Leaderboard

The most likely explanation for the extinction is a giant meteor.

Whenever I see an article in the news about those taxpayer-funded mailings from MPs that fill our mailboxes with partisan propaganda, I see the same types of responses from Conservative supporters: 1) All parties do it. 2) Anecdotal stories about receiving mailings from opposition MPs. 3) Claiming that the mailings aren't partisan and are just sent out to keep constituents informed. Response #1 is of course true, but it does not address the degree to which the various parties use or abuse this privilege. Response #2 may also be true, but tells us little about the overall picture. Response #3 usually comes from those sending-out the mailings or their supporters. On Wednesday, MP expense figures for the fiscal year 2008-2009 were made available on the web site of the Parliament of Canada: http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/GeneraLInformation/MembersExpenses-2008-2009-e.pdf The 2008-2009 expense figures show that a total of $10,062,553 was spent by MPs on these mailings, which come under the heading "Printing". Of this, Conservative MPs were responsible for $6,255,368 or 62% of total spending on these mailings. Liberal MPs spent $1,591,684 (15.8%). Bloc MPs spent $1,092,690 (10.9%). NDP MPs spent $1,100,016 (10.9%). Independent MPs spent $22,801 (0.2%). Conservative MPs held only 41.2% of the seats in the House of Commons in the first part of the fiscal year and 46.4% of seats after the election. If those figures don't convince you that Conservative MPs are disproportionately (ab)using these mailings, consider these figures: Of the MPs with the highest "Printing" expenses, 61 out of the top 65 are Conservatives. The average spending on these mailings by Conservative MPs was $38,853.22. The average for the rest of the MPs was $17,874.14. If you consider the average spending on "Printing" of only the MPs who served for the full fiscal year the disparity is even greater: $49,415.56 for Conservative MPs vs. $22,438.18 for all other MPs.

We saw this story on local news a few days ago and it was on Global National tonight. The exhibit is on display until tomorrow afternoon. We went and saw it yesterday. There are thirty six portraits as part of the school's Remembrance Day exhibition. Other displays also included collages of personal correspondence by WWI and WWII vets reproduced on paper that they had artificially aged together with personal photos and another of prints describing students personal impressions. A hanging sculpture made of paper planes made from reproduced aged newspapers from the World Wars. Sculptures including a row of sixteen pairs of worn empty boots and another of battered old rusted helmets. All made out of paper mache. Very realistic, you had to touch them to make sure they weren't real. We walked out dumbstruck by the emotional capital these kids had invested in this project and the talent there is in that school. Despite the terrible subject, it really gave us a good feeling about this generation . Here is the Link to the video. For some reason the link always comes up on the Canada page. Click Top Stories, the video is on that page.

Reputation ratings could lead to more partisanship, group behavior and cliques IMO. MapleLeafWeb is one forum where a community value of quality posting seems to be emerging, and I would hate to see that impacted by 'reputations' which could merely be popularity contests.

First and foremost, I resent anyone forcing me to buy something that there's no getting around. Some have compared it to mandatory vehicle insurance, but one can choose not to have a vehicle. So I object to mandatory insurance, especially since I will be at the mercy of the cost. To force someone to have insurance, and then fine them if they don't, is ludicrous; and I see the state forcing something like that as going over the line. If people are going to have "forced coverage," then it should come out of our taxes same as Social Security, Education, etc.

No, I'm still waiting. Eight minutes before I first asked you to back up your accusation, you replied to another poster with: "Next target for you... the handgun registry? Another waste of money?" That would indicate that you know very well the government is talking about long guns. Quit being a troll.

I guess we are destined to go around in circles on this one. You make your assumptions, I'll make mine. Why is it odd that some conservatives question what other conservatives do? Don't liberals ever do that? Governments do that on a daily basis. What does it have to do with this? There always is. No doubt you were but I don't believe I was one of them. I did hope Harper would stick to the principle however, ill advised as it was. Disappointing. No it isn't violating the law, just abusing the public trust for its own ends. Majorities always have an excuse why the country "needs" an election. It is always bullshit. Unfortunately true but we all have things we would like to see changed.

Waited a few weeks to comment on the CBC's revamp in their news department. The National News with Peter Mansbridge was mocked for the absence of the desk. They tried this back in the Peter Kent days. It was silly then as well. Looks like they have stopped Peter from pacing around out there. I am still assessing the main news. I think the CBC News website has improved. The CTV website has become worse and from what I have heard there have been a few complaints about the change. Haven't noticed a difference in the radio news aside from the fact that they changed the opening music again. I can't remember what they call those opening notes. Anyone remember? The Politics show is interesting. I will wait a bit to assess it more. My impression of Solomon prior to his being named was that he might not be evenhanded. That comparison of course is measured against Don Newman. My gold standard for tough but affable goes to Tim Russert. I'll wait a bit more to see how things pan out. I will say this: I miss the National and Journal combo. I don't think we shall see those days again but I do miss the gravitas the show had then.

Yes, there is a certain length of barrel that a weapon has to have in order to avoid the restricted designation.

BTW someone mention sawed off shot guns earlier, I thought that those type of weapons would be banned/restricted to begin with.

I'm not so sure if the Registry is useless but it is clear it needed to be revamped. I as well would like to see more study/discussion on this. I don't see how talking about handguns adds to the discussions. I guess anything is possible but we should focus on things that are on the radar. Instead we are talking about what the Tories would do if they win a Majority. Majority????? This country might not see one any time soon.

Jdobbin why are you continuing with these semantics you know very well the long gun portion has been stressed over and over. There are also been other arguments that have been used against the long gun registry. Right now this thread is being derailed by your partisan attacks instead we should be talking about the next steps of this process.

Frequent flyers costly Printing spree price tag is $10M By ELIZABETH THOMPSON, NATIONAL BUREAU http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2009/11/07/11666131-sun.html

If and I do mean "if" these folks would work harder and spend more time and less money at out expense than I would be happy with the result we get. That is not the case though. If I was allowed to make some rules for these folks it would go something like this. Once elected the taxpayers would pay to fly them to Ottawa for day one, and the taxpayer would pay to send them back to their constituency one a month. The taxpayer will provide a residence for them, instead of an allowance. The representative would attend to the business of government 5 days a week, 20 weeks a year. Doors to the House of Commons to open at 0845 then close by 0900. Coffee break at 1115 until 1130. Lunch to begin at 1330 and end at 1430. Doors would open at 1700 to let representatives out for the day. Anyone not in attendance at 0900 to be docked a days pay. Representatives to be granted 6 weeks annual vacation. Representatives to be paid pensions based upon contributions at a rate determined by the representatives.

Anyone that doesn't care how government spends their money must be rich or or reckless with their own. How can one not be, its adding to the country's debt. I read about one MP that makes 153,000 yearly, 25,500 expense account and has 63 free passes to trips from Ottawa to home or where ever they want to go plus their families! They also got a raise in pay for 2009! Why? they only worked 25 weeks last year and this week they are off! These guys make more than teachers and work less hours and don't forget their pensions, at least they have one, a big one!

This practice shouldn't even be allowed as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think 'smart' is the word the average taxpayer would use to describe this kind of spending. We're always hearing what great fund-raisers the Conservatives are, yet their MPs are using the taxpayers' funds to get their message out more than any other party. Since most MPs are not cabinet ministers managing departmental budgets, these expense reports allow us to get an idea of how well our MP manages the taxpayers' money.

It may seem like small potatoes when the taxpayer is footing the bill, but if the Conservative Party had to pay for what their MPs spent on these partisan mailings it would have used up 30% of the funds the Conservative Party raised in the same period.

As heartwarming it is to hear that "the people themselves do not bother you" ( ) you might want to take a look at your own government. You do realize Harper is Canada's PM, right?

I noticed that aspect. I've tested it out with your post. One of the thing I don't like about the comments section on media websites is the voting up and down (not to mention the anonymous nature of the posters). In fact, I don't read the comment sections because it is rarely insightful. The voting seems even less insightful. Perhaps if the positive or negative thumbs up came with the posters name attached (kind of like Facebook's Like button) then there might be some accountability in choosing to click the button. Then reputation would fall in two directions. I will mull things over a bit but it is the type of thing has caused me to depart other forums.

Greg, I don't think that the voting feature will help things, and will likely distract from our discussions.

Waldo...your replies are often muddied by providing information that is somewhat related but out of context. I started this thread with a simple quote from the latest IPCC "Summary for Policy Makers".....you said you didn't know what I was referring to. It's right there in the original link - not hard to find. As I said - it goes to the heart of Climate Change and the "confidence" in whether humans are responsible and how much impact they have. A follow-up posting qualified "likely" as being "2 out of 3 chances of being correct" and we still don't know what "significant" actually means. The statement seems clear to me and if you can read it with an open mind, perhaps you can tell me how this equates to "The Science is settled". Here's the quote again. To follow up on the Alarmist/Denier issue....Alarmists are absolutely sure that humans are the major factor in Climate Change and that without major reductions in GHG, the world will be irreparably damaged. Deniers, for the most part, acknowledge that humans have SOME influence on Climate change, but not a significant one. And that is where the line is drawn - what is "significant"?. If we affect Climate Change by 30% - does that create Armegeddon? And if so and we magically eliminate all fossil fuels, we reduce that impact to 20% - will that somehow avert Armegeddon? It's really a question of what is "significant. But it goes further......to accept that, we have to agree that CO2 has the magnitude of effect that is being claimed. The science is so "not settled".

The Crown Victoria is old, and out of date, and it isn't worth a great deal of investment. Dodge and Chevrolet both have police cars available, and Ford likely will too. It simply won't be a CV built in STAP.

I don't think there is much need to wonder..... it is increaqsingly a sunset industry for those manufacturers who cannot adapt to consumers needs and who cannot change the perception that their products are inferior. I also think that the future for manufacturing is that supply and demand will determine what workers are paid. Three choices: - go hungry - find other work - move. Sorry if that is harsh but that is how I see it.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the making of Ford vehicles in Canada. More recently, they have both poured billions into companies that are on life support. Is that preferable to you? which brings me back to the three options that you can do about the situation: - go hungry - find other work - move. They'll probably take the tradeitional Canadian tactic though, which is to whine that the government should do something

I would like to respond, but the things you are talking about are so very broad in context it is pretty much impossible. Getting once more back to the topic at hand, the closure of Big Three plants is inevitable. All we can really control is our reaction to it, and I do not see pouring more billions ionto failing businesses as having much future for the autoworkers themselves. One industry towns are always at risk, and Ontario has quite a few. Move to the oil patch in Saskatchewan, or work construction in Calgary. Or give up. Or be poor. Really, it comes down to a personal choice.

You do realize that contract was for seasonal flu vaccine. A new contract negotiation was set up for the H1N1 vaccine.

It is on the government's website: The regular flu virus vaccine proceeded as usual. The H1N1 had to go through additional negotiations that the regular flu vaccine didn't. While the contract was for one company, the negotiations for this part of the contract were new. In other words, when Carolyn Bennett asked about the terms of this contract, it was a legitimate question in regards the development of this vaccine.

Afraid it does.

Afraid it does. In any event, the Tories renegotiated the contract in 2007. .

You are contradicted by the government website and by the fact that the Tories renegotiated the contract in 2007.

I think this is pretty small potatoes and I really don't care one way or another. There are more important things to worry about. This is just something for the opposition to get their knickers in a knot over.

It's rather sad. The once great party which I was usually in agreement with is almost completely gone. I'm thinking of canceling my membership. They certainly don't represent my values anymore.

So your table of percentages for the term "likely" tells us that there is 1 chance in 3 that humans do not play a significant role in "Global Warming". And with regards to the other 2 out of 3 chances, the IPCC is still struggling with what "significant" actually means. Does that sound like the science is settled? And one has to ask, regardless of what "significant actually means" - why is their "certainty" only 66.6%? This is exactly why people like yourself are referred to as alarmists. There are very, very few deniers - people who believe that humans don't have any influence on Climate Change. Most "sceptics" regard humans as having only a small or moderate impact on Climate Change.

no less plausible than any other cause...PT extinction the largest of all extinctions may have killed 90-95% of all life is associated with high levels of CO2 and Methane...mass extinctions

One the main arguments against the registry has been that it is ineffective. It isn't semantics since a registry is what covers handguns as well. if one is ineffective, is the other one just as ineffective? Is that the next step in the process? I have said that I opposed the registry since I favoured a focus on licensing. However, I wanted to hear what police said about in detail before dropping it. However, if the registry is regarded as useless, why is it around for handguns? Surely the same arguments against it stand, don't they? And if they don't, why? If you want to debate this, don't keep repeating that handguns will never be dropped if your argument is that the registry is useless.

I have asked for more discussion on registry. I want to hear what the police say and if we need to poll their numbers, all the better. I'd rather there be disclosure. I have called my MP to push for that type of hearing in the committee. Handguns are on the registry. If the registry is useless as the Tories have claimed then it stands to reason that this would hold true for handguns as well. I'd rather hear about where the parties stand on the issue rather than wait until after the next election if you take my meaning.

I dunno.I had a friend who owned a cafe/pub in Quebec City and every so often, he thought about renovating the place. After endless discussions of what to do/change, he invariably decided to leave it the way it was. As he said, "The regulars feel comfortable here and the tourists think that it's authentic. The young poor kids aren't afraid to come here." I know that engineers have an urge to "fix things" but if I were Greg, I'd leave it alone. If it ain't broke, why fix it? ----- As to the G&M comments section, it's the same as this forum but on a much larger scale. This place is a local pub; the G&M comment sections are like a Manhattan bar. The G&M comments section has the added benefits of an intelligent OP and closer policing. There are perhaps a few other technical differences: in Maple Leaf Forum, it is easier to post quotes and links. We can search previous posts here. The G&M comments don't offer these features now but they will likely be added. Newspapers, discussion forums and the Internet are, as I say, a work in progress. I think smart newspaper owners/publishers (at least in Anglo-Saxon countries) are starting to understand why the "Letters to the Editor" page and the classified ads were so important.

And you are someone who seems to personalize. Can't you just deal with the argument and not the person. I realize you keep saying this was about the long gun registry but Van Loan and others didn't make that distinction when they said that registered gun don't protect police. They didn't. They said registration is ineffective. If it is ineffective for one, why would it be effective for the other? What answer do you have? Think I'd rather know the answer to the important question of the registry's effectiveness overall but you want to shut down that debate. I certainly don't want to hear about it after an election and then you telling me then how it makes sense.

I'm suprised more on the left aren't celebrating. Ford is an example of the type of evil corporation they've been fighting against for years. Remember? They make too much money, and need to be taxed more. I figured they'd all be cheering Ford getting what it deserves. No?

You say that again August, but I see nothing to support your assertion.

I'm suprised more on the right aren't celebrating. UAW members are an example of the type of evil Unions they've been fighting against for years. Remember? They make too much money, and need to busted. I figured they'd all be cheering Ford workers getting what it deserves. No? Ouch truth hurts Shady when your words are used against you.

That the dominant issue in Quebec is sovereignty. I see no evidence of that. There are certainly staunch federalists and staunch separatists, but to say that the issue permeates every aspect of Quebec life...well, I see no evidence of that anywhere.

Are you still telling the same lie jbg? I said nothing of the sort and have pointed this out to you more than once. I have quoted exactly what I did say more than once. Your lies say more about you than they do about me. And I don't have to be anti-American to call you on it. I just have to be anti-liar. Your nationality has no bearing in the matter.

Still think the question has to be asked if registration is ineffective, does it mean all gun registration. I'd like to know that before the next election. People seem to not want to touch the subject. I said it was odd. I didn't say conservative writers thought so. What I said was some conservative writers are wondering aloud about if it meant money being diverted to regional max prisons. Until the article, I hadn't heard that. Reynolds didn't think it was a good idea. For either. They do. And the public probably expects more. As for what it has to do with this, I think that given the urban rural divide many say this represents, it was probably worth a discussion to find solutions to the problem. All parties seems to beyond that. I've often wondered about the legislation on the back end as well. It fixes an election at four years but does it compel the Governor General to call one if the government doesn't want to go to an election? The federal court said Democracy Watch didn't have a case about calling and election. Does that hold true if the government holds out past the date while sticking to the Constitution? If things could get done one thing at a time. Mulroney's changes were ambitious and ultimately, there were a lot of unknowns about the outcome. I don't see Senate changes on something like how many representatives a province gets happening without horsetrading on a host of other constitutional issues. I think there mere thought of the possible chaos it could cause is too much for many people to bare.

There, you are doing it again. It seems the best strategy is to avoid you altogether.

The sponsor of the bill say gun registration is ineffective. http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2140623 Surely she means all gun registration and if not, why not? Quit acting as if the Tories only mean long gun registration is what is ineffective. Or do you believe that handgun registration is effective? Why? How? Please explain?

You get what you give. Now, please express your thoughts on Canadian identity.

my name is a play on words which can be seen. It says smallc and rihgt under it, as in just a little. I don't see how that's relevant to the point though. You claim sovereignty is the underlying factor when it comes to every event in Quebec life. I think some evidence would be in order given the implications of the assertion.

Landmark health bill passes House on close vote The Democratic-controlled House has narrowly passed landmark health care reform legislation, handing President Barack Obama a hard won victory on his signature domestic priority. Ironically, this reform seems to anger both conservatives and liberals. I was never happy with Obama's plan for health care, and it was one of the major reasons I would not vote for him in the primaries. It'll be interesting to see where this leads when all is said and done, but I suspect there will be a lot of complaints. Now I guess we just have to wait and see how the Senate votes.