Mad_Michael

True. But the nuances of Ottawa-speak are sometimes lost upon the masses and they make up their own minds about what the words might actually mean. That is to say, the true meaning of Harper's statement is that which Quebec understands it to be, not necessarily as Harper states it here in English. Words are ultimately symbolic and emotive. How the Quebecois will interpret this, I'm not sure, but if it backfires and they start pushing Jean Charest to ask for Harper's statement to be recognised in the constitution... things could turn out not so good for Mr. Harper.

I'm thinking that Bob Rae is the best candidate - or rather, the candidate most likely to enable the Liberal Party to defeat Harper and return a majority. That Ignatieff character has no charisma and is stiff as a board. As national leader, I think he'd be a disaster. Indeed, Ignatieff might be the only Canadian politician with less charisma than Harper!

There is so much mis-information posted in this thread that one hardly knows where to start to address any of it. Suffice it to say that the present standing age of consent for anal sex (specifically) between consenting males is 21 in Canada. The present initiative will only lower the age to 18 to make it in line with other statutory age limits and reduce the exposure of the Government to a charge of sex-discrimination. Similarly, the Province of Ontario is trying to raise the age of consent for sexual relations (generally) from 14 up to 16.

I haven't made up my mind yet upon this issue. Either way, this doesn't look very well thought out by Harper. It has all the signs of something Harper thought up late at night, the day before he announced it. It could work out fine - or it could explode in his face. First and foremost, it is obvious that Harper is playing a short game of strategy, trying to prevent the BQ from nailing his ass to the wall and risk losing critical parliamentary BQ support (since the BQ was tabling a very similar motion). And it also appears to help Ignatieff in his bid for the Liberal leadership, and since Ignatieff was looking like he wasn't going to win next week, this could suggest that Harper really would prefer to face Ignatieff in an election rather than Rae (can't say I'd blame him, Ignatieff makes John Kerry look warm and friendly by comparison and is thus bloody unlikely ever to win a major election unless by default). Last and not least, I can't see how this could possibly playout well for Harper. Without a doubt, the biggest opposition to any recognition of Quebec is Harper's own Western base, so this isn't likely to make them happy. And Quebecers aren't likely to swing over to the Conservatives in much numbers even at the best of times, so I can't see how this could translate into a vote-getter for Harper. And there is no doubt that this is a godsend for the Liberal Party (by removing a contentious issue). So what about poor Jean Charest? He's the one in the hotseat now. If the Quebecois demand that he push for Constitutional recognition of Harper's statement, then we are in for Meech Round III and all that implies, which is not likely to rebound in Harper's favour at all. So I just can't see this as a very well thought out or strategic move by Harper. It is looking like Harper's attempt to dodge the BQ's bullet just might end up with Harper shooting himself in the face.

Perhaps the debate doesn't interest me. And convincing you even less so. Speak for yourself. You are not privy to all of the posts on this board. Leader Circle has been quite profuse with insults regarding the above. And issue is taken with your pettiness. Very aware. And I find it odd to find such incivility at a Canadian forum. Whatever you say. I won't ask for examples or "proof" of the basis of your assertion as the basis of your opinion is your own. Bemused giggles. Getting into psychiatry now are you? I have no desire to "change" things as you suggest. I'm just disappointed to find them the way they are. Or I could just quit this forum and return to all the other forums that I'm a longtime member (and moderator) of. Yeah, gotta get that personal insult in there...Enough is enough. Bye. P.S. Congratulations in running another one out of your little sandbox. If you want a flame war, you're going to have to look somewhere else to find one. I don't play those kind of games. I just walk away.

I am not threatening to take my ball and go home. The ball remains here as it is not of my possession or ownership even if I choose to leave this forum. Besides which, I have merely stated that I am not for long to be a member here. That is a simple statement of fact, not a threat. The level of personal attack that I'm being subjected to at this specific forum is unacceptable to me and makes my participation here tiresome. I'm looking for a quality discussion board, not a flame forum and I'm getting tired of saying so. Forgive me for discussing these issues with opinions that are not conventional. Apparently that offends many. Forgive me for being educated - apparently that offends many more. Forgive me for defending the interests of the gay community - apparently that offends most of all.

The Pride Parade takes place on a public street, and the relevant community can only be the entire city. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. The city of Toronto sprawls over 1000 square miles and encompasses 3-5 million people (depending if you include the 905's or not). To presume that a single community standard applies across the entire city is not justified - nor is it legal practice to do so. For example, a couple of years ago, a couple of media figures reported (after the fact - i.e. the next day) that they witnessed 'full-frontal' male nudity in the context of the Pride Parade. The Toronto Police service was "enraged and disgusted" by this information and duly showed up in full force the following year and immediately arrested several Parade participants and charged them with public indecency. Ultimately, the court threw the charges out claiming several reasons, not the least of which was cited as the complete absence of any complaint from a single member of the public. This suggests that community standards were not breached. On appeal, the police, supported by the Toronto Sun newspaper which originally published the allegations of nudity, showed numerous letters to the editor and written complaints from readers stating that they were offended. The court ruled that the letters were outside the community in question since the originated with people who did not attend the event and had only second-hand information. So, in conclusion, the Courts have ruled that "community standard" is something that is to be understood as 'limited' in character, not expansive as you have asserted. My argument stands. The Gay Pride parade does not violate community standards. Different community standards apply at Nathan Philips Square. Big city, many different communities.

To you Leader Circle, I have only contempt and no reply. I do not wish to feed the trolls and your penchant for insults makes any reply I make a waste of time.

Not necessarily. As a private interest, the pollster has an interest in selling his products. If credibility helps to sell the product, he'll be credible. If fudged results sell better, that's what will be sold. Bemused giggles. I did my work placement in 4th year studies with Decima Research. So yes, I have been involved in the process on the inside. No I am not accusing Decima of deliberately fudging results. My critique is leveled at a much higher theoretical level involving the assumptions and the mathematics that underpin the statistical process as used in the social sciences. Why? Do I need to post a bibliography for the sources of my own opinions? That is silly, tedious and tiresome. If you don't like my views, ignore them, but I'm not going to play google games for everyone who disagrees with me. 90% of my information comes from printed sources, not the web. Fair enough. I don't. All public opinion polls are suspect in my book. The publication of a poll tells you more about the agenda of the person/organisation that paid for it than anything else. That is my considered opinion on the matter.Same goes for the news-media that publishes the info. News media organisations may publish, hype, bury or ignore said polls for exactly the same reasons. Whatever. For your information, I have not "identified myself" as an "intellectual" anywhere at this forum. It doesn't really matter though. Where ever I go, someone, somewhere will accuse or describe me as such and then a half dozen others will start to attack me for a) claiming to be an intellectual or being an intellectual or c) not being an intellectual. It is all quite tiresome, tedious and boring. Btw, the one place you are least likely to find an actual intellectual is in academia - but that requires that you understand the term correctly as a form of a description, not a term of derision. I'm not long for membership at this site if this keeps up. :roll:

Doesn't matter. I don't like "it was better in the old days" arguments of any kind. I've studied way too much history to accept those kind of arguments. Nothing in the past was half as pretty as people like to believe.

Place the blame where it is due. I'm only replying with come semblance of civility against this steady stream of abuse that this Leader Circle poster is shoveling my way. Much more of it and you'll all see the last me around this site. I only participate at quality discussion sites - not flame forums.

Posted by Leader Circle. Duly noted.

Well, I'm a member at several forums and the only way I can keep track of who's who is by avatars. It really helps to scan a thread with such optical clues. As it stands, I still don't know anyone here yet - thats probably due to lack of avatars. Indeed, I can't even always find my own posts - I often post in a variety of threads on a variety of topics and I can't always remember which threads where I posted - a quick scan of the avatars in a thread usually tells me. Yet another value of an avatar is to scan a thread that I'm interested in to find the last entry of my avatar - that marks my last point of participation and thus I read the posts after my avatar. Again, makes things easier and quicker with the visual clue. Just my two cents worth.

Dumb question... what is this "CPC" I see people talking about. I've never heard of that acronym. Is that the Conservative Party of Canada?

Maybe they could draft Jack Layton as their leader <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Unlikely. If changing the leader was the solution to the problem, then why didn't dumping Preston work? Or dumping Stockwell? If dumping Preston or Stockwell didn't work, why would anyone expect dumping Harper to miraculously catapult the Reform-Conservative-Alliance party into power? The problem is the platform, not the leader - though Harper is too stiff to sell on tv and that is the only criteria I think that is relevant for a political leader in todays day and age. In other words, the Reform-Alliance-Conservatives can install the most charismatic leader around and they will still lose the next election. The problem is the policy.

Then we are arguing about nothing. I did not intend to suggest that Canada should engage in the 'nuclear option' over this issue - just that it should not be ignored. Then I must have misunderstood the remark about "going to the mat". As I said, Canada ought to go through the motions of appeal through the requisite dispute mechanisms, for to ignore it would be madness and a precedent that will haunt us in later disputes. That being said, the 'nuclear' option ought to be saved for a trade dispute that actually affects the Canadian economy substantially. I don't agree your definition of high tech. To me it means an industries that are willing and able to make use of technology to produce better product cheaper. That usually requires that their workers have different kinds of skills (i.e. be able to work with computers) rather than requiring a university education. Their workers must also be able to learn new skills quickly because processes change. There are very few industries that would fit into your definition of high tech. The small number of industries that fit this definition does not preclude the utility as a definition. Indeed, it preserves the meaning of the term and prevents every industry from claiming that they are "high tech". If every industry is "high tech" none are - or the term is useless.Car-designing/engineering is pretty damn high-tech. As are the robots used on assembly lines. But the bottom line is that 99% of the people working the assembly line at Ford or GM don't have (or don't need) a high school education. Is the automotive industry high-tech? In a world where nations compete to see who can have the highest subsidies on agriculture, this achievement doesn't say much.I agree that Canadian agriculture is the lowest subsidised in the western world. However, that means that we waste a few less billions than some others do. Bottom line is that all Canadian agriculture is massively subsidised. Going to the wall to export subsidised products is bad policy, though that's what Europe and USA do every day. The mind boggles. Personally, I think its a bit odd to demand "fair trade" in tax-subsidised products. I'm not writing it off entirely. I just oppose any set of public policy designed to give advantage to these industries at the expense of any other industry - particularly when those other industries are comparatively 'clean' and 'subsidy-free'. In addition, I criticise the BC government for perceiving forestry as a growth industry or any kind of solution to unemployment. Encouraging kids to drop out of school to work in forestry is not good policy. To be honest, its been a common Government policy for decades in a variety of regions across Canada, though more often and more damaging in fishing. BC (NDP) governments love forestry because of the number of unionised forestry workers in BC. To them and for their interests, the more the merrier, regardless of whether or not any of it is good for Canada. And I will never have any sympathy for the export of any raw material. Fine if you can sell it, but subsidies and government support ought to be saved for industries that have a real future. Btw, do you know that the cultivation of hemp for paper production would wipe out about half the forestry industry in Canada? BC leads the fight against this. I wonder why?

1. How long have you been following this issue? 2. Where did I suggest that Canada ought to do nothing about it?I said that "going to the mat" is poor policy. Challenging the US under NAFTA mechanisms is critically important for not to do so is negligent and it will be used against Canada in another dispute. That being said, Canada has won 90% of the Softwood lumber disputes going back to the 1970's. It doesn't seem to matter much. The US Softwood lumber industry is extremely politically connected and they will get tariffs put on Canadian softwood lumber no matter what. Tribunals will rule, the tariffs will be repealed and new tariffs applied. This game has been going on for decades now. Bemused giggles. No it is not. It is a very low tech industry with very low skilled employees. The sooner the BC economy can wean itself off resource-extraction the better it will be for all of BC.A couple of high-tech gizmos doesn't make a high tech industry. High tech must describe the condition of the average worker, not the toys used by the experts in their labs. They use some pretty high-tech gizmos to find fish these days, does that make fishing a high-tech industry? If so, its the only one where 90% of those employed don't need high school educations. Yes I'm familiar with this issue. Indeed, I've been following it for 25 years now. Nothing ever changes so forgive me if I don't get all riled up.The Canadian government policy is simple and predictable here. They will fight the Americans on softwood lumber - legitimately and through the dispute mechanisms. The USA has shown they have no intention of 'fair' trade in lumber of any kind so that is just the way it is. Canada will fight them formally, but cannot do anything more. To rock the boat in favour of softwood lumber is insane policy because in any serious trade dispute between the USA and Canada, Canada will lose. As it stands, 98% of Canadian exports to the USA are doing just fine. Only beef and lumber have problems. Why is this? Because the Americans are trying to protect/subsidise the same industries we are protecting/subsidising and for exactly the same reasons - jobs in uneconomic regions for politically favoured groups. That's all well and fine, but to expect Canada to go to the mat on this basis is madness and bad public policy.

You've obviously not see Chinese people drive...

So how do Ontario regulations control smog from the US? Did previous governments erect some sort of invisible pollution barrier, that Mike Harris dismantled? 1. You asserted that cars were the cause of smog problem in Toronto. I mentioned Ohio coal-generators as they have been identified as the primary 'cause' of smog in Toronto. This has nothing to do with Harris and I never said it did.2. However, the second largest source of smog-producing emissions is Ontario Hydro. It is the reduced environmental regulations on Ontario Hydro that have contributed to the increased the smog here and that was 100% attributable to Harris's government. Sounds like you don't know me very well. Btw, I'm still paying taxes to pay for the deficit that Harris used to give away his tax cut. Some tax cut if I'm still paying for it with increased taxes.

I should think Canada and the USA differ greatly here. In Canada, all powers not delimited belong to the Federal level. In the USA, all powers not delimited belong to the States. As a general rule, US government runs against the US constitution - which is why so many Americans oppose it. In Canada, this arrangement does not defy the Constitution and thus there isn't a groundswell of opposition. Indeed. I agree.

Arrogant yes, prick sometimes, Mikey never. Yes, that's because the reputable pollster wants you to believe in his polls. He/she has a vested interested in such. Yes, textbooks are good for teaching skepticism. Is there anything wrong with this? Btw, does this specific poll report support your personal views? Well, every one is entitled to disagree. I've stated my view of how polls are constructed in order to advance a goal. I've seen ample evidence of this over the years. Your assertion is apparently valid, though I've never seen anything to actually support your contention - besides your contention (always the same from those who want to believe the results of the polls). Perhaps we ought to have this discussion involving a poll with results you don't like? Then the failure is yours entirely. Bemused giggles. Forgive me, I didn't see the question posted earlier. In case you are curious, I run a mid-sized printing & graphics company.

Not really. Americans don't seem to have the same problem with a system that is almost identical. Sure Americans will gripe about federal gov't waste but that does not translate into 'we would be better off on our own' arguments.I believe that the difference exists for a number of reasons: 1) The 'big fish small pond' syndrome. There are 10 Canadian provinces compared to 50 US states. This makes individual provincial leaders more important than they actually are. 2) Military spending and patriotism. The US federal gov't doles out huge amounts of money for military projects that are often used for regional pork. These projects are frequently as badly mismanaged as HRDC but because they don't attract as much criticism because spending money on the military is patriotic and unquestionably a federal jurisdiction. 3) Canadian naivity. Americans know that breaking up a country is nasty business and therefore do not entertain any fools that might suggest it is an option. That means Americans can focus the real problems instead of pipe dreams about how separation would solve all their problems. Canadians, unfortunately, have let the idea of separation become part of the national psyche. This simply generates a class of professional whiners that make problems worse by criticising any attempt to fix the problems within the current institutions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Excellent post Sparhawk.

Who was the leader of the PC's then? Old Joe or that non-entity MaKay fellow? Doesn't really matter actually - the question itself answers your question. And as I said, Ontario is conservative - not Conservative. There is a difference. Ontario likes fiscal conservatives and in 1997-2000 the party of fiscal conservatives was the Liberals with Paul Martin running Finance. And Mulroney and his 'Conservative' government set a new record for the largest deficit in Canadian history - in every single year of office. That's not conservative in my books. And it is also important to note that Harris was ruling Ontario then so Ontario was particularly pissed at that blue-coloured party at that time. Speaking of which, Mike Harris came to power in Ontario with a balanced budget and left office with a huge deficit. Thanks Mike. Just another conservative spendthrift - buying votes with taxcut money that doesn't exist (sounds familiar?).

Who was the leader of the PC's then? Old Joe or that non-entity MaKay fellow? Doesn't really matter actually - the question itself answers your question. And as I said, Ontario is conservative - not Conservative. There is a difference. Ontario likes fiscal conservatives and in 1997-2000 the party of fiscal conservatives was the Liberals with Paul Martin running Finance. Mulroney and his 'Conservative' government set a new record for the largest deficit in Canadian history - in every single year of office.

One of the most interesting aspects of gun discussions is the fact that on a per capita basis, Canada has just as many firearms as does the USA. So why do Americans accidentially kill their own children so often - a situation that is quite rare in Canada. Likewise with the gun violence rates. US rates for gun violence in every category is way higher than Canada. Actual crime rates are generally quite similar across a wide variety of crime categories (except the US murder rate is insanely high). Without a doubt, guns don't kill people, people kill people. So why do Americans seem to like killing people more than Canadians are want to do so?