plusgood

Any merit to the idea that these kidnappers were paid off? Seems bizarre that there were no shots fired and no captured hostage-takers.

Well in the last election the conservatives got about 30% of the popular vote and the NDP got around 15%. So if the Conservatives got 4 million votes then the NDP got around 2 million. It was the Greens who got half a million. Jack Layton's point that the Conservatives do not represent the values of Canadians may work if he is inlisting Liberal, Green and the Bloc's (on non-nationa/federal/etc type issues) numbers. Then it paints a picture where 70% of Canadians voted for parties that are generally Leftwing. In terms of political debate the argument is weak. Obviously there is support for the Conservatives and that support appears to be growing. When it is broken down in to individual regions that support obviously skyrockets in the West.

While I understand the logic of the disagreement I still generally disagree. If I was told my vote would make the difference between my least favorite party and my second favorite party, I would choose my second favorite party over my first. But there are plenty of reasons to voting for a party besides the two most likely to win in your riding or nationally. 1. They get financial help for each vote received (since 2004 1.75 a year) 2. Ideals, why vote for a party that does not represent you the best? 3. Protest, voting against the status quo? 4. Building the popular support of a smaller party may influence the platform of larger parties? (I think we saw that with the influence of the Greens on Liberal and NDP environmental policies/Obviously NDP influence on the Liberals has some historic backing as well) 5. Voting for a smaller party may help to strengthen its support in the future. (Greens slowly growing? more money from votes... awareness.... slowing strengthening their party?) 6. hilighting the problems with our electoral system. If Canadians stopped voting for their favorite parties because they knew they wouldn't be presented in legislatures then there'd be no evidence that our electoral system distorts the numbers of seats/votes. (while there is an obvious debate around problems with our electoral system, that does not change the fact that this could represent a reason for voting for smaller parties - especially in conjunction with ideals/protest type reasons) *** I think thinking of Canada as a two-party system, Liberals vs. Conservatives is highly simplistic. Our smaller parties are important. The NDP has shown that in this resent Parliament session. They changed the budget! *** Also, as an NDP supporter my second choice is the Liberals and that has not been effected by the scandal. So if my vote is for the Liberals by voting the NDP that is fine with me. I am also not oppose to voting strategically; if my riding was close I would consider voting Liberal. So, the idea that a vote against the liberals if it isn't a vote for the conservatives does not necessarily hold up.

Peter Mackey and Belinda Stronach. NO HANKY PANKY BETWEEN MPs. heh. I think both these politicians have demonstrated some fairly negative characteristics. Mackey, clearly and blatently broke a promise, and Stronach jumping to the Liberals over the summer. They both demonstrated some serious opportunism and for that I'd be happy to watch them go down. I know there are plently more who have angered me in the last 17 months though. Those two I'd like to see fail though. Generally I support the Liberals, but I find many in the cabinet unappealing as well. Paul Martin! Joe Volpe! Tony Valeri (Although I was never a fan of Shelia Copps, he came off looking horrible there)! and Pierre Pettigrew. I'd like to see Ignatieff and Robinson win their seats. Both interesting and livily characters who are sure to make parliament more interesting.

There's something to be said for personal imcome taxes above those of changes to the GST. It allows more savings now. In the end though both are beneficial in terms of reducing the impact of taxation on the population. Is this difference really going to be made into an election issue? There is extra money flowing in to Ottawa and either government would aim to give some of it back. Both are generally tax-cuts for people, asnd will generally effect the same people in similar ways. I don't find the end-result distribution differences of who the tax cuts will benefit to be overly important. I'm starting to wonder why Harper didn't come out and say they were going to scrap GST altogether. THat would have been effective in political gains. I don't think many people are going to care about a reduction of 2%. I read one article that stated 2% GST = 4.5billion in revenue. I think if they said they were cutting the whole program the significance of it would be better seen. I wonder how concered Canadians in general are about tax-cuts anyway. Are we really that badly done by?

The one I caught was a bit comical. But I think it's completely reasonable. It's an election and a good time for people to take an interest. It's like when winter comes around, it's a good time to take up skiing. I think people very often enter political debates strongly opinionated or passionate about one side or whatever only to realise the picture is that much broader. So all the power to them, even they are party-propagandists. I'd encourage them to stick around and see responses from people on this board though. A lot of interesting opinions, I know my mind has been changed a couple times and I'm fairly new here. Posting-wise anyway.

I'm pretty skeptical of all the poll results I'm seeing right now so it does not matter to me too much.

haha. yeah. I recognize that this type of thing has a long history. I'm sure other party leaders do it as well. I just think its a fairly important issue worth thinking about. I am one of those people who are bothered by the Single-Member-Plurality electoral system. I think it completely hinders democracy. For that reason I see competition at nomination meetings to be very important. If this is a liberal safe riding then Ignatieff has just been appointed MP. As I mentioned originally I am also bothered by the fact this star-candidate does have enough star-power to win a non-liberal seat. This is also made more difficult by the fact that I generally like Ignatieff.

Yah, I'm not too sure about him on foreign affairs either. From my understanding he supported the war with Iraq and missile defense? Now, in terms of Iraq he's a big human rights advocate and that plays into it, rather than any of the geopolitical goals the US Admin may have, so that's an important distinction to make. Sometimes I wonder if I opposed the Iraq war when thought about on those grounds. I guess that wasn't the issue I was raising, but its still important. I think any process where the PM appoints candidates or denies the nomination process has the potential to be assessed as rigging.

What are peoples thoughts on this? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/National/ I hate this kindof thing. I think nomination meetings are very important to our democracy, especially if you consider the criticisms of our electoral system. It is also interesting that he would accept entering the political scene in Canada under controversial circumstances considering the fact he is often promoted as a potential leadership Candidate. It's too bad that he didn't have the kind of star-candidate appeal to win in a non-safe riding. He is taking a riding where MP Jean Augustine had 50% of the vote, 20% above her Conservative challenger.

The logic is that without this reverse-discrimination you would be discriminating against minorities due to historical disadvantges, prejustices, and so on. It is making up for the mistakes of the past and in many ways I think that makes complete sense. I also think it makes complete sense that demographics in society be represented in its civil service. It allows for the greater posibility that all members of society will have people working in their government that take them into consideration. That is why I want to see demographics represented. This is the theoretical background for affirmative action programs and I have no complaints against it. Maybe there are problems with its application, I don't have enough information to make too clear a judgment on that.

Argus, thank you. That was very informative. Kinda frightening how over the top the language requirement really is then. Tml12, I'll come back on later to answer your concerns with my comments.

I would assume the fact that bilingualism is a cheif component of the Canadian Charter that Canada is infact a bilingual country. Based on bilingualism being mentioned in the Charter it seems to make sense that the government would strive for a greater porportion of bilingual civil servents. I wasn't sure I understood the distinction being offered between Canada having two official languages and bilingualism. Provinces can be unilingual, I recognize that, however the federal government is officially a bilingual institution and Canadians have the right to demand that its services be provided in one of the two official languages. There are also stipulations for french schools to be created where demand is necessary in English provinces, and vis versa for english schools in Quebec. This to mean is a very bilingual policy and its found in the Charter as well. I admit I had no real knowledge about the skill level of french required to advance in the civil service. I'd like to learn more about this.

It appears that you have all glossed over some fairly critical information in that article. "the proportion of female, disabled, aboriginal and non-white new hires fell from one in eight this March to only one in 20 by September." Jobs for white males are still going to be availiable, they just want to ensure that their employees better represent the society they are intending to serve. I think an explicit policy to ban hiring write males is a little bit troublesome, but none the less it is consistent with why afirmative action programs are important, especially in government. 1. Set an example to other companies to maintain fair hiring practicies 2. Correct historical mistakes and misrepresentation due to racism and sexism. This means hiring minorities and those who have been discriminated against. 3. Government bureaucracies should be representative of the society they are representing, this ensures that all members of the society have some consideration in policy designs and application. Sure, it is not perfect and it can mean that sometimes those most qualified are not hired, but I think on the whole this policy is better. Ultimately our civil serives will encompass greater diversity and be able to better meet the needs of all Canadians. On the bilingual note: Having to know two languages should not be considered too much of a burden. In all honesty it is a shame that more Canadians do not. I also know for a fact that civil service will hire unilingual Canadians who are qualified and then provide training for them to learn either English or French, not in all cases, but in many. So it is not as anti-English Canadian as it is being portrayed. Shouldn't a country that is officially bi-lingual strive to have a civil service that represents that ideal?

Well depending on how explicit an apology is it pretty much will result in the granting of compensation. Your position essentially says, we did wrong, an apology is owed, but we don't want to fix the mistakes made. Granting compensation to the relatives of those who had a Head Tax imposed on them is not that much different than a family sueing someone after they ran over their relative in a car crash. It is not direct payment to the victim, but the victim's family. Sure it doesn't correct the wrong fully, but it is an attempt at making ammends. I think government compensation in form of funds to the Chinese communittee would serve a similar purpose. I don't believe that Chinese immigrants were escaping communism 120 years ago. I know there were civil wars in China around the early 20th century, perhaps they were escaping that. I think where our arguements diverge is the fact that I think in order to maintain the integrity of the ideals we claim our 'great' country are based upon, we should be willing to look back and where possible correct the mistakes of the past.