本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Moderator: Third question under the theme of social policy and it goes to you, Mr. Layton. We had a lot of talk in the campaign about values. Last month, the Supreme Court said that swingers' clubs were legal because no one was being harmed. The minority on the court disagreed. It said some Canadian social values deserve protection. Now, the specifics of that case aside, do you believe there are some Canadian social values that should be protected even if it means using the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution or are you with Mr. Martin who came out this evening and said he's not a fan of that clause anymore and wants to get rid of it?
Jack Layton: There may be some of those values that should be protected, for example, keeping our public health care system public and making sure that all Canadians have equal access to services across the country. Sometimes this could be a very important feature to be considered. And when courts, for example, in the Chaoulli decision open the door to the privatization and ultimately the dismantling of our public health care system, this is something that all Canadians should be very, very concerned about, and that's why we've suggested, the court, of course, was right to point out that people should have the care that they need, and they were raising a red flag there, but, of course, the fact is that the solution would be the types of proposals that we have recommended. So there's a case where a Canadian value, our public health care system, is one that does need to be addressed, and the court has sent up a signal. It's time now for Parliament to act. It's only unfortunate that you, Mr. Martin, were unwilling to respond when I offered you the specific recommendation to reinforce our health laws so we could stop for-profit medicine and you refused to act.
Moderator: He's going to get a chance to respond in a few minutes. Mr. Harper, same question to you. Any Canadian social values that should be protected even if it means using the notwithstanding clause?
Stephen Harper: First of all, let me talk about the decision in question. I think a lot of Canadians were troubled by that decision on swingers' clubs, and I will come back to that in a second in terms of values. I think it's important to recognize this was not a Charter decision made by the Supreme Court. This was an interpretation of a provision of the Criminal Code. In Canada, and the government of Canada can look at that provision and provide new legislation if it thinks there's a way to plug that loophole, and our government will take a look at what we can do with this and it in no way involves the notwithstanding clause. The question raises the important point which is that I think there is a danger in saying that the courts will always, regardless of the decision, will always be supreme. Just as I think there would be a danger in saying that Parliament and politicians would always be supreme regardless of their opinion. Our Charter and our Constitution sets up the dialogue where there's a balance between parliamentary supremacy and the supremacy of the courts, that's the balance I support.
Paul Martin: I think you're really getting down to it now. We are talking about values and you can't determine social policy unless you know really where people are coming from. Mr. Harper and I have a very, very deep chasm between us on this. Mr. Harper has described Canada as a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term. Mr. Harper spoke to a U.S. Conservative group and said that they were a light, an inspiration for canada. That's a sense -- that's speaking to values. He told the Americans that a country like Canada will never have a national identity as great as theirs. He told those same Americans that we were second rate. This is the issue that we've got to talk about. The basic value gap that exists between us, and quite simply, I don't believe that Canada was built on american conservative values. It was built on compassion, on generosity, on sharing and understanding. I guess the only thing I would say to Mr. Harper in this discussion is that America is our neighbour. It's not our nation, and we have our own set of values, and that's why we're so strong in this country, and they apply to the debate we're now having.
Moderator: I am going to give you a chance to respond, but first, Mr. Duceppe.
Gilles Duceppe: I would say that democracy is about choosing on what kind of value is based our society. I think it would be very dangerous to say one day for once and forever that value won't be changed. If it had been the case, imagine that homosexuality was a crime before 1968. I mean, there's something called evolution in life, and we have to take that into account, and I think the world is evolving, and that doesn't mean that you're accepting anything, but it means that you have certainly to have principles and offer those principles to the people, and the people are deciding. We're the one representing the population, and we have to face that situation, address those issues, and look at the situation in what people want, and things, I repeat, are evolving in our society. Moderator: Mr. Layton, 30 seconds to rebut anything you've heard so far. Jack Layton: I think what's key here is how can we make sure that the values of Canadians, working families, are represented in the decisions made by both government and the courts. And I think that what we need, and if i can be very blunt about it, is an option that recognizes that the needs of working families should be the first thing that get talked about in the House of Commons. And that's the way to address some of these issues. It's an ethical issue that we have child poverty rising, that pollution is rising. These are important ethical issues of values. We want to see action on those things. Moderator: Mr. Harper, I'm going to give you a chance to follow-up to Mr. Martin who accused you of representing the Republican views in Canada.
Stephen Harper: My forefathers have lived under the flag of this country for six generations. I have friends and relatives across this country and I have children growing up under the flag of this country, and my business, our family business, always operated flying the flag of this country. What I say to Mr. Martin is the values of ordinary Canadians are honesty, hard work, integrity and accountability, and your government, Mr. Martin, has not represented those values in parliament. Paul Martin: I never attacked Mr. Harper's patriotism. If he's prepared to say he never described Canada as a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term. He went to the U.S. conservative movement and said they were an inspiration to canada. If he didn't say that, if he never said that we'll never have a strong national identity as the United States, if Mr. Harper never said that we were second rate, I'll obviously take it back, but the fact is he is on record as having said that and that represents a value judgment, and a value judgment ...
Moderator: Mr. Layton.
Jack Layton: Briefly, both of these leaders have supported and taken us down the road, in the case of Mr. Martin, of ever and deeper integration with the United States, and the free trade agreement that isn't working is one that the Liberals were responsible for carrying through, and we've seen with softwood lumber, we've seen with some other issues that we're not treated fairly, Mr. Martin, on these trade deals. I've got to ask you, of course at election time, the language is over the top, but in between elections, you're actually much closer to Mr. Harper on this in terms of trade.
Gilles Duceppe: I would say on many issues, I see the Tories and Liberals on the same side. I just gave you the example, and we've been proposing that measure since 1990. When we had those votes, and the last time around, we lost by 14 because the cabinet took the same side as the Tories. Paul Martin voted just like Stephen Harper on that even if some members of his party voted with us. It's a shame. There is a situation where it's still in Quebec, but we don't have the same rule in Ottawa.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Jack Layton: There may be some of those values that should be protected, for example, keeping our public health care system public and making sure that all Canadians have equal access to services across the country. Sometimes this could be a very important feature to be considered. And when courts, for example, in the Chaoulli decision open the door to the privatization and ultimately the dismantling of our public health care system, this is something that all Canadians should be very, very concerned about, and that's why we've suggested, the court, of course, was right to point out that people should have the care that they need, and they were raising a red flag there, but, of course, the fact is that the solution would be the types of proposals that we have recommended. So there's a case where a Canadian value, our public health care system, is one that does need to be addressed, and the court has sent up a signal. It's time now for Parliament to act. It's only unfortunate that you, Mr. Martin, were unwilling to respond when I offered you the specific recommendation to reinforce our health laws so we could stop for-profit medicine and you refused to act.
Moderator: He's going to get a chance to respond in a few minutes. Mr. Harper, same question to you. Any Canadian social values that should be protected even if it means using the notwithstanding clause?
Stephen Harper: First of all, let me talk about the decision in question. I think a lot of Canadians were troubled by that decision on swingers' clubs, and I will come back to that in a second in terms of values. I think it's important to recognize this was not a Charter decision made by the Supreme Court. This was an interpretation of a provision of the Criminal Code. In Canada, and the government of Canada can look at that provision and provide new legislation if it thinks there's a way to plug that loophole, and our government will take a look at what we can do with this and it in no way involves the notwithstanding clause. The question raises the important point which is that I think there is a danger in saying that the courts will always, regardless of the decision, will always be supreme. Just as I think there would be a danger in saying that Parliament and politicians would always be supreme regardless of their opinion. Our Charter and our Constitution sets up the dialogue where there's a balance between parliamentary supremacy and the supremacy of the courts, that's the balance I support.
Paul Martin: I think you're really getting down to it now. We are talking about values and you can't determine social policy unless you know really where people are coming from. Mr. Harper and I have a very, very deep chasm between us on this. Mr. Harper has described Canada as a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term. Mr. Harper spoke to a U.S. Conservative group and said that they were a light, an inspiration for canada. That's a sense -- that's speaking to values. He told the Americans that a country like Canada will never have a national identity as great as theirs. He told those same Americans that we were second rate. This is the issue that we've got to talk about. The basic value gap that exists between us, and quite simply, I don't believe that Canada was built on american conservative values. It was built on compassion, on generosity, on sharing and understanding. I guess the only thing I would say to Mr. Harper in this discussion is that America is our neighbour. It's not our nation, and we have our own set of values, and that's why we're so strong in this country, and they apply to the debate we're now having.
Moderator: I am going to give you a chance to respond, but first, Mr. Duceppe.
Gilles Duceppe: I would say that democracy is about choosing on what kind of value is based our society. I think it would be very dangerous to say one day for once and forever that value won't be changed. If it had been the case, imagine that homosexuality was a crime before 1968. I mean, there's something called evolution in life, and we have to take that into account, and I think the world is evolving, and that doesn't mean that you're accepting anything, but it means that you have certainly to have principles and offer those principles to the people, and the people are deciding. We're the one representing the population, and we have to face that situation, address those issues, and look at the situation in what people want, and things, I repeat, are evolving in our society. Moderator: Mr. Layton, 30 seconds to rebut anything you've heard so far. Jack Layton: I think what's key here is how can we make sure that the values of Canadians, working families, are represented in the decisions made by both government and the courts. And I think that what we need, and if i can be very blunt about it, is an option that recognizes that the needs of working families should be the first thing that get talked about in the House of Commons. And that's the way to address some of these issues. It's an ethical issue that we have child poverty rising, that pollution is rising. These are important ethical issues of values. We want to see action on those things. Moderator: Mr. Harper, I'm going to give you a chance to follow-up to Mr. Martin who accused you of representing the Republican views in Canada.
Stephen Harper: My forefathers have lived under the flag of this country for six generations. I have friends and relatives across this country and I have children growing up under the flag of this country, and my business, our family business, always operated flying the flag of this country. What I say to Mr. Martin is the values of ordinary Canadians are honesty, hard work, integrity and accountability, and your government, Mr. Martin, has not represented those values in parliament. Paul Martin: I never attacked Mr. Harper's patriotism. If he's prepared to say he never described Canada as a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term. He went to the U.S. conservative movement and said they were an inspiration to canada. If he didn't say that, if he never said that we'll never have a strong national identity as the United States, if Mr. Harper never said that we were second rate, I'll obviously take it back, but the fact is he is on record as having said that and that represents a value judgment, and a value judgment ...
Moderator: Mr. Layton.
Jack Layton: Briefly, both of these leaders have supported and taken us down the road, in the case of Mr. Martin, of ever and deeper integration with the United States, and the free trade agreement that isn't working is one that the Liberals were responsible for carrying through, and we've seen with softwood lumber, we've seen with some other issues that we're not treated fairly, Mr. Martin, on these trade deals. I've got to ask you, of course at election time, the language is over the top, but in between elections, you're actually much closer to Mr. Harper on this in terms of trade.
Gilles Duceppe: I would say on many issues, I see the Tories and Liberals on the same side. I just gave you the example, and we've been proposing that measure since 1990. When we had those votes, and the last time around, we lost by 14 because the cabinet took the same side as the Tories. Paul Martin voted just like Stephen Harper on that even if some members of his party voted with us. It's a shame. There is a situation where it's still in Quebec, but we don't have the same rule in Ottawa.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net