Are Liberals Hypocrites?

Why are the members on this list (most Liberals in cabinet) voting for the SSM act tonight, when they voted against it in 99?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/cham ... htm#DIV548

I know the answer but I want to see if anybody else does?

Also does the House of commons need to follow what their constituents want or does the whip being played out by Martini and Layton tonight have anyplace in a democracy especially in a matter like this.

HA at least one isn't

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 50628.html

Good for him.

Canada's Unhappy Birthday

By David Frum
Posted: Tuesday, June 28, 2005

What a grim and troubling anniversary this coming July 1 will be.

Canada's national day does not celebrate a declaration of independence (like America's July 4), or a revolutionary upheaval (like France's Bastille Day) or a moment of national redemption (like Mexico's Cinco de Mayo).

July 1, 1867, was the day the British North America Act came into effect. In other words, Canada Day commemorates the creation of a system of government. That system of government is failing--and the failure is making Canadians poorer, less free and less secure.

The Canadian federal government created by the British North America Act has evolved into the least representative and least accountable national government in the advanced democratic world.

Unlike the presidents of France and the United States, Canada's chief executive is not elected by the people at large.

Unlike the prime ministers of Japan or Israel and even Great Britain, Canada's prime minister exercises total control of his government. He chooses his own cabinet and can dismiss members of the senior civil service at his pleasure.

Unlike the prime minister of Britain, Canada's prime minister controls a civil service and national police force politicized by long years of one-party rule. So long as the PM is a Liberal, he can count on the bureaucracy to obey almost any order, no matter how dubiously legal.

Unlike the U.S. president, a Canadian prime minister can enforce almost total secrecy upon his government.

Unlike the prime ministers of the Scandinavian countries, Canada's prime minister governs untroubled by a strong ethics commissioner who can decide whether or not he violated any rules.

Unlike the prime minister of Italy, he can enjoy the power of an absolute majority of the House of Commons with as little as 37% of the popular vote--as Jean Chretien did in 1993.

Unlike the prime minister of Australia or the chancellor of Germany, he need not worry about an elected and independent upper chamber defying his edicts.

Although it is true that the prime minister of Canada must contend with a dozen provincial and territorial chief executives who rule their domains as absolutely as he rules his, it is equally true that he has most of the taxing power--while they must bear the responsibility for running the programs that those taxes fund.

And as Canadians have just learned, the prime minister is no longer restrained even by the most basic and fundamental rule of Westminster-style government: the need to command a majority of the House of Commons. He can disregard a whole series of non-confidence votes--can deny a majority of the House the right even to propose non-confidence motions--and keep governing until he has reassembled a new majority by hook or by crook.

All told, the job of prime minister of Canada bears a much closer resemblance to that of, say, president of Mexico than to that of any of its First World counterparts.

Some, like my friend Andrew Coyne, hail the Charter of Rights as a corrective to the chief executive's unrepresentative, unaccountable power. In fact, the Charter has only aggravated the problem. It has enfeebled Canada's already feeble democracy, without placing any effective limits on the executive branch.

Indeed, one could argue that the Charter has actually enhanced the power of the prime minister. He chooses Canada's newly empowered judges at his sole discretion, in secret, and without public discussion or debate. By subsidizing some litigants (feminist and gay rights groups) and not others (religious or property rights groups), he influences the cases that come before the Supreme Court and thus the issues it is called upon to decide.

More ominously, the Charter as written and interpreted has tended to expand rather than constrain the power of the state. There will be an election soon--but Canadians have no Charter right to buy newspaper or radio ads to express their opinions. The Charter does not guarantee private property or the right to contract, and offers only wan protection to free speech and the free press.

Judicial power has not compensated for the absence of democratic accountability. Canada's government has grown ever more arrogant, arbitrary and corrupt. Canadian citizens in response have grown ever more passive and cynical. The Canadian economy and Canadian society have paid the price.

Over the past dozen years, Canadians' standard of living has plunged relative to their American neighbours'. Hundreds of thousands of the elderly and sick have waited longer and longer in pain and fear for necessary medical treatments. Canada's influence in the world has vanished, as its helicopters crash and its submarines burn. The courts have reinvented the definition of the family, accelerating the collapse of the Canadian birth rate far below replacement. Tens of millions of dollars have been stolen by operatives from the governing party, while the man who signed the cheques and now leads the party presents himself as an unknowing helpless victim of somebody else's scam.

On Friday, the federal Liberals responsible for this ongoing disaster will go home for the day. They will attend federally funded barbecues and preen before the television cameras. And they will stand before the voters they have silenced and give speeches proclaiming Canada the best governed and most successful country on Earth.

Well... even if David Frum thinks that Canada's government is failing, I'm still going to bake a cake and wave a flag this July 1st. Well, I'm also going to go in to work and get paid double time, but that's not the point.

Not any more than the Conservatives. When Harper needed the Bloc to try and bring down the government and force an election, he had no problem with their vote being legitimate or not. Now that they are voting to something he is opposed to, their vote is 'lacks legitimacy'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... /National/

I'd call that hypocrisy...just like the PCs switching from an anti free trade stance to pro free trade stance in the 1980s. Or Ralph Klein running for and winning the PC leadership after failing to beat Lawrence Decore for the Alberta Liberal party in the early 90s.

As far as I'm concerned, politics = hypocrisy. It doesn't matter which party you belong to...