senna
|
|
response 2 of 18:
| 
Nov 15 00:30 UTC 2000 |
It was the election before last, and Joe Clark's position at the head
of the Tories suggests to most people that this is a "rebuilding
year." Both the Conservatives and the New Democrats (a party you left
out, the ancestors of which were the principle champions of the
comprehensive health care system) are desperately fighting just to win
enough seats to gain certification. Most of those battles are being
fought in the Maritimes, as the Canadian Alliance (formerly the Reform
party, now renamed in an attempt to ease some of the stigma that
associates Reform almost exclusively with Western Canada) fights it out
with the Bloc Quebecois on regional issues. Funnily enough, they both
favor decreasing the government's investment in Health Care, despite
considerable emnity between the two. They have different reasons, of
course. The Liberals called for the election with a considerable lead,
but that lead has dwindled considerably.
Joe Clark is mostly just the last option for the Conservatives. Jean
Cheret, their nominee last time 'round, defected to the Liberals to
lead the provincial opposition to the Bloc in Quebec. He failed.
|
senna
|
|
response 3 of 18:
|
Nov 15 03:37 UTC 2000 |
I picked this up at CBC's website (www.cbc.ca) under the Federal
Election column. I wouldn't necessarily call it the most accurate or
unbiased summary (particularly concerning the Alliance, which is mildly
surprising from a man in Calgary). Still, it gives a bit of an idea.
You can sort of see where visions diverge and converge with American
politics. The Republican-like Canadian Alliance, by the way, is a
bizarre turn toward the right in Canadian politics. Typically, views
that conservative used to be banished from Canadian politics.
Duelling Visions
By Roger Gibbins
University of Calgary
November 13, 2000
Roger Gibbins
Dept. of Political Science
University of Calgary
As John Lennon asked, imagine . . . . Imagine what Canada would be like
if you woke up on November 28 with a Canadian Alliance or Liberal
government, or with a NDP or Progressive Conservative government.
Simply put, would the election have mattered?
To address this question, we must ask where each of the national
parties would take the country if they had their druthers. The
following, therefore, is a very broad-brush sketch of the national
visions of the competing parties, one that necessarily reduces complex
political and ideological perspectives to a mere handful of words.
The logical place to start is with the Liberal Party; for incumbents,
the past is indeed prologue. The future trajectory for the Liberals
finds its roots in the legacy of the Trudeau governments, one that Mr.
Chrétien has warmly embraced.
The Liberal vision calls for a strong and active national government
playing a significant role in strengthening the country's social fabric
and preparing Canadians for the new economy. Stress is placed on
sharing, on using national programmes to redistribute wealth across
regions. Peace with provincial governments is valued, but not at the
cost of a limited federal role in social programs. As the Prime
Minister puts it, the national government needs a "hammer" in dealing
with the provinces. Fiscal transfers to the provinces are therefore
likely to be more conditional than at present; the federal spending
power would be used to pursue national policy objectives. A Liberal
government would provide financial support for Canada's artistic and
research communities. Finally, Quebec would remain a province like the
others in its constitutional status, but would enjoy greater de facto
autonomy. There is no Liberal appetite for constitutional or
parliamentary reform. In short, the Liberal vision for tomorrow is not
radically different from the Liberal vision of yesterday and today.
A Canadian Alliance government would be less active and more limited
in scope. There would be less interference in provincial affairs, and
less conditionality for fiscal transfers; the emphasis would be on
respect for the provinces and the constitutional division of powers.
While it is unlikely that an Alliance government would dismantle
immediately the CBC or regional development authorities, the financial
screws would tighten. Whereas the Liberals see the national government
playing an active role in strengthening civil society, an Alliance
government would be more inclined to leave the civil society to its own
devices. The Alliance approach to Quebec would be based on the twin
pillars of constitutional respect and modest devolution; if this failed
to find an audience in Quebec, the Alliance would draw a line in the
sand at the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. Finally, the
Alliance would pursue parliamentary reform and the establishment of
citizen initiatives.
The Progressive Conservative national vision falls somewhere between
that of the Liberals and Alliance. The Conservatives take a more
flexible stance towards Quebec's place within Canadian federalism, one
illustrated by their support for the Meech Lake and Charlottetown
Accords, and their opposition to the Clarity Bill. The Conservatives
support a greater degree of government intervention in the economic and
social orders than does Alliance, but also a more cooperative approach
than the Liberals to federal-provincial relations, with less emphasis
on the need for a fiscal hammer. Like the Alliance vision, the
Conservative vision is more federal than is the Liberal vision.
However, the Conservative leader is a staunch defender of parliamentary
democracy, and eschews the direct democracy initiatives proposed by the
Alliance.
The NDP national vision is the most distinct. In contrast with the
Alliance, although less so with the Liberal and Conservative visions,
the NDP asserts a positive role for government. Although not
indifferent to regional disparities, the NDP's primary focus is on the
distribution of wealth and opportunities across income groups. The
emphasis is on preserving and, where possible, expanding universal
social programs; a prime example is the proposal that universally
accessible and publicly funded health care be extended to home care.
As a consequence, the NDP rejects tax cuts or aggressive plans to pay
down the national debt; surpluses are seen as an opportunity to repair,
strengthen and extend the nation's social security net. The NDP is
almost alone in talking about poverty and social justice as pressing
public policy issues. Their emphasis on universal social programs means
support for a strong and active national government, similar in most
respects to the Liberal vision. Again in line with the Liberal vision,
the NDP vision pays only incidental attention to federalism; the focus
is on national programmes and the national community. Their social
democratic vision is designed to appeal to Canadians no matter where
they live or what language they speak.
What about the Bloc? A Canadian government led by the Bloc is not a
possibility. However, a strong Bloc contingent in the House of Commons
could impact and might even destabilize Canadian government. It would
pursue what was best for Quebec, and would be indifferent to the rest
of Canada. On social policy issues, the Bloc would be drawn more to the
NDP than to the Alliance; on federalism issues, it might find a working
relationship with either the Alliance or the Tories.
It should be noted at this point that in many areas the partisan
visions (other than the Bloc's) converge rather than diverge. All
parties recognize and embrace Canada's growing social diversity. Most
Canadians would have trouble sorting out the increasing minor
differences among the Alliance, Conservative and Liberal tax policies;
only the NDP stands clearly apart. None of the four major parties would
fundamentally restructure Canada's relationship with the United States,
NAFTA or the WTO. While there are empathetic differences with respect
to Aboriginal peoples, most of the policy disputes in this respect will
be lodged in the courts or with provincial governments.
In bringing this discussion to a close it is important to stress that
any incoming national government faces very significant constraints in
trying to impose its national vision. The capacity of the national
government to act is limited by the federal division of powers; Prime
Minister Chrétien hit this wall in the early fall when he was unable to
get the provincial premiers to agree to his version of the health care
package. An Alliance or NDP government would confront a hostile Senate
where they would have virtually no representation. The national
government is also constrained by the courts, and by the international
environment. Finally, any incoming prime minister must cope with
inevitable dissention within his or her own ranks, and with the sheer
inertia of existing programmes, intergovernmental accords, and
international agreements.
Thus any new government must pick its shots, and settle for incremental
change. New visions are difficult to impose, just as old visions are
difficult to set aside. Nevertheless, national visions do provide a
general sense of direction for the contending parties, and thus provide
a reasonable guide for voters faced with a barrage of more specific
policy proposals and disputes.
|
polygon
|
|
response 6 of 18:
|
Nov 25 19:44 UTC 2000 |
I received a piece of Canadian election spam ....
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 23 Nov 00 2:02:35 PM
From: 4634635@msn.com
Subject: Canadians: Vote To Keep Canada Strong and Free!
We don't like invading your privacy, but we're scared! Afraid that Canada
is becoming the 51st U.S. state, while the politicians and media say
nothing!
Here's why we're worried:
- Every day, about five Canadian companies, from high-tech to health-care,
are sold to foreign, mainly U.S. corporations at 65 cents on the dollar.
More than 13,000 businesses lost since the Free Trade Agreement was
signed. Last year was a record year -- double the record set in 1998!
- Under NAFTA, American corporations have greater rights than Canadian
companies even though they are run from the U.S., have more money and
power, and their profits go south instead of remaining here to help our
economy. Not a level playing field!
- Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows any U.S. business to sue our federal,
provincial or municipal governments if the company thinks a law will hurt
its profits or future profits. This could bankrupt us! And it's
undemocratic because our governments are afraid to pass laws that protect
us.
- Our health-care and education systems are being privatized because NAFTA
-- and soon the World Trade Organization -- says they are "open season"!
Do we really want our health care run by U.S. conglomerates? Think about
it.
The Canadian Action Party (CAP) was formed because Canada is headed for
trouble! Our country and our democracy are in danger.
On November 27, we need your vote to keep the True North strong and free!
Please forward this to your family and friends -- because every vote
counts.
Click below to find out more about the critical issues at stake in this
election -- and how the Canadian Action Party is fighting to protect
Canada for future generations!
http://ca.internations.net/cyber/canadaunited/
<a href="http://ca.internations.net/cyber/canadaunited/">
CLICK HERE</a>
Please note: In ridings where we don't have a candidate, vote anything but
Liberal or Alliance because both will continue to sell-out the country.
O Canada or No Canada? The Choice Is Yours!
Thank you for your time,
The Hon. Paul Hellyer, Leader, Canadian Action Party
Authorized by the Official Agent for the Canadian Action Party
|