Mad_Michael

Once again, citizen recall is based on the fiction that an elected representative is beholden to represent the particular bias of one's own constituents on a vote-by-vote basis. This is absurd. Representatives are elected to represent the voter for a term of office, not to be a clerk for every fickle voter. And under the present system, the House can simply pass a resolution of no confidence against the Government if it so chooses. PM MacKenzie King actually had a slim majority but lost the confidence of the House in 1925. In my humble opinion, the Westminster model is about the only political institution in Canada that actually works quite well. Indeed, we've had a couple of new parties created and entered Parliament within the last twenty years. That is a sign of the health and vitality of the system. Indeed, I would be happy to argue (if that were the topic) that it isn't so much that the Westminster model is particularly good, rather it is a matter that US Presidential model is deeply flawed. I can't imagine anyone wanting such a poor functioning system adopted here.

Television ads... how tiresome. Same old crap using the same old medium to address the same old voters with the same old policies to the same old problems and the same old games to support the same old policies and the same old subsidies. I haven't seen a Canadian political ad in over ten years. I didn't even know they even bothered with this crap any more. It will be nice when we have a leadership group that isn't pandering to a 1970's view of the world.

Once again, you propose eliminating the Westminster model. You cannot pick and choose the elements of an electoral system - they are connected. If you vote for a President (as a stand-alone executive) you have to change the nature of Parliament and turn it into a Congress-like body (independent of the executive). Indeed, you'd have to re-write the Canadian constitution from top to bottom here. Ergo, you are essentially proposing that we drop the Westminster model and replace it with a USA style Presidential system. Why? Can you give one rational or substantive reason that would suggest such a policy would be an improvement?

I'm thinking the wording here is a bit suspect. What they really mean is that Hizbollah has been added (like a figurehead) to dress up the longstanding Canadian Government/Military view that peace protesters and native protesters are the real enemy. Just like in the USA.

This topic of US politics amuses me. Gore is an idiot. Therefore global warming doesn't exist. Gotta love US partisan politics. This apparently passes for serious discussion.

And what is the Canadian relevance here that you proclaim this a message to?

This says nothing substantive. Some teachers are reluctant to cover all kinds of topics for fear of upsetting anything. Indeed, some teachers in the USA are reluctant to cover evolution for fear of upsetting Christain fundamentalists (whether they are in the school or not).

Bemused giggles. The Pre-Celtic peoples, of which the Basque are the modern descendants are the 'first' inhabitants of Spain to the best of our knowledge. Then came the Celts, then the Romans, then the Vandals, then the Visigoths, then the Muslims, then the Christians. Tough one... got a time frame for me to work with? There is evidence of Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis and Homo Sapiens all passing through this region circa 50,000 to 1,000,000 years ago. Well, first in Egypt is highly debatable, but as for the choice between the Coptics and the Muslims, clearly the Coptic Church predates the Muslims. Indeed, this argument appears extremely arbitrary.

It is not required that I have to learn anything from you - other than the fact that discussion with you serves no meaningful purpose. Your attitude (which seems to be quite common at this forum site) has convinced me that posting at this site is a waste of time. Speculative and/or intelligent discussion is clearly not welcome here. Goodbye.

Lots of pompus and self-important drivel so far, but I've tried to be kind by not replying until you were finished and actually said something meaningful. But now that you are throwing it around rather thick, I figured I'd pipe in. BEAM ME UP SCOTTIE!

What is a "natality"? Quebec has the highest taxes and the largest debt of any Province in Canada. And of course, Quebec receives the largest amount of Federal tax subsidies from the 'rest of Canada'. Funny how that all goes together.

I don't reply to insults. I hold posters of such in utter contempt. Between the hideous appointments of Clarkson & Jean, I'm now willing to support the removal of the monarchy in Canada. It has become pathetic and a tool of patronage. High expense, no value. Lets get rid of the charade before some Rwandan refugee becomes our next GG.

Scary part is that Bombardier was voted the 'most respected' company in Quebec by Quebecers. Seems odd for a company that hasn't turned an honest profit in over two decades. Bombardier is the 'poster boy' for corporate subsidies in Canada.

Definitely not. 'White' Canadians have been breeding below replacement level for decades - a phenomena that is found in every western nation. A falling birthrate is a function of prosperity. Those who are prosperous breed less because children represent a financial liability rather than a financial resource as they are when one is poor. Thus, I expect this budget will fail to affect birth rates in Canada just like every attempt made to change the birthrate has failed. For example, giving out a $1000 tax credit for a kid that is going to cost you $200,000 doesn't sound like much of an incentive. Besides which, the decision to bear children is rarely driven by such rational considerations.

Does the executive hold that position by confidence of the legislature (in which case the executive is linked directly to the legislature) or by popular election (in which case the executive is entirely separate from the legislature). The choice is simple. The first is the Westminster model, the second is the Presidential model.

Media gag orders, like liable laws, exist to protect the powerful. That is their purpose and function. If our elites thought that publicity would help their cause, the gag order would be dropped in a flash.

I'm not taking sides on this one, but that's not an argument. That's the same kind of anti-American demagoguery practised by the NDP and Liberals for the last few decades. Sooner or later they may realize that mocking a country that has out-successed Canada by virtually every conceivable measure is not a particularly convincing argument, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. Oh, and by the way, since when is fixing election dates tantamount to "getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature"? That's an extremely flammable strawman. Get a grip. Preferring the Westminster model over the split American system is a valid principle based upon the character of electoral responsibility accorded to each system. In the Westminster model, there is formal electoral responsibility for all government functions. If you object to anything, responsibility for that policy is clear cut. In the American system where the executive is split from the legislature, there is no formal electoral responsibility for government policy. For example, if the US Federal government spends like a drunken sailor, who ought the voter hold responsible for this? The President or Congress? Both are able to deny responsibility by pointing at the other. P.S. Normally I don't bother to reply to those who make baseless accusations and insults. I'm not likely to bother replying to you in future on this basis.

If he would promise to refuse federal subsidies, I might believe him. But he's a Quebecer and so on this issue, I call 'bullsh*t'. Quebec is addicted to federal subsidies.

The tally might be even now, I would have to count again, but a decade ago or so, most GGs were foreign born Foreign born? Only if you call Britain foreign. It is entirely suitable to draw the Queen's representative from Britain. I'd be willing to cut some slack on this point of this immigrant woman actually came from a Commonwealth country where she could claim to be born and raised under the Queen. But Haiti? That is absurd. Lucky for Jean that she has the hideous example of Clarkson before her to have already killed any respect for the office so no one really cares anymore. Appoint Harper's dog to the job now, it wouldn't matter. Clarkson killed the office. Jean is just evidence that the office is indeed, pathetic.

Apparently Figleaf has a reputation for being uncivil. Either that or it affects this whole forum site (a view I'm beginning to be inclined towards).

Apparently it doesn't stop you. Fact: She's not born in Canada. My point: she's not born in Canada. So how am I wrong here? Fact: She has no qualifications for a job with really low qualifications. My point: she lacks qualifications. So how am I wrong here?

Are you serious? She's been in the country for four decades. How long do you think one has to be here before they're no longer considered fresh off the boat? She wasn't born a Canadian and thus I don't like some immigrant being annointed as Governor General. That is a mockery of the office (admittedly, the office is a bit of a joke). All immigrants are 'just off the boat' by definition. It has nothing to do with time factors. It has everything to do with the fact that they grew up in another culture/country. That's all well and fine, but I want the Governor General to be born in Canada.

Your really struggling with your comprehension of how our system works. Confidence of the house is required for our system to have ANY reasonable democratic value. We propose dumping the whole 'confidence' idea and electing the Premier/PM directly where they serve as head of the civil service. Both the house and the PM would operate on a fixed election cycle. So, in other words you propose getting rid of the Westminster model and adopting a copy of the US Presidential model with a split executive/legislature and there is no responsibility at all? No thank you!

Hit the nail on the head here (no doubt you didn't know you were doing that). Haiti is apparently her "home country". If that is true, send her back to it. I consider her appointment to be the most hideous of the Martin administration. If she's not born in Canada, she's not a symbol of anything execpt a government pandering votes by appointing her. I'm all for recognising the contribution of immigrants to this country. But grabbing one fresh off the boat and annointing them to one of the highest and most prestigious offices in all the land is insulting and demeaning to the office and to all Canadians. With this woman as Governor-General of Canada, I am embarrassed for my country. We are pathetic. The fact that the woman has no qualifications and has never contributed anything notable to this country is entirely beside the point.

Alas, I'm not young enough any more to know the answer to everything.