Riverwind

I used to be quite self-righteous over Quebec's education policies, but then I decided that if it is so important to Quebequers then we (the rest of the country) should be able to live with it. Personally, if we Federalists really want to send a message to Quebequers that they are welcome in the country, we (parliment and all other provinces) should pass a simple constitutional amendment that makes Bill 101 perfectly legitimate under the constitution. In other words, make it so Quebec no longer has to use the notwithstanding clause for Bill 101. I think such a gesture would be much more meaningful than slogans like 'My Canada Includes Quebec'.

The Bank of Canada has more-or-less control over certain nominal interest rates. Real interest rates are something else again since they depend critically on inflationary expectations. The Bank of Canada is not the gov't. The only power the prime minister has to affect the policies of the BOC in through his choice for the governor. And even then, the PM is limited in terms of the type of people he appoints if he wants to maintain confidence in Canadian monetary policy.

I am afraid that your knowledge of Canadian history is weak. The division between Catholic and Protestant school boards in Ontario predates confedration. Quebec has very unique needs when it comes to education since it needs to maintains a franophone society. Ontario and BC have very large non-english speaking immigrant populations that need education. Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have to deal with a shriking number of students. There is no country with canada's geographical size that has a nation health system. It is the geography is the issue not the number of people.

The gov't only has theoretical control over the interest rates. Any attempt to manipulate the BOC interest rates would have caused the Canadian dollar to plumet and make it impossible for the gov't to finance its debt.

Education: Cananda would have never became a country in the first place if the founding fathers tried to make education a federal responsibility. Even today, every province has unique needs when it comes to education (particularily Quebec). Healthcare: no country with the physical size Canada has a national healthcare system. By its very nature, healthcare should be as locally managed as possible. That said, I did think the idea of a national pharmacare program sounded good, however, I decided that would be nightmare since the the feds would have no control over the doctors doing the prescribing.

I did say that the education system should be exclusively provincal. However, I feel that programs that allow Canadians to go anywhere in Canada to attend university should be federal. My understanding is the Quebec govt is quite annoyed about the Mellenium scholarship fund - I would like to see those kinds of protests stop.

He was able to make the necessary cuts and retain popularity because Canadians had stopped denying there was a problem so it was politically possible to make cuts that Mulroney couldn't. Second, the Liberals benefited from structural changes brought in by the Mulroney govt such as the GST.

Lies, damned lies and statistics ;-) First, that chart shows the absolute value of the debt. It is not adjusted for inflation nor is it compared to the GDP. Second, Mulroney inherited a debt and a large number of spending commitments from Trudeau that could not be cut without severe political consequences (same thing would be true if Harper got in today). So a lot of the debt added in the Mulroney years was created by policies that Trudeau put in place.

PR would never work in a regionalised country like Canada. You would have to be dreaming if you think the BQ would accept any change that reduces their influence in parliment and any PR system that maintains the BQ strength is worse than what we have now. Furthermore, forcing through any constitutional change that the BQ does not agree with would be just asking for a 70% yes vote in a referendum. For better or worse we are stuck with the system the way it is and other parties have to make it work. The Liberals and NDP have figured that out. The Conservatives will have to probably be punished at the ballot box once more before they will get it.

I would say none of the above. The system needs to be restructured to centralise some powers and decentralize others. For example, management of healthcare and primary education should be exclusively provincial. But the feds should be free to provide university funding and scholarships anywhere in the country.

I am right wing economically but left wing socially. There isn't a party in the country that can completely represent my views. That probably one of the reasons I can live with the Liberal party's failings: I have to hold my nose whatever party I vote for. Conservatives could get my vote but they will likely have to get rid of Harper first. Actually, correct that: the BC Liberals are pretty close. You won't hear a peep out of them about gays, abortion or the war on drugs: the economy is all they care about and that is way it should be.

I think this is the right path. However, if someone commits a violent offence while under the influence of drugs, they should be given no special treatment. I think DUI offences should recieve much harsher punishment. Today in Calgary, a chick who ran over 2 people got off with no jail time. That is a joke. It's offensive. And I say hold Judges accountable if people they let off easy go and commit crimes during the time which they would be in prison had the judge instituted the maximum. I would agree that if someone gets seriously injured or killed because of drugs or alcohol the treatment would come after their sentence. But I am ready to bet that any addict involved in a violent crime already has a rap sheet for property crime so better treatment earlier would have prevented the crime. Making judges liable for the their decisions would be a bad idea that would have all sorts on unintended side effects. For example, judges might be more likely to find someone innocent because they would only be responsible for people they find guilty.

Because they could be innocent. You can let someone out of jail and compensate them if you find out later that you made a mistake. Remember that Guy-Paul Morin was considered a 'monster' when he was accused. The current definition of sexual assault is so broad that could include people who quite honestly believed the sex was consensual. People who fall in this category deserve some sort of punishment but they are a different kind of offender than the bernardo types. But I agree that rape as it is commonly understood needs a lot heavier penalties. When it comes to child abusers there needs to be less concern about how the abuser was a victim (because most are) and more on protection of children. I am not convinced that longer jail time is the answer. The biggest place I see for justice reform is property crime: most of it is done by drug addicts that are repeat offenders. The current system just enables them because their addiction is a mitigating factor in sentencing. An addict convicted of crime should be given one chance to go to a special 'drug rehab' prison that focuses on recovery. The conditions would be better but they would be tested constantly for drugs. If they fail a drug test because they managed to sneak something in then they go straight to regular prison for 5-10 years with no parole.

But consumption is just the other end of income. If we have 7% more to spend on haircuts, the barbers can earn 7% more. You would also have more to spend on haircuts if your after tax income is higher. The difference is with a lower income taxes you have an incentive to work harder and be more productive but a lower value added tax only gives you an incentive to spend.

I don't think it is right either, however, I think you are wrong to suggest that such things are only a problem with federalists in Quebec or with the liberal party. It occurs in many other situations. Quebec fixed the problem by eliminating corporate donations many years ago. Correct? This restriction now exists at the federal level too which should prevent a similar scandal from happening again. I would also like to see regulations that prevent a company that makes political donations from bidding on gov't contracts.

Incomes taxes decrease productivity because people have less incentive to work harder and save more. Value added taxes may hurt consumption but the negative effect on the economy is less than income taxes - especially if the low income earners get a tax credit.

And all of that pollution froms from large metal smelters in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba. What the article did not say was: 1) What percentage of the NA metal smelter output comes from Canada? 2) Are Canadian metal smelters worse polluters than their counterparts in the US? If the answer to these questions is 'large' and 'no' then that study is not giving the correct context. Similar, deceptive stats exist when it comes to greenhouse gas. Digging up fossil fuels produces CO2. Is it really fair to penalize Canada for C02 emissions caused by natural gas production if it turns around and ships that natural gas to the US which the US uses to reduce its CO2 emissions.

How is this different than US legislators that collect duties on Canadian softwood lumber and then pay these duties to companies which contribute to their campaigns? Politicians giving government contracts to companies that support their re-election is a very common practice. That said, the Gomery inquiry is finding out that these kinds of kickbacks were combined with project management incompetance (i.e. bureaucrats failing to ensure value for money) and a few inviduals engaging in outright fraud and theft for personal gain. It may be the 'perfect storm' but It still does not mean that this kind of corruption is rampant in Canada.

Mulroney really gets a bad rap. He ran up the deficit largely because Canadians were in denial in the 80s about the dangers of deficit spending much like they are in denial about the sustainability of our heathcare system as it is currently structured. The Liberals were able to balance the budget because the population had 'hit bottom' and was willing to accept the treatment that would have been politically impossible for Mulroney in the 80s. Mulroney also deserves a lot of credit for sticking to his guns on the GST. It allowed the Liberals shift gov't taxes away from income and on to consumption which has gives a much more competitive tax system.

Democracy requires all sorts of messy compromises. I am sure Martin and Goodale hated the idea of making concessions to the NDP on tax cuts but they did because the NDP was the only deal on the table. Harper could have used his leverage to get many items on the CPC agenda into the budget and even get credit for it for keeping the Liberals in line. But he decided to stand on 'principle' and ended up with nothing but a hope he might get a minority a few months from now.

How do you explain that there is a strong correlation between NDP ridings and the lower income areas of urban areas. Poor people in urban areas make more use of government services and therefore support the NDP. Conservative supporters are for the most part are middle income rural or suburban voters living in ethnically and/or religiously homogenous areas. Liberal voters are urban or suburban voters living in ethnically diverse areas.

The trouble is the CPC does not want a balanced gov't: they want their style of gov't or nothing. Canadians elected a minority which gave Harper the option of collaborating with the Liberals and ensuring that Albertans views are fairly represented at the federal level. Instead, he pissed away the opportunity in the hopes of getting a CPC majority. Now after wasting all of his political capital on the 'corruption' issue he has no choice but to fume while the Liberals go around cutting deals for the next few months.

Let's take that a step further. The less people work, the more likely they are to support center or left wing parties. How do to make a connection between people having more education doing less work?

Give me a break. The corruption scandal that has so consumed the Canadian media is a isolated incident that will be forgotten about in 2-3 years. There is no systematic problem with corruption in Canada. Here are some numbers from http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_2004.html 1 Finland 9.7 2 New Zealand 9.6 3 Denmark 9.5 3 Iceland 9.5 5 Singapore 9.3 6 Sweden 9.2 7 Switzerland 9.1 8 Norway 8.9 9 Australia 8.8 10 Netherlands 8.7 11 United Kingdom 8.6 12 Canada 8.5 13 Austria 8.4 13 Luxembourg 8.4 15 Germany 8.2 16 Hong Kong 8.0 17 Belgium 7.5 17 Ireland 7.5 17 USA 7.5 Gee, looks like good old USA is the bottom of the heap when it comes to corruption in developed countries. I would put more weight on that website than some unnamed study in a russian newspaper.

Gee, another "anyone who does not think like me must be an idiot" rant. Sounds like someone who has been brainwashed by the conservative Alberta media. There is a strong correlation between education and Liberal/NDP support. In other words, the more people know about the world the more likely they will support center or left wing parties.