Renegade

The G&M had an interesting story on immigration today: Is our immigration policy the best one for Canada?

The population in Canada is geographically clustered in large population centres. I can't see how increasing the number of children in those population centres introduces any futrther economy of scale which will lead to any substantial reduction on the cost of having a child. (Do you really think if we had double the number of kids, suddenly the cost of education per child is going to substantially decrease?) The expense in children is got everything to do with parential expectations. Where 20 years ago a parent would be content to leave a child with a neighbour when they went to work, now they expect to leave a child in a the custody of ECC graduates in a dedicated child-care facility. Of course the costs are not the same. The same analogy applies for virtually every aspect of the cost of bringing up a child. So what. It's people's money, if they want to buy contraceptives they can. If fact if they are not willing or ready to make the choice as parents it's probably a good investment. As I've already said regarding immigrants, if it were up to me I'd be more selective about the immigrants allowed to settle in Canada and I would change the funding model. Despite this, in general immigrants provide a ready talent pool and the economy benefits more than it invests. When you calculate how much the country spends on immigrants should you not also factor in how much the country collects in tax dollars those immigrants generate? I don't share your pessimistic view. I have not seen any evidence provided by you or others that Canada suddenly will end up in poverty because it doesn't encourage population growth. This is the most novel argument yet. That we should encourage a young population so that they are not outnumbered by cranky old farts. The fact is that govenmental policies will be such to cater to their support base. If that support base is in the aged population, so be it. I can just as easily argue that the older population has the wisdom of experience, that they the lack of radicalness provides a smoother transition in society and thus they are a stabilizing force in society. I can equally argue that what if you have a large young population, and they decide as a voting block, they are no longer interested in supporting old age security, subsidized drugs, or expensive medical procedures which mostly cater to the aged. What will you do then? As with any religion there are radicals. Most muslims promote values which are very consistent with those of our society. No doubt we must limit extremist behaviour which violates our laws, however to condem one religious group based upon the actions of a few is distinctly racist. I'm not sure what you mean by "working off the wealth". There is a simple way to ensure your lifelong viability. Sustain yourself and don't be a burden on society. You have productive years and unproductive ones. Provide a nest-egg for yourself during your productive years to sustain yourself in your unproductive ones. Then you can stop worrying about the growth and productivity of society. Who did you mean by "we"? Yes companies rely on part-time workers because it offers a more cost-effective and flexible labour solution than full time workers. For many workers it also offers a solution. Did you notice how many older people work part time, both for something to do and to supplement their savings, pensions? In the end your retirement planning is up to YOU and YOU alone. You choose your employment choice whether part or full time. Make a choice which provides best for your current and future needs.

Maybe so, but whoever wrote that probably didn't envision that the multitudes of people populating the earth would become the greatest threat to its very existance. I get the point that the current system of supporting the aging population depends upon an incresasing working population base. What you have not addressed is why we should continue to perpetuate this pyramid scheme instead of moving to a self-sustaining scheme of each person saving for their own retirement. Surely you would agree that a financing scheme which does not depend upon the variability of future population growth is better than one that does. Look at a company defined-benefit pension scheme. Each year a company is supposed to contribute to the plan sufficient to offset future liabilities. (Yes, I'm aware that some companies don't do this, but they are supposed to). These schemes do not depend upon the growth of their employee base or increased future profits, simply because these are risky assumptions to base it on. It seems that only our government is foolhardy enough to create a funded-as-you-go scheme. So is your point that if the white population declines in relation to non-European population that Canada thus not be a leader of wealth? If that is your point it would seem to be a rasist presumption. It matters not whether Canada is 75% white, 53% white, or 1% white. The population mix has changed through history and will continue to change. Why is one mix better than the other? Yes the days when a family had 10 children are gone. The face of families have changed. Maybe 75 years ago large families were valued because it was a source of security for the retirement of the parents. Maybe the wealth of society today, no longer necessitiates that source of security. I agree with you our children recieve increased investment then ever before. Bringing up a child requies and investment in childcare, education, no end of extra-cirricular activites, medical and dental bills, shelter and clothing, entertainment, and the list goes on. We the parents have made choices. We (the parents) value having that larger house or extra car or vacation every year, and we are willing to trade-off having more children for that prividge. So, yes I agree with you that the cost of having children is more now than it has been before, mostly because our expectations of what we need to provide kids is more now than before. So this higher cost will lead to people having less children. So what? In my mind that is a benefit not a drawback.

Come on now, eureka. That statement is without any basis and is just conjecture. It is about as valid as if I said" "Isn't it funny how so many of the people advocating for social programs are the same ones feeding off the public trough"

We expect judges to rule according to the law even if it contridicts their belief system. This is even true when they feel EXTREME moral compuction to rule according to their beliefs. For example, judges have let killers walk free when the rules of evidence were violated. If we expect judges to act according to the requirements of their job over their belief system, why should we settle for any less with polititians. As I have said before, there is no issue if the politician actions are consistant with his constituancy's wishes, however in cases of conflict he should side with his constituency. As an example, lets say a polititian was morally comitted against Same-sex marriage, but it was beyond dispute that his constituancy felt strongly for SSM. That polititian's obligation is to support SSM or to resign and not betray the people who have elected him in order to satisify his own concience .

I don't know the answer to that one either, but in my view it is not a number but a range. I don't know that we would be any worse off with 10 million then we would be with 30 million. Conversely I'm pretty sure that if our popluation doubled to 60 million there would be additional pressure on things we take for granted. (Like a house with a backyard). Frankly I don't see Canada aspiring to be a world power anytime soon. I don't see any will for a national goal to increase population so that we become a "world power". Conversely, I don't see a reduced population as "belonging to a pride of impecunious countries in gloomy dire straits". There are many countries who have substantially smaller populations than Canada (as examples, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zeland, Australia) and they do quite well despite their smaller population No doubt these are issues. But in my view the issue to fix is one in how we pay for these programs. Why not encourage (force?) people to save now for their retirement? Perhaps they need to save more for additional health care costs so they shoudl have more in their retirement nest egg and not count on an ever increasing population base to support them. Afterall this is nothing but a Ponzi scheme which will eventually collapse. First, productivity measures inputs and outputs. In your example if people are replaced by machines, the people will no longer be counted as inputs and productivity will actually increase. Second, so what if these people are no longer contributing to production. Surely what they ought to be doing is saving during their productive years for those years they are unproductive. So your argument is that we ought to engage in a "population race" with China, India and Brazil to stay competitive? Frankly such a course of action if conducted on a world scale would be as destructive as the arms race has been. Despite having the largest population for quite some time, India and China still do not have the same standard of living as many western countries with much smaller populations. Why? I don't disagree with you here. But what you are pointing out is a solution to a problem you brought up. It is the same conclusion individual countries in Europe came to, because each has a small population and would lack power standing alone. What your solution points to is that it is not necessary to have a large population to have sufficient power to be successful. Trading blocks are one way a country can thrive despite having a small population. Again, I have not reached the same conclusion as you that additional population is desirable or even necessary, so I can't agree that we need to motivate women to have children. No doubt we have problems with our immigration filtering system. In my view we should be filtering out immigrants who can't speak either English or French or don't have the appropriate skills. IF we take the right immigrants they can positively contribute to our economy. The advantage is that with properly skilled immigrants, you have a ready trained population which you can deploy into the workforce. Canada has not paid for their training but would recieve the economic benefit of their output. With children, Canada would have to invest considerable sums in their education and training, and would not see the economic benefit for 20+ years. First, there is no gurantee that children will be successful. A child is somewhat a crapshoot. You can give them all the right attention and training, and some will turn out successful and others will not. Second, the choice to have or not have children is the parent's alone. They alone should bear the economic responsibility for their upbringing. It is short-sighted to presume that larger population = better country. Maybe the right approach is to encourage women to have LESS kids so that they can focus their attention on the kids they have, and we can have less dysfunctional individuals in society. In my view the strongest argument for not investing in such programs is that the government has no business doing so. Having kids is a private choice with private responsibilities, and the government should stay out.

It absolutely can decide how many teachers, nurses, doctors, or level of provinicial services it should provide. You are correct when you say that it should do the people's will. Mike Harris' government ran on a platform of tax cuts, and the people demonstrated that was their will by electing him (TWICE!). I note that you didn't include the part where he sold the 407 highway and most of our electricity generation capabilities for far less than their actual worth so that, with this influx of cash, that people wouldn't realize the extent of the damage he did to our province and its people... Now maybe we pay a little less to the government of Ontario for our electricity, but every homeowner in Ontario will pay about $1000 more to the "efficient" private industry for our electricity. Further, MOST Ontarians are paying MORE TAX now than before Mike Harris, whose tax cuts only really saved the wealthy money. Shifting social services to the municipal level increases our property taxes, usually by a lot more than our Mike Harris tax savings.... Exactly how have the "people have decided that they want a medical system and an education system"? The people make their decisions via their vote evey election. No choice is static. When a people elect a government to cut taxes, they expect them to do so. I wonder how Renegade can explain Mike Harris's promise "Not one penny from classroom education" Can he say this is true because Harris took 50 Billion pennies from education on his first year of reforms, rather than "one penny" ??? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> err, if you want to post something besides partisanship drivel and inflammatory comments, maybe I'll respond. Till then I remind you that the issue eureka and I are discussing is whether providing a level of services is a lawful obligation of an elected government. If you have something meaninful to contribute in that area, great, I can't wait to hear it.

Actually I couldn't find anywhere where it said that the "the government nust provide for the security of the citizens." what it said was that the government must not take an action which deprives a person of the right to life, liberty and security. There is a difference. The action that the government took was banning private insurance. This was judged to infringe on a persons rights. The governmental failure was in not allowing private insurance. If it was an obligation of the government to provide services, the SCC would have ordered them to do so. Clearly they did not. What their decision was, that if the government did not invest in healthcare services to the point that quality and timely service could be provided, then they could not prevent the private offering of those services. The decision provdes the onus on the government to make that choice but does not compel them in which option to choose. So your argument is that people were too dumb to realize that when you cut taxes you also have to cut services? There is no way to prove one way or another why anyone voted for Mike Harris. I felt it was pretty clear where his priorities lay. I think it was obvious to most people. Personally I voted for him because I supported his priorities. My feeling is others did too. As to your point on whether tax cuts stimulate the economy enough to generate additional revenue, consider the following. If we taxed people at a 100% marginal rate, revenue would fall because economic activity would grind to a halt, because no one would have incentive to generate any income. Conversely, if we taxed people at 0% economic activity may boom, but will result in no government revenues. Between those two extreme lies a "sweet spot" where the government revenues are maximised. How do we know what the right level of taxation is to maximize government revenues? (I'm ignoring for the moment the question on whether we ought to be maximizing government revenues) I disagree with your interpretation. I see nowhere in the Charter or Common Law where it explicitly says that the government must provide a certain level of services and defines what those services are. If you have passages to point out, I would welcome reading them. I would be intrested to know if any government's have been sued and the case taken to the SCC on determining the obligation on providing the level of services. The popular vote in selecting the government and its policies is all that determine the level of services which a government provides. The only obligation it has is to not infringe on people's rights. People's rights are not violated by the government failing to provide a service.

I think instead of "Quebec Quo", you mean "Quebecois". Quebecois simply means "from Quebec". There are two parties with "Quebecois" in their name: Bloc Quebecois (Federal) and Parti Quebecois (Provincial in Quebec)

There is no such constitutional obligation. Lets not misrepresent the Supreme Court's decision. Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC The Supreme Court did not rule that the government had a constitutional obligation to provide a certain level of healthcare. It ruled that the province could not simultaneously provide prohibit private health insurance AND provide inferior health care (due to wait times). There is a big difference between that and what you have inferred from your statement. The province would be able to conform perfectly to the ruling by simply allowing private health insurance without investing any further in health care. Are you saying that the government can do both? Let me quote something you have said in another thread referring to a tax-cut: It is quite obvious to everyone that beyond minimal savings which can be generated through increased efficiency, that services need to be cut to deliver substantial tax-savings. Mike Harris' party ran on a platform of tax-cuts. The other parties at the time did not. Mike Harris stayed true to his support base by delivering on those tax cuts. Ontario Embraces A Tax-Cutter Are you honestly saying that the people who voted for Mike Harris, did so because the though he was going to increase social spending and were suddenly surprised? Yes, I believe that a govenment that runs on a platform of tax-cuts should live up to that promise, however that obligation is only one of integrity to their word. There is no legal obligation to do so. (As an aside, maybe there ought to be a legal requirement that parties must fulfill campaign promises). Witness that the provincial Liberals promised not to raise taxes and McGuinty promptly did so after election. Did he lie? You bet. Did he break the law? Unfortunately not. Same with the Liberal promise to eliminate the GST. The list goes on. While you and others may not have approved of the promises that Mike Harris made. many others did, and at least Mike Harris had the integrity to keep his word.

eureka, I understand that it is your opinion but I and many others disagree. Where is it written that government is obligated to maintain services? Is it in the Charter of Rights? The BNA act? where? In the absence of any explicit documented obligation, no such obligation exists.

Gee, I wonder who inferred that the people who work in hospitals were "lazy and overpaid"? Being smart, hardworking or underpaid does not insure you against being laid-off in the private industry and there is no reason why the same shouldn't hold true for public workers. The injustice for healthcare workers is not that they get laid-off, but rather the government unilateraly imposes a renumeration system on them, and then also eliminates competitive employers by precluding private healthcare. If you really care about the best interest of healthcare workers, you should be an advocate for private healthcare as wages are sure to rise when multiple employers bid for the same resource pool.

It absolutely can decide how many teachers, nurses, doctors, or level of provinicial services it should provide. You are correct when you say that it should do the people's will. Mike Harris' government ran on a platform of tax cuts, and the people demonstrated that was their will by electing him (TWICE!). When people choose tax cuts, it is necessary and reasonable that the level of services provided wiill be reduced. As one who voted for Mike Harris, I'm fine with the trade-off. Exactly how have the "people have decided that they want a medical system and an education system"? The people make their decisions via their vote evey election. No choice is static. When a people elect a government to cut taxes, they expect them to do so. Agreed. But they have an obligation to respect the wishes of the population which elected them.

Anyone who is expecting the state to be a nanny which will accomodate all their needs is bound to be disappointed. The reality is the programs like welfare are a result of the generosity of the taxpayer. The woman in your example should be grateful for the $550 she gets but hasn't earned herself, instead she is probably bitter that she doesn't get more.

If you start out with a presumption that social services are an obligation to which the poor are "entitled", then you will never be convinced of the merit of Mike Harris' actions. Social services are not a "right" of the people to be funded at any cost. The province (indirectly) employs both nurses and teachers, and ultimately has the right to choose how many of each it employs. If private health care were an option, you would have the choice of not waiting (and of course paying for that privlige). Simply put, you are expecting the taxpayer to fund "premium" healthcare, at a time when healthcare costs are already being driven up due to more expensive technology choices and an aging population.

BHS and RB, I want to thank you for the civility of the debate. It has been free of the personal insults and name-calling which has been an all too frequent occurence with some posters on this forum. While I may disagree with some of your points-of-view, you have always presented them professionally and without personal attacks. For this I thank you.

BHS, I agree with you. There will be an impact on retirement and social programs of a population decline. Yes, our economic and social programs today rely on a steadily increasing supply of new productive workers. But that's the problem isn't it? This is the Ponzi scheme I referred to earlier. The problem to address is to fix how our social programs are funded, not to exacerbate the problem by increasing the dependence upon population growth. Let me give you some examples: 1. CPP. For many years what CPP used to fund its payout was the amounts it collected in from the working population base. It could afford generous payouts because the population ever increased, so as long as each generation retired, and there was an even bigger generation working, the generous payouts could be afforded. With the eventual retirement of the baby-boom, in the 90s the plan looked in trouble. The volume of impending retirees, combined with people living longer looked bigger than the working population base. Benefits would need to be cutback dramatically. What happened? Contribution rates were ratcheted up considerably to ensure survivability of the plan. In addition the CPP went to an investment scheme where by surplus funds are invested generating a hopefully higher return and hopefully enough to fund future population's retirement. The scheme is still fraught with risk. People could live longer, retire earlier, or investment returns could dramatically decline. A more sensible scheme (in my view), one which didn't depend upon population growth would have seen CPP structured more like a "Retirement Savings Account". Some countries call this a "Provident Fund". It is mandatory contributions to a retirement fund which are invested on your behalf by the government. What you get out is simply the accumulation of what you put in plus the investment returns. It doesn't at all depend upon having greater population to fund the retirement scheme. 2. Health care. I saw an estimate somewhere that each person over 65 cost the government on average $10,000 in health care costs, as opposed to $2500 for the average population. As more people get older, and more people retire, you can see that this will cause a financial strain on the system. A contribution system which reflected the actual consumption would aliviate the need to depend upon a larger and larger working base. I agree. More over I am philosophically opposed to government intervening in personal choices. I agree with you. In general immigration has beneficial aspects. It gives us access to a trained labour pool, who for the most part can be quickly deployed into the workforce. (As opposed to a new born who will take 25 years or so to hit the labour market) The caveat here is that we need to be selective on immigration. We need immigrants who have the skills and will fill a need in the workforce. An open-door policy without selection helps no-one. Without selection, many of the immigrants may not be employable in the Canadian labour market and may add to the social burden all taxpayers will have to bear. One interesting note is the government has not really considered other labour options. For example in the Middle East, much of the labour pool is made up of temporary workers. This labour fills an immediate need, but is not intended to have permanent residency status. For these workers, the benefit is that they economically can earn and save more than they would in their home country. The benefit for the hosting country is that they have a workforce supplement which aids their economy but they don’t need to be quite as selective as there is no danger that they are accepting these workers as permanent residents.

RB, If I understand your argument correctly you are saying that economic benefits derive from avoiding population gaps which would lead to an unstable economy. You have also linked the population growth to family planning and your argument is that the government ought to be involved in family planning in order to avoid the gaps you refer to. I agree that erratic growth or declines can have huge economic consequences and should be avoided for economic benefit. However there are NO crisis events happening or expected which cause huge fluctuations in the population level. (By crisis, I mean things like epidemics or wars which wipe out a large number of the population). Consider this: 1. The population of Canada is growing. This is due to a number of factors that despite the declining birth rate, people are living longer and we take immigrants. CANADA'S POPULATION 2. Even if we were to drastically reduce the number of immigrants, and the population were to decline, the decline is so gradual that is hard to imagine that it would cause a gap with which the economy cannot cope. We have unemployment in the range of 4-10% of the working population. Any even small decline in the overall population of the workforce can easily be buffered by tapping into the currently unemployed (to the mutual benefit of both the unemployed and society) You are making a value judgment here. You are deeming that women who choose families over income is "good" and should be "encouraged". You are deeming women who choose affluence over family are "bad" and need to be shown the value of family life. I maintain that there is no such moral designation, and no-one and especially not governments ought to making those designations. Those choices are personal choices and should be left up to the individual to decide what is good or bad FOR THEM. Government ought to stay out of trying to encouraging one choice over the other. The fact is one of the reasons the birthrate has declined is that women are in a position of affluence and have greater choice than ever before. Having that choice means that some will choose not to have kids or have fewer kids. So what? There is nothing wrong with that. Canada's birth rate falls to record low RB, I don't presume to tell you any different. Yes I understand that other women may also feel this way, but the only one who "owes" a woman support to fill their reproductive needs is their spouse as it is a joint obligation. If you don't feel there is enough support for reproductive intentions, then the answer is simple, don't have kids. But if you do, do it understanding it is a decision you and your spouse have made and as a responsibility you accept without feeling a sense of entitlement from society. When a woman opts to have a child she should know full well what here social and financial cost are. She can negotiate what ever division of responsibilities she wants to with her spouse. If a women shoulder more of the burden it is because she has chosen to undertake that burden as the price for having kids. If a woman doesn't feel she is getting a fair shake, she is free to say no. I suspect that the reason why there is an unequal division of the burden is that women in general feel the need to have kids more than men and are more willing to take on more of the responsibility in order to fill that need. In my view you are putting too much onus on the government to enable women. The governments' role (in my view) is to stay on the sidelines as a neutral party. Men do not have the option of bearing kids, and for many men they don't feel the need to have kids to the same extent women do. Our modern society has given women choice which they never had before and as a result of that they are making choices which they were never able to do before. Just because they are faced with tough choices which involve trade-offs doesn't obligate the rest of society to have to subsidize a woman's choices so she can "have everything". as I've said before, if a woman finds the burden of having children too daunting and she doesn't have enough of a support structure in place, she is free not to have children. I don't condemn her for making that choice and in fact applaud her good sense in not taking on children which she may not be able to handle. Personally I'm ok if women's desire to have children fall. It only points to our success as a society that we have given women more choices than ever. I don't believe economicaly we will suffer as the population decline is so gradual that the economy can easily adapt or can adjust by using immigration. The only impact on a government's lack of involvement is to those in society who feel an entitlement that others ought to be responsible for the kids which they alone freely chose to have.

Spar, you are quite right that it is not possible to always know the best interest of his riding. My ask and expectation of politicians is that they put the best interests of their riding first. Yes there will be many times where it will be up to their judgment, but the factors which influence that judgement should have the interest of their riding outweigh their personal convictions especially if the two conflict. Of course if no information is known about their riding or the information is unreliable, I can see that the politician would rely on other means, such as personal convictions, of deciding their position. Would you feel the same about a black MP who ripped up a sign quoting the 'Curse of Ham' (Gen. 9:22, 25)? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> One of the most important rights we have is the right of freedom of expression. In Canada that right is only limited by the restriction on outlawing the advocacy of hate or violence against particular groups. I have read the 'Curse of Ham' and in my view, it doesn't advocate hate or violence against a group. I understand that some people have used it as justification for some despicable acts, but taken by itself, I don't see it as hate-literature. (Should we ban the bible because it contains such a passage?) So , yes I would feel the same about a black MP who ripped up such a sign. An MP, more than others is obligated and expected to demonstrate respect for individual rights and tolerance, even when those views disagree with his own. If the MP had an issue he should have resorted to lawful recourse. Otherwise, what message are we sending, that it is ok to ignore the law if you personal belief system conflicts with it. What is the moral distinction between such an act and a pro-lifer bombing an abortion clinic?

I have no issue with a polititian having a public position and sticking to it. In the example you cite, Svend would have had a public pro-gay stance and his riding chose him in spite of (or maybe because of) it. Even if we assume his consitutients were against his position on that issue, the message they were sending was that it was not important enough an issue to them to preclude them choosing him as a representative. What I have trouble with is undisclosed positions where the polititician putting personal priorities ahead of their constituents. It is certainly not possible to know a polititician's position in advance on every issue which comes up, so we make our selection based upon what we know and upon trust that when other issues comes up they will act in our best judgement. If we feel that their personal priorities come first than in my view, they ought not to be polititicians. So, do you condone Svend's actions? Let me elaborate my position. My view is that the politicians should put the interests of the people he represents ahead of personal views and priorities. I thnk with Belinda Stonach, she did not. At the very least if she felt she ought to change parties, she should have resigned and triggered a by-election under which she could have run as a liberal. I have no issue with Trudeau bringing in the metric system or Mulroney's actions. They did it for what they felt was the best interest of the people, and they were public about their position before they were elected. The supreme court is obligated to rule on intepretation of law. What they have ruled is that gay marriage contravened the charter of rights. It should be irrelavent what their personal beliefs were. This is the way it shoudl be and hopefully is. To at least a certain extent I'm with you. There will be issues where the politician is either unaware of the wishes of the constituants, or they are split, or perhaps he feels he is in a better position to make an informed judgement than his constituents. In these cases I can see where a politicians actions may not align with his constituents. To some extent what we are discussing is a separation of church and state. Or to be more specific, separation of personal morals and governmental regulations. There are a large number of "moral" issues which I wouldn't want my legislator imposing personal moral beliefs on the people he represents. For example,if a politician didn't believe in "living-in-sin" should he work to outlaw it? This goes beyond making personal choice not to do so himself and now extends to forcing that choice on others. If I believe that a politician would put personal beliefs first, then should I be discrimminating for or against that politician based upon their beliefs? If I did not agree with the Catholic Churches position on an issue, should I discrimminate against a Catholic politician because I would assume his position was in agreement with his religion?

BHS, I understand that you feel that at least in developed countries we will be adaptable to accomodate growth. Maybe I missed it but perhaps you can answer the following: 1. Do you think the government ought to actively promote population growth? (ie through programs like immigration, baby bonuses, child care subsidies? 2. Do you see a problem if the population naturally declines because less people choose to have kids?

Yes, in my view he is duty bound to vote as his riding wishes or resign if he cannot. Yes he is unfit for office if he put his own wishes ahead of his consitutients. When he takes on the role of public office he is accepting a job to be "representative of the people". If the people clearly represent their wishes to him, I think he is duty bound to find a different job. As an example, the Catholic church is against legal recognition for gay marriages. The church as directed to Catholic polititians that they should not support legislation which allows gay marriage. Paul Martin is a Catholic. Let's assume for a moment, Paul Martin, being a good Catholic, agrees whith the Church's position. Should he abandon his duties as Prime Minister representing the people of Canada and be directed by his own personal beliefs? In my view, absolutely not. I'm not familiar with this incident, however it would be ironic that Svend, while advocating for rights for homosexuals was at the same time visibly demonstrating a lack of respect of freedom of speech rights by another individual. In my view, no there is no such room. Would we let a judge rule based upon personal beliefs, or do we obligate him to rule according to the law? If a judge can't accept that, he shouldn't accept the position of a judge. I think the situation is similar for politician. If he can't accept that he should not be a representative of the people.

RB, your making it sound like it was a one way set of promises. Do women have reciprocation of obligations? If so what is it they are commiting to? Your statement demonstrates exactly why I state that a pre-nup is required. So that each party clearly understands its obligations.

No doubt we have come a long way in our environmental awareness since the sixties and no one can be more pleased that I about the improvement in Lake Ontario, however we still have a long way to go. As you may know much of the measurements of pollution in Lake Ontario is the measurements of chemical pollutant contamination (such as PCB). Enviornmental laws over the last 20 years have resulted in us dumping vastly less chemical pollutants then before, however the lake still is a dumping ground for non-chemical pollutants (ie sewage). Your optimisim about the situation is based upon the improvement in the last 20 years. My pessisism is based upon the 1000s of years of human history before that which got us into this situation. My point is this, you may be correct that the enviornmental situation will improve, but that is far from certain. In my view, we should be encouraging the process by not taxing the environment any more than we do now. By encouraging population growth we are further pressuring an ecosystem and increasing the onus and time pressure to find solutions. The paragaraph you refer to is the following: It doesn't quite say that human beings can avoid the boom-bust cycle, it says it complicates the estimation. Regardless, I believe you are right. Humans have control more than other species and can both modify the environment and make intelligent decisions. In my view, we need to be progressing on both fronts. Both, evolving better environment-friendly technology and making intelligent decisions such as that to minimize population growth (or allow the population to naturally decline). I'm in agreement with you. I'm not advocating further interventions, and what I'm proposing is the the government DO NOT intervene in trying to sitmulate population levels. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this (ie by "bring deprevation into the present."). My point is that the "Growth is Good" philosophy, at least when it refers to population growth, is taken as fact. I challenge that fact and I have not yet seen convincing evidence that our standard of living will collapse if we stop growing and start declining as a popluaiton. What I do see is evidence that population growth risks impacting our standard of living, and I'm unclear as to why that would be a risk we would want to take. FYI. Have a look at this Myth: Growth is good. The only thing I am suggesting is that the govenrment stay out of personal decisions and neither promote nor disuade population growth. Population levels are headed in the right direction, and the govenment should not interfere with a misguided sense of what is "right"

STUDY ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Of course these are all just educated guesses, and I'm not willing to quibble on if the projected growth is to 9 billion or 12 billion. Whatever the case, we're still heading for more people. The more interesting question, is how much is enough. Have a look at this Human Carrying Capacity of Earth The estimates of how much the earth can sustain vary widely from 1 billion to 14 billion. The worrisome part is that we may be already past the point of sustainability. BHS, that's a good question but unfotunately it is a subjective one. What does "out of control" or excessive mean? I live by Lake Ontario, and have for years. Never in that time have I been able to go for a swim or dare fish in it. Why, because the lake has got to a level of pollution which makes my fears substantiated. And sure, I probably can go swimming, and I probably won't get sick, but is it really a chance I want to take? Toronto frequently has to monitor the water quality in summer and issue warnings for people to avoid the water. Is that excessive pollution? For me it is, and until we get to the point that we are actually cleaning up the mess which was made by the volumes of people and industry, it is hard for me to see why we should be encouraging more people. I agree, we live in a very cool time, but I am somewhat more pessimistic about human behaviour and its tendancy to be altrustic. For generations our behaviour has been to exloit the environment for our own wellbeing. We are generally short-sighted in our approach because we value more our standard of living during our lifetimes than the future sustainability of the planet. You seem willing to put a big bet on future generations making a change to that behaviour. In my view that is a risky bet and not one I'd be willing to make. From the link I previously posted: In the example of the 29 reindeer in Alaska, you can see that for a while the reindeer population grew to 6000. And yes, the situation righted it self out by when the reindeer population grew too large, it caused mass starvation and a population crash. In your analogy market forces would raise prices of scarce resources. You cannot assume there will always be a low cost replacment. (Nuclear power was assumed to be a low cost replacement for oil at one time). My point is that you are correct that market forces will raise prices of resources when there is demand, however what will likely happens is that at least part of the population will not be able to afford the prices and will likely have to suffer a miserable existance or death because of that. Is what we really want boom and bust cycles where we have to compete with each other for scarce resources, and at least part of the population will be miserable in the process? Your right market forces will effect prices such that we won't be able to overconsume, but the natural effect is that for those of us who generate demand (us consumers), we will have to get by will less. So why would we want that? As an example view property prices in Toronto (or Vancouver, or wherever). For the most part most people can afford a postage-stamp plot of land with little or no backyard, if they can afford a house at all. Do we really want more people competing for the same land? Who really wants a quality of life which forces us to commute for 2 hours each way? I was being facetious in my comment on taxing birth control. Personally I advocate government staying out of personal decisions, and I can think of no more personal a decision than that to have a child. So I dont' advocate either governmental incentive (eg child-care subsidies) or punitive (taxing) measures to change population growth. In my statement above I actually didn't mean strictly birth control pills. Abortion is a form of birth control, different in form but not in objective in the other types. Not to hijack this thread into a discussion on abortion, but while I don't consider a medically necessary procedure which has the same justification for funding as heart-surgery, there are practical reasons why a government would want to fund it. That practical reason is that under our social programs, it would cost the government far more in welfare, medical, educational, and social costs if the unwanted pregnancy was carried to term than if it were terminated. Since childbirth is a covered expense who's cost far exceeds that of an abortion, the government actually saves money by paying for an abortion.