MightyAC

Should we have had a referendum on slavery and womens rights? At one time the majority thought those blacks and upity bitches didn't deserve any rights...they were property. A referendum would have kept the status quo around longer. In time the idiots that currently oppose equality for homosexuals will see the light too...or at least the ignorant mofos will be worm food and the next generation will be more tolerant.

Democratic reaform is pie in the sky but I agree that would be at the top of my list if it was feasable. Why is it a pie in the sky? The ball is rolling in a handful of provinces. We are all aware that better systems exist the debate is just over which one. The only people keeping us tethered to such crap are our big parties. To borrow a phrase "the hand you hold is the hand that holds you down". Don't reach for the copout so quickly. At one time we told governments what we wanted…now they tell us what we should want and like idiots we eat it up.

That is true. But the United States of America has the greatest level of democracy that is not matched anywhere else in the world. I feel we should move their system. We can't keep letting elites run our country from the back office. Are you being facetious or are you just ignorant?! The winner take all style of US government is nowhere near the greatest level of democracy in the world. Luckily they only have two major parties otherwise the level of distortion and wasted votes would be the same as ours.

That's the way I saw it. It shouldn't be a problem for Canadians but it sounds like he will give it up if it turns out to be.

You basically agree with the current definition of marriage then. The previous legal definition prevented SS couples from marrying at all. The current definition allows them to marry civilly or at any church that chooses to accept homosexuals. Any church that doesn't is free to wed just heteros if they like. First of all many churches have discriminated against women forever and despite the fact that the charter forbids discrimination based on gender churches have not been affected. The same will go for SSM. Besides the ridiculous slippery slope argument that people like you use as a scare tactic works both ways. If we discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry or segregate them with the use of civil unions it's just a matter of time before we start enslaving blacks and stripping women of their rights again. Both arguments are equally absurd. Religions will always be free to be as discriminatory and anachronistic as they are now.

May I suggest the Greens? But yes, there is far too few parties to choose from and only electoral reform can deliver more options. The Greens are likely the closest match to my list of criteria. The problem is a vote for the Greens in almost every riding in Canada is a wasted vote under our BS electoral system. Winner take all systems waste nearly half the votes cast, distort election results, deter voter turnout and provide political representation to only about half of the country. Until we have a fair, proportional electoral system me and many others are forced to either cast strategic votes for parties we don't support or waste the ballot... I guess I could just stay home like 40% + of voters do.

Why do Christians have to influence? That is, provided that laws do not infringe on your freedom to practice your religion or live by your own set of beliefs. In the case of SSM, the current law does not limit, affect or harm Christians in anyway, however, the traditional definition plus a civil union does seggregate homo-sexuals. Yet Charles McVety and other like him did their best, and will continue to do their best, to inflict their beliefs on others. I guess I'm wondering why most Christians can't be more like Mennonites. They have some very unique lifestyle beliefs, yet they don't attempt to inflict them on anyone else.

The Bloc would make it an issue in Quebec but most Ontarions couldn't care less. In fact, just like out there most people here are sick and tired of hearing about the whining Quebecois. Maybe I just had lower expectations. Or Harper's policies are just a better fit for you...there's nothing wrong with that. I wish I had a political home, but it's hard to find a socially progressive, fiscally conservative, pro-democracy party. I guess I'm looking for a party full of people like Garth Turner. (another reason I am angry with the CPC) Anyway, since one doesn't exist I'll keep pushing for electoral reform and bashing big party politics.

Whoa dude, I guess it's time to drink your "Kool-Aid" and reunite with Jesus in the mother ship.

Watered down their platform? They sold out the reformers. Probably he suspects there's dubious support for those positions outside of western Canada or among the opposition parties, and as a result has put just enough window dressing on the issue to say he took action. It would be interesting, though, to see how the opposition would respond if he did push the issue. It would have been interesting to see how the opposition would have responded. Oddly, enough Harper chose not to push for the same senate reforms that he preached...even at a time when the Liberals had no power whatsoever. The Bloc would oppose an equal senate, the NDP would likely support it. The Libs would be the question mark, but again they had zero power at the time. I want a Triple E senate. I'd like to see 5 to 8 elected from every province and territory. I don't think most people care either way though.If you'd prefer to abolish the senate then what is your plan to ensure that Alberta is protected from evil central Canada? Wait for a massive influx of people? It's a lot easier to talk about big policy ideas when you're not actually in a position to enact them. The Liberals' big plans for Kyoto right now, versus what they actually did while they were in office, are a good example of that. Aye it is easier to shout from the sidelines... But your example was backwards. You're comparing what the Libs are saying now to what they did in the past. I find it much worse to say something before an election and then do the opposite. Like Chretien saying he'd abolish the GST or Harper saying they wouldn't touch income trusts. At one time Harper was for electoral reform, elected senate, reducing the power of the PMO, free votes, grassroots democracy, etc. I think wait times were on his list of 5 core promises at one point too. He then ran on an accountability platform and turned out to be the same as the rest. Just as a note, I don't support the Liberals. I just feel so let down by Harper and my CPC MP that I want them sent back to the sidelines.

Wow are you ever a whiner. Dion is from Quebec there are 9 provinces and 3 territories that were shut out. Do you think Ontarions were pissed when Steve-O beat out Belinda and Tony Clement? Hell no. Yet not choosing a westerner is always an issue in Alberta. I agree.. Seeing Harper wearing make up and a cowboy hat last election has scarred me for life.. We don't need anymore fancy, old white men doing the same.As a side note I find it odd that Harper is willing to dress like one of the Village People during an election and still vote agains SSM. Aye sadly what was an excellent political movement is now a farce. Thanks Steve-O. Why they sacrificed their principles for a brief shot at the brass ring I'll never know. Grassroots democracy is a great thing. Now in office Harper has sprayed RoundUp all over those roots. I have no problem with an equal senate. In fact, I thought every region had something like 20 senators right now...I vaguely rememeber some BS situation for the Newfies and the territories though.Anyway an equal senate is achievable and worth fighting for. I thought Harper would have pushed for a triple E senate, rather than appointing a senator himself and adding some window dressing to the selection process. Wonder why he didn't? Seems like he sold out the west (and the east) again. Even if the Liberals win the next election it will likely be a minority. Maybe the Conservatives will start representing their constituents again as members of the opposition. Maybe then he can put forth a motion to reform the senate.

You can never ensure the best bartenders work at any bar. Why do bartenders even work in Canadian bars at all when they can earn many times more money in the US? I like metaphors and analogies too however, your question leads more into the specifics of a multi-tiered system. Switzerland, Sweden, France, Japan, Luxembourg, etc all have successful systems that balance universal care with private delivery. I'm sure there are many ideas we can borrow. For example, maybe all bars will be required to serve a minumum number of free beers each week or month. That way exclusive high priced bars will not be able to buy all the best bartenders as every bar will have to deal with some of the rif-raf. I don't have all the answers as to how we can ensure that everyone can get a beer in a reasonable time regardless of income but many nations have already tackled this problem. We just have to do some research.

Right...many countries have private delivery with public funding. Considering so many European countries are receiving top marks for their healthcare systems why aren't we copying them? They've done the leg work, all we have to do is research their systems and pick and choose their best ideas. I absolutely hate it when people say that Private Healthcare means rich people get ahead in line. That's BS...they move to a different line completely. I like the free beer example. A bar is giving away free beer. As you would expect the lineup starts to stretch down the street in no time at all. Pretty soon everyone is waiting hours for a free beer. A bar next door opens up and sells beer for $5 a pint. Half the people in line don't have $5 bucks to spare so they stay put...the other half move next door and get a beer in a few minutes. Some say those rich bastards shouldn't get beer any faster than the rest of us.. I say great my line is now half as long.

That's great news.. Dion made his first good decision. Now I just hope the status quo can be upheld and we can put this issue behind us.

Local runoffs? That would be a step in the right direction, but that doesn't really help provide representation. It works at a party convention when members of the same team have to pick 1 leader but the ideologies between separate parties can vary significantly. Often people only support one choice. For example it may be more palatable for NDP and Green voters to support a Liberal candidate as a second choice than it would be for a Conservative voter to support any party as a second choice. Take the riding of London by-election riding from a couple weeks ago. In a runoff CPC voters would have to support a Liberal or Green candidate...not a great fit for the most part. What if we each had two votes? The first vote would be cast for a local MP. It would rank each candidate to facilitate a runoff without having to cast additional ballots. The second vote would be for the governing party. It would be used to calculate the popular vote and list MPs would be added to the house so that each party is represented proportionally. In the end every voter helped create representation.

I am completely for our current definition and believe it should be left as is. However, I don't think MPs should be forced to vote either for or against. Harper has been terrible for controlling his MPs from the top down. Despite the fact that current definition is the only fair choice I really hope Dion doesn't follow suit. MPs should be free to represent their constituents...in theory anyway. My Con MP will vote in favour of the motion to restore the previous definition despite the fact that local polls show the majority of my region prefers the status quo. One candidate receives 40% of the vote, stands up for the 2 in 5 that got him a job, while 3 in 5 are left without representation. Winner take all electoral systems just don't make any sense at all.

Let's see if I understand your reasoning here. It is more acceptable for Harper to "stroke French egos" despite the fact that the vast majority of Conservative supporters were against the move. However, when an actual French-man supports bilingualism and federalism it is somehow wrong. Hmmm sounds a little hypocritical to me. In fact it sounds like your boy sold you out but you have nowhere to go. Seems to me like Harper realizes that as well, why else does he spend most of his time kissing central Canadian asses as well? He knows you are stuck with him and that he has your piddley 28 seats locked up. Kennedy would obviously have been the first choice, but I don't think it had to be him. I think that Ignatieff had broader regional appeal than Dion or Rae. His statements on federalism and equalization sound the right notes, at least. I think it's a safe assumption that if picking a leader they could promote in western Canada was a priority for the Liberals, Stephane Dion wouldn't have won. I think the obvious conclusion is that picking a candidate they could promote in the west wasn't a priority for the Liberals. Do you disagree? Why? No I do not disagree at all. Very few people are appealing to the whole country while still being good candidates for the job. Picking a leader they could promote in the west while sacrificing other attributes would have been a foolish move. As a Conservative I can see why you'd want Ignatieff. The guy is very smart but he's not at all politically savy. He thinks out loud and gives honest answers. He'd get killed during a campaign, just like Harper did in the past. I can also see why you'd want Kennedy, as most people want a home town boy as a party leader...but why would a party try to cater to 28 seats that are locked up pretty tight right now? Doesn't it make more sense to pick a very capable politician, who appeals to the majority of Liberal voters? He can then outsource regional ass kissing duties to some others in the party. Kennedy can stroke western egos like MacKay kisses maritime buts right now. Separatists are like whiny little children that don’t get their way on the play ground so they take their ball and go home. I feel that a country is something worth fighting for. If you’re unhappy with a particular aspect get involved in fighting to change it. However, keep in mind that many people with different views live here so you may not get your way. I’m from Ontario and I’m not represented either. A lot like the 35% of Albertans that didn’t vote for the CPC or the Conservatives in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. However, I’m also involved with electoral reform, doing what I can to rectify the situation. I’m in favour of proportional representation, more power to the provinces and an elected senate. PR provides fair and more accurate representation by population with much few wasted votes. An elected senate should ensure each region is looked after. I always found the phrase Triple E to be stupid as each E relates back to elected anyway….but I digress.

Unless it has changed very recently the oil patch still receives more than a billion dollars in government subsidies despite the tremendous profits being achieved.

Wait a minute which PM was it that decided the Quebecois should be nation about a week ago? I hope your barf bucket is handy? So you think the Libs had to pick Kennedy otherwise they consider Alberta a fly over territory? Or does a leader have to speak English as a first language to include Alberta? Do you think it makes sense to pick a leader that appeals to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba at the expense of the rest of Canada? How many seats do those 3 provinces represent 28, 14 and 14? Give your head a shake...

I disagree; Mr. Kennedy's strong endorsement of Dion will likely help build support in the west. I also think Harper's policies (Income Trusts, Quebecois a nation, Wheat Board) have weakened the CPC support in the west. The Liberals may not actually win any seats in Alberta but I think their share of the popular vote will rise quite a bit.

The full plan comes out later today. I really hope it does borrow many of Suzuki's ideas. Despite being an activist and a bit of a showboat many of his environmental ideas are both balanced and practical. I anxiously awaited the CPC green plan hoping the party least likely to save the environment actually would emerge as the white knight we needed. I didn't expect much but a series of 3 or 4 announcements leading to further announcements led me to believe they were building hype for a big, solid green plan that would be the corner stone of their next election campaign. Sadly, as we all know it was a huge flop and an embarrassment to both the PM and Ms. Ambrose. Well I'm doing the same now, anxiously awaiting the big green plan we need. This plan had better contain some good ideas or the wind will be completely let out of the Liberal sails. The Libs know the environment is a major issue now, they know Harper and the Cons blew it big time, they had better step up to the plate. They don't need to hit a home run but extra bases would be nice. The CPC plan was a strike out so I'd say double or better will give the red team another momentum boost. Anyway, we'll see what happens soon.

For those of you that can see this I say get involved in the electoral reform process. If you live in Ontario, BC, New Brunswick or PEI, the ball is already rolling, jump on and give it a push. In Ontario the citizens committee that will decide if we need electoral reform in Ontario and if so what form, is on tour right now asking for public input. Whether you feel changes are necessary or would like argue on behalf of the status quo get out and be heard. The work done at the provincial level will result in a public education process that will no doubt lead to an electoral reform push at the federal level. You can even submit your comments in writing via the web; they say every submission will be read by the committee.

As I mentioned before the CPC has killed the accountability/honesty issue by proving that they are neither. The apathetic masses also know as Canadian voters really thought the CPC was going to be different. They were promised honesty, accountability a listening ear. That along with a $100 per month per child incentive bought many votes. Unfortunately the honeymoon is over. The floor crossing, the clean air flop, the big income trust lie and the Quebecois as a nation plan really hit home with people in my neck of the woods. The masses are disillusioned now that captain accountability turned out to be just another lying politician. The apathy is back and the masses are chanting "same shit different party". The next election will be fought and won with a new set of issues. The environment will be a front line battle this time and with accountability dead in the water, I'm willing to bet that many Canadians will return to the dark side and vote red. They are the natural governing party for a reason... They only saving grace for all of us is that so far it looks like another minority is on its way, so we should be spared the full wrath of either major party. Hopefully, electoral reform will be well under way before we experience a false majority again.

I agree for the most part. I haven't been happy with the Libs record on the environment or the hot air act proposed by the Cons. I do take issue with the phrase "did nothing for 13 years" when referring to Kyoto. I think you were using the phrase in reference to the Liberal's environmental record over their entire run..but so many people use the same phrase when discussing GHGs.. The Kyoto accord was officially ratified in Dec 2002. Martin was in Dec 2003, shook up the cabinet and Dion was ousted. Dion will get attacked on the Kyoto issue but it will not be entirely deserved. He had just one year on the project at a time when the top guy was simply focused on his own legacy. Oh well I guess perception is reality. The Cons will attack Dion on Kyoto but it's not like they have a Green record to counter with. Anyway, we can only hope that Dion and Harper scramble to be greener than each other...in the end Canada will benefit.

It seems to me that the renewal of the Liberal party is going quite well. Many, myself included, thought that it would take years before the Liberals had any chance whatsoever of winning an election. Then in one short year they are back in the game. Not too shabby. This thread started on the topic of accountability but despite the scandal of the decade that is no longer an issue. I guess Liberal supporters can thank Steve-O for dropping the ball so badly on that topic. Emerson, Fortier, Income Trusts, Garth, forced votes, gag orders, Quebec a nation...it's been a rough year for the CPC faithful.