The fence-sitters could really drive the polls in the direction of let's get the hell out of there because they don't really understand why the sacrifices are being made," MacKenzie said in an interview.


With files from Tonda MacCharles

Link
=====================================================================



Based on the actions of this government, I can easily say I have no love for this administration. In fact, their departure could not come soon enough. You would think a minority government (the smallest in Canadian history) would take a more balanced view of public policy; instead they offer little compromise and remain headstrong in their social, fiscal, and military endeavours. The case for this government’s departure is mounting and is likely to only get larger.
 
If my son or daughter were killed in Afghanistan or elsewhere while in the forces, the last thing I'd want is the media taking photos and trying to interview me and others present.
 
You posted in a different thread. I posted in this one. I was unaware that you quoted the same article, and I don't think there is an obligation upon me to monitor different threads, especially if I felt the article should be posted in this one. I do not mean to create a Kafuffle, but for my own information are there any forum rules regarding this?
 
But aren't there compromises? Like allowing a single pool camera into the base for the ceremony at a long distance, or even sending out DND footage to media organizations? The family issue seems like an excuse, a convenient cover for trying to shuffle these deaths under the rug. This is especially true when combined with the almost pathological efforts to eliminate all recognition in Ottawa of our soldiers' deaths.

I agree that the privacy of these families MUST be respected, but it should also be balanced with the right of Canadians to see the human cost of the Afghan campaign at all stages. I support the mission, but with the caveat that we have to be aware of the toll it takes on the men and women of the armed forces. What would be truly disrespectful to the fallen, and to their families, would be to attempt to pretend that their deaths didn't happen, or are insignificant. This is the price of war. It may be a necessary one, but it is the price nontheless and Canadians need to know that.
 
If my son or daughter were killed in Afghanistan or elsewhere while in the forces, the last thing I'd want is the media taking photos and trying to interview me and others present.
Click to expand...
If Canadian soldiers are being killed in a foreign country, the last thing I'd want is for the right of the media to cover these events being curtailed by their own government.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top