Happy Dominion Day

The title says it all.

And I thought scallops wrapped in bacon were rich...

So Paul Martin is having issues with recent pledges of other G8 leaders for promising to have foreign aid reach .7% of GDP by 2015. Its not like I entirely disagree with the Prime Minister for suggesting that striving for such a target without any attempt to make the much require structural reforms to the third world system is not the correct approach or that some of these national leaders are making the pledge to get aging rock stars off their collective backs.

After all until were see the emergence of a free trade environment and the end of subsidies in such areas as agriculture, which would allow poorer nations to make use of their most valuable asset -- a cheap source of labour -- foreign aid will never be enough to pull the third world out of a cycle of poverty.

However, what gets me is this quote from our Prime Minister:

"The reason for [the respective pledges] is that instead of dealing with the problems the way that people ought to deal with the problems, what in fact [the pledging nations are ] doing is they're giving in to short term political pressure, (to) get their pictures in the paper, make an announcement, go home to favourable headlines and then forget about it.

"Well I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that because there's an election coming. I'm not going to do that under any circumstances."

What is he thinking? That has been the sorry state of Canadian political discourse for the last year -- our Prime Minister giving into political pressure to get a favourable headline. This is the man who boasted about the politics of achievement…yet what has he achieved beyond survival and payouts to the provinces?

I mean, I agree with Paul Martin on this issue that more aid is not necessarily the solution, but he should be a little more careful with his choice of words...

There is a difference Frank....

Well, as I have already gotten the obligatory SSM post out of the way, I thought I would take a little poke at a fellow Maritimer, our illustrious ambassador to the United States of America, Frank McKenna.

Today, speaking about SSM, he made these bright comments: (hat tip, Nealenews.com)
"In the United States ... one of the arguments as to why guns aren't controlled is that Americans will often say, 'Well, the right to bear arms was enshrined in our constitution,'" the Canadian envoy said on National Public Radio in the U.S. "Well, in Canada, our Charter of Rights confers rights interpreted by the courts that would lead towards same-sex marriages."

You see Frank, in the US Constitution is it actually written down that Americans have the right to bear arms. Hardly a fair comparison with the arguement that we have a rights that are "intererpreted by the courts"...I mean, I hate to break it to dyed in the wool Liberals and the NDP, marriage is not a right, its a term that used to describe (at the moment) that a regionised state of two persons's relationship to one another.

Oddly enough, in light of last nights vote, Alberta may be on the best path -- getting the state out of the marriage business.

Well, its legal....(almost)

...as we all are aware now, debate on C-38 was limted to 8 hours. Quite the shame, I would have much rathered each member of the House be able to speak on an issue of such importance to great deal of them.

Perhaps now our elected officals can get on to more important matters, such as the new structuring of the Department of National Defence and how this will fit in with the new (yet older) Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Perhaps over the summer break Paul Martin and co. can come up with a way to move tax freedom day a little more towards the beginning of June rather than the beginning of July?

At least I no longer have to watch Scott Reid on Politics with Don Newman. Conservatives should make him the poster child for the Liberal Party, I bet more than a view seats would move over...

UPDATE: Its legal, but did I see a NDP member vote against the motion? I wonder if Jack Layton will be a man of his word and boot her from the party?

Well, if Rick Mercer is doing it, why not me?

As Rick Mercer is leading the way, I may as well follow...

As we all know, Paul took the flooding in the west a little too lightly....

Paul Martin decides a little trip to Washington is required to boost Canada's image on the world stage...

"It was this close to taking off this time."

More to come...

Gearing up for debate

Now that the Bloc and the Liberals (with their ally, the NDP) have decided that enough debate took place on Bill C-48 and have passed a motion that will allow the government to spend 4.6 billion dollars that belongs to the taxpayer with no programs or no agenda in place on how that money will be spent, the members in the house will spend a little more time to ensure that Bill C-38 is passed. On a side note to this post, I was glad to see that the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals all agreed that there was no alliance between the Conservatives and the Bloc (Question Period on CTV).

While I consider debating how the government is going to spend an additional 200$ dollars they collect per tax paying Canadian much more important than whether the Federal government says that marriage can be extended to persons of the same sex, the use of closure has put an end to that debate.

Before people start suggesting that I think tax rights run over issues of "human rights", my position on SSM is this:

As long as the state is in the business of providing marriage services to heterosexual couples, than homosexual couples should receive the same service. Likewise, I really see no reason why the state can bar two or more people from entering into a marriage contract. What two or more individuals decide in terms of a marriage model is fine with me.

The issue with SSM in this country is not what the government is suggesting, but rather how this issue has come down to a hot vote in June/July of 2005. Let us look to the example of the Netherlands on this very issue, after all SSM has been legal there since 2001.

A quick glance through the entry there (and other government sources) shows that the debate took nearly 10 years, several votes in the lower house, several court cases (which went against pro-SSM groups) to achieve the legal status that Canada will be voting on next week. At the end of the day, its was elected officals, not the courts that moved the nation towards SSM.

In Canada, we are now running a risk that laws will move ahead of what people are willing to accept. While SSM, I am rather sure, would be able to win a vote amongst urban Canadians, those under 25, etc..., I doubt it would pass in a national referendum. If the Liberals and co. are not careful and use closure once again, they may well polarise this country more than they think.

The SSM debate cannot just be done, but it must be seen to have been done, and that all sides have had the chance to debate. The continuation of the debate will not change MP's minds on this issue, but rather debate must give a release to those opposed to SSM. The debate must show that they were listened to, that their voice was heard, and that they have a valid position. If not, social conservatives will feel they have been pushed to the back of a bus. It took the Dutch 10 years of debate, surely the Canadian House of Commons can sit for a few more weeks.