Leafless

BHS "When you say this fall" That''s the irony of the whole situation. I doubt also there will be a fall or winter election depending how you look at and the cancellation of the royal visit is simply a manouvre to buy Quebec votes by the Liberals by excluding the perception of pandering to the royal family which is fairly close regardless to a predicted spring election.

err Tell me err, er, how does Canada stand alone in comparison to the U.S. and explain to me how soverign we really are?

newbie You wrote "deleted." I gather you don't have much respect either how Paul Martin treats our royal family.

The coming release of the Gommery report has it seems frightened the Liberals. According to local media Paul Martin turned down Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles request to come to Canada this fall because he fears an "ambush" by the oppositon that could force an election. As a result of this Prince Charles and Camilla will spend their week in the U.S. visiting New York City, Washington and San Fransisco. It seems Mr. Martin has forgotten Canada is a constitutional monarchy and the Queen is 'Queen of Canada' and the federal government has an obligation to welcome the royal familly when the situation arises. I think the real reason could be was not the "ambush" but rather he doesn't want to be seen by Quebec as pandering to the monarchy especially when Senator David Smith was asked the likelihood of such an ambush replied "It's less than 50-50, but it's not zero."

Yarp The U.S. a hindrence? It's formation is basically British + Canada + 1-revolution = U.S. No one forced Canada to become part of it's game plan and Canada did willingly and so did Quebec since Quebec would not be able to survive on it's own if it was not for the rest of Canada. The U.S. is not perfect but has allowed Canada to prosper without bringing Canada to it's knees which they are in the positon to do so at any time it chooses if they wished to pursue that route.

Yaro What I wrote does have 'MORAL' woth.

newbie You wrote- "I can't believe the hate for Canada by some individuals on this site." I didn't get to vote in any referendum concerning important changes to this country that as resulted in this screwed up Canada--DID YOU? A note to Yaro: The U.S. is the only country in the world that has supported and given Canada the prosperities and freedoms it enjoys to-day.

Canadians fighting in Iraq against the U.S. could be viewed as traitors to Canada and Western ideologies which include capitalism and our form of democracy. They are also threating the peaceful coexsistence with our U.S. friends and allies in which Canadians could be seen as an enemy of the U.S. I hope these individuals will not be allowed to return to Canada. I can't believe the hate for the U.S. and the British by some individuals on this site!

Now more back to the topic after Condoleezza rice told Canada to temper it's "apocalyptic language" if it wants to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. It will be interesting to note Washington's reaction to an admant Paul Martin that Canada has no plans to negotiate the $3.5 billion Canada has already been awarded by a NAFTA panel and that the same goes for an additional $1.5 billion he fully expects Canda to win concerning pay back duties collected on Canadain soft wood lumber.

University of Ottawa law student Balpreet Singh according to local media was taken off a train twice in a month after someone complained he had a weapon. Navdeep Bains an Ontario Sikh and MP for Mississauga plans to raise the incident with VIA Rail executives and board of directors. VIA has a policy that the company prohibits all kinds of weapons from it's trains that includes according to a VIA spokesperson "collectables, antiques and those of ceremonial nature." I personally see nothing wrong with the banning of this individual even if this is part of his religion to carry a ceremonial sword. I can understand a lot of people might find this intimidating and how does anyone know for sure if this is not a real sword and if this is VIA's policy concerning weapons on their trains and who could possibly argue against against whay most people would assume is a fair law concerning the general safety of it's passengers. Also I personally have a problem with an individual who is hidden by a full beard in loose fittng robes as far as I.D. is concerned. I think federal authorities should re-think it's policy pertaining to freedom of religion as it applies to how far it extends out onto the streets of Canada.

newbie You wrote- "Let,s not forget who passed into law the Canadian Multicultural Act 1988; our old friend Brian Mulroney." Well, lets not forget who passed multiculturalism as state policy way back in 1971 and became part of our constitution in 1982 both times owing to our old friend Pierre Trudeau.

theloniusfleabag Multiculturalism can be reffered to as 'segregation of the races' and there is a word to describe this and I fail to see how this is good for the country. Do you actually think this is superior to Canadianisation and do you know of another country that has success with multicuturalism? Multiculturalism originally was initiated to accommodate bilingualism but has been expanded -but the problems associated with it namely the huge cost cannot be sustained along with the lack of control with immigration associated with this policy has caused large cities to become dysfunctional due to the diversity of so many different groups.

Melanie_ You said-"Is there no oppurtunity for people to grow in a positive direction in regards to morality, values and respect? You live in a very dreary world." You all most make me think this is all my fault. RB touches on certain problems but no one can force another to live under certain preffered ideals. As it was pointed out by there is a problem with gangs in Canada and many social problems caused by many different lifestyles in a congested enviroment with no real answers to accomodate the many have-nots in basically what is perceived by many as a affluent society. We are simply catching up to U.S. big city problems and I don't really see the Liberals in this country providing any sort of answers but actually complicating matters and adding to the problem by not diversifying the immigrant population but instead allowing them to settle where they want with one of those cities being Toronto without the proper infrastructure to accommodate the extra masses and cultures. Don't worry I have positive attitudes but increasingly I find Iam losing an uphill battle to trying to maintain my own morality, values and respect towards others. There is a definate problem with immigration to-day vs. a family grown population. A family grown population is accomodated by their family up to a certain point and not generally a burden on society-then become productive members of society. An immigrant population the way it is now is imposed on society with many immigrants cluless concerning Canadian morals, values and totally unfamiliar with customs and modern living. This present government is encouraging fractionation of our society which is part of the Liberals multiculturalism official policy.

PocketRocket I to have visted nightlife in the U.S. but did not experience what you have concerning the number of shootings. Obviously hotels and the street are the main places for gun activity. But this does not surprise me as the U.S. is 10-15 years ahead of Canada socially and we are begining to see what lawlessness pertaining to shootings especially in larger cities like Toronto with Canadian officials presently UNABLE to stop it. I presently don't own any guns but depending where I live and if legal I possibly would carry a handgun simply for self protection for the same reason so-called subway vigalnte Bernard Goetz did. It will be interesting to note what federal officials will do concerning legalizing handguns or building more prisons in 10 years time as Canada catches up socially with individuals with no morals , values or respect for their fellow man.

eureka You asked "What deaths in automobile accidents have to do with gun related deaths." The emphasis is on 'ownership' and that there is a risk associated to driving an automobile just as there is a risk in firearms ownership --both can be abused or the risk can be reduced by applying responsibility. BTW- The total number of deaths related to the automobile are much higher than the 44,000 I posted related only to collisions or accidents only and those other stats related to auto injury and other type of injury resulting in death relating to the automobile are hard to come by as they fall under many different separate categoriers.

eureka Forty-four thousand U.S. residents die from automobile accidents, far more than gun related deaths and put bluntly their deaths are directly attributed from owning and driving a motor vehicle. Gun ownership for protection and self defense is not the main issue of my post. The abuse I was reffering to was not actual gun realted deaths but if you wish to debate that aspect, fine. Guns are like automobiles and they will be misused, they will be used relating to suicides and they are related to accidental death. The point is, which is more important. The right to defend yourself or your property or your family under excruciating conditions or being physically threatened with death or unknown injuries which is not totally uncommon in to-day's society vs. someone elses problems concerning firearms. Calling police the recommended way is generally impossible under most conditions involving emergency situations concerning life threatining situations. I am for gun ownership and consider this no different than owning a car. In our society there will always be individuals abusing the main purpose of a of a legal right but I don't think this should overide your right to defend yourself in lifethreating situations.

theloniusfleabsag I am talking about a change in law that would make it legal to own a handgun and use it self defense. It would be interesting to see the statistics on 'hand gun abuse' in the U.S. and and verify if in fact this constitutes needless injury or death in cases arising from self defense. We all pretty well know if anyone wants a gun they will probably find one. I think the problem in Canada especially Toronto is the type of mentality that has no problem pulling the 'trigger'. It would be interesting to note if the majority of gun related deaths in this area is immigrant related and if they are could represent a 'red flag' for the Martin government and their immigration policy. I have not come across any stats in this area. Anyways here is a link to the original Martin-Rice story- http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/10...pf-1276365.html

Condoleeza Rice is coming to Ottawa and PM Paul Martin is going to hammer away on softwood lumber and that Americans have an obligation to help stop the smuggling of guns into Canada. I think it's bad enough we cannot own handguns for personal safety and protection and now we are going to have our prime minister chatizise Condoleeza Rice for Americans not doing enough concerning smuggling hand guns acrooss the border. To find a metal hand gun in a metal car is pretty hard to do without dismantling the automobile. More to the point what are Canada's border security officials doing about all of this. I doubt very much if Mr. Martin will be able to force the U.S. to abide by Canada's gunless society (hand guns). Actually a lot can be done in Canada by simply increasing the penalities for illegal firarm possession, let's get tough with our own criminals and increase the penalities for murder also (no parole for starters). This is buck passing Canadian style and in combo with softwood lumber is embarrassing to Canada and Canadians. Better watch it Mr. Martin maybe the U.S. clamping down on more border security in effect will have major implications on cross border trade.

Bakunin What exactly are you trying to say? In Quebec you have Quebec nationalist who are militant with their own Quebec style ideologies unlike Canadians from the rest of Canada. In Quebec you also have Quebec separatist who's main goal is to separate from Canada. If there is any group trying to control Canada it is Quebec with their language, culture and nationalism. I mean they can't even get their colour of margarine right in Quebec it's white.

Three words to describe the return of Svend Robinson. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.

eureka You said concerning Stephen Harper-"He simply has to decentralize an already too decentralized country. Then Quebec will have everthing it wants. It will also then wish it had not.' That's the whole problem the liberals have created and encouraged regional federalism catering to Quebec encouraging other provinces to do the same. The Liberals are the cause of a politically weakened Canada by not properly enforcing the concept of federalism and by weak leadership. This represents a weakened federalism and how Stephen Harper is suppose to rectify the situation with no seats in Quebec is ludicrous and this alone represents a dysfunctional political system. The last I heard 53% of Quebecers are in favour of separation.

Sparhawk "It measures perceptions not absolute numbers of incidents" That depends on what kind of handle a specific country has on anti-corruption efforts and how one views corruption. The U.S with ten times the population of Canada has a lot more to worry about in maintaining efficiency and sustainability in anti-corruption and good governance efforts. I partially agree with theloniusfleabag who said Harper could have done a better job 'slaying the dragon' and said "I guess that proves they just didn't have the mettle" and I would like to add to that they just didn't have the 'left press'.

So Canada came in as 14th with a score of 8.4 and the U.S with 10 TIMES THE POPULATION ranked 17 with a score of 7.6. I would say the U.S. is a lot less corrupt considering the popualtion difference and Canada is politically democratically inferior as in comparison with the U.S.

The Block the "shock troops" of independence? The only shocking thing about all of this is how a separatist Party from the second largest province in Canada gets to sit in parliament while Quebec still remains in confederation. The Bloc is not playing federal politics by continually expressing un-Canadian and unfederalistic political desires while Quebec is being supported by federalism and other Canadain provinces. When will the federal Liberals intervene and tell the Bloc to either shape up or ship out?

tml12 "It seems politically we are polarized between Liberal-dominated east and a Conservative dominated west." This is true and politicians recognize the need for electoral reform but still hobble on with our broken down political system and no one seems to want to assume any responsibility for changes. This type of political Liberal catering to Quebec essentially destroys federal authority and demonstrates weak leadership and has resulted in Western provinces seeking refuge among themselves, a result of lost federal confidence.