Leafless

canukcat You wrote- " Martin's argument is very clear: Harper seems to have contempt for our system of government, our laws and traditions." Well since you believe in traditons Merry Christmas and I presume you are a happily married heterosexual or plan to be. I think Martin is showing contempt for the country and democracy by trying to build utilizing the federal Charter of rights and Freedoms allies for political gain as with the case of SSM and aspects concerning Quebec and immigration. The rights implemented by the Liberals are exaggerated rights not reflective of democracy and traditon in general. Rights are not to be given away like candy. Ask Canadians first before acting stupid and irresponsible. This country was fought for and won and given a Constitution by Britain not destructive Liberal legislation that destroys the face of the country. I think Mr. Harper is on the right track to hopefully to normalize politcs in Canada and to steer away from a system that never worked in the entire world.

Paul Martin lashed out at Stephen Harper saying "In my view if you won't protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms then you have no buisness trying to become the prime minister of Canada." Disagreeing with Martin's view makes a person unfit to govern. I kind of thought you would say that! www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/17/martin051217.html

Alberta contributes 25% of Canada's pollution with Ontario in second place at 21%. Ontario ranks third as NORTH AMERICA'S worst air polluter. The worst being- North Carolna with 700 facilities producing 50,066,939 Kg. total air releases. The second is -Ohio with 1443 facilities producing 45,889,914 Kg. total air releases. The third is Ontario with 1014 facilities producing 45,480,256 Kg. toal air releases. Not bad for a small country like Canada. The biggest and dirtiest polluters in Canada is Nanticoke electrical generating plant in Ontario, Inco, Bowater Pulp and Paper in Thunder Bay and Bayer Inc. in Sarnia Ont.

eureka With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched in our Constitution making it federal law and can be interpreted many different ways by a government and even abused for politcal benefit by granting EXAGGERATED RIGHTS to topple and exceed the legitimate rights of the majority for especially political self interest. Areas of the Charter prone to abuse are- Mobility Rights, Legal Rights, Equal Rights, Official Languages of Canada, Minority Language Educational Rights and Enforcement. In fact I think all you need is provincial protection governing rights as Charter Rights are flawed especially with Quebec and in fact the Charter should be SCRAPPED as it is destroying democratic initiatives necessary to maintain confidence and democratic stability as it is not the Liberals who are paying for it. I said the Costitution was changed in 1982 with the incluson of what equates to a constitution in itself with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms not reflecting major changes in the BNA Act.

eureka You wrote- " And discrimination was never was never a provincial jurisdiction: thank God or we would really be in a mess." " And there is not even the tiniest reason for voting on these matters or having referendums." " We do not have a new Constitution: the BNA Act governs the country still." Provinces have a direct hand with discrimination and with the case of Ontario it did since 1961. Thats why we call it the Ontario Human Rights Commission, all provinces have one. Then you have the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission. The inclusion of the Constituion Act, 1982 changed dramatically the existing BNA Act in which the Liberals used this powerfull piece of legislation to overide Canadian democratic concerns to the degree of creating a democratic deficit as seen especially with Quebec and SSM thus allowed the Liberals to rule Canada in a dictatorial manner than to ALLOW democratic Canadian input to rule matters affecting constitutional issue's affecting all Canadians. You cannot allow minorities to rule the majority without some form of democratic input from Canadians to allow this initially. Yes, the Liberals have created this democratic deficit and parliament must be more accountable for major changes affecting all Canadians than to allow a single party namely the Liberals to create major changes without allowing Canadian democratic input to steer the direction of allowable changes. Quite frankly, the Liberals have created a mess with the Charter.

normanchateau You wrote- " We're a democratic country which votes for local MP's that most represent our views." "And what's wrong with a debate format which vaguley resembled that of the debates between Bush and Kerry." The area of concern is that a democratic defecit exist in this country as with the the case of SSM. SSM is described by Mr. Martin as a constitutional issue and yet a single government rammed this controversial legislation through citing the Charter in a way that does not properly represent parliament nor the citizen's of Canada. Your comparison linking the Bush, Kerry debate to Canada's version does not even come close. In fact to compare the two the debate would be between only Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper with an independent moderator who has written up important questions concerning for instance SSM and unity. But even at that it really does not compare because with the U.S. being a super power the debate consisted between foreign policy and homeland security and not like in Canada's case the participation of other party leaders that have no impact concerning our current government and the official opposition and thus took the emphasis off important concerns that should have been debated only between Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper thus trivilizing the debate.

Kimmy You wrote- " What makes you think other formats would produce more substance." The main cause for a debate to get out of control is the failure to admit mistakes and recognize poor judgement on important issues and the inability to dicuss the item without flying off the deep end. For instance the SSM issue was raised with points raised that Mr. Harper cannot leagalize this without the use of the NWC. But nothing was focused (due to lack of dialogue) on the undemocratic way SSM was implemented initially. A lot of Canadians for instance have reservations or concern over the fact that parliament in whole did not vote on this issue and that the issue was decided basically by Liberals and Liberal stacked court judges. Better still dialogue is necessary to raise the possibility that perhaps this SSM issue should have been presented to Canadians to decide as this is a constitutional issue as this country belongs to Canadians not the Liberals. The sad thing about Canada is that this country was fought over and the constitution that ruled the country was the BNA ACT with protection concerning discrimination etc. a provincial responsibility initially. The implementation of the Charter itself was undemocratic (ratified by premiers only) in nature as the Liberals never won any war to create a new country with a new constitution and now the Liberals lean on this Charter to run the country as a republic. If politicians voices are stiffled in what is suppose to be a debate and important issue's decided without the input of Canadians, what kind of country do you think Canada currently is?

August1991 You wrote- " If you want theatrics go to a hockey game or go see King Kong." If I want theatrics all I have to do is watch Paul Martin. Car dealers explaining the features of their cars and point out their shortcomings does not really constitute a debate which is suppose to be to discuss or dispute about issue's in a formal manner and this could be accomplished by a competent moderator who could not let situations get out of hand. The so called debates were superficial and were like what you like about salesmanship and not about the mechanics (what I like). This is what turns me off with Canadian politics, some Canadains are bought off with showmanship rather than show a little intelligence and demand substance and common sense rather than allow politicians off the hook with a continual line of B.S. and repeat the same act time and time again.

Well that's fine Kimmy. But why call it a debate? This is just an extension of plain electioneering and serves no purpose on national televison as knockout punches are now it seems censored. Typically Canadian and an insult to what constitutes a real debate at a time when oppositon parties have a chance to break the political Liberal stranglehold.

If the French televised politcal leaders debate you think constituted the definiton of preaching, your RIGHT. It seems all leaders agreed to this utterly boring format and indicates with Harper taking sides agreeing to this is reducing his chances of forming the next government by not with plenty of ammo nailing especially Paul Martin's past and present performance concerning leadership, the democratic deficit and scandals. Why would Harper agree to such a debate? And why earlier this week did Stephen Harper side with Paul Martin concerning warnings from U.S. American abassador David Wilkins to lay of the U.S. for repeatedly critizing the U.S. on election hustings. This was aimed at Paul Martin and further Mr. Wilkins said "Canada never has to tear down the U.S. to build itself up." Mr. Martin said he would not be "dictated to" by the American envoy and Mr. Harper said the ambassadors remarks were "inappropiate". http//www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051213/election_debate_051215/20051215?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

This is a direct attack against Christianity in general in an attempt to secularize Canada to help entrench secular convictions especially practised by homosexuals in general. I think this is an important indicator to stay clear of harmful socialist style governments that encourage a country to include lifestyles where as anything is acceptable which could result in a broken country void of moralistic and spirtual direction necessary to maintain proper values concerning the functioning of society.

BubberMiley You wrote- " I was referring t o a specific quote by Leafless, which he appears to have since recanted. We all agree to love Canada, let's move on." No sorry Bubber. I said a better word than love could be used to describe one's dedication to Canada suggesting the word patriotic. But I also said the ingerdients to this important quality is being diluted to a meaningless word under Liberal leadership. So in fact at this time since I excluded 'love' as a proper word to describe ones feelings towards the country and the Liberals have destroyed the ingredients for one being patriotic towards this country, so at this time I can describe myself with little loyality left to support this country period. In fact my screen I.D. reflects how I feel about canada.

normanchateau You wrote- " He was un-electable before that speech was brought to our attention." Your statement is false and has nothing to do with leadership qualities but rather an electoral system and political management that has been abused by the Liberals creating a corrupt political stranglehold concerning federalism itself. What Canadians want has never been detirmined by referendum but rather than politically orchestered polls that work in favour of a predetirmined reply. Is this is democracy in Canada along with a Charter that individual Canadians never received a chance to vote on? Stephen Harper's speech I thought reflected reality rather then viewed by the Liberals institutionilized version of what Canada is. There is a major difference between Conservative and Liberal management and hopefully voters will wake up and stop voting towards the destruction of all of Canada by voting Liberal and realize also that the potentially loss of Quebec has nothing do do with the CPC and that burden is soley Quebec's to contend with and not the ROC.

BubberMiley You wrote- " Yeah, Norm but unlike Leafless, I love Canada no matter who's in charge." The initial question "do you love Canada" was a moronic question to begin with as it is not a fundamental question relating to how one feels about ones country. To say 'I love Canada' is related more or less to a sexual aspect relating to the first five or six definitons of 'love' and therefore a better word could be used to detirmine and describe feelings towards a 'country' rather than a 'person' the word love is normally associated with. Mr. Harper probably would have felt better with a question directed concerning his feelings as being how PATROTIC he is to Canada which in all good sense would not be ask anyway assuming naturally a leader of a national federal party would naturally be patriotic to Canada. I am also patriotic to Canada but feel the ingredients to this important quality is being diluted to a meaningless word under Liberal leadership. I think initially this was inappropiate question and wonder if this reporter was from Quebec and if not was a dumb question only a Liberal leader would respond to with so many negative variables attached to that question.

normanchateau You wrote- " Almost as bad as Harper not being able to say he loves Canada. Personally I have no problem saying I love Canada but I prefer not to be greeted with the ubiquitous Merry Christmas." Love- "An intense feeling of deep affection or fondness for a person or thing." I would say, I to would be unable to express those kind of seniments especially after being left in the destructive hands of the Liberals for to many years of merry making. But, for the Prime Minister of Canada unable to express (non-religious) sentiments concerning the Christmas season with the word "Christmas" is totally unacceptable especially on the North American continent where the spirit of Christmas will live on long past the date of expiry of Mr. Martin existence. Judaism's Hanukkah has developed a similar traditon of gift giving. Christmas has some acceptance even in the Islamic world where Jesus is regarded as a prophet. Many secular aspects of Christmas are becoming common in developed Muslim nations. The Christmas season is celebrated many different ways around the world and is celebrated in India, Japan, China, hong kong, Macao, Philippines, Taiwan, Mexio, U.S. and CANADA, Australia, New Zealand, Czech Repuplic, Poland, Slovaia, Russia, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Finland, U.K., Ireland. So Mr. Prime Minister it's perfectly O.K. to say "Merry Chritmas" without feeling your making an ass out of yourself. Say it and make all Canadians happy rather than feeling like Christmas rejects in a land famous for it's Christmas festivities and for many in combination with "the birth of Christ."

August1991 You wrote- " Does English -Canada (Ontario) understand these people do not come from French ridings? Do they understand that the federal Liberal party does not represent French Quebec? Since when is English Canada Ontario? English Canada is the majority language of ALL provinces combined including Quebec, that is you do consider Quebec part of Canada-right? The Liberal, Conservative, NDP and some other are national federal parties and the Liberals are a national party with a Quebec Wing that has catered specifically to Quebec and Quebec and has been supported by Quebecers since day one. It seems no national party can satisfy Quebec's outrageous demands as a partner in confederation. But if you are saying Quebec should be off limits to national federal parties because you think Quebec is a country SAY IT.

Bakunin I will have to challenge you concerning your numbers which appear astoundingly low. The numbers you quoted and where you obtained them from is unaceptable to make such a blanket statement as fact and only those from the federal government themselves could be considered a probable reliable source. "Please note" is unacceptable as you are implying factual information that could very well be false.

The CPC plan is fair and beats out on the Liberals institutionalized plan that it is to plain expensive and unfair. FACTO- 71% of mothers of children age six and under are in the workplace. FACTO- Only 8.4% of children have access to REGULATED child care spaces. Below is a list of what provinces received 1n 2004 in cash transfers in support of the multilateral framework on Early Learning and Child Care. Newfoundland and Labrador-16.7 Million Nova Scotia- 30.4-Million New Brunswick- 24.4 Million Quebec- 247 Million Ontario- 408.8 Million Manitoba- 38.3 Million Saskatchewan-32.3 Million Alberta- 106.1 Million British Columbia- 138.2 Million Nunivet-1.4 Million NWT- 1.4 Million Yukon 1-Million Total- 1.050 Billion Simple math will tell you to accomodate all Canadian only supporting the multilateral framework concerning Early Learning and and child care expenses.

Liberal candidate Helene Chalifour-Sherrer could very well be correct stating that Quebec was a poor province dependent on equalization payments. Gilles-Duceppe is not facing reality if in the event of separation Quebec is going to walk away with everthing the federal government put into that province and besides equalization payment the feds heavily subsidize Quebec in many areas. How Gilles Duceppe can say " This is why we want to become independent, to put an end to dependency" is an impossibility especially conducting the provinces buisness dealings in French. A single instance describing Quebec's dilema would be, who would subsidize Bombardier for instance especially when the buisness world knows what kind of success Bombardier really is.

Canuck E Stan You wrote- " Isn't it important enough to give people more time." Time is an important factor when trying to compile the outcome of legitimate votes. An extra day could give time to enable corrupt activities in an effort to swing a riding or ridings. No, leave it the way it is.

Sparhawk If Christianity is all that bad, why has countries with Christian societies advanced and flurished and countries associated with Islam economically failed, undeveloped and vacant of pretty well all aspects of modern society. And why would Islamic believers flock to Christian countries where believes are so very different with beliefs they say they don't want interfering in Arab countries especially associated with Western ideologies. My previous post was to illustrate extreme oppressive religious beliefs in which you basically suggested Christians can do the same or a simple 'Lord's prayer' in schools is so OFFENSIVE that Muslim students leave the classroom and stand in the hall. You have provided adequate proof concerning my previous post that the Islam religion is offensive and oppressive to Western style freedoms and traditions by refusing to acknowledge Western feedoms associated with FREE SPEECH. Maybe this is why other Arab countries hate Israel is that they have progressed utilizing capitalism and Western style freedoms and Arab countries adhering to Islam are left back in the middle ages with no ecomomic game plan or system other than religion. This type of lifestyle perpetuated by dominating, extreme religion will only be seen as extremely harmful to Canada's Western ideologies and will only end up with a demand to curb immigration from Muslim countries. How one can expect a religion that has crippled Arab nations and their economic advancement to leap frog into a democratic society and implement their standards and society is repulsive and totally undemocratic.

Yaro You wrote- " Clarify what exactly? That you spend a little less time worrying about what would offend the U.S. and a little more what would be good for Canada you would come off as Bush's answer toe Lewinsky? Hardly that complex really." Oh a Lewinsky tie, pour me another glass of tequilla Y--- lay down beside me and love me again, again you Liberal nit. I am worried about Liberal B.S. that destroy's the good name of Canada and YES Yaro offending our good friend and neighbours with outright lies and cheap propaganda. It's bad enough Canada does not recognize it is in fact subsidizing the softwood lumber industry. Do you know the average polluting facility in Canada produces 20% more pollution than it's counterparts in Texas or Ohio? Do you know Ontario is one of the most polluting places anywhere? Did you hear Martin chasitize China and India during the climate change conference in Montreal, I didn't. Did you? Admit it Yaro you just hate the yanks and that Liberal anti- American niche just fills your bill.

Sparhawk You wrote- " Would you want to go to work where your boss required all employees to attend prayer meetings for a religion you do not follow." This is a free society and no one is twisting your arm to work for such an employer in private buisness if you don't agree to company policy. This is also very sad noting the fact our Candian schools not long ago practised aspects of the Christian religion with a public prayer that caters to the majority Christian religion which in reality harms no one of other faiths. You also wrote- " Our public spaces need to be free from religion for the same resason workplaces need to be free from religion." Followers of Islam walk the streets of our cities unrecognizable cover in robes, turbans, even driving buses and taxis, swords and trying to impose Sharia Law overiding Canadian law. Why should Canadians have to be reminded of Muslims and the extremes of that religion Islam when Muslims demand all aspects of the Christian religion be removed from the public place in Canada. The extremism of Islam followers resulting in death dwarfs comparable acts of followers of Christianity. The problem with Islam is that it combines the ingredients of a government rather than a religion making it a much more potent force in a free democratic society. Canada is a muti-cultural country but the word 'diverse' cannot be implied to grant powers exceeding the democratic will of Canadians at large or that would mean an end to law and order, an end to majority convictions, religious and otherwise.

Yaro You wrote- " Your like the decades Monika Lewinsky." This is a typical Liberal twisted response to a serious issue, namely Liberal B.S. Care to clarify your statement?

August1991 You wrote- " Canada as been held together over the past 40 years by such an approach. It apparently still works in Ontario but no longer works in Quebec." I don't think it's as dry cut as you explained. The Liberals have given EVERTHING to Quebec but SOVERIGNTY. Quebec is now using the Bloc to wrangle ultimate power and are basically hoping in my opinion for the Liberals to come across with some kind of deal relating to soverignty. And the Liberals just might-you know -to save the country. you got to remember that Liberal Quebec Wing is alive and well. But Jerry I have to agree with you 100%, Ontario does make me laugh to.