tml12

For the new millenium, I'm not sure I agree that military might is the way to go in fighting enemies, and in regards to traditional warfare, I personally believe that Canada's neutral foreign-policy would be sufficient in deterring a war. But I do respect your opinion otherwise. Thanks for the debate. I agree, it was an intellectual workout indeed. Your point that military might may not be the best way to fight enemies in the 21st century is very debatable...I tend to disagree but I do not think any of us can say for sure what kinds of wars we will be fighting in the 21st century. The introduction of terrorism and non-state actors poses a problem for nation-states. Keep in mind by military might I do not just mean combat forces but also law enforcement, intelligence, border guards, domestic (national guard) security, etc. These individuals will be necessary to protect security. I definitely disagree with your last point. Canada does not have a neutral foreign policy. Right or wrong, this country has always tilted its support toward Israel in the Middle Eastern conflict. Canada fought decisive battles with Britain and the U.S. in World Wars I and II and played a decisive role in Korea. Do not be guilty of believing the Liberal peacekeeping myth of Canada!!! Canada is not seen by other countries as being neutral. And even if it were, individuals that want to wage war with the west will not salvage us because of our supposed "neutrality." Canadians must truly be ready to "stand on guard for thee."

There were many Liberals begging for a piece of the Iraqi pie before the war too, Mr. Martin is one that comes to mind as one of the big Iraq supporters, he was also in favour of missile defense. LOL I am glad you remember that Geoffrey. Remember during the 2004 election campaign when Martin put up supposedly "radical" web site stephenharpersaid.ca which had Harper quotes like "Canada is not bilingual but has two official languages" (i.e. things that are completely true but destroy the Liberal myths of Canada) and then Harper's team put up teammartinsaid.ca and had quotes from Martin like "we need to get into Iraq now." I love it when the Liberals screw themselves. Still can't believe the Liberals won 135 seats in that election but this is Canada after all.

I really have to question your credentials as an economist if you think Canada would be better off without Alberta. Do you realise that nearly all economic growth came from Alberta last year, that without Alberta Canada would be absoultely without a doubt second rate to the rest of the world. Canada is irrelevant and a waste of everyone's time if it's not for Alberta's oil. It's not only a massive economic power and the only economic engine of the country... but a major barginning chip when it comes to international trade. Our oil gives us power. That's about it, other than that Canada is a minor player in anything else. I completely agree. Can you imagine for the having Conservative Alberta premiers rather than Liberal Quebec premiers for the last 40 years? Canada would be a global powerhouse and a force to be reckoned with on the world stage.

Dear BC Chick, "I'm not being patronising here, this is a serious question." I do not think you are being patronising...you are giving me an intellectual workout "But don't these two statements contradict each other? On the one hand you're saying that our dependence on the US puts us in a position where it is in our best interest to support them whether or not we agree with them, and on the other hand you're saying that Harper (the man who you earlier praised for not rattling the relationship with the US) of defending Canadian sovereignty. " The two statements do not contradict each other: 1) I support Harper because based on the fact that he wants to strengthen our army it shows me that he wants us to become less dependent on the U.S. military in the long term. Canada once had a strong and proud armed forces that were the envy of the world. In fact, we had the fourth largest military in the world! Today's armed servicemen are still courageous and brave as ever and deserve our respect and complete support. The war on terrorism will hopefully produce another greatest generation. But the Liberals and NDP have got a bad track record of letting our military down. They should not have to rely on surplus American clothing or submarines that do not work, etc. 2) We are dependant on the U.S. to defend us and this puts us in a greater position to have to be accomodating to them whether or not we agree with them. If we were less dependant on the U.S., the Americans would take us more seriously. Of course, we must always be respectful of the Americans as we are more like them than any other country in the world. We watch American TV (many of us own satellites so as to avoid CRTC regulations that force Canadian programming upon us) and, in many respects, are like the junior cousins of the Americans. I want a Canada that is strong enough to stand side-by-side with Britain and the U.S. as global powers.

The fact that I care about Canadian sovereignty is exactly why I support Harper. I mean, the day we can defend our airspace and borders and actually have an army capable of defending us from a big army (our current army can't even defend Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic from Denmark ) will be the day not only I take Canada seriously but also when the Americans take Canada seriously. I mean, our army is so strapped for cash many of our soldiers in Afghanistan had to but surplus American equipment. But when Harper talks about increasing the army it's "oh no, we are peacekeepers, we can't do that." I call BS...Canadians weren't peacekeepers in World War II...they didn't go to Europe to "mediate peace" between the Axis and Allied Powers. I did not say Harper had to agree 100% with Bush but I did say while the U.S. President is the commander-in-chief of the army that defends us they have a great degree of leverage.

Funny, many Conservative voting friends of mine, were happy we didn't go to Iraq either. Not because we were a kindly more peaceful nation. But because the US case for war was full of it. And today, few Conservatives would advocate us being there. Maybe just you. Sorry but being a lapdog, isn't the answer either. Canada is already there making $$$ out of rebuilding the country. Canada can't play a huge part because we have an army that was starved by successive Liberal government, but our government is making money out of defense contracts.

Whether or not you believe in polls when it comes to Canadian ideas of morality (which you should actually read the article before deciding, they figures are quite compelling), then there is one poll you can't deny about Canadians - and that is an unfavourable view of the Bush administration. That has been consistent and it goes for Canadian Liberals and Conservatives alike - something like 80%+ in every poll conducted on the issue. Maybe Harper would fair better if he didn't cozy up to the Bush administration, and maybe his defense of Bush's Iraq policies hurt him permanently as a credible leader. Who knows, maybe the only thing going against him is the bad timing of being a conservative government simultaneously as the Bush administration made a mockery out of the conservative movement. Or maybe a combination of the binary views as well as the bad luck of running as conservative government while the idiot in chief is his conservative counterpart. But either way, my point remains that he is not well-liked by the electorate in spite of the different views he is offerings. That should tell you something about what Canadians want, but as I initally stated - CPC supporters would rather blame everyone and everything else, than to actually consider that perhaps their own policies are the problem. You've got to be lefty to make a statement like that. It is not that Harper is cozying up to Bush, he recognizes that Bush is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces that would defend us if we are attacked, Bush is the president of the country whose taxpayers pay for our defense, Bush is the president of the country where almost 90% of our exports go, our country and Bush's country are fighting a war in Afghanistan, Bush is the president of the country who is our staunchest ally and closest friend in the world, etc. I could go on... There of course is widespread Canadian (and American) dislike of Bush's policies (I myself am not a huge fan overall) but you must recognize the position Bush is in. Every Canadian prime minister must ensure that relations with the Americans are good considering our political and economic circumstances. Naturally, they (especially if they are conservative) will be attacked for "selling out" Canada because the majority of Canadians have been brainwashed by the Liberal elite that Canadian nationalism is based solely on anti-Americanism, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Bush is seen as a "go it alone" go, of course that isn't popular in any country.

Dear tml, Thank you for demonstrating my point. You are implying that Canadians are putting a CBC-induced, Liberal-party propagated irrational fear of Harper ahead of much-needed fresh ideas and reform. Yet, you are not considering the fact that perhaps the problem is all the other policies Harper is offering. Of course, Canadians MUST be stupid, and it couldn't possibly be that Harper's other policies are so out of touch with the electorate that they're willing to put up with a broken system, than to have Harper represent them. According to the annual poll in Maclean's magazine last summer, Canadians are by and large moral relativists, whereas Americans are more binary in their views. Harper and his black or white views of the world don't sit well with Canadians, he is adopting American-style conservative views and trying to instill them in Canada. It's not that we're right, he's wrong, or he's right and we're too stupid to see it. It's that he's out of touch with his electorate. I can't think of one Harper policy that is so radically different from mainstream Canada. Furthermore, I am not a fan of polls...especially in a country as large as Canada or the U.S. you are implying that it is very easy to classify people as being moral relitavists, etc. The values and politics of New York are not the same as the values and politics of Kansas, the same with Vancouver and Regina. If Canadians do not trust Harper, it is because they have been subjected to so much propaganda against him by a largely pro-Liberal media that is desperate to see him fail as PM. He has been the victim of a mallicious smear campaign by Canadian elitists who do not want the national Liberal myths of Canada to change. As such, they have convinced Canadians that their best interests are the Liberal status quo. This must end if Canada is to become a strong nation and regain its status in the world (the book "While Canada Slept" comes to mind). This country has become too content with the status quo...Harper is the fresh blood we need to start real change in Canada.

I completely agree. I loved how the Liberals and NDP friends of mine were so happy when Canada had "class" to stay out of the Iraq war because we are a "kindler nation" that brings "peace to the world." They didn't say much when the Liberal government was BEGGING for a piece of the Iraqi pie after Bush declared "mission accomplished." As usual, Canada barks like a poodle and bites like a pit bull.

What national myth do Europeans share? Does that mean they should give up on the EU because they don't have 'national' myths? The only thing that is required to keep Canada together is a recognition that a economic and political union requires some giving as well as taking. I personally dislike flag waving and endless repetition of false hoods that are designed to brainwash people into supporting a cause. I would prefer to rely on mutual self-interest, goodwill and neighborliness. Canada is a sovereign country, whereas the EU is a political and economic union of voluntary member nation-states, each of whom constitute a sovereign country with their own national dreams and values. Of course, much of what keeps the EU together is the thought that Europeans need to come together to challenge global American influence. The initiative to join the EU is based on the supposed economic benefits and the thought that open borders are a good idea. No one is realistically suggesting Italians, Germans, and the French have the same history or culture or values. France is still sovereign from Italy, etc. The French flag hangs higher than any other flag at the National Assembly in Paris. Canada, however, is a sovereign country that supposedly unifies a common people from coast to coast to coast. You say the only thing necessary to keep Canada together is a recognition that "an economic and political union requires some giving as well as taking." Well, yes! That is one of the whole points of the Equalization Program and the theory of "have" and "have-not" provinces. But tell that to the NEP-era Albertan, or the offshore-revenue benefitting Newfoundlander, or the "Anglos are out to get us" resident of Jonquiere.

Why must we have national myths? Nationalism is second only to religion as the source of bloodshed in history. You claim that Canadians identify with the province first but you are only saying half the story - Canadians that move from province to province will take up the identity of whatever province they are living in. So an Albertan that moves to Ontario becomes an Ontarian after a number of years. I think has to do more with the human tendency to relate more with things that are closer than those that are far away.The biggest problem facing Canada today is the narcissistic Quebec nationalist culture. Too many Quebequers seem to take self-centered greed to new heights and show zero interest in the normal give and take that comes with any economic and political union. The self-centered greed of Quebec political culture has unfortunately started to infect other provinces like Alberta. There times when I think the kicking the spoiled brat of the federation out would be the best for the country. Unfortunately, the self-centered greed that created the problem in the Quebec in the first place would make it virtually impossible to carve up the country with years of civil and economic disruptions. That is why I think the best solution at this time would require a return to principals that were enshrined in the orginal Canadian constitution. The federal gov't should get out of funding provincial programs. Your prescription probably is a good short-term solution. Get the federal government out of provincial programs. You are also correct that a lot of people who move from one province to another will probably eventually become members of that province. But nationalism, Riverwind, is what keeps a country together. If Canadians can't all look at the Canadian flag and think one common unified theme, then Canada cannot survive long term. Britons can look at the Union Jack, Americans can look at Old Glory, etc. and a national dream comes to mind. Don't make the mistake of always assuming nationalism means hatred or "I'm better than you," etc. When Harper said that Canadians don't really know Canada, he was right. He apparently has written more about the future of Canada than anyone else who is currently involved in mainstream politics. I believe a Harper majority creates a whole new concept of the Canadian federation...this is something that is badly needed for Canada to survive long-term.

What keeps Canada together? I don't know really. Canada has never really had very good national myths. The big mythmaker of the twentieth century who basically defined how future generations would define Canada was Pierre Trudeau. Most of his myths (bilingualism, health care, just society, national social programs, smaller armed forces, multiculturalism, etc.) were designed to build on preconceived notions that Canadians had about the U.S. The idea was, if Canada is too complicated to be kept together through national myths, then Canadians should define themselves based on what they are not (American). Thus, the famous notion that every Canadian who studies Canada knows: Canadians are not Americans. Ultimately, I do not know how (outside of provincial nationalism) Canadians would define themselves if the U.S. was not our southern neighbour.

No way the smoked meat in Winnipeg is better than that here...and do you guys even have poutine?

The federalism debates were hardly the last word on the subject. It's been a messy but effective evolution (scarred by a major war). To paraphrase Stephen Harper, the US is a country that works in practice, but not in theory. America's national myths are a powerful, unifying force in that country. Freedom, Old Glory, Remember the Alamo, the Bald Eagle, the Grand Experiment in Democracy, the First Republic, etc. I could go on...certainly, the federalism debates were not the last point on the subject. The U.S. works in practice because it's unifying myths are very powerful. Canada does not have those kinds of unifying myths. Canada's myths are provincially-based, with the possible exception of Ontario. Indeed, in all other provinces but that one Canadians have said they consider themselves members of that province first and Canadians second. Essentially, what keeps Canada together is the feeling among Canadians that they are not American, based on what is taught early to Canadians in school. The irony, of course, is that while the U.S. could technically exist without Canada, unless Canada develops new myths Canada would have a hard time defining itself without the U.S.

Its not addressing weaknesses anymore. It's a structured removal of money from Alberta and give it to Quebec program. Ontario gets lumped in there because they are unfortunate enough to be rich in a country of otherwise 2nd worldism. You must be from one of those have-not provinces, because I can tell you I'm frankly quite sick of paying for other's programs that I don't even receive in Alberta. The problems aren't being addressed. If they were, 43% of Canadians wouldn't be supporting the rest of the country. When are we supposed to start expecting results for equalisation, or have we concided that most of Canada is unable to ever do anything and Alberta and Ontario should just carry the load forever? I wouldn't mind equalisation if it were a hand up, not a hand out. But some of these provinces have structured their economies, taxes and union policies (like Quebec) so that they couldn't ever be a have province. And then have the nerve to ask for more. Canada is quite possibly the most regionally divided excuse for a country in the western world. I disagree with this in principle. Canadian provinces have alot of power that US States don't have. Essientially control over health care and education... both of which are more federally based in the US. Bush's no-child-left-behind thingy would be unconstitutional in Canada. The unfortunate thing is that the Federal government overstepped it's bound IMO with the Canada Health Act and their clever concept of taking all the money, and only handing it out with conditions. Not only the Canada Health Act but the recently cancelled Court Challenges Program...these things all cleverly designed by the federal government to indirectly control provincial autonomy.

I think it should be on a "case by case" basis. People should have to apply individually for joint status and it should be based upon cause. An exception might be made for such obviously similar countries as the US, Australia, UK, etc. Otherwise, I believe that if someone is motivated to immigrate, and applies for citizenship in their new country, that is and must be a drastic decision. The person must understand that they are giving up ancestral connections, and starting a new life. Neither Canada nor the US became great by means of people having one foot out the door. Well put...I completely agree with that.

To be fair, the US has many interstate metropolitan areas, such as the New York area, covering large chunks of New York New Jersey and Connecticut. Given the limited role of the US's federal government, cooperation among states is required on a practical, day-to-day basis. I don't know of any interprovincial metropolitan areas in Canada, aside from Lloydminister, AB and SK. I do believe that Old Crow and/or Mayo, Yukon, are close to the NWT border, so maybe its suburbs spill into another jurisdiction. Aside from that, there isn't much occasion for multiprovincial operation of transit or other joint facilities as there is in New York, wher rails, highways and bridges cross state lines. Much of it jbg is also Canadian federalism. The American Founding Fathers debated federalism in The Federalist Papers. What was the jurisdiction of the states vs. the federal government was discussed and debated to a great extent in 1787...the Constitution gives the States a lot of powers and yes, I agree that a lot of that stems from the fact that this is required on a practical, day-to-day basis. Canada never seriously addressed these debates. Canada's founding principles are "peace, order, and good government." The Canadian Supreme Court, created by an Act of Parliament, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain were designed to "maintain peace between governments." Thus, Canada has always had a very uneasy federal partnership. It is also why we have all kinds of sovereignty movements in this country at this time.

Dear BC Chick, "Yes, and the same thing will be said about the Harper Conservatives if they manage to stay in power for 13 years. It is a rule of humanity as you just put forth in that proverb." I agree that Harper in power for that many years would produce an arrogant (though I am not sure how corrupt) government. I do not think Harper by nature is as corrupt and arrogant as Chretien and many senior Liberals who basically have spent 40 of the last 50 years living off my tax dollars. Furthermore, Harper has made it very clear that he is interested in REFORMING the government (through Senate reform, Parliamentary vetting of Supreme Court justices, etc.) to make sure that power cannot be concentrated in one branch of government. I think it is very nice to think that we have our own James Madison as prime minister. Perhaps you should read The Federalist Papers to see why the American Federalists rallied against the kind of tyranny we have seen of late in this country. "Now honestly answer the following.... Do you think the CPC has a chance of making it 13 years in office?" Given the fact that most Canadians are alcoholics who are drunk on the Liberal Party bottle the answer is no but I think it is really too bad. "What do you think of the fact that the best Harper could muster up after a scandal like Adscam was a shaky minority?" I think it is a damn shame. It shows, as I have said above, that Canadians (especially people in the tight Ivory tower troika of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal) are braindead fools who continually vote Liberal because they believe in the Liberal (read anti-American, anti-populist, pro-elitist) myth of Canada. The very thought of government reform, the very thought that the Liberals could not control the one-party state they have enjoyed for most of the last century. The very thought that THE PEOPLE might actually be given more power to choose through their elected representatives the future of this country SCARES these people. So they resort to "Harper is scary right-wing Old Glory-worshipping American sell-out" propaganda to scare the masses. So yes, I do think after Adscam the fact that Harper could only get a minority with tired old Martin running the Liberals was a damn shame and represents the very serious lunacy of Canadian federalism. "Or the fact that a not even a year in the office, they were already tied with the Liberals in most polls?" If Canada re-elects the Liberals, I do not know how much longer I will stay in this country. I REALLY don't. "Funny how if you were to be honest with yourself you know that Harper probably won't last 13 years, and it is rather odd that so many Canadians would vote Liberal after something like the sponsorship scandal, and it is also odd that people would not warm up to someone with fresh ideas for the country after 13 years of the same thing... " I think I have been refreshingly honest and have presented my case with clear-cut facts. "But no it's the CBC, or the immigrants, or the Liberal judges.... anything to find a scapegoat for the fact that the Liberals have dominated Canadian politics for 50 years." I think it has been well-documented that the CBC is anti-Conservative and anti-American. I believe the Conservatives have made great inroads into the immigrant community. I believe it is also quite clear that Liberal judges have made attempts to sabotage this government because they do not want to make the process any more democratic than it already is. "Yet you will never consider that perhaps it's YOUR PARTY that's the problem." When my party is the problem, I will call it. So far, I think Harper has performed admirably as prime minister. I think it is time Canadians give him a strong majority, something he has clearly shown that he deserves. Anything less would be devastating for the state of the federation.

IN ROEVWADE the women had the baby to win the case. Kinda ironic. Mulroney had two MAJORITY governments. Strange he couldn't get it to pass? The Supreme court Rulings are clear, and available at wikipedia. So they would have had the trouble that the Majority Mulroney Parliments would have had? Well, there you have it. That's quite a reality. Yes they do. They are open and honest about their position. The Conservatives are not. They just want anti abortionists to vote for them. Harper clearly said he wasn't going to change abortion laws. What other political party has an anti abortion policy. Christian Heritage Party is a political party. Other Religions have no political party that supports their pro-life movements, but can choose CHP to represent these values if they wish. Or you can choose this slider. The Conservatives clearly have the most anti-abortion MPs and I do believe eventually we will see a free vote in Parliament on this issue. That being said, you are correct in stating that the Christian Heritage Party is the only one that has been clearly against abortion. As for Mulroney's government, the attempts the man made were noble considering how the issue is divisive for both the Conservatives and the Liberals. It does not matter whether you have a majority government on an issue like abortion, because it is not so easily defined on the left-right political scale. If you have a libertarian conservative, they would probably support abortion. If you have a communitarian socialist, they might be pro-life. The ultimate reality is that Canada SHOULD and hopefully will have some abortion law soon.

I think August agrees with the decision of the counsillors and is just pointing out why the anger is there... but I've never quite figured out if he's a francophone or an anglophone... he writes equally well in both languages from what I can tell with my 'Ottawa' French. I haven't even figured out if he's a separtist for that matter. It's apparently now obvious that he's not an FLQ supporter. Maybe I won't make my Montreal trip this summer if everyone all in a terrorism frenzy. What's the average Montrealer thinking about this threat? Are people actually worried? The RCMP has to take any terrorism threat seriously. I do not think most people are worried and I do not think it should make you cancel your trip (especially because the threat was for between February 15 and March 15) but that being said, people should always be on guard.

That was definitely the pursuit of income trusts and hopefully will be in the future.

Obama would make a good president and, at least in the Democratic primary, make an important challenge to Hillary.

Don't know about that. Seems to me that the Conservative campaign lost a little steam when they ran out of policy announcements to make. I can't see how an extra two weeks would have helped them that much... Martin's rent-a-wreck was REALLY fizzing out. If Harper had until early February 2006, I can see him going into majority territory and only the centrist Liberals voting Liberal (the hard left Liberals going NDP).

I really wonder if we are living in the same country. The Canadian provinces are MUCH MUCH MUCH less likely to agree with each than the U.S. states and this represents not only a failed Canadian confederation but also the fact that Canada's national myths do not work nearly as well as other country's national myths do.

When I visited Montreal in March 2005 for the CPC convention, I saw a decaying, crumbling infrastructure, and, because of the sign laws, a serious hostility to English-speakers. A great city has been reduced to the level of a true dump. I visited Toronto with my wife in 1997 for what was to be four days of sightseeing. We were so impressed we bumped the trip 300 kms. north, to Algonquin Provincial Park, after one day of fumes and 33 degree heat. For sure, Montreal is a dump today. This true city has been reduced to as much. That in no way makes Toronto a city anywhere near as great as New York is. Toronto is the ego capital of Canada for sure. But for the ego as big as Toronto has it is nowhere near as great a city as New York is. Toronto can aim to be Chicago but it is nowhere near as great as New York is, regardles of where Montreal fits into the equation.