MightyAC

Good point...and bad example on my part.

Do you seriously think seperatists will stop now? I'm willing to bet that the Bloc will soon push to label the province of Quebec as a nation or to officially recognize all inhabitants of Quebec as Québecois. They will clarify this "unquantifiable" definition into something concrete. Something they couldn't have done if this motion was not proposed. Quebec has been angling for and receiving special deals and autonomy prior to being a "distinct society" and a "nation". It has already been angering other provinces and will continue to do so as they use their new little wedge to pry some more. In time others will push for equality and the powers of the provinces will be increased.

No to 1 yes to 2. I think jail time is extreme, they should be faced with crushing fines. I would reccommend that they try to build support for their position and win the vote though. Seems like a better financial move. Should a justice of the peace loose his job because he refuses to perform SSMs simply because 50% + 1 of politicians voted that they are legal? Yes...of course he should. Same idea..

Aye I support a vote as well. In a previous post I suggested that maybe there is too much red tape for a vote to actually take place. Maybe it is not practically possible for farmers to vote out the CWB. However, even if that were the case that still wouldn't excuse the actions of the Harper administration. They could simply ammend the act making it easier for simple majority votes to take place.

This doesn't give anyone power or autonomy. This gives sepertists in Quebec a moral advantage. Aye, I agree that it doesn't give anyone power or autonomy right now....that's why I sad "in time". I believe seperatists will use this new little bit of leverage to pry a little more money, services and autonomy out of Ottawa. It's only a matter of time before the other provinces demand equal treatment. Although Alberta, BC, Newfoundland, etc may not push to be recognized as nations (even though I believe they could, hell the Newfies even have their own language) this motion gets the ball rolling in the direction of greater provincial power.

If it is possible for a 50% + 1 of wheat producers to dissolve the board without serious amounts of red tape that would make the vote therotecially possible but practically impossible then yet again this government is out of line. The Wheat Board seems a lot like a union to me. I hate unions but if 50% + 1 or more of employees want one then great bring it in...however both the union and wheat board should be sent packing just as easily if 50% + 1 or more want to remove it.

Our "new" government seems to have no problem imposing the will of the PMO on whoever it sees fit. I am bothered by that...but politics aside I don't understand how giving farmers choice is a bad idea. If the majority of farmers still use the Wheat Board I can't see how it would go bankrupt, please explain. The dairy industry is protected and supply managed in Canada, but it's not in other places. I believe New Zealand and Irish farmers have used co-ops very successfully.

Forgive me for jumping into a conversation so late and not taking the time to read the entire thread, but I do have a few questions. 1) Right now are all farmers forced to sell their wheat through the Wheat Board? 2) If the majority support the Wheat Board how would a small minority attempting to find their own deals significantly hurt the board? 3) Why is a Wheat Board preferable one or more private co-ops that could sell wheat as well as process it or even make and market branded finished products like flour, cereals, breads, pastas, etc? (Along the lines of Gay-Lea in the dairy industry)

Harper has always wanted to give the provinces more power and autonomy. This unsupported, slick little manoeuvre may in the short term buy him some votes in Quebec and in time achieve his goal.

I think the idea that the opposition can topple the government is absurd anyway. IMO, if a coalition government is elected it should remain in place for a full 4 year term. That removes the constant campaigning, the threat of an election as leverage and forces parties to build bridges to get anything accomplished.

I too prefer PR systems and coalition governments. Under any PR system majorities can still be won but at least 50% or more of the vote is required. Coalition governments don't always "find solutions acceptable to either side" but anything passed by a proportional government has the support of mps that represent at least 50% + 1 of the voting population...and that is way better than what we have right now. As was shown by the vote on Quebec becoming a nation MPs do not always vote how their constituents would like them to though....but I don't know of an effective way to prevent that. I guess opponents of those MPs just have to remind voters how their incumbent voted during the next election campaign. Which system of PR would best suit Canada, if any form of PR would suit at all, is a sensitive issue. It's also one that deserves its own thread. It was debated in a half-assed fashion under the topic "Help Ensure a fair referendum in Ontario"... a topic that began with me illegally trying to create awareness of the referendum in Ontario…whoops. I'm sure PR and Electoral reform has been discussed in many other threads as well.

As of right now it is simply a symbolic title. This motion replaces the previous symbolic label of "Distinct Society" with "Nation". Harper and the Conservatives are trying to sell this move to the rest of Canada as a meaningless gesture that should keep Quebec quiet for awhile. In Quebec he is trying to gain votes by pretending to care about their distinct language and culture. The problem is the separatists believe, and rightly so, that being labeled a nation within Canada puts them one big step closer to becoming a separate republic like say Ireland. I personally believe that Harper and the Conservatives with help from the opposition just started the process that will dismantle Canada as a country. Canada, in time, will be like the UK or Great Britain...just a geographic reference to a land mass containing separate republics.

Voting to lable Quebec a distinct society instead of a nation in no way promotes a melting pot. We have representative democracy, not direct democracy.You don't tell a dentist exactly what to do. Rather, you choose a dentist and then follow her/his advice. I am aware that we have representative not direct democracy. I am not pushing for more frequent referendums or even a referendum on this issue. However, I do suggest that MPs should represent the views of their constituents for the most part. In this case a motion that was opposed by 77% of Canadians outside Quebec was introduced and rushed through to a vote in less than a week with almost no debate. Other than Garth, Chong and a handful of Liberals, MPs did not even attempt to represent their constituents. This would be a contemptible move for any government but it comes off far worse for the CPC considering they ran on accountability, transparency, free votes, grass roots, etc.I chose my dentist and I listen to his advice...but if he ever did a procedure I was opposed to (or even 77% opposed to) I would find a new dentist.

1. The term Nation is vague. Ignatief and Harper were playing with the vague definition as a tool to gain support in Quebec. They sold the motion to the rest of Canada as a meaningless symbolic gesture. Gilles is walking around with a perma-smile and a woody these days because he knows that despite the vagueness of the term it is a step in his quest for a completely sepparate republic. I think this is the start of the degeneration of the Country Canada into more of a banner heading like UK. I think Canada will eventually just be a geographical reference to a group of nations. 2. Your last point does not make any sense at all. Aknowledging the fact that our country was born in a document instead of a war does not mean we need direct democracy for any constitutional changes. So based on your logic if the colonists actually picked a fight with the loyalits it would then be ok for politicians to make constitutional changes on behalf of the people? I do have a problem with what took place though. Informal polls showed that an overwhelming majority of Canadians opposed what took place yesterday but our so-called representatives voted overwhelmingly in favour. Moves like this will just create even more political apathy in a country that barely has a political pulse as is. When talking with my friends and co-workers about political issues it's amazing how often I hear remarks like "Why do we even vote, nobody listens?", "Same shit different party", "There's nothing we can do, they do whatever they want anyway", etc

No, the Tories were progressive conservatives and the Reform/Alliance were social conservatives. The new combination is neither conservative enough for reformers nor progressive enough for the PCers.I was once happy with the fiscally conservative yet socially progressive, well at least not regressive, policies of the PC party. The added social baggage of the Reform side means the party is no longer a good fit for me and many others. Similarly, the move to hide or at least bind and gag the social agenda means the party is upsetting the reformers. PMSH is doing a good job to walk on eggshells and appease both sides but I don't think it can go on indefinitely. It would be like trying to combine the Liberals and the NDP and make both sides happy...it just doesn't work. As soon as the CPC is sent back to opposition a movement will build to recreate a party that is a better fit for one half of the right. It will take awhile but slowly the party will loose support to another right wing option...just as the PC party did not long ago. The two halfs then split the vote ensuring Liberal majorities. In an attempt to win an unholy alliance was formed...the problem is the two party situation wasn't the problem, the electoral system is broken. If we only had proportional rep the party could revert back to its Reform and PC pieces with each party receiving the correct amount of representation.

Overall the Greens are pretty moderate. I support most of their platform, but I too would rather see decriminalization than legalization with regulation and taxation. Links to their platform: Mary Jane policy is number 106 Word Doc http://web.greenparty.ca/download/GPC_Plat...c#_Toc123981996 Acrobat http://web.greenparty.ca/download/GPC_Platform_2006.pdf

Aye...UK, Great Brittain, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales are a good example.. I point out this thread is a duplicate and then I post again...what a hypocrite.

Chong's riding is adjacent to that of Garth Turner. Why do Halton area Conservatives seem to care more about their constituents than most? Are the voters more vocal? Maybe it is because both men won as Conservatives in the heart of Liberal-land. The surrounding sea of red and perceived tenuous hold on voters may force these guys to listen, instead of dictate to their peeps... Anyway, it sure is nice that some voters are respected, maybe it will continue to spread from riding to riding. Anyway, this thread exists here http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=7344

Way to go Liz. Moving from 4th to second and increasing vote totals by 5x is excellent, especially in a very divided riding that has been red for 2 decades. The results are another example of how dysfunctional our electoral system is though. The riding of London North Centre now has 1 Liberal voice despite the fact that 65% of voters supported a different party. Talk about wasted votes and lack of representation.

The goal of the Bloc is to create a separate sovereign nation of Quebec. Gilles is supporting this motion and can't wipe the smile off his face. Something tells me he wouldn't be so excited about a motion that would help keep Quebec in Canada long term. I completely agree that the PM should have allowed all members vote their conscience. They pretend to be democratic when they talk of free votes but they don't follow through. I think the only reason they even talked of free votes was so they could avoid taking a position on social issues during the election campaign. When asked about SSM, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, etc the PM could simply dodge the question by saying our MPs will vote their conscience. Why do we even bother tying MPs to ridings when the PMO tells them how to vote? Is there any value in geographical representation when a party is completely run from the top down? This government only allows its MPs to speak in the house if a script has been approved by the PMO. CPC members must attend brief party meetings before their committee meetings to be told what to do and say. Conservative members are prohibited from submitting private members bills unless approved by the PMO. CPC MPs can not speak to the press without permission, and now they are told how to vote. Again I ask, why do we even have MPs? I know the Liberals and NDP are to blame as well. The Libs forced cabinet to vote in favour of SSM and all NDP members were forced to do the same. Both Harper and Chrétien supported electoral reform and PR when in opposition but when in power they rule with an iron fist. We elect MPs to represent our wishes in parliament not to have ideas rammed down our throats by the PMO. I'm sick of big party politics, forced votes, distorted election results, lack of representation and wasted votes. I'm not sure what the ideal solution but something has to be done. Anyway, I would like to congratulate to Mr. Chong for standing up for his constituents. It was a very safe act of defiance, considering it was well known that the vote would pass easily, but it was an act of defiance nonetheless. I’m not sure if he would have made the same move on a more divided issue but I’d like to hope so.

Did the party have a policy about how to deal with income trusts or was that just a promise? Didn't the Conservative party appoint a floor crosser to a cabinet position, appoint an unelected man to the senate and fire an MP, without reason, who was nominated and elected by the people then refuse to allow that card carrying member of the party to seek nomination again? Considering that the entire reason for your existence on this forum seems to be for the promotion of the CPC it may be in your best interest to steer clear of using the word democracy in your arguments. Wot in ell does that all have to do with gender parity The point is you seem to have a problem with gender parity in parliament and its detremental affect on democracy yet you support every move made by a party that doesn't give a rats ass about it.

That's not a new question and it has already been answered many times over. The law you're referring to has already been struck down by the Ontario and Quebec court of appeal. It is not protecting anybody right now because it is not even being used. Your attempt to imply there is some sinister conspiracy to attack young people is pretty sad. If you want to question motive you may want to start asking why the Mulroney government removed the laws protecting 15 and 16 year old girls.

Did the party have a policy about how to deal with income trusts or was that just a promise? Didn't the Conservative party appoint a floor crosser to a cabinet position, appoint an unelected man to the senate and fire an MP, without reason, who was nominated and elected by the people then refuse to allow that card carrying member of the party to seek nomination again? Considering that the entire reason for your existence on this forum seems to be for the promotion of the CPC it may be in your best interest to steer clear of using the word democracy in your arguments.

This is excellent news. It was something many believed could get lost in the shuffle, but Steve-O and the gang in blue got-r-done. Good work.

I have yet to see any stats that show that homosexuals are more likely to prey on children that do not use the false argument that a male adult who attacks a male child is therefore a homo-sexual. Similarly an adult that attacks a child of the opposite sex is not necessarily straight. Many of the stats used by anti-gay organizations are based some reports done by Paul Cameron in the 80’s. His reports not only include flat out falsified statements but also rely heavily on the idea mentioned above. Despite the fact that Cameron has been discredited his work is still quoted by those who really want to believe that it is true. Here is a great resource for those interested in the subject. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html...olestation.html The poster Rue also seems quite knowledgeable about this subject and this post provides a good summary http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=157032