apollo19

If the dollar keeps going higher, it could risk the large manufacturing in Ontario, which is already in poor financial shape -- which in turn would weaken the economy. Which would give the Tories a loaded gun to fire

Layton and the NDP are good at getting the money for the people they were elected by -- generally, the poor and human rights/gay people. Mirror, the NDP will never ever win a federal election or even come in second place unless they move their policies from the lower class up to the middle class, which includes tax cuts for those with ~50k single person incomes. The day the NDP does that is the day they will become a serious party.

BC is a have province in the sense that it gives more to the federal government then it recieves, however, it's per-capita income is behind that of the five middle-income provinces, and so that is where it gets the have-not from. Right there is the example why the equilization program doesn't work.

Well, for those of us who may not be too knowledgable about this subject, there is a good report breaking down the equalization program here: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/bcbi/bcbi0408.PDF Basically this shows that the three main givers to the program are Alberta, BC, and Ontario; as well as federal govt expenditures throughout the country on goods and services. The info in the report would support this, as the feds spend a lot of money on goods and services in the Atlantic region, for their small population.

Actually much of the maintenance and fleet was deferred by the NDP during the '90s, and the government reorganized the company in a great way -- making it a corporation, but the only voting share is held by the government, so in essence they can still change it if required, but the company is less political and freer to make efficiency improvements.

I second that. Apollo; What does "socially left out" mean? And I'm about 18ish, (24) and don't know anyone who even thinks about seperation. We're too busy painting faces for world hockey matches . But seriously, The only talk of seperation I've heard is on these forums. Nowhere in my university, social circle, or any other place at all. Oh yeah, I'm from the west too, so you're talking about me, and my peers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I don't support this party first of all, so maybe mirror can quit talking like that By "socially left out", I mean that people my age (I am a youngin at 18), have grown up without having anything Canadian. During the '90s with all the federal cutbacks, atleast for people I know growing up in Vancouver, there was virtually no image of the federal govt in communities or schools. Sure, there is Canada Day, but really no parades or anything. With the Army base being shut down, that took a large "Canadian" presence. I mean that people dont explicitly think or talk about seperation, but merely that they dont feel a strong attachment to Canada, and someday, with the right person leading it, that could turn into a seperation movement.

Well, since you seem to have had a change of heart and deleted your 'secret plan for world domination', I guess I can tell you are an NDP person Anyways, I honestly think there will be a serious seperation movement sometime in the ahead years. Young people (think 18ish) really have no attachment to Canada, nothing to lose. They haven't had any serious experiences with which to be unified with the ROC, As long as there is the right person to "stir the pot", then people will start to think about it, instead of it being an underlying thought.

mirror, if you have lived in BC for any period of time, you must know that people socially feel left out of Canada, and it isnt an economic or money grab thing. I mean, there are not really any 'Canadian' symbols for common people to identify with, aside from hockey. My view for seperation would involve BC going solo, as with access to Pacific ports and oil/gas reserves it could do quite well; not with Alberta, Sask, or whoever. BC isn't really Liberal, Conservative, or NDP. You can see this in our history by looking at all the Social Credit victories, and people in Ontario not knowing that that is. People seem to refer that the BC is conservative, this isn't really true. I just think people like their personal freedom, perhaps along the lines of Hong Kong before China took it over, and not like the US. Yet Left-wingers keep insisting righties want Americanization, and some righties spoil it for the rest of us by putting everything in a dollars and cents equation.

My personal choice would go to the BCLiberals (provincial) and Gordon Campbell, for taking BC out of the pits and giving people choices, instead of the NDP dictating what to do.

from: http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...89-2f7ab7cad13d Well, I was a bit shocked at Larry Campbell's appointment, but Martin is trying to push the Liberals to the left, so it makes sense. Any thoughts on these appointments?

From story: http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?...f4-57636a940647 Now we find out who truly are the corporate elitists

I couldn't find any posts on this topic, so I started one... With differing growth prospects and places in the business cycle for different provinces and regions, I was wondering what everyone thinks of the current federal fiscal and monetary policies. BC Growth 2004: 3.9% Alberta Growth 2004: 3.7% Sask Growth 2004: 3.5% As you can see, these three Western provinces have strong growth, while Manitoba-eastward falls behind, ranging from 2.6% in Ontario to -0.7% in Newfoundland. (source: http://www.bcbc.com/archive/bcesv4n2.pdf ) Any views on how the federal government can balance out the differing growth patterns for the areas to continue strong growth, or if it is at all possible to impose one policy for a faster-growing area in expansion, and a slower-growing area nearing the peak?

This is a good example of what a typical Canadian might say about Harper. Another problem with him and the Conservative party is that they need to learn to appeal to the lowest common denominator of Canadian voters. For example, saying, "Stephen Harper wants to sell Canada to the US" is effective not because it is believable, but that common people can understand this view, and oppose "selling Canada to the US". On the other hand, saying something to the effect of, "Paul Martin is a dithering unaccountable threat to national unity" just doesn't have the same registration in a voters mind. During the next election, whenever it may be, Harper and the Conservatives need to start playing dirty, even if it involves blatantly lying or using sharp personal attacks on others, in order to even have a chance of winning a decent minority.

You see, this is the other thing that I failed to mention in my first post. I don't think EVERYONE should be forced to support religious schools. Why should a person of one religion pay to support a school of another religion he/she does not have any belief in? I agree that education should be a provincial responsibility and the provinces need to take ownership of this problem. If various religions want their own religious schools they're entitled, but they should receive no funding forcefully taken from the general public through taxes. They should be private and students of those faiths and their parents should be footing the bill for the "special" education they want their children to receive. These schools should also be licensed by the province to ensure that children are learning the fundamentals that everyone needs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is where other provinces should follow BC's system, where there are no public religious schools. Parents then can make a choice, to get a "free" public education or to pay for the religious education they wish their child to have. A few years ago during my earlier tenure in school, I looked into attending one of these schools simply because of the better education that was recieved (even though I'm an athiest), and it was quoted around $3,000 per school year. The private schools are also required to follow the provincial education curriculum, but they can add in the religious extras as they see fit.

The problem with Harper is that he is lacking the appearance to be able to govern people from all walks of life -- whether it is just his way to speak to those whose vote is assured for the Conservative party, or the media focusing on him being this way. The main point is not that people disagree with his ideas and policies, but that he cannot communicate them effectively to many Canadian voters, who tend to vote for appearances rather then ideals.