|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE LIBERALS MAKE FOOLS OF CANADIANS
It is apparent that the Liberal government
believed Canadians are just simple folk who are gullible enough
to swallow anything. For instance:
- Judicial Appointments
Prime Minister Paul Martin has adamantly insisted
that he wants Parliamentary input in the appointment of Supreme
Court of Canada judges.
The truth, however, was exposed by Foreign
Affairs Minister Bill Graham on February 2, 2004, when he
disclosed, at a private briefing that REAL Women attended,
that a select committee of hand-picked elites will be making
a list of prospective judges to present to the Prime Minister
for his selection, with no Parliamentary input at all. (See
REALity, May/June 2004, p.1.)
By a miraculous coincidence, the Liberal-dominated
House of Commons Justice Committee made exactly that same
recommendation. This would have placed Mr. Martin, we presume,
in a position to claim that he has an obligation, contrary
to his personal views, to follow the Justice Committee's recommendation.
The Conservative and NDP members, and the Bloc Quebecois,
all submitted minority reports which differed considerably
from those of the dominant Liberal committee members. It's
no surprise that the minority reports were ignored.
- Same-sex Marriage
In order to make the issue more palatable
to Canadians, the Liberal spin on same-sex marriage supposedly
pretends that same-sex marriage is something other than it
is.
The Justice Department hired consultants,
Sage Research Associates of Mississauga, Ontario, which advised
the Liberal government to hedge on the word "marriage"
during the election 2004 campaign. Instead, the unsuspecting
public was to be told that it is only "civil marriage"
that is under discussion. This way, it was thought that the
very unintelligent public would think that homosexuals do
not actively want to wed in churches at all, but only want
civil unions. Moreover, the word "civil marriage"
would also prevent "confusion" on the part of those
members of the public that regard marriage as a religious
institution. Pastors across the country have already been
approached by same-sex couples requesting to be married in
their churches, and have been asked as well to provide the
use of the church's facilities to celebrate the happy event
afterwards. It is only a matter of time before the inevitable
occurs when complaints are laid against pastors and churches
with the homosexuals' advocate, the Human Rights Commission.
This detail, however, is politely ignored.
By the way, Sage Consultants have been used
before by the Justice Department with regard to the politically
sensitive homosexual issue. In 1999, the Justice Department
consulted this firm to devise public relations tricks and
language to make same-sex benefits palatable to Canadians.
(See REALity, March/April 1999, p.7.) The Liberals at that
time thought it worked well. So why not try it again? After
all, it is only the taxpayers' money they are spending on
these consultants.
- National Child Care Plan
During the election campaign, Mr. Martin announced
that his Liberal party, if elected, would establish over a
five-year period a $5 billion national day care plan similar
to Quebec's $7 a day program open to all parents of all incomes.
The problem is that, back in 1986, a previous
federal government (this time Conservative) conducted an extensive
study of a proposed national day care plan, and concluded
that such a plan would cost the Canadian taxpayer $11.6 billion
annually.
In making his announcement, Mr. Martin stated
that the Quebec program was his inspiration for this project.
Quebec currently pays $1.4 billion a year to run its program.
Although the parents pay only $7 a day, the cost to the government
is $40 per day. Day care is Quebec's third largest expenditure
after health and education. The program is also unfair because
it only benefits parents who choose to put their children
in substitute care. Also, it is inequitable because the Quebec
child care plan tends to benefit two-income families with
middle to upper incomes. Prior to this program, families with
an income of less than $40,000 per year were actually better
off because of the previous system of tax credits, which were
more generous to lower income parents. Moreover, the ever-expanding
costs of child care in Quebec are driven almost entirely by
union demands for ever-expanding salaries for unionized day
care workers. In the past three years, day care wages in Quebec
have risen by 40%.
Quebec Premier Jean Charest is desperately
wrestling to change Quebec's child care plan because his government
is drowning in debt. In addition, the day care program is
preventing the government from developing other needed social
programs.
Even the Globe and Mail, that staunch promoter
of "progressive" values on homosexuality, abortion,
same-sex marriage, etc., could not stomach the Liberal national
day care plan. It stated in an editorial (June 4, 2004):
With many parents out working, society has
an interest in seeing young children get the best care possible.
But is an expensive, bureaucratic, national program the best
way to do it? Would it not be better to provide parents with
more money to find their own quality children care by easing
their tax burden? And what about parents who decide that at
least one of them should stay at home to care for the kids?
Wouldn't it be better to have a system that helps all parents
who need help raising a family?
All this is mere detail, however, as it is
the spin that counts.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
