News   Mar 09, 2026
Breakup
 162     0 
News   Mar 06, 2026
Mississauga Offers Vision for Living Arts Centre Precinct Redevelopment
 1.7K     7 
News   Mar 06, 2026
BILD Honours Industry Leaders at 2026 Chair’s Dinner
 344     0 

Who will be the next Liberal leader?

If I was a Quebecer with federal leanings (i.e. not a seperatist, and thus likely not to vote BQ if given a choice), I'd be asking myself, okay I've sent the Liberals Trudeau, Martin, Creitein (sp?) to Ottawa as PM. What did I get in return? Trudeau, cut us out of the constitution, Creitien almost lost the country and corrupted Quebec/Canada politics in the process, Martin accomplished little or nothing. Now we've got a Conservative PM who seems to respect us, wants to give Quebec more recognition on the world stage, seem incorruptible and sincere, speaks French and is making an honest attempt to reach out to the hearts and minds of Quebecers. With this scenario, the LPC is finished in Quebec, and had better start looking desperately to keep its tenious hold on Ontario and PEI. If I was left leaning, I'd be voting NDP, as I think Layton's done a great job of positioning his party as the natural alternative to the CPC.
 
They also have a PM whose power base is ultimately in the west, who also doesn't really give a hoot about the interest of Quebec in general, with members of the party downright hostile, from a historical perspective, to the province.

AoD
 
You omit that the West and Quebec both share a sense that Ontario and Ottawa have dominanted and disparaged them for the sake of Ontario.

A PM from western Canada can go to Quebec and honestly say that many of their complaints are shared by the West. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

Also, Harper has no history in Quebec, other than what he might have said or done in opposition or before politics, so provided he treats Quebec well, he's going to do okay there. Ontario has pretty much told Harper to get lost, and the West is guaranteed Conservative, but in Quebec, Harper saw some great gains over the previous election; so we should expect Harper to be pushing all efforts in that province.
They also have a PM whose power base is ultimately in the west, who also doesn't really give a hoot about the interest of Quebec in general, with members of the party downright hostile, from a historical perspective, to the province.
Click to expand...
That's the biggest mistake the Liberals made; assuming that the appeal of the CPC was a social conservative west that could not spread across the country. The Libs thought that as long as they painted the CPC as red neck boogymen that the election was a shoe-in. In fact the opposite is true, the socons are becoming annoyed in that Harper is leading a more mass appeal government, which obviously appealed in Quebec, where the CPC made real gains. The CPC boogieman is dead, and now Quebecers are looking for a national alternative, instead of voting for the BQ, which guarantees you'll never get a cabinet post or any influence on policy.
 
Abeja:

You've also neglected to mention, however, that many of the policies favoured by Harper et. al is not popular in Quebec (e.g. the war, same-sex marriage, etc), and assumes that interprovincial relationship is the only driver behind federal electoral politics - which isn't the case.

AoD
 
Harper has not touched SSM, and is only supporting troops and a mission given to him by the previous Liberal government. I reckon that the average Quebecer care little about SSM, and while the mission to Afghanistan may not be popular in Quebec and elsewhere (never understood that myself, we're helping a democractically elected government from being destroyed by Taliban - this isn't Iraq folks, the Afghan people want us there), supporting our troops crosses all provincial borders.

He will have a free vote on SSM, as he should. During the last vote, MPs were forced to vote by their party chiefs. It's an important matter, and should be a free vote. Regardless, the vote will be a resounding support of SSM; which will demonstrate a few things to Quebecers, 1. that the House supports SSM, 2. that the government sticks to its promises.

Harper campaigned on the SSM matter, and still came first or second in a lot of Quebec ridings. Obivously, the SSM issue isn't all that important to the average Jacques or Gilles.
 
3. The Conservative Party is still full of socially conservative nutbars.
 
3. The Conservative Party is still full of socially conservative nutbars.
Click to expand...
Let's hope the Liberals still think that's the winning campaign strategy; we'll have a Conservative majority by 2007/8.
 
I doubt that's what the next campaign will be fought on, but I for one am extremely displeased that this matter is even coming up for a vote. A matter of human rights should not be subject to the whims or convictions of individual parliamentarians.

I think Harper will get more flack for being such a fascist with his ministers and MPs. There will probably be a revolt eventually...
 
but I for one am extremely displeased that this matter is even coming up for a vote.
Click to expand...
Were you equally displeased when it was originally voted on?

BTW, SSM not a human right; and calling it such belittles the true human rights those around the world live without, such as the right to life, liberty and security of person, free of arbitrary arrest or detention. Go to Myamar or Nepal and tell the people there that your human rights are being violated in Canada because the government won't recognise your homosexual union as a "marriage", and they'd laugh you off the street; human rights they'd remind you are about freedom from terror, fear and starvation, not about who you can put your name beside in some government ledger.

Siblings can not marry in Canada, and no one is calling that a failure of human rights.
 
Access to the institution of marriage, on the basis of a romantic relationship within legal bounds IS a human right, associated with liberty and equality. It might not be as earth shattering as say free speech, but on what basis do you deny its' claim? On that matter, why would we necessarily concern ourselves with what those in Nepal think is human rights? Or if you go to say Sudan, they would very well argue human rights is simply survival, with food in the stomach, without regards to other issues you've mentioned. Does it make liberty, equality and justice any less valuable?

With regards to the issue of incest - it is defined in the criminal code as a criminal offense, with good reasons for being so. Just what is your point by raising this analogy to SSM? I see a Trojan Horse.

AoD
 
With regards to the issue of incest - it is defined in the criminal code as a criminal offense
Click to expand...
So was sodomy, times change.
Just what is your point by raising this analogy to SSM? I see a Trojan Horse.
Click to expand...
Was that a condom joke? Sorry I missed it. If siblings want to get married, why can't they? Aren't their rights being violated by the government outlawing their consensual relationship. IIRC, consensual, adult incest between siblings is not a criminal code offense; and if it is still on the books, find me anyone who been convicted.

For the record, I couldn't care less who gets to marry who; we're all 50% likely to get divorced anyway. What I do care about are governments that live up to their commitments (if only we could do the same with marriage, of all types). If you promise a new vote on SSM, or to cancel the GST or whatever, and you're elected on that, you'd better do what you said.
why would we necessarily concern ourselves with what those in Nepal think is human rights?
Click to expand...
So your position is that we shouldn't? I'm sorry, but if a people are being murdered or attacked, we should all do what we can to help protect their basic human rights, whenever possible. Our troops in Afghanistan are doing this right now; the Taliban would kill a woman for wearing the wrong clothes or for being raped - now that's against fundamental human rights. Our troops in Rwanda tried and failed, but tried nonetheless to protect the human rights of the civilians. Canada has a strong refugee program to protect the human rights of people from throughout the globe.

What we're doing in Canada now is calling everything a human right, whereas what we should say is that certain groups are having their "constitutional rights" violated; and that should be addressed. There's a big difference from human rights violations.
 
" Were you equally displeased when it was originally voted on?"

Yes.

"SSM not a human right"

It is. Read the Charter...

"Siblings can not marry in Canada, and no one is calling that a failure of human rights."

While I may personally find incest to be repugnant, I think prohibiting siblings to marry is not really defensible. I don't expect it to be brought up in court, but I do agree that it is a violation of human rights, as is the prohibition of polygamy.

Your arguments are fallacious. One can't argue that we have the luxury of ignoring human rights because there is some more egregious violation of human rights "out there". Frankly, the Sudan and Nepal are entirely irrelevant.
 
First, where in the charter does it state that marrying (all marriage) is a human right?

What I think you are referring to is the equality clause of the constitution -- and even that does not state that sexual orientation is a right (does not decide on human rights -- just rights as specified in the Canadian charger). What the constitution DOES do is give the courts power to expand the equality clause to cover same sex marriage (because of the use of the word particularly and a list -- that legally leaves it open to being expanded).

Now even IF it is expanded to cover sexual orientation as a right, that still does not cover same sex marriage..... it only states that those of different sexual orientation must be treated equally (not necessarily the same). So you could extend the "marriage contract" to be "civil union" but have the same contractual standards -- and it would be equal.
 
Re: the Conservatives in Quebec, their surprise performance in the past election shows that there is potential for them to have a significant presence in that province. While their policies may be a bit to the right for most Quebecers, their proposal for greater autonomy for provinces looks very attractive over there.

Re: SSM, while I support it, I don't think it's a basic human right protected by the Charter. Where does it say that?
 
Isn't 15.1 and 15.2 the basis of the various human rights tribunals' decision on SSM?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top