plusgood

I would have expected some support, that's suprising. That post about him using his sexual orientation to get ahead was fairly immature and disrespectful. If you accept that he was suffering from a mental illness and has now sought help for it, then I think it is only reasonable to offer him a second chance. With that said I definately forsee some difficulty with him entering the house since the sole role of opposition in Canada is to complain about corruption, and he may have trouble justifying complaining at Liberals for allegations against them. A while ago I received a funny email that discussed the level of criminality in the House of Commons in terms of criminal records and current investigations for largely business related fraud claims; the numbers were shocking, but unfortunately I cannot find it. Anyone else have this information anywhere?

Svend Robinson's planned comeback has been in the working for some time now, and it is pretty much official, he seeks nomination in Vancouver-Center. What do people feel about Robinson's political career and the event that took him out of politics? Is he worth a second chance? I see Robinson as a political activist who helps bring important issues to the political agenda. I am happy to hear that he is recoverying and plans a comeback, I hope he becomes a ficture in the House of Commons again.

I believe civil war would never occur. I think separation would hieghten tensions, but that for economic reasons all efforts to keep the situation non-violent and calm would be made by both sides. Once a yes vote has been achevied that matches requirements in the Clarity Act, then negotiations would commence in relations to territory. I admit I do not know the past policy of the PQ in relation to territory, but I do not see an independent Quebec wanting to "hold on" to an English minority, or an aboriginal population; therefore, I would suspect those territories would be remain Canadian. There are a number of complex issues that would need to be resolved, and like take years to fully resolve, leaving Quebec in limbo for sometime. Best case scenario: Quebec does not separate ever, but work within Canada to establish the recognition they deserve.

I would be disappointed to see Quebec leave the Federation, but if they do obviously they would need to develope military capabilities. That article is not shocking; it represents logical thinking for those hoping to separate. They would need to plan for military, foreign policy and so on. One point brought up was the Clarity Act not meaning anything, but I disagree. Their right to separate is quite ambigious and perhaps without constitutional approval from at least the Federal government and Quebec, if not a majority of the provinces, is questionable. I think the Clairty act, which would establish a threshhold above 50% electoral approval, is a good way to add legitimacy to the separation debated without relying on constitutional change. If 75% of Quebecers, for example, wished to secede, it would be hard for Canada, or the 25% of Quebecers who voted against it, to stand in their way. If it's roughly 50/50 or even 60/40 for separation, it becomes more troubling. In this sense the Clarity Act is an excellent piece of legislation in that it sets clear standards and rules of engagement I think Quebec would have a very difficult time if it separated with a population evenly split after a referendum. If a high level of support is found however, I think it would be only fair to think of separationg as not only acceptible, but a right.

I agree getting our own SLC would be a starting point, and would maybe go some distance to bringing down the cost. In countries that already have aid agencies working in them for other reaons when disasters strike however, it will still be cheaper for them to do the work that DART would do. Ultimately they purify water and have a mobile hospital at a rate of 10million a mission. What they do can be done much cheaper. Also, I very much like the idea of DART, it just needs to find away to be more effective for the cost, if that's possible.

There was an interesting discussion on a news show I watched yesterday about the cost of DART for the work it does vs. the cost of supplying that revenue to aid agencies in the area. Essentially, what cost the Canadian government 10million for the work done by DART, aid agencies could do double the work for $600,000. Is this a scandal, or is it important for the Canadian government to have a clear presence in helping with disaster relief, I don't know. But based on these figures, and the fact it takes DART forever to get to disaster sights, it seems an awful shame that it cannot be more effective. DART represents a romantic vision for the future of military engagement, so in that sense I want to see it continue and become more effective, but at the same time what matters most is getting the best possible help to those suffering as a result of a disaster. Right now it's simply a diplomatic tool so all tha matters to Foreign Affairs Miniter Pettigrew and other political players is what it appears to be doing, rather than what it is doin.g

Sorry, I didn't see there was an already well developed debate just below.

The idea of legalization casuing mass consumption is a very frightening thought. However, given that drugs are already readily availiable to those who want to do them, I'm of the opinion there wouldn't be an increase. There's already extensive education availiable about the ill effects of drugs, those who choose to ignore the information and who enjoy drug use will do it whether it is legal or not. If what I said is infact true then the shifting of funds from enforcement through the police and legal system to treatment and education might have a positive impact on lowering the levels of drugs use. With that said I still support criminalizing hard drugs because of the clear ill effect their use has on the greater society. Soft drugs like marijuana is a different issue.

Do people really care that much? I accept the arguement that he came along as support staff, there are plenty of logistic jobs that require little or no training that the chaffeur or others could do. So it was a perk, big deal, he rewarded his long serving chaffeur with a trip overseas as a support staffer. Minister Pettigrew has the right to determine who to bring on his trips, I guess the usual is two support staffers, why not switch it up in order to keep high spirits among employees? I know in every single job I've ever held there have been certain perks, I'm sure most people have found that as well. Also the actual cost is not going to be $10,000 since Pettigrew did not bring is chaffeur along as an extra, but actually instead of another staff member. This wasn't a gift, a free $10,000 trip, it required 'support' type work to be done, and if it wasn't the chaffeur doing it, it would have been someone else.

Of course Alberta shouldn't have to share its revenue from higher oil prices. If Alberta's oil is to be shared then perhaps revenue from all industy should be spread equally between all provinces. Alberta is lucky to have oil within its territory just like Ontario is lucky to have its heavy-industry sector. Equalization payments are used to provide revenue for provinces which were unable to secure enough tax revenue from its population to provide for their programs. If Equalization is not working set up a First Ministers' Conference and negotiate a new formula for dividing wealth, but I do not think that raiding Alberta's oil wealth is an really acceptible option. What happens when Alberta's oil wealth is gone and Alberta is struggling, will Alberta be able to go after industries that are profitable in other provinces? It would set a precedent for a messy way of interprovince revenue sharing. I think Canadians from other provinces should migrate into Alberta and take advantage of the jobs the oil industry has and is continueing to created. On another note I think Alberta could be more responsible with its wealth and I agree with comments in the media that Ralph Klein's proposal to give all Albertans cheques is "intellectually bankrupt." For example, Alberta should consider using the money to invest in medical research, research that would benefit all Canadians. Or look into the number of issues that could use financial attention - schools, environment, affordible housing are the usual areas mentioned - this would show the rest of Canada that Alberta isn't just 'swimming in money.' Klein's perceived arrogence seems to make non-Albertans feel that Alberta has more money then it needs, but really there are plenty of areas in need of investment... Alberta just needs a more innovative government.

I think there is a definate importance in providing closed captioning for political advertisements. I think his complaint is valid and by making such a fuss over it hopefully it'll be prevented from happening again. But I also agree it wasn't conscious discrimination, simply an oversight.

In some ways I agree that Canada should be more aggressive, but I also have to point out that Canada's lack of physical presence in the far North creates the notion that these areas are not under Canadian sovereign control. I believe it is possible for other countries to make a convincing argument that they do not constitute Canadian territory if there is no historic evidence that Canada has been active in these regions. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. I think Canada's best bet is to start sending envoys to these island for scientific research and troops for training exercises. This way the government can claim that Canada is in fact active in these regions.

I know there are a ton of reasons for why Canada should take an active role in securing Hans island, including potential natural resources wealth, setting precedent, and securing control over the Northwest Passage, but to me the greatest reason is it adds a little fun and excitement in the news. It's entertainment, plain and simple. Let's keep fighting this thing!

I've often thought about this argument in the past. I am also convinced that a lot of the War On Terror and threat of possible terrorist attacks in Canada is exaggerated. This doesn't mean I think it's impossible, it simply means I think we over empathize its likeliness and the posed threat. However, this does not mean that I think we shouldn't increase funding to our security agencies in order to be on the safe side. First off, maybe the increased 10billion funding has prevented attacks in Canada, or intelligence gathered has helped to prevent attacks in other countries. I'm trying to point out that for all the general public knows this increase in funding may have been responsible for preventing attacks and thus there are no terror related death figures in Canada. It would be equivalent to saying that law enforcement funding should be reduced in correlation to a reduction in the crime rate, which would ignore the fact that higher law enforcement funding had helped to reduce the crime rate. Secondly, despite the fact terror attacks will never cause the same level of death as disease, cancer, pollution, car accidents, suicide and so on in Canada it does not mean it shouldn't take on a higher priority in government. A terror attack demonstrates weakness and vulnerability and gives extremists a success story to help further their cause. It strikes fear in the hearts of Canadians and could stall our economy. If a terrorist is able to launch an attack in Canada, even if the death toll is small, it hurts our integrity and strengthens the terrorists', this could give them victories they should be denied. Thirdly, increased security funding can help to stop the flow of organized crime activity into Canada, whether it is drugs, people, or child pornography, it poses a threat to Canadians, and I can only assume that increases in security funding will ultimately result in reduced levels of these offenses. So, I do not think the increased funding is a waste... With all that said I must admit I am not fully convinced that any measures taken can truly stop a determined terrorist group. There will always be holes in the system waiting to be taken advantage of. I am also one of the many believers that different attitudes towards the Arab world, mainly in terms of foreign policy, would go a long way to reducing the terrorist threat.

I think you could aruge that the internet has assisted alternative or less-mainstream views, but whether that translate into concrete help for any of the mainstream political parties is difficult to judge. Through the internet we now have access to a wide variety of views and new sources for information that we never had before. So in this regard I think it is possible to argue that minority voices within individual parties can be strengthened and less mainstream views can be heard. So, maybe the social conservative agenda and NDP have gained some stronger publicity within the Canadian political framework. It's difficult to judge because perhaps those mainstream voices are also capitilizing off the internet in similar fashions. In general it has helped all the parties. They all can use the internet to spread their message and fundraise. There's also online issue-petitions and campaigns that regular people now have easier access to. With this in mind it's possible to view the internet as an key component to re-invigorating our political process.

I was wondering if Michael Ignatieff was going to be mentioned. I recently read an article in the Globe and Mail that mentioned the possibility of him returning to Canada and becoming an MP and possibly pushing his way up into the Prime Ministership. My concern is that Canadians would be weary about supporting a candidate that has been working outside of Canada for decades. This is also a criticism that opposition parties could levy against an Ignatieff-Liberal campaign - argueing against an 'outsider' running the country. They could easily question Ignatieff's ability to lead Canada on these grounds and question whether he can truely comprehend the issues and design policy if he has not been a resident. The Liberals may not wish to risk the potential success of this criticism; although, maybe there isn't any better candidate currently within the Liberal machine. After the 2004 US election I remember reading some articles about John Kerry being too much of an intellectual for the American population. These same articles argued that Bush, being perceived less as an intellect and more as an average American, was better able to relate to the people and gain their support. Now, I am not arguing that John Kerry was an intellectual or that Bush is an idoit, but that is how they were perceived and this perception apparently hurt Kerry because he was less able to relate to the average American. My fear is this same perception could pleague Ignatieff.