Yaro

So then which way should the fed turn, should it become more authoritarian? I am trying to understand exactly what your after here, is it for everyone to have exactly the same deal regardless of geographic differences? That sort of stinks of federalism doesn't it?

What the hell are you talking about? China doesn't have an enormous army, they have a minuscule army, they have very few police and the ones they do have rarely show up to attempt to police even fairly large demonstrations. China has at best very poor control of information sources. Have you ever even been to China? Which village was this? What exactly does cut off mean? This whole paragraph I suspect is absolute and pure bullshit. The Chinese government while hardly benign is simply not existent to most rural communities and this sure as hell didn't happen in one of the modern Chinese cities. I never said that China wasn't worse then the US on most human rights fronts, in fact I believe I stated specifically that they were. However while many members of the cult known as Falon Gong are peaceful, there is a significant minority who are terrorists along the lines of the IRA. There is a great deal of persecution of Muslims in western China, and pretty much every country on earth right now so I am trying to see your point here. China is not a great place, my point wasn't that they were some kind of humanitarian wonderland or that they were in any way a "good country". My point was that if all you care about is maintaining the current economic model of being able to sell goods to another country then China has a much brighter future when it comes to buying our goods then does the US. I know exactly what would happen, we would undergo a severe adjustment (which is coming either way) similar to the adjustment that came about in the decade following NAFTA. It would be unpleasant but in the long run it would be fairly neutral. How about Canadians? Is there some reason why Canadians can't consume what Canadians produce? Perhaps some universal law that says nothing can be used that doesn't come from across the sea?

I am always willing to hear a well reasoned argument that points out flaws in my own arguments, this isn't one of them. You have made absolutely no coherent argument on this point, you have continually attacked me suggesting that despite my education on the topic I am obviously ignorant of some basic points of economics which are then unwilling to elaborate on. Until you do actually explain your point instead of making broad unsupported and unrealistic statements with no logical underpinnings you will have no realistic affect on anyone with an educated opinion on the subject. As to my desire to "free Canada from economic dependence" its practical rather then ideological. The US star is setting, this is obvious to every non-US, non-sycophantic observer. When the US ship starts to sink it will have a very significant drag on other economies in direct proportion to the level of integration. Therefore why exactly would any sane person not argue for increasing separation between us and them? The US does need water, and will increasingly need water in the future. Which is why they have been working so hard to secure rights to Canadian water for the last 10 years. The issue is not that the US can't simply clean there water, its that this will have rapidly increasing price issues and the fact that there are some contaminants which are virtually impossible to remove fully. Drinking water is a strategic concern for the US. Not a single one of those nations can provide the US with wood in a significant way, of them only Russia has a significant supply of lumber and they are literally surrounding with growing economies on all sides who will demand it including the worlds largest economy, the EU. As for Uranium, Canada as the worlds largest exporter of uranium has a great deal to say on the topic of world prices on Uranium, to who, when, and for how much we sell it could have a very significant effect on its trade value. No they're not, there in debt more then anyone on earth and even if they weren't they would still be poorer then the EU currently and China down the road. The US economy is flagging and will continue to do so, ignore that if you wish but don't do so and pretend to be informed on the subject if you do.

Don't ever feel bad about pontificating on legal issues to me, I don't claim to be well educated on the subject and I certainly won't take offense. I appreciate any learned opinions on subjects I am interested in. I agree its good for the government to have an out, I just don't think that the out should be embedded as a rule requiring simple majority. If your going to have a rule of simple majority then the Charter has no point, its just a flowery document. Doesn't the government always have the ability to override the Charter with a significant enough majority? However, other sections make Charter violations permissible. Consider the wording of s. 7 of the Charter: I agree that due process is part of what is implied but I also think that fundamental justice implies a reasonable standard of fairness which is why I like it better then simple due process which implies the unimpeded notion of potentially draconian legality. Here is where I disagree, Paul Martin's position to me seems to be not to use the not-withstanding clause which would give him the ability to simply ignore the charter instead of having to accept the courts rulings as to its extent. Its a question of standard to me, I am aware that the government can enact laws that limit our freedom. However they can only do this so long as they are just and consistent with a free and democratic society as determined by the courts. In the case of the not-withstanding clause even this then level of civil defence disappears. That's actually a perfect example, as it meets the test of s. 1 and so doesn't require the use of the not-withstanding. This is the type of law that can already be passed without the not-withstanding clause, the only type of law that requires the use of the not-withstanding clause is legally by definition an unreasonable restriction on our freedom and/or unjust. He doesn't need to, it doesn't break the charter, it passes the internal test of reasonably. The not-withstanding clause would only required in a case where the standard is unreasonable. I think the standards set out in s. 1 are fine, I have no problem with them but the not withstanding clause standard does bother me. Political hack wasn't directed at you, it was directed at an individual who most definitely has a VERY strong political bias. I personally don't believe I have a political bias in this case other then being a libertarian on the issue of personal freedoms. The mathematical principle is sound whether there is 3 flips or 3 septillion flips. Not really, while I agree that more flips would provide a better mathematical base, I don't think that's relevant as we are talking about a specific outcome rather then a specific application of any randomization model.

Why do people keep saying I don't understand markets or trade? I don't get it, I would think that by this point it would be abundantly obvious that even if you disagree with my position that I know a great deal about this. I understand world markets very well, I also understand that world supply is declining and world demand is rising. I understand that access to the geographically most convenient source of resources is far more important to the consumer then the supplier since the are purchased at sight and at world demand price. I understand that supply of natural resources located near China will always be cheaper for China to import then for the US and vise versa. I understand that under no circumstance will the US be able to continue to supply domestic demand without maintaining Canada as a supplier. The US cannot, in any meaningful way, increase domestic production of; water, wood, uranium, or gas. They are very limited in those areas. They have a good domestic supply of oil which they could tap but are very limited in other areas. You are aware that Canada is the only country left on earth with a class 1 rain forest right? That wood is not easy to come by as it once was and that without Canada the US would be unable to maintain current levels of consumption without us? If we were to shut off shipments of wood to the US inside of a decade the US would be out of wood. That is a literal statement, there simply is no supply of suitable production hardwood left on earth besides Canada and Russia and Russian wood tends to be much lower quality. You are aware that clean drinking water is becoming one of the worlds thinnest resources right? And that with deforestation the rate of this degradation will only increase? Water is most certainly a very important resource. On my last trip to japan a 500 ml bottle of water from the delta watershed (the same water my brother flushes his toilet with) cost $6. Now that's Tokyo where I also paid $5 for an orange but I would say it pretty clearly demonstrates that water is very much a commodity. No they can't, the US is no richer then anyone else and considering the way they are hemorrhaging they will soon be poorer then most. The US cannot afford to outbid anyone, certainly not any of the first world economies. They are not even nominally the richest nation on earth, and they do not have anywhere close to the worlds most powerful economy. As I said before, perhaps you should do some research into why exactly the US wanted the NAFTA agreement so badly. There are dozens of other buyers in fact pretty much the entire planet. Its less efficient to ship to other places but the costs of trading with these other countries are born by them not us. Of course this is ignoring the fact that nobody has yet to make even a half hearted attempt to explain to me the great advantages of international trade over a primarily domestic supply/consumption model.

Really? So they can get: a) oil water c) gas d) wood e) uranium and a plethora of other goods. The fact of the matter is that there are a handful of countries on earth that have the natural resources that we have for sale and no country on earth promises to be a long term supplier of these goods. Access to markets has very little practical value to Canadian society as a whole, in fact the only value it has is in the ability to increase efficency beyond what could be accomplished for domestic consumption which is to say it hardly has any value at all.

I have never called China an Ally or a friend because there not. But the notion that they are a police state is ridiculous. The Chinese government (largely thanks to a great deal of propaganda) enjoys a stronger public support then virtually any western nation. China also has significantly fewer police per capita then any western nation. And I certainly never suggested that there weren't major human rights issues with China, sweatshop and other. However once again you clearly are ill informed as to the nature of "freedom" in China as there is far less interaction with actual repressive state representatives then you will find in either Canada or the US. Most Chinese (a larger percentage then Canada or the US) live lives free from persecution or any kind of government interference. Not that I would suggest they are a model I would wish to follow or that they could in any way be described as "good" just that they aren't nearly as different from us as most here believe. Clearly you have no concept of what happened during the great depression or you would realize that it would be virtually impossible for this to be the case. I agree, we should stop sending them softwood, hardwood, raw logs, and oil. We should sign long term agreements on oil with China and India. We trade with them out of convenience of geography which creates efficiency and good will with the US but is largely irrelevant when it comes to productivity. Did you understand the purpose of the NAFTA as far as the Americans are concerned? You should probably research it a little. Whats sad is that after having been repeatedly beaten intellectually (and rather badly) on a whole host of subjects that you would invite more abuse by attempting to condescend to someone who is obviously far more intelligent, better educated, and better informed then you are. If there is something about trade that you don't understand then by all means ask, but attempt to condescend again and the kid gloves i treat you with come off. The US is every bit as protectionist as the US, they use different mechanisms but the effect is the same. China doesn't buy our goods because they are produced domestically far cheaper, in what twisted reality would China have any reason to buy goods that are produced at a higher cost and ship them all the way to China? Companies travel to China for the conditions that exist there, there is no threat from the Chinese there is simply no reason to build goods over here. The vast majority of companies in China are foreign owned, they employee Chinese workers because of those sweatshop conditions not because they are forced to by the government. China steals technology? I think your mixing your trains of thought but let me explain this relationship. China steals IP, very simply because its beneficial to there population. Movies, Books, Programs, Music, and any other purely information good can be bought illegally in China for a tiny fraction of what it can be bought for in the west. Why exactly would they stop this? What would be there motivation? Lets see, allowing this theft a) benefits there people increasing moral weakens an economic competitor c) keeps the cost of policing IP very low d) maintains a focus in China on the production of material goods(jobs that traditionally pay better again hurting foreign competitors). China also steals military technology, guess where they learned this from? That's right again the US, since WW2 no country has stolen more technology then the US, no country is even a close second. Avionics technology coming from a) Germany Canada c) Israel/Russia, tank technology from a) Germany Russia. I could go on for some time about this but why bother? The Chinese are no doubt accomplished military technology thieves, there still a distant second to the US. Chinese industry does steal technology from industrial rivals but once again not on the level of the US. If you wish to learn more on this look up Echelon, Carnivore, Omnivore, and EU complaints about US spying on behalf of US industry and related encryption research. At the end of the day however it should be noted I am certainly not defending China on any moral grounds, there no better then the US (and in most ways are worse). However speaking very specifically in terms of Canadian self interest China is a more suitable trading partner. Not that I even think China is a good trading partner (I don't).

And I would suggest that you would be astonished by how many VERY well educated Iraqis have joined the insurgencies and how very few of them actually care anything about the Qur’an. Actually as I pointed out, our governments position was taken solely as a means to provide the US with a graceful out of Iraq something they have been to dense to recognize. We have never supported the US occupation in Iraq and until the day the US leaves that is what is happening. Blah blah blah, the insurgencies have been ruthless bastards. Well no shit, they for the most part are trying to avoid the installation of a puppet regime. Targeting collaborators has always been a well accepted premise of any guerrilla war. As for the kidnappings, now you are for the most part confusing al-queda activity for insurgent activity. They are not the same group even though they often appear to be, Al-queda does not want the US out of Iraq, which is how they recruit more people all over the world. In fact I would say that with general support for Al-queda dropping in most Muslim countries you can expect another attack on US soil fairly soon. The insurgency on the other hand made up largely of former troops, and of civilians who were fired upon the arrival of Mr. Bremer is very well educated, very well equipped and just now starting to develop the skills of guerilla warfare. Things will only get worse in Iraq for the US for 2 main reasons; the aforementioned attainment of skills by a group that was designed in every way to be the antitheses of a guerilla outfit, and 2ndly as the Iraqi nationalists becomes more and more determined. In reality it was this group (the nationalists) which was the key demographic for the US; of course they were completely incompetent in recognizing this but most strategists knew it. You see the nationalists are very important, as long as you have the nationalists you control the word of mouth propaganda, as soon as you lose that vital group of people who actually want what’s best for Iraq, well you lose the war. The US has lost the war they just don't know it yet (although many are starting to suspect it I think). Actually there’s virtually no credible analyst at this point that will say otherwise, there was always a significant group of analysts who said that a long term stay would most likely result in the lose of nationalist support and after the initiation of shock economics it became almost impossible to find any expert outside the Whitehouse group that was willing to say Iraq would succeed in the long run. Even noted hawks such as Bremer and Wolfowitz have started to make there excuses. I mean seriously were talking about a group so stupid that when Hans Blix (a noted hawk who believed there were WMD in Iraq) came out of Iraq saying there was no weapons they decided to turn on him like a pack of rabid dogs. A group so stupid that they ignored the advice of ALL of there top staff on terrorism including both Clarke and his successor. At this point Iraq is at a point where there will be no potential for peace until the US leaves, after the US left Vietnam there was no collapse, and there would be no collapse if they left Iraq. It should also be noted that while most point out the problems between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis that there has been peace between the groups for the majority of the areas history and the existence of multiple tribes in any one country is not only not exceptional its the norm. Virtually every country in the region has a similar makeup. As to why the US is staying, that’s simple, because they didn't take the way out that was offered by the UN and now there stuck. If they leave now whether it breaks down or not they are a total and complete failure. They haven't accomplished any of there goals in the region, they haven't established a base of operations outside of Israel, they haven't cemented a puppet democracy and they have no stable forward bases and have no control over the worlds number one oil producing nation (that’s Iraq not Saudi Arabia as so many would like to suggest). But if you want the assessments of a few key men that agree that the US should pull out you can look up the works of the following men some you might know; Greg Thielmann, William Clark, Bruce Hoffman, or any of the DOZENS of former high ranking CIA members who have quit over the issues of Iraq. At the end of the day the current US government is collapsing faster then any government in US history and you can expect a period of severe sulking from the US as it adjusts to the new realities. Combined with economic troubles I can only hope that things get better quickly for the Americans but its sad to see.

This is of course to a large extent the dread scenario; it’s the Chinese missile crisis really. However I doubt it will happen and this is why, China is an isolated country, all the other powers are at least nominally democracies. China feels this in a very big way and it’s what has largely held it from projecting power in the past. Consider the power blocks of the next 40-60 years. There is the USA, there is Europe, Russia (a pour player but as a swing state important), India, and China. These blocks form the basis for the dreaded structures which were so vividly imagined in 1984. China has 2 main geographic rivals India and Russia, both of whom China has had military conflict with in the not to distant past both of whom are democratic and both of whom have at best a troubled history. In the new reality there will be alliances, the alliances of import will come in 2 groups any potential Europe Russia alliance and any potential US-India alliance. Although India and China have recently made many political overtures there is still a great deal of distrust between the pair and India’s very shallow social-economics curve match the US's much better then the comparatively steep curve found in China. China-Russian relations really haven't been any better then China-Indian relations and the Russians have always had the long term goal of joining the EU regardless. China very much is alone in the allies’ game, and while they have played the hand they have with amazing skill they know that in the long run without democratic reform they are left out of the world wide picture. That’s very important to China, as a population center the flow of natural resources is vital and will continue to grow in that nature in the future. If anything China will only become more vulnerable to the lack of these strategic alliances, particularly with the geographically accessible Russia.

Fair point, however I would argue that what is happening in Iraq right now is a conflict against a foreign occupier. The US is the target of the insurgency and has been from the start, the only targets of insurgent activity have been those that have always been targets in this type of virtual civil war. It should also be noted that Canada's support of the provisional government based upon the UN's support was based upon the US already being out of Iraq. It was in every political corner understood to be a way to allow the US a graceful exit from Iraq before it turned into the complete clusterfuck that it has become. Iraq not so long ago was easily the most advanced country in the middle east, they have all the right people and education to make it so again and since pretty much every non-American strategist from around the world agrees that the best thing that could happen for Iraqi's is for the US to leave I would say that the notion of support for the provisional government is a small issue at best. Leafless: Ignorning your ignorance of the formative years of Canada and the US for a moment, So let me get this straight, your stating a moral support of the US after stating this as your evidence of the benifical nature of the US? Because of that is the case then I suggest medication may be your best avenue for a normal life.

Actually no it doesn't. The US has been a hindrance to Canada since its inception, in its birth it stole half of the wealth from what would become Canada's founding families (well the English half at least). It was at the behest of the US that Canada virtually dismantled its military as well as a great deal of its industry. If you knew the history of Canadian/American relations half as well as I do you would probably despise the US. The true humour in this comes in of the fact that I don't hate the US, not at all. The US has in all of its actions acted as nations all over the world have its own best interest. I expect it; I anticipate it and I certainly don't think it makes them "evil" or even bad. It is in many ways the sycophancy of some Canadians combined with the overwhelming goodwill of the majority that has created constant generosity towards the Americans that has been the problem with this relationship. Someday Canadians will realize that the US has the best interests of the US at heart, not Canada or the world and at the end of the day there is nothing untoward, unfair, or unjust about that.

Note to leafless: if you want to sit at the big table with the intellectuals write something worthy of response.

Multiculturalism is a mistake, an ugly mistake at that. I said it 20 years ago I repeat it now; two cultures living in close proximity without significant integration will develop hostility. It’s happened everywhere else on earth it will happen here. I understand the philosophy behind it, I understand the reasoning, but in this the US very much has the right idea (if the wrong implementation) bringing people together without consideration to there culture will always be far more productive then separating them by it. On the gun control however, I think that we should just go through the motions of legalizing pot, and then suggest to the US that we might not legalize pot if they control the guns coming across the border a little better. It’s called hardball and our balls are just as big as theirs are.

Excellent plan, the English language really is an absolute mess. It’s not everyone switching to Esperanto but it’s the next best thing...

I don't think Canada is in official support of the US position in Iraq, in fact I don't think any of our actions could be reasonably viewed that way. We have provided humanitarian aid that has nothing to do with what is effectively a US occupation. Whether we support the US in Iraq or not is also somewhat irrelevant, Canadians fighting the US in Iraq should be treated in a neutral manner, exactly the same as a Canadian fighting in any other army in the world against any other army in the world. It is simply continued sycophancy and delusion that drives some people to view the US as allies, they are not, and I defy anyone to show me an act that the US has performed in the last 20 years that could reasonably be interpreted as an act of friendship.

That’s an interesting point FTA, maybe a system where judgments are multi staged first a sequestered and considered legal opinion written from each judge then a combined decision... perhaps with some form of weighting? At least it would add transparency to each judge’s decision making process and maybe reduce the role of lobbying or political hackary... Maybe in effect each judge gets 2 votes, 1 after an individual consideration and 1 after a combined consideration, Or maybe a system where a the judge would simply have the option of abstaining there vote after combined consideration? Harper argued hard against the inclusion of this clause, and I agreed with him. The charter is the representation of our basic rights as human beings and citizens of Canada, there should never, ever, under any circumstances be an out for the government to circumvent those rights. At the end of the day if you weren't a political hack and if you understood the process you would probably be defending the PM on this issue. The referral back to the commons wouldn't be undemocratic; it would be TOO democratic if anything. And I am not suggesting that it’s the best system but I can also see the flip side where some people are uncomfortable with a system of simple majority. It’s a difficult situation.

I disagree that it is one person deciding though. Its 9 people deciding and the decision doesn't ever come down to one person. I'm no lawyer so I will try to explain what I mean statistically. If you flip a coin 9 times and after the 8th flip it comes to a count of 4 to 4 then the last flip could be viewed as "the deciding flip" But If you flip 9 separate coins at the same time and 5 of them come up heads then it wasn't a matter of it coming down to 1 coin regardless of the fact that it was the margin. I do understand the potential problem with appointing someone based on a single position but regardless of the methodology you’re going to wind up with something either democratic and potentially biased or something undemocratic and potentially biased. For example take the gay marriage issue, now law professors and judges were pretty unified in the opinion that the charter should have protected the right to gay marriage. The majority of the country was for gay marriage and yet there was real concern that if there was a free vote it would not have passed. So that’s a case of SCC: should have been yes, commons votes (if democratic) real possibility of no, referendum yes. It seems to me a catch 22, courts aren't democratic, and never should be. After all isn't this portion of the SCCs job to prevent tyranny of the majority? Now that does make me think that maybe in cases without 2/3rds majority issues of charter challenge should be deferred to the commons? I don't know if I like that any better because in the past the courts have been the group protecting our rights... Ugly situation that I honestly don't see a good way out of... (Although I tend to not try to fix what doesn't appear to be broken...which has been my position on SCC nominations)

No that’s the opinion of every even moderately educated economist, the US didn't take in more in taxes, their dollar dropped in value because they printed more then any other period in history. Please don't talk about common sense and economics because you’re clearly severely underinformed for a discussion of either.

How about if we just treat them the same way that the Canadians who joined the US Army in Vietnam were treated?

Interesting information, there is a great deal of conflict in the Fed Act and some other sources should make an interesting topic to research. The Fed has been private/public several times in its history. Originally it actually belonged almost solely to the bank of England and the bank of Germany which is to say it belonged to the Rothschild’s. (An interesting topic if you’re interested).

I think Argus, that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way our SCC and parliament interact. The Parliament (effectively) enacted a group of basic laws of principle that we call our constitution. In doing so they force upon the SCC the responsibility to compare all future laws with the principles of the constitution. These basic rights are to hold a place above future law, in order to subvert these laws will in future require a much higher standard then simple majority. The government can enact any law they want, they have a not-withstanding clause, and baring that they can even change the constitution with a large enough majority. This is not only within the purview of the SCC; it is absolutely there primary function. No lawyer or Judge without an agenda will tell you that gay right for example was not protected by the constitution but still some call it the SCC making law which it simply clearly was not the case. FTA Lawyer, I am curious as to what you would consider to be a good replacement? I am personally not against change although I don't believe that the US system has worked very well, and I do think that our current system has worked well I could see potential issues.

Sorry for the long delay in replying... This is an interesting situation; it explains why the bank is listed as a private corporation. Actually a comparatively elegant solution. Is this a unique situation in the first world? Thanks for the information. Labour productivity is higher in the west because it is currently the center for IP creation. The productivity numbers for IP are way out of wack with any manufacturing business. Industry by Industry the numbers are fairly comparable. I suppose I will respond to your initial post though, you more then earned it . What I said before about the difference between productivity and efficiency stands, productivity is the key to competitive behavior it’s true. However it is not the key to greater social wealth and the statistics have consistently shown that pushing productivity numbers to hard results in an actual reduction of efficiency. At the end of the day we all will work harder but be poorer, yes that sounds impossible but its very much reality.

The BoFC is a private bank, it kind of disturbs me that you don't know this... So long as Canada like the US is the home of such a high concentration of the worlds investor population labour will never fall to a level where productivity parity with Asia is even remotely possible. Talking about productivity in the current enviorment is pointless, parity is impossible.

Care to name one? Or is this another of those statements that is implicitly obvious even though the Klein government may very well be the most socialist in the country? Please enlighten me.

Actually he is a policy guy, a moronic policy guy. Its his history of policies that have alienated so many. We need a REAL conservative at the head of the conservative party, not some Bush wanna be.