Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Thankful for medical marijuana | Main | What we have here is a failure to communicate »

Friday, November 07, 2008

Leaked CPC Policy resolutions

National Newswatch has posted leaked resolutions for the Conservatives' upcoming convention.

A quick scan shows some good policy proposals, some very bad ones, and some that are just interesting. I wrote up an overview for those not intereted in scanning the proposals that can be augmented by those who actually read them.

The best, in the order I found them:

Some of the worst (again, ordered as I found them):

Other proposals of note:

Props to Brandon-Souris who had a lot of great proposals.

Could be better, could be worse. I have low expectations of the CPC, though, so I'd be interested to hear what party supporters (and non-supporters, and other apathetics, actually) think.

Posted by Janet Neilson on November 7, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535d9dcb3970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Leaked CPC Policy resolutions:

Comments

I for one am glad the CPC might finally take a stand against polygamy.

Was that a compromise struck between the "we-hate- homos" coalition and the "gay-people-just-sort-of-make-us-comfortable" coalition?

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-07 11:20:48 AM

I'm glad to see Section 13 on the agenda. That should elicit a strong debate...one that the party would rather not have, I'm sure.

Terrence -- you're not being fair to those who hold social conservative views. Many do so because they believe the traditional family is the foundation of social order and -- for some -- a balwark against tyranny.

I don't think we can dismiss the value that the institution of family offers society. Maybe this institution can be more dynamic without breaking -- but there are good arguments to the contrary, and given what's at stake, caution is the best approach.

That being said, I would not coerce any particular social outcome -- or prohibit polygamy, the issue in question. But I don't think those who oppose polygamy do so out of hatred, but rather out of a genuine concern that we're upsetting some kind of social balance and perhaps even the natural order of things.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-07 11:37:26 AM

I haven't had a chance to read everything yet. Are they still asking to open the constitution to enshrine private property rights? Noble but hopeless, if so.

Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-11-07 11:42:28 AM

Some of the worst (again, ordered as I found them):

establishing a National Food Policy with labelling, testing, etc. requirements,
Posted by Janet Neilson on November 7, 2008

Excellent idea. I like to know what I'm eating, what it consists of and where it came from. There should be a "libertarian" exception though. This would allow card carrying members of the Libertarian Party of Canada to buy tainted food from China for themselves and their pets.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-07 11:46:36 AM

Matthew,

I'm being fair to social conservatives to the extent that they never seem to offer any evidence for the kind of dire effects that would result from the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Moreover, the _kind_ of dire effects they envisage as the result of same-sex marriage all involve lots of straight people suddenly behaving very irrationally (no longer having kids, ignoring tax incentives for marriage, etc.)

Things are not falling apart in Mass. because of the recognition of same-sex marriage. They did not fall apart in California prior to Proposition 8. They're not falling apart in Connecticut. They are kind of falling apart in Canada, but not because of same-sex marriage.

Caution when the evidence is ambivalent is one thing. But some conservatives seem to be invoking the equivalent of the precautionary principle in their reaction to gay marriage. The precautionary principle isn't a good guide to policy when it comes to global warming, and it isn't a good guide here.

And my snippy remark about a compromise came from viewing the actual document, in which (iv) is entirely crossed out, with the opposition to polygamy seemingly inserted as some kind of substitute (v).

You can see a screenshot of that here:

http://tinyurl.com/5npfs3

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-07 11:50:00 AM

BCL,

Thanks for that screen shot by the way.

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-07 11:52:00 AM

Matthew,

I agree that it is good to see section 13 on the chopping block. But your views on marrige are nonsense. (1) Whether or not the government recognizes gay marriage, gay couples will live together as a family and will have children, too. So even if the worry about "the foundation of social order and -- for some -- a balwark against tyranny" were valid, restricting gay marriage will do nothing to make "traditional" families more common and "non-traditional" ones less common. (2) Gay marriage has been around for several years in many countries. The Netherlands has had it for a decade. Furthermore, gay parents have had kids - naturally and by adoption - for many years. Any signs of the social apocalypse coming yet? I didn't think so. "Caution" is just another excuse for extending bigotry. Bold experiments like the abolition of slavery and extending the vote to women also seemed imprudent and something we should be cautious about ... to racists and sexists, anyway. So that homophobes want to be "cautious" is understandable, but that don't make it right.


Terrence,

Are you joking about polygamy? I would have thought that someone who believed in freedom would not want to put people in jail when they freely choose to share their lives with more than one other person. Yes, there should be laws that protect people from forced marriage, abusive spouces, and other violations of rights, but if three people (or more) want to live together as a married group, should the government be allowed to say they can't? Even if you think there is good reason not to have government recognize multiple marriages, surely you think the criminalization of bigamy is wrong, right?

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-11-07 11:56:19 AM

FC,

Yes, I was being sarcastic :-).

Sorry that didn't come through. I thought my remarks afterwards about the "we-hate-homos" coalition might have made it clearer.

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-07 12:02:49 PM

Stig, you put too much faith in government food inspection. Food inspections will be done by people. People make mistakes no matter what company or government they work for. But a good inspection company will have a reputation to protect and will do just that. People will learn who to trust and who not to.

Goverment inspection agencies do not need to worry about profit so are not as motivated to do the right thing. Compared to good companies at least.

In the end, I trust you to know who to buy from to ensure you are getting healthy food. Private inspectors know how inspect for all kinds of things, I'm sure, including melamine.

Posted by: TM | 2008-11-07 12:27:18 PM

Terrence and Fact Check,

First, I wasn't really expressing my own views on marriage. I was arguing that social conservatives are motivated by things other than hate and fear with respect to their desire to see the traditional family preserved, which was suggested by Terrence.

Family is an important institutions, and while institutions change over time, that change should be organic and not engineered by the state for political gain.

You argue that gay marriage has so far not had any negative impact on the institution of family or society in general -- but your time frames are very, very short -- and, of course, it's hard to prove cause and effect when it comes to social problems.

If marriage is going to change at all, it should change organically to meet the changing needs of society. What we are see now is social engineering for political gain without regard for, or understanding of, the role the institutions of marriage and family play in society – this lack or regard and understanding is largely because the role of these institutions have been supplanted by the state, namely aspects of child care, welfare, healthcare, etc.

Get the state out of the business of marriage, create a level tax playing field as far as marriage and children are concerned, and let the market of ideas sort things out.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-07 12:28:17 PM

Matthew,

I agree the best solution is to get the government out of the marriage business entirely.

But I also accept that this isn't going to happen any time soon. The question, then, is whether current law is being applied fairly and rationally.

When the law discriminates against a certain class of people, there has to be some reason for it. As I see it, the dire scenarios conservatives envision are their attempts to provide such reasons. And they're reasons, all right, just not very good ones.

For example, when I debated Frank Turek on the radio about gay marriage, he suggested that once gay marriage is legally recognized, straight people will just stop getting married. Then they'll have children out of wedlock, and pretty soon society will be collapsing around our ears.

My response came in two points:
1. There's no evidence that gay marriage will make the problem of out-of-wedlock births worse than it already is.

2. If it's bad to have a kid out of wedlock, then the responsibility for that rests with the people who make that choice -- i.e. the straight people Turek thinks will abandon the tax incentives and other benefits of marriage just as soon as John and Jimmy get to tie the knot.

It seems manifestly unfair -- not just on libertarian grounds -- to withhold the benefits of marriage from a class of people because Frank Turek thinks straight people are so stupid they'll stop getting married if those benefits get extended to gay couples.

Indeed, I see my argument to be on par with the one you made about Bill C-10: in the best world, the government wouldn't give subsidies to any filmmakers. But if the government is going to hand out benefits, it had better do so in a fair and rational manner.

Best,

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-11-07 12:54:41 PM

I'll respond at length when I get a chance, Terrrence, because this is an intersting debate -- and so was your interview with Frank Turek.

For know I'll just "say" that I hope the marriage debate gives social conservatives cause to rethink their desire to see their favourite institutions backed by the state.

Exclusion is an important market force for preserving the integrity of any institution, but, as you point out, the state can not fairly exclude citizens from access to government services, except under very narrowly defined circumstances.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-07 1:12:27 PM

The Stig,

Apart from containing an obviously ridiculous statement that really retracts from what's a very common argument that needs to be addressed, your support of government mandated and controlled food testing is flawed.

It's already illegal to sell tainted food, not to mention extremely bad for business. I do not believe you could have easily bribed the CEO of Maple Leaf to ignore testing requirements for his company.

I do believe it's far more likely that you could bribe a bureaucrat with no real stake in the matter to look the other way when the burdens of regulation are too high for your company and that his union would save his job after he made an "honest mistake." There is also the possibility that regulators having no stake in the safety of the products being tested could result in a situation similar to the Walkerton water contamination where the bureaucrat responsible simply isn't qualified or doesn't care.

I would also be concerned that once the government gets into the testing business that we could end up with ridiculous laws like the one in the states prohibiting cattle farmers from testing their own livestock for mad cow.

Posted by: Janet | 2008-11-07 1:17:39 PM

It's already illegal to sell tainted food,
Posted by: Janet | 7-Nov-08 1:17:39 PM

Provided that you know it's tainted.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2007-11-18-private-labs-food-safety_N.htm

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-07 1:38:48 PM

Matthew,

Thanks for noting that the family can act as a source of social stability and a bulwark against state power.

I agree with you that the state should get out of the business of defining marriage, and into the business of simply protecting spousal contracts between consenting adults.

"If marriage is going to change at all, it should change organically to meet the changing needs of society. What we are see now is social engineering for political gain without regard for, or understanding of, the role the institutions of marriage and family play in society – this lack or regard and understanding is largely because the role of these institutions have been supplanted by the state, namely aspects of child care, welfare, healthcare, etc."

Cohabiting gay couples and polygamous families have been around a long time in Canada, especially in the first case, social norms wrt to them have changed.
Could you deny that Muslim of Mormon fundamentalist polygamy are organic practices, and not the result social engineering by the state? If so, then the elimination of bigamy laws, like those against sodomy, would be following changes in society and in recognition of reality, not an attempt to transform society.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-11-07 1:43:29 PM

Could you deny that Muslim of Mormon fundamentalist polygamy are organic practices,
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 7-Nov-08 1:43:29 PM

How many muslims are the result of Mormon fundamentalist polygamy?

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-07 1:48:42 PM

Kalim:

Of course prohibitions against sodomy and polygamy distort the organic process of social change, and should be repealed -- but so do laws that prohibit the private exclusion of gays and polygamists, which is why these laws should also be repealed.

Let marriage and family serve the real needs of society -- and not the manufactured interests of politicians and state.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-11-07 1:57:52 PM

How about a trade? The gays can move up to Canada where even the right rolls over for the gay agenda(gay marriage, gay hate crime laws, gay adoption, teaching of homosexuality in schools, gays in military). The socially conservative Canadians can move down to the U.S. where social conservatism is actually respected. Social conservatism was destroyed in Canada in the 1960's. Pearson stopped the death penalty, the Quiet Revolution destroyed the Quebec family structure, and Trudeau(with John Turner's help) did the rest in the 1969 crime omnibus bill. In his 1969 bill, Trudeau legalized abortion, legitimized homosexuality, and pushed significant gun control restrictions. He was aided by a coward of a conservative leader named Stansfield who voted for these measures despite the opposition of most of his party(43 of 55 PC's said no). Since then, the conservatives under cowardly leaders like Stansfield, Clark, and Mulroney have given in to the liberals and ndp on virtually every policy. They voted against the death penalty, left abortion legal, and stood by as God was removed from the public square. The only things left are to declare Canada a godless country, file a human rights complaint against Harper for saying "God bless Canada". and to force Catholic and evangelical churches to marry gays(lets see how many libertarians stand up for the churches on this issue). All this occurred against the wishes of large numbers of Canadians whose beliefs were belittled by the leaders of all parlimentary parties except the Social Credit. Libertarian-oriented Canadians complained about Trudeau's economic policies but never extended a hand to social conservatives to counter him. Instead, they joined in belittling conservatives and stood by as Trudeau destroyed Judeo-Christian values in this country. The current libertarian response is that social conservatives are illogical and uneducated white trash(I'll place my degrees against yours any day) who shouldn't utter their views in the public square. Instead, we should keep our views limited to church and family members while Canadians are simply given the option of libertarianism vs socialism(Liberal and NDP policy platform). Guess what? A successful long-term anti-socialist coalition involves libertarians accepting social conservatives as equal coalition partners. It involves policies being pushed that appeal to the bases of both groups. Social conservatives will support the top 6 ideas mentioned plus the 5 of note that were also mentioned. Also, we will support property ownership being a charter recognized right, place bans on pork barrel spending, support charter schools naationwide and oppose all gun control initiatives(ban registry, oppose handgun ban, support concealed carry laws, and support a Canadian version of the Castle Doctrine). We also support your positions on parlimentary free votes and public referendums. All we want are the following, 1.) the reintroduction of the death penalty through a nationwide referendum(let the people not elitist politicians decide), 2.) support for laws that prevent sex offenders from using computers to go after underage children, 3.) implementation of a 3-strike law for violent offenders(life sentence with no parole), 4.) support for stronger anti-gang sentencing, 5.) funding restrictions on abortion(I would prefer to limit abortion to cases of life, rape, and incest), 6.) no further attempts to legalize marijuana or other drug substances, 7.) the right of local school districts to permit students to have a moment of silence at the beginning of the day(students can use this moment to pray or do whatever else they want), 8.)the right of parents to remove their children from classes or assemblies discussing the topic of homosexuality. Finally, we want laws stating that churches and other religious institutions are under no obligation to allow gay marriages or hire openly gay employees if the behavior is contrary to that church's teaching. It is by mutual respect and the formation of a tight coalition that we can achieve many of our goals(your 15 and my 9). If not, the liberals will come back to power and libertarians will have achieved none of these 15 objectives.

Posted by: David | 2008-11-07 10:35:06 PM

TM
Goverment inspection agencies do not need to worry about profit so are not as motivated....

Government inspection agents are also not motivated by employer pressure or greed , so have nothing to lose by telling the truth. Letting the fox guard the henhouse has not worked out too well.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-11-07 11:47:53 PM

peterj- I think the problem lies in workers being able to recognise a lazy or incompetent inspector. If the worker adopts poor hygenic practices and is not caught by the inspector, those practices will continue until a major problem occurs. The owners must have their own inspectors in place to preclude this from happening. I am well aware of the presence of greed and its consequences but I also know that the best protection is an employer who wants to stay in business.

Posted by: DML | 2008-11-08 12:07:56 AM

DML
"employer who wants to stay in business".
Very true...but what the employer wants and what the employees do can be two diferent things. Much depends on whether or not they like the management.Have been witness to this. In a huge corporation such as Maple Leaf there will be employees that hate going to work in the morning and it will show up in their attitude.Their own inspectors could well be part of this group. There are far too many managers that have never learned the old adage "treat your employees as you would like to be treated if the position was reversed". I would much rather have a government inspector who is at arms length from the company and neutral in feelings.

Posted by: peterj | 2008-11-08 1:11:04 AM

"Was that a compromise struck between the "we-hate- homos" coalition and the "gay-people-just-sort-of-make-us-comfortable" coalition?"

Is Terrence Watson a pedophile or is he just fond of little boys?

If I wanted to read this kind of crap I'd visit the Toronto Star or rabble. Oh well, at least you're showing your true radical left wing colours.

BTW, Prop 8 passed only because blacks and latinos overwhelmingly supported it. When you hate socons, it's really blacks and latinos that you hate. So congratulations; in addition to being a pedophile (ha! kidding!) you're also now a racist (not kidding). And anti-immigrant.

Posted by: Jokey | 2008-11-08 5:04:13 AM

Excellent idea. I like to know what I'm eating, what it consists of and where it came from. There should be a "libertarian" exception though. This would allow card carrying members of the Libertarian Party of Canada to buy tainted food from China for themselves and their pets.

Posted by: The Stig | 7-Nov-08 11:46:36 AM


Again and as usual, totally twisted comments from Herr Stigmann. Libertarians believe in the rights to know whats in the can as you do Herr Feuhrer.
You obviously have absolutely no idea whatsoever what Liberty is.

Posted by: JC | 2008-11-08 6:14:49 AM

Libertarians believe in the rights to know whats in the can as you do Herr Feuhrer.
Posted by: JC | 8-Nov-08 6:14:49 AM

Herr Feuhrer. Oh very good. Don't you mean Fuhrer?

You obviously have absolutely no idea whatsoever what Liberty is.
Posted by: JC | 8-Nov-08 6:14:49 AM

Only libertarians like you know what liberty is. Bwahahahahahaha

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-08 12:51:35 PM

Stig, the irony is as Janet has point out that the government already monitors, inspects and controls to the extreme the food you eat but it did not prevent dangerous food being sold. More government interference in the food industry will not ensure safe food for you or anyone else. But like so many, you prefer to place your faith and trust in the government rather than personal responsibility. Clearly in a world without government meddling, it is not in the interest of a store to sell tainted or contaminated food. To do so knowingly is a criminal offence to say nothing to the risk of losing business. I also note that you are as obsessed with libertarians as another person who often comments on this blog is with Ontario and Toronto white people.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-11-08 1:43:02 PM

Janet, is this:

"Conservative Government will restore democratic accountability in the House of Commons by
allowing free votes. A Conservative Government will make most votes free. On issues of
moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply held personal convictions among individual Party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultation with their constituents and to vote freely."

Really a case of: "weakening of the language requiring the party to support free votes in Parliament"?

I don't know what the current party policy is, but it seems as though the purpose of the resolution is to allow more free votes, not less. What am I missing?

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-11-08 2:22:07 PM

Stig, the irony is as Janet has point out that the government already monitors, inspects and controls to the extreme the food you eat but it did not prevent dangerous food being sold.
Posted by: Alain | 8-Nov-08 1:43:02 PM

And Alain you will see if you had read the link I posted that the government in this country and the US do not monitor food quality to the extreme but largely rely upon private laboratories who are being paid by the processor or importer to do the testing. Perhaps a much better example is the airline industry. Stringent government testing and certification of aircraft, pilots, flight crews and maintenance have given this country and the West the safest air system in the world. The regulations have been so successful that even minor incidents are seen as out of the ordinary. When government regulation was relaxed you end up with Valujet.

I also note that you are as obsessed with libertarians..............
Posted by: Alain | 8-Nov-08 1:43:02 PM

Hardly. I merely like to challenge their assertions. I view Libertarians as Utopians, at times interesting but largely irrelevant.

Posted by: The Stig | 2008-11-08 3:14:04 PM

I agree with virtually all of them. Criminals have the right to a fair hearing, but that doesn't have to mean the incredible leniency they've been shown over the last forty years. Now you have to move all of Heaven and half of Hell just to convict a man, and the judges have become such pansies that even multiple convictions for industrial-sized grow ops are unlikely to result in prison time. Even killing a person is unlikely to get you more than eighteen months, except in those rare cases where the Crown is inclined to go the distance and actually convict you of murder.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 6:09:56 PM

Terrence wrote: “I'm being fair to social conservatives to the extent that they never seem to offer any evidence for the kind of dire effects that would result from the legal recognition of same-sex marriage…”

Like hell. In another blog you talk of justified resentment, justified hostility, righteous anger, to those who disagree with you on this issue. I don’t think you’d recognize fairness if it bit you on the balls, farted, and flew out the window.

Terrence wrote: “The precautionary principle isn't a good guide to policy when it comes to global warming, and it isn't a good guide here.”

It’s the social engineers who want to change both the law and what society has always accepted, Terrence. The burden of proof lies with you, not with us.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-08 6:13:19 PM

Stig, it remains that the CFIA has the mandate and responsibility for food safety and hiring more government employees to do the job changes nothing. There remains a lack of direct accountability when the government runs the show. If private industry has the mandate and responsibility to ensure food safety, you have direct accountability. Yes, a food chain may use a private laboratory but if anything goes wrong the food chain is responsible and accountable and by extension will go after the private laboratory. The reason is simple. Failure to do otherwise would result in either charges of criminal negligence and/or loss of customers.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-11-08 6:29:21 PM


The comments to this entry are closed.