Jean Chretien

Liberal Party

Pierre Trudeau

Canadian Alliance

Liberal Response to CA's "Time for Change"

Date: OCT11-00
Source: Liberal Party web site
Keywords: taxation, envy, communism, gun control
Comment: On the Liberal Party of Canada website is a response to the release of the Canadian Alliance's election platform. You can currently see the entire statement at the above link. Several comments should be made to their response, not in defence of the Canadian Alliance but in defence of truth. (See commentary below.)
Posted: OCT11-00
Jean Chretien Index

The Liberal Response:

What the Reform Alliance was afraid to tell you about their "Time for Change" platform

OTTAWA - The Reform Alliance "Plan" is certainly a plan, say Liberal Party campaign co-chairs David Smith and Claudette Bradshaw - but it is a plan that will hand fat tax breaks to the rich, wreck Medicare and roll back the clock to leaner, meaner times.

"Democracy is about choices, and seldom have the choices been clearer," said Bradshaw. "One choice, the one offered up by the Reform Alliance tonight, is about putting tax cuts before health care.

Comment:If logic has anything to do with this statement, what it necessarily implies is that government bureaucrats are better able to make health care choices for all Canadians than we can make for ourselves. After all, if we are capable of making our own health care decisions, then having more money in our pockets as a result of tax cuts would give us a greater number of choices to consider for medical decisions.


It is about putting the rich before working families.

Comment: It's difficult to see this statement as anything but a malicious attempt to stir up class warfare. Are they trying to assert that rich people don't work or that they aren't part of families? Judging by current tax brackets, the liberals consider many middle class Canadians to be rich.


It is about putting greed before good government."

Comment: Normatively, profit and wealth in the private sector comes via hard work, not by way of greed, manifested as it tends to be, by corrupt activity. On the other hand, increased revenue for the government comes by way of legislating tax increases, that is, by way of coersion. Rarely is there legitimate justification for tax hikes. It is far more accurate, then, to identify revenue growth for the government as greed than profit by private sector entities. Such a statement sounds like a self-serving assertion from people committed to preserving their own employment whether or not doing so is a good decision.


* To pay for their tax "plan" - which would cost at least $20 billion annually - the Reform Alliance would need to slash, or eliminate, important programs for health, education, environmental safety and food inspection. Liberals note there isn't a country in the G-7 with a flat tax system - not one. The billion-dollar question remains: where will Mr. Day find the billions he needs to do what he promised tonight in Kitchener-Waterloo?

Comment: The real billion dollar question is why all the parties are making these promises that take them into jurisdictions that don't belong to the civil government in the first place, some of which take them into jurisdictions in defiance of the constitution.


* The Liberal government has dramatically lowered taxes - and will continue to do so, but not in a way that benefits only those with enough money to attend $25,000-a-table fundraisers on Bay Street. The Liberal tax plan is credible, and it benefits lower and middle-income earners best. The Liberal government delivers more than 20 per cent in tax cuts to Canadian families.

Comment: More liberal-sponsored class warfare. The liberals work best when they can separate Canadians into their own arbitrary classifications, then tailoring their political messages to these different "constituencies" in order to attract their support. Class warfare, perfected by the communists, is one of the more effective strategies because it caters to the popular vice of envy.


* The Reform Alliance "plan" would see the end of cash transfers from the federal government. This means Ottawa would lose its ability to enforce the standards Canadians want and need - and the creation of a patchwork of ten separate and unequal health care systems, where only the rich would benefit.

Comment: If true, that is good because it would move us back closer to a situation that honoured the constitution. Also, important is that such a situation would likely inspire competition between the provinces. It is well- established that competition in an open marketplace tends to lead to improved products and services at reduced prices. Those who argue that the realm of "health care" is an exception to this rule are unable to empirically demonstrate such a claim. If this happens, all Canadians will benefit, not just the "rich", whoever they are?


* Despite his claims about being concerned about public safety and crime, Stockwell Day - whose platform says he wants to "make our communities safe," on page 18 - has been a vocal opponent of gun control.

Comment: In light of the importance firearm ownership and possession play in the protection of citizens, particularly women, opposition to stringent gun registration schemes is an obligatory part of a commitment to real justice.


Jean Chretien Index

[Home] [Webmaster]