# The Canadian Election Thread. (Or maybe not...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 21, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419 "2011-03-21T00:51:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 38
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/741 "2011-04-29T17:47:06Z")
I don’t think voters are stupid and ignorant; I am astonished by the short memories, however (especially blaming the Conservative government for creating budgets that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc _demanded_). I like to think my memory is a little longer, which is why I think all the parties are corrupt, and don’t think that one federal party is magically above the dirty dealings that all the other parties engage in. Would I _like_ my federal politicians to be honest and fair? Of course, but I’m not naive enough to think that any of them are. If they’re successful in a system that promotes corruption, they’ll most likely be corrupt. As for the NDP surge in Quebec, that sort of makes sense; the Bloc were successful on the basis of promising Quebecers the world, and the NDP have a very similar platform. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/742 "2011-04-29T17:54:51Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Believing that this caricature is an actual NDP or Liberal belief is not a valid point of view. It just indicates that your knowledge of what the other parties are all about is rather dated. Okay, believing that you can spend billions on new and upgraded social services with no possible means of paying for them other than on the backs of future generations or declaring bankruptcy isn’t a valid point of view. It is lunacy. There are ample examples around the world right now when this is done that even the most die hard socialist should take pause. But not in Canada. Somehow in Canada we think that money behaves differently for us. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/743 "2011-04-29T18:14:46Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Okay, believing that you can spend billions on new and upgraded social services with no possible means of paying for them other than on the backs of future generations or declaring bankruptcy isn’t a valid point of view. It is lunacy. There are ample examples around the world right now when this is done that even the most die hard socialist should take pause. But not in Canada. Somehow in Canada we think that money behaves differently for us. I realize it’s de rigueur to paint anyone to the right of the CPC as wanting to enlarge government and pour money every which way, leading to bankrupting the country, but this is simply an exaggeration. It’s this fear of free-spending lefties who are out of touch with “real” finances that is currently being spread around by Harper. Fear sells. Fear wins elections. Fear does not want to be confused by facts. This is not your father’s NDP. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/744 "2011-04-29T18:24:29Z")
I actually prefer Ed Broadbent! ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/745 "2011-04-29T18:25:10Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Well, I’m sure you know quite a bit more about Chalk River than I do, but I think I can say that Gary Lunn, MP with 2 whole years of experience as a lawyer knows a whole bunch less than the actual scientists involved. It’s hard to get the facts when federal scientists are [told what they can and cannot say](http://sciencewriters.ca/2011/04/21/whos-muzzling-canadian-scientists/) by a government concerned with ideology. From that link: > [@](#): > > While some in attendance seemed eager to blame Stephen Harper for this strict control, Stephenson pointed out that the situation pre-dates any particular government. What we are seeing, he explained, is the increased politicization of science and the growth of business management practices in government that dates back decades. As an example, he referenced the battle between politicians and scientists over the health of the Atlantic cod fisheries in the 1960s. This doesn’t seem to be a problem particular to the 2006-2011 Conservative government, if we go by your own cite. > [@](#): > > Yes, the Conservatives have (finally) acknowledged that Climate Change may have a factual basis, after many years of denial. If you wouldn’t mind humouring me, but I’m a stickler for facts in terms of this sort of thing; could you provide some evidence the Conservative Party of Canada, as an organization, ever took a stance of denial of global warming? When was this? In what platform? If you don’t think the Conservatives are prioritizing global warming enough that’s a valid viewpoint, but can we please get the facts straight? When did the Conservative Party deny that global warming was a real phenomenon? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/746 "2011-04-29T19:00:09Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > From that link: > This doesn’t seem to be a problem particular to the 2006-2011 Conservative government, if we go by your own cite. > > > [@](#): > > > > As an example, he referenced the battle between politicians and scientists over the health of the Atlantic cod fisheries in the 1960s. This is a particularly apt example of politicians ignoring scientists (and is interestingly one of the main reasons I avoided any possibility of working for the the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans) > [@RickJay](#): > > If you wouldn’t mind humouring me, but I’m a stickler for facts in terms of this sort of thing; could you provide some evidence the Conservative Party of Canada, as an organization, ever took a stance of denial of global warming? When was this? In what platform? > > If you don’t think the Conservatives are prioritizing global warming enough that’s a valid viewpoint, but can we please get the facts straight? When did the Conservative Party deny that global warming was a real phenomenon? Of course you know that the CPC have never come right out and put it in a platform policy statement, but in the past, Harper sure seemed to not understand what [science of Climate Change was all about](http://www.thestar.com/News/article/163817) > [@](#): > > Back in the 2004 election campaign, Harper said of climate change: “The science is still evolving.” > > And in September 2002, Harper said this when asked about the “greenhouse effect:” "It’s a scientific hypothesis, a controversial one and one that I think there is some preliminary evidence for. … The greenhouse effect is a “controversial scientific hypothesis”?? WTF? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/747 "2011-04-29T19:25:46Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > This is a particularly apt example of politicians ignoring scientists (and is interestingly one of the main reasons I avoided any possibility of working for the the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans) > > Of course you know that the CPC have never come right out and put it in a platform policy statement, but in the past, Harper sure seemed to not understand what > [science of Climate Change was all about](http://www.thestar.com/News/article/163817) > > The greenhouse effect is a “controversial scientific hypothesis”?? WTF? Wow, that was a deceptively chosen quote you just offered. Let’s quote Harper more fully from your own cite: > [@](#): > > In a year-end interview with CBC Newsworld’s Don Newman, Harper was asked yesterday whether his environmental views had evolved – specifically, whether he has ceased having doubts about the scientific evidence for global warming. > > “I don’t think that fairly represents my criticism,” Harper told Newman. “I think my criticism was principally that the (Kyoto climate-change accord) targets were unreachable, Canada had taken on the most onerous targets in the world; I saw no evidence that there was a plan to meet them. …\*\* If anything in the last four or five years, the evidence has strengthened that we have to take real and substantive action.” \*\* Bolding mine. That quote, from the same article, was three years newer than the one you chose. And in any event, Harper was right in 2002: the science was still evolving - and it still is, and always will be. That’s how science works. Over time, the evidence collected has made the climate change case stronger and stronger, and Harper acknowledged that as time went on. He was also right that the Kyoto Accord was unworkable, and that its benefits were negligible. You chose to spin it as though Harper was playing games and giving a wink and a nod to the climate change deniers. The article in full clearly shows that he believes it’s happening. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/748 "2011-04-29T20:06:08Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > You chose to spin it as though Harper was playing games and giving a wink and a nod to the climate change deniers. The article in full clearly shows that he believes it’s happening. In 2002, he did not even know what the fuck the greenhouse effect was, and said: > [@](#): > > “It’s a scientific hypothesis, a controversial one and one that I think there is some preliminary evidence for. … This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this (Kyoto accord) will do to their economy and lifestyle, when the benefits are negligible.” SOME PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE for the Greenhouse effect? I guess John Tyndal’s work on greenhouse gases in **1859** is just a little too “preliminary” for Harper. “fun” for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa? What the fuck was that supposed to mean? Harper was at that time anti-science. Perhaps he has learned more today. Or perhaps he just keeps his anti-science views better wrapped up. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/749 "2011-04-29T20:19:59Z")
Look, if you’re going to fairly quote the man, you can’t quote what he said in 2002, and leave out the fact that the same freaking article quoted him three years later saying that he was misinterpreted then, and that he believed that the evidence was that serious action needed to be taken. As for your 1859 paper - no one has disputed that there’s no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and clearly Harper was not denying that the earth enjoys a greenhouse effect that keeps it warm. The controversy has been specifically over whether man is significantly adding to it to the extent that major damage will be caused to the global economy and environment in the medium time frame. The fact that Harper was admitting in 2005 that the evidence was strong enough to warrant significant government action puts him on the ‘enlightened’ side of conservative politicians around the world, yet you’re trying to spin him as a climate change-denying, anti-science troglodyte by using selective quotation and ignoring statements he’s made that don’t fit the spin you’re trying to employ. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/750 "2011-04-29T20:45:03Z")
In 2002, Harper clearly did not understand the difference between the science of climate change (at that time global warming) and the science behind the greenhouse effect. He conflated the two. He may be more knowledgeable about science now, but his government has shown itself to be, at best, ambivalent about scientific knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/751 "2011-04-29T20:49:19Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Perhaps he has learned more today. Or perhaps he just keeps his anti-science views better wrapped up. EP, your quotes have been demonstrated to clearly not represent his position; you seem to have backed down from your claim that the Conservative Party denied the existence of global warming, or at least you have refused to support it without further comment; and it is at least clear beyond any doubt or question that the current position of the Conservative Party of Canada, with regards to this issue in 2011 - which is when the election this thread is about is taking place - is not one of denial of global warming. Might I suggest that your claim that there were “years of denial” of Global Warming by the CPC appears to be indisputably false, unless you have evidence to the contrary, and it certainly is not the case that there is any “denial” now, with the general election imminent. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/752 "2011-04-29T21:09:12Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > In 2002, Harper clearly did not understand the difference between the science of climate change (at that time global warming) and the science behind the greenhouse effect. He conflated the two.\ In 2002, did you? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/753 "2011-04-29T21:11:36Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > In 2002, did you? Yes actually, I did. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/754 "2011-04-29T21:14:30Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > EP, your quotes have been demonstrated to clearly not represent his position; you seem to have backed down from your claim that the Conservative Party denied the existence of global warming, or at least you have refused to support it without further comment; I actually said: They (Conservative party) think that the IPCC is composed entirely of stupid scientists, and that Conservative ideology must be correct in terms of global warming. So, a bit over the top, yes, I admit. The initial point was made when you pretty much stated that anyone who did not agree to the CPC platforms was stupid and gullible. ---
**Author:** ![bashere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@bashere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bashere)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2011, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/755 "2011-04-29T22:36:53Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Okay, believing that you can spend billions on new and upgraded social services with no possible means of paying for them other than on the backs of future generations or declaring bankruptcy isn’t a valid point of view. It is lunacy. There are ample examples around the world right now when this is done that even the most die hard socialist should take pause. But not in Canada. Somehow in Canada we think that money behaves differently for us. But there is no problem spending billions on new fighters and on prisons? That won’t bankrupt us, but the NDP will? A couple billion in oil subsidies are no problem, but spend that two billion on aid to seniors and the economy will crash? ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/756 "2011-04-30T00:38:23Z")
I thought you might be interested in this link… The [CBC News Platform Tracker](http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/platforms/infogrid/) - an interactive summary of the Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Green platforms. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/757 "2011-04-30T00:47:01Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > I don’t think voters are stupid and ignorant; I am astonished by the short memories, however (especially blaming the Conservative government for creating budgets that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc _demanded_). I can’t answer for everyone in the Liberal party, of course, but when I was thinking of an economic stimulus, I was thinking more along the lines of some of the necessary infrastructure projects that we’d been holding off on. I wasn’t particularly thinking of spending oodles of cash in Tony Clement’s riding to show them how grateful I was that they’d voted Conservative. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/758 "2011-04-30T02:27:29Z")
> [@bashere](#): > > But there is no problem spending billions on new fighters and on prisons? That won’t bankrupt us, but the NDP will? A couple billion in oil subsidies are no problem, but spend that two billion on aid to seniors and the economy will crash? Sooner or later we need to upgrade the military jets; we still haven’t received the Sea King replacements cancelled by Chretien in 19 fucking 93! New prisons? So fucking what? As our population increases, and as historic infrastructures decline, do you not think that providing suitable incarceration facilities would be required? Ah, fuck it. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/759 "2011-04-30T02:46:48Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > New prisons? So fucking what? As our population increases, and as historic infrastructures decline, do you not think that providing suitable incarceration facilities would be required? I’d agree with that, just as I’d agree that new suitable replacements are required for the aging infrastucture of roads, electricity, sewer, water, etc. I’d merely ask, where is it said that the new prisons are replacements and not additions? ---
**Author:** ![bashere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@bashere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bashere)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2011, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/760 "2011-04-30T02:56:16Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Sooner or later we need to upgrade the military jets; we still haven’t received the Sea King replacements cancelled by Chretien in 19 fucking 93! Sure. Right now, according to Harper, it is a time for austerity. That means “later”. Or he’s lying, and perhaps isn’t a good choice for prime minister. > [@](#): > > New prisons? So fucking what? So, that’s fucking money that could be better used for other fucking things, that’s So Fucking What. However, I now have a response to conservatives with concerns about the NDPs budget - so fucking what? > [@](#): > > As our population increases, and as historic infrastructures decline, do you not think that providing suitable incarceration facilities would be required? As you are almost certainly aware, Harper has passed or is passing legislation that will increase the prison population out of proportion with the population growth. This requires (not, as your post indicates, population growth, but actual changes to crime bills) more fucking prisons. Now, you might happily say “so fucking what” as Harper uses fear mongering to buy votes (what was stockwell’s quote? There is a lot of crime, it’s just not reported?), and then builds prisons in Northern Ontario to buy votes there, but many other people don’t. They are prepared to risk the almost certain armaggedeon of an NDP minority in the hope that money isn’t wasted on stupid things, which will happen if Harper gets his majority. > [@](#): > > Ah, fuck it. Don’t tell me, I know this one. Harper being asked his sixth question of the day? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419.md?page=39)