wellandboy

Make your case but kindly resist the temptation to lower the level of the discussion by name calling.

From Wednesday's National Post regarding Bernard Shapiro: This piece makes no mention of Shapiro's turning a blind eye to Tony Valeri's highly questionable land deal in Stoney Creek. If those opposition members had a modicum of integrity, they'd be screaming for Shapiro's resignation or a suspension of his duties until this can be resolved in Parliament. Oops, that won't happen because the ethically challenged Liberals are incapable of making those distinctions. I've stated earlier that PM Harper should have a perfunctory meeting with this man out of respect for the office, not for the man. To say that this will bring down the government is nonsense.

Anyone with the slightest insight into Ottawa knew Shapiro was dead meat on election night. The only reason he hasn't already resigned is he wants to milk us for a fat severence package just like all Liberals. The posturing by the opposition is pathetic. With the exception of the Liberals, they didn't like him either. His removal will be among the first acts of the new parliament. And rightly so. So Liberal appointees bad; Con appointees good. Aah, good ole partisan politics at work. Shapiro was a bad appointment period. He needs to removed with cause April 3. I should add that Harper should talk to the turd, respecting the office not the man.

Anyone with the slightest insight into Ottawa knew Shapiro was dead meat on election night. The only reason he hasn't already resigned is he wants to milk us for a fat severence package just like all Liberals. The posturing by the opposition is pathetic. With the exception of the Liberals, they didn't like him either. His removal will be among the first acts of the new parliament. And rightly so. So Liberal appointees bad; Con appointees good. Aah, good ole partisan politics at work. Shapiro was a bad appointment period. He needs to removed with cause April 3.

The only thing that's bizarre about Harper's statements is your over the top, expletive laden reaction to them.

I saw no reference to this in the media or from the PMO. Please provide a link or reference.

The level of debate in this thread has fallen into the abyss.

Interesting you would absolve Harper of any wrongdoing without knowing the facts. There is a chance he did break the rules, and if you want to retain what remains of your credibility you might want to wait for the details. Well Jerry, there's the small problem of Shapiro's not including Tim Murphy, former PM Martin's Chief of Staff into the Grewal investigation and by affiliation the former PM himself. The man is so tainted politically, he has no credibility to investigate Grewal, Harper or Scott Brisson. The best thing for him and the country is to resign. Let's get an Ethics Commissioner ASAP, accountable to parliament just like the Conservatives and the NDP have proposed.

I agree Cybercoma 100%, good piece. The digression into racism and bigotry shouldn't have come into this controversy. As I said earlier, the courts demonstrated a lack of wisdom in this ruling.

This is nice. Another one who calls anybody who disagrees with them racist.

Yes it is, for instance it imperative that immigrants learn either official language. Along that particular journey it's vital to learn the the laws of the land and helpful to understand the complex social fabric of their new homeland. Canada is a tolerant nation, dress code is not an issue. The Supreme Court is unanimously wrong in not placing a caveat on this ruling to address public safety concerns. Your unfettered rightousness on this issue is only surpassed by your inability to see other individuals points of view and immediately label them intolerant , racist, bigots because they don't agree with you. While there hasn't been an incident in a school yet, the message it sends out to young people can have serious ramifications regarding weapons. You have missed the point entirely in this debate, that by protecting individuals religious freedoms (which I support absolutely) we can at the same time protect and respect the remainder of society for the greater good. The court ruling was technically correct but lacked vision and wisdom. It seems that all too often the emphasis is placed on being right and not on doing the right thing.

I highly doubt you've ever even seen one. Actually, that's not true. I'm familiar with kirpans and and the Sikh community, socially and in business for the last 25 years. Colleagues of mine had miniature kirpans to fufill their religious obligations and two cases reserved wearing a turban for religious and ceromonial occasions. Something that hasn't been discussed is how many Sikhs feel about this. It is not proper for those on both sides of this argument to assume this ruling is accepted wholeheartedly within the Sikh community. My main point is that I am disappointed that the Sikh community could not find an acceptable solution that meets all religious criteria while not offending other Canadians. The choice to take this to the Supreme Court to resolve this through litigation is part of a greater problem in this country. This seems a more American way of accomplishing ones goals than Canadian. As uncomfortable as that sounds to the left, the Sikh community used the Canadian legal system to accomplish something that could just as easily been resolved outside the courts. We are not richer for this decision, just more litigious.

The lunatic fringe of Sikhdom found that placing bombs in a 747 is a far more effective way of murdering Canadians.

Abolish Dalton or send him to the Senate, anything to put him out of our misery.

All Canadians are protected by Charter in matters of religious beliefs, that all but the most wanton bigot, can accept without difficulty. By your standard there is no limit by which Canada can address issues of public safety if it potentially infringes on an individuals right to carry a lethal weapon. Where in your multi cultural utopia would you propose we as a society can draw the line?

While working with two other volunteers and a contractor last summer installing some recreational equipment we had raised money for, we were approached by two city employess. They has been sitting in their truck for at least half an hour watching us. The one said we were taking away their jobs and that he was going to file a grievance. After some heated words, I suggested that these two "municipal canine fornicators" should leave or I'd call the police. As he stormed away he shouted back "we're outside maintenance workers", then departed.

Your right, Canada is a civilized country. As such the contempt the Sikh community has shown other towards Canadians is mind boggling. The contempt the Supreme Court has shown towards other Canadians is mind boggling. If the kirpan is a symbol, make it out of plastic or miniturize it down to a lapel pin. Who protects Canadians from the tyranny of the minority?

Unless we start a Kirpan Registry..........?

So you are saying 'don't bother me with facts cause I have already made up my mind'. This does not surprise me.The CBC has an incredibly difficult job because everyone presumes that their peculiar point of view must be represented in every program all of the time. This is an impossible task that is made difficult by human nature: people notice occasional problems and automatically assume that the problem occurs all of the time. The CBC report demonstrates that complaints of systematic bias on the part of CBC are grossly exaggerated and likely a result of selective memory syndrome on the part of the complainers. Where you get "don't bother me with the facts cause I have already made up my mind" from what I stated is more obfuscation. 1st why does CBC commission a study to comment on their bias?, because there is a bias. Secondly, how about the commission of a blind comparative study that would actually be fair. The consultant otherwise skews the numbers in CBC's favour. CBC would never allow that sort of scrutiny, no way no how. CYA you bet. As for the "selective memory syndrome on the part of the complainers"comment, what about the mindless acceptance of all things CBC as the Holy Grail of news reporting and Canadian broadcasting? The more I go through this exercise and read the arguments for saving the CBC, I am coming to the conclusion the entire organization should be gutted. What are arguments so far to save CBC: 1.Well ratings and quality per se don't matter er ah because it's CBC. 2.Advertisers bad, so maybe give them more money (see above). 3.I don't want to pay for it, I want everybody else to pay for it. 4.Choice? What's that? 5.We keep it just the way it is because in some nebulous way, CBC stands as a bastion of Canadianism, protecting us from very bad American cultural imperialism and Canadian corporations. 6.CBC is like a street light. (not in any allegorical sense that I can surmise from that argument) 7.Lastly, it's not biased because it fits very nicely with our particular bias, which is correct after all. The rest of us, poor misguided souls can go sod off. Unless of course upon achieving a new level of enlightenment, that will allow us to accept and defend CBC unreservedly.

The majority of Canadians live in urban centers. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was referring to Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal as the large urban centres. There are distinct differences in the secondary urban centres such as Calgary , Edmonton, Winnipeg, Halifax etc.. as there is in Niagara region where I live with a population of just under 1/2 million. That difference was directly reflected in the election results , with high re-election of Liberal candidates in those three centres. Just a quick comment on CBC's coverage in Shoop's link. Coverage of the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper was at first glance surprisingly high by CBC. When you consider Harper's strategic daily roll out of policy throughout the campaign, the numbers are not so convincing, given the relative silence of the Liberals throughout December. The fact that CBC felt the need to have a report written in an attempt to demonsrate how fair their election coverage was, smacks of epic CYA (that's cover 'yer ass in smaller cities and rural Canada). The worst part is they use our money to try to convince us they're not screwing us. Come on CBC at least kiss me first.

Stating the CBC represents mainstream thought in Canadians is simply wrong. It is a uniquely Toronto based perspective that has permeated to other satellite urban centres across the country. It is also a betrayal in trust to manifestly promote those views without providing equal opportunity to a large contingent of the population who is diametrically opposed to those views. As long as the CBC feeds from the public trough, it is it's duty and obligation to strike a balance that is fully representative of all Canadians.

You realize the woman in question just happens to be married to a francophone. In Welland the French clinic will only serve patients who speak French while in the clinic. This is a case of hiding behind the French Language Services Act to maintain exclusivity within French communities in Ontario.

A friend of mine got a portable unit as he spends about 8-10 hours a day in his vehicle. As he lives in a small community on the north shore of Lake Erie, radio reception is poor plus he can use it in his boat. He just loves it. I'm going to check a unit out this week. PS- Hicksey- How are things down in the Maple City? Grew up there as a little kid in the 60's. Summers in Rondeau and fishing on Mitchell's Bay. Ah to be a kid again.

What Americans on here? Do you mean this forum? I've read the opinions of many Canadians with a very few Americans. Anyway, do you actually think that whether or not the CBC exists it would protect Canadian sovereignty. What is really behind the pro CBC support is that any attack on it is seen by some as unpatriotic. When Canadians like me question the CBC, it's defenders immediately wrap themselves in the Canadian flag feigning a higher purpose to justify their cause. Captain Canada, Paul Martin tried to pull that bullsh*t off and it didn't really work for him. It's just another means of blunting meaningful discourse in a democracy.

Are you saying that the elimination of the CBC is part of a nefarious plot on the part of the United States to erode our so-called institutions, in order to undermine Canada as a sovereign entity, through Manifest Destiny? When logic fails, there's always fear. BTW in addition to supporting PBS, my household supports TV Ontario through contributions.