Fri 13 Jan 2006
Time for an update methinks…the holidays are over and I’m back in Waterloo and settled now (though Air Canada lost my luggage…”95% of delayed bags [euphemism anyone?] are returned…within 24 hours”…sure…).
On the election front, I’ve decided to vote here in Waterloo. I spend more time here than any other place, so now it’s really my home. After checking out the candidates for Kitchener-Waterloo, I decided I will be supporting Andrew Telegdi (How’d They Vote?, Wikipedia). I’ve also joined the University of Waterloo Young Liberals in an attempt to get more politically involved in politics in Waterloo. Today in the Imprint Mr. Telegdi took out a full page colour advertisement. That to me shows a great commitment to students, especially in a riding that has roughly 50K students, attending the University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University and Conestoga College. His add highlights 4 key areas, Education, Health care, High-Tech and Social programs, the first two being my prime interest in this election.
For those of you who are just dieing to hear why I’m voting Liberal, I’ll give you a few reasons. First, through a Liberal government, we have the strongest economy of the G8 nations, we are the only G8 nation paying down our debt, and our dollar hit a 14 year high. The Liberal platform will increase the standard income tax deductible (thus helping low income individuals like students), provide 6K to every undergraduate student with a $8.1 billion injection into education, provide $180 million to research groups, most of which are affiliated with the University of Waterloo (thus benefiting me and all my fellow students), as well as numerous other initiatives. Above all, the Liberals will support minority rights, shown in their push for a constitutional amendment to remove the Notwithstanding clause and their past support for rights throughout their tenure (which I personally hope continues).
For those of you who want to hear why I’m not voting for the other parties, I’ll quickly outline why. When it comes to the Conservatives, I cannot support a party that willfully neglects minority rights, including abortion and same-sex marriage. Even if I ignore the fact that a study done on the Conservatives platform has shown that they platform will cause a budget deficit, I cannot support a party that does not make the Charter the prime focus above all partisan politics. When it comes to the Green and NDP, their support for excessive environmental initiatives, as well as overly controlled state social programs just doesn’t fit with my right of centre economic views. (Plus I never liked there education platform of making everything needs based, such as eliminating the Millennium Scholarship programme. I would never have been able to go to Waterloo without winning it. You need to encourage scholastic achievement as well)
When I ask someone why they aren’t voting Liberal, they tell me that it’s because the Liberals are corrupt. When I ask for proof they tell me the Sponsorship Scandal. This is where I tell them that the Media has got to them. For one, if they were truly informed about the scandal, they will know that Judge Gomery was appointed my Martin to lead an inquiry, where it was found that Martin, his government, and any current MP had nothing to do with the scandal. People are forgetting that they are different governments. When the current Conservatives are equated to the Mulroney government, they call “Foul”. The Martin and Chretien governments are not the same. The Sponsorship scandal is dealt with ($200 million over 10 years when some was actually spent on useful things and the rest already returned is not even worth mentioning), the real scandal is the $200 million+ (I read somewhere an election costs roughly $200 million and this one is almost double the length of a regular election) spent on the forced election (forced by the Conservatives, I might add!).
That wasn’t so bad was it? To fill you people in on what’s going on in my life, I’ll be living in Waterloo for the next 3 and a half months, then moving back to Windsor where Nemak has graciously allowed me to return, for 4 months, then finishing off the year back in Waterloo at school. First time since I left for Waterloo that I have known my plans for a year ahead. For reading days (yeah…in Waterloo Engineering, for the near future at least, we only get 2 days instead of the whole week off) it looks like I’m going to go to the Canadian International AutoShow, and I’m excited for that. For my birthday I will be going to see the Lord of the Rings musical in Toronto, so I’m also excited for that. For now I’m just doing to focus on my classes, as I’m taking MODS, stats, ODEs, dynamics and digi logic. Seems I’ll never escape FBDs… Look! The weekend…too bad I’ve already caught myself up on the second season of Veronica Mars (A must watch!).
Currently Listening to: We Used To Be Friends – The Dandy Warhols
Random Wikipedia Article: Fallen Angel
I don’t support the removal of the Notwithstanding Clause. Graham Barclay felt similarly, which surprised me, since I can’t remember the last time I agreed with something he wrote.
Sure, right now the supreme court is dominated by liberal-appointed judges, so it would make sense for the Liberals to hand them more power. But what about down the road, after a few Conservative governments, when there’s more right-wing representation? Would you really want the courts overturning every house decision in that kind of situation?
The Charter exists only as it is interpreted by the judges. The entire point of the notwithstanding clause is that the elected officials (the house) have final say. It’s a key part of Canadian democracy, and I’m shocked that Martin would propose a removal of it.
I disagree with both you and Mr. Barclay. The Notwithstanding Clause is a provision who’s only use is to overide a Fundamental Freedom, Legal right, or Equality right. It was a last minute addition to please the provinces and has never even been used at the federal level (Martin only wants to ban it for Federal use). I believe that Canada should not have such a provision that allows Parlimentarians to overide rights of individuals. The Limitations clause is quite sufficient for creating acceptable legislation.
Mike, to me, the Canadian judicial system is non-partisan. There is a reason that despite all the other Conservative and Liberal governments, and ALL of the previous appointed judges, regardless of who appointed them, that we have not used the Notwithstanding clause. We don’t have the US judicial system, which is blatantly partisan. I accept every Supreme court decision, as I have faith in any federally appointed Supreme Court Judge that they will interpret law in the spirit of the Charter. They don’t interpret decisions in the spirit of the Notwithstanding clause.
The majority of Parliamentarians are not qualified to interpret law. An analogous situation is would you want a History major marking your ODEs exam? They may be able to be given guidelines to mark it, but they don’t understand the underlying process and won’t be able to properly mark it for all situations. A supreme court appointment is not taken lightly, and if you care to research the history of the court make-up, you will see that the last two Chief Justices were apointed by the PCs, and the make-up of the court was primarily PC until this decade.
I have faith in our judicial system to be non-partisan, respect the charter, and support inalienable rights. Our Supreme Court has done so, and will continue to, despite the make-up of the government. The Notwithstanding (in opposition to your statement) is NOT a key part of Canadian democracy. There is a reason the Federal government has never used it. It would strengthen our charter is it was barred.
The only problem I have with the liberals is their idea of banning all guns. It seems illogical to me and would only waste tax dollars. But I’m not exactly politically minded, so I could be horribly wrong. I figure the liberals are doing a good job, so another minority government it is.
Also I get to see LotR musical too! The parents got tickets for myself and Chris as a Christmas gift.
Well Kiri, the Liberals aren’t proposing to ban all guns. Only hand guns, as can be seen here. The whole logic behind that is that hand guns have no use for civilians (like hunting), and that many firearms crimes are due to hand guns. The issue related to guns that I take issue with is the Firearms registry. It clearly isn’t doing anything in it’s current form but waste money and needs to be relooked.
Considering the recent theft of a man’s sizeable gun collection from his house while he was called out on a fake emergency call, I’m starting a little more to see the logic behind stricter gun control, even though I am well aware that there are good reasons for owning guns.
My dad was saying that there’s a surprisingly big problem with cops having their houses burglars for their pieces.
I realise that gun control is about stopping domestic, not criminal, violence. Nevertheless, it does have the effect of levelling the playing field somewhat. If the rapist is armed, and I’m a tender young thing, all else considered, I think I’d like to be armed too. (but even just the possibility that I could be is something of a deterrent.)
As to the non-partisan judicial system… I don’t think it being non-patisan now is any kind of long-term guarantee. The fact that they *can* interpret the Charter however they like, and overturn laws on the grounds that they violate the Charter, is enough.
Whether or not the government has ever used the Notwithstanding Clause, it needs to be there… again, as a deterrent. The fact that the house CAN pull rank on the court encourages the court to NOT overturn laws just because they have an agenda towards a particular social perspective.