normanchateau

I'm in favour of a national securities regulator. The problem here is that Flaherty made an absurd choice by giving the task of creating this regulator to someone who opposes it. "The federal government has appointed B.C. Securities Commission chairman Doug Hyndman to usher in national securities regulation. The curious thing about Hyndman's appointment is that he has historically pooh-poohed the idea of national regulation. As recently as February, Hyndman told the Vancouver Board of Trade that previous reports advocating national regulation "significantly overstate the potential benefits of a single regulator, and ignore its risks." Another curious thing about Hyndman's appointment is that, if Flaherty wants to convince investors that national regulation will provide better consumer protection, he picked the wrong person. Hyndman has been B.C.'s top securities regulator since 1987, but he has failed to rein in Howe Street's penny stock crooks. In recent years, the flow of enforcement cases has dwindled to a trickle. Obvious stock frauds are routinely ignored. In June 2007, for example, Hyndman declared war on the 800 B.C.-connected companies that trade on the U.S. over-the-counter markets and have been seriously damaging Vancouver's reputation. Two years have passed and while the commission has made the local climate more inhospitable for these issuers, not one of them has been subject to disciplinary action. Investor protection is not the ultimate goal of this national regulatory initiative. Its real purpose is to make life cheaper and easier for issuing companies and dealers. They are the pipers who call the tune, not consumers. The "transition office" has many political hurdles to leap before it becomes a permanent office, but issuers and dealers must be happy that their man is now firmly ensconced in Ottawa." http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/s...1cf00a6&p=1 "The transition office has a three-year mandate. Flaherty wants Hyndman to develop a national plan within a year, leaving two years to implement it. The overall budget is $154 million, of which $33 million has been allocated to the transition office. During this period, Hyndman will work exclusively for the transition office, so he has taken a leave from the B.C. commission. The feds say Hyndman's compensation will be "in line with" his current pay. During fiscal '08, he made $544,000. Fiscal '09 figures are not yet available. As head of the transition office, he will probably make a lot more than $544,000. Not only will Hyndman get a pay hike, he gets to stay in Vancouver. He will work from an office in Vancouver (separate from the commission offices). But the move to national regulation, despite what Flaherty says, has never been about consumer protection. There are only a few small consumer groups in Canada, and none have any clout. Issuers and dealers, on the other hand, are well represented. They pay the filing and registration fees that funds the commissions, which entitles them to call the tune. And the tune they want to hear is not enforcement, it's deregulation. National regulation achieves this objective in two ways: First, it will be a lot cheaper for issuers and dealers if they have to register with only one national body and abide by one set of rules, rather than 13 provincial and territorial commissions, each with their own rules. Second, if principles-based regulation is incorporated into the new system, which it surely will, the focus will shift from prescriptive rules of conduct to broad statements of desired "outcomes." This makes life cheaper and easier for issuers and dealers, particularly in compliance areas." http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Natio...6668/story.html National securities regulation is a good idea but the Harper Conservatives blew it by giving the task to Hyndman who favours issuers and dealers, not investors.

Marx and Lenin were atheists. Marx's parents were Jews who converted to Protestantism. Marx was baptized a Lutheran and eventually became an atheist. At no point did he practice Judaism. Lenin had one Jewish grandparent but his parents were Christian and he became an atheist. You seem to buy into Hitler's theory that having a Jewish ancestor makes one a Jew. Does having a Christian ancestor make one a Christian? Does having a Muslim ancestor make one a Muslim? Christianity, Judaism and Islam are religions, not races.

"Three-quarters of Canadian voters who attend evangelical churches (such as Baptist, Mennonite and Pentocostal) opted for the Conservative Party of Canada. That's the same proportion of white American evangelicals who supported the Republicans. In general Protestants, who nominally make up 30 per cent of the population, tend to split their vote between the two major parties. But even mainline Protestants have been among those shifting toward the Tories. In 2008, 64 per cent of church-going Protestants (as opposed to those who rarely attend) chose the Conservatives, compared to 51 per cent in 2004." http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...-in-canada.aspx

Here are the rest of the numbers: http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls...T-S09-T380E.pdf In Ontario, Conservatives 42.4, Liberals 40.9 In British Columbia, Liberals 36.4, Conservatives 30.4

Even an incompetent, big spender like Harper wouldn't do this. Do you have evidence for your claim?

Harper may be pro-American in his drug policies but I wouldn't call him a simpleton.

Someone can live in Toronto for four years and be a U.S. resident ?

OTTAWA (Reuters) - June 22, 2009 - Prime Minister Stephen Harper, adopting one of the toughest lines on Iran of any Western leader, condemned on Monday what he said was Tehran's totally unacceptable use of "brute force and intimidation" to deal with protests. "The regime has chosen to use brute force and intimidation in responding to peaceful opposition regarding legitimate and serious allegations of electoral fraud," Harper said in a statement. "Canada calls on the Iranian authorities to immediately cease the use of violence against their own people, to release all political prisoners and journalists ... and to conduct a full and transparent investigation into allegations of fraud in the presidential election." http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews...E55L4V520090622 Personally I commend Harper for his tough stance on brutal, sexist, homophobic and anti-Semitic thugs like Ahmadinejad. Other world leaders should follow Harper's lead.

How do you explain that more Christians voted for the Conservatives than the Liberals in the last federal election?

As of 2008, one-quarter of all American inmates are in jail due to drug-related crimes, which are primarily non-violent. The U.S. imprisons a larger proportion of its adult population, for longer sentences of time, than any other country in the world; incarceration rates are racially disproportionate and have skyrocketed. The U.S. has less than five percent of the world’s population, but nearly a quarter of its prisoners. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/tuliate...warondrugs.html

No he isn't but the task of Harper supporters, given Harper's rapidly declining reputation even among his supporters, is to find bogus flaws in Ignatieff.

Nothing. It's simply an offer from the government and there are no penalties if the offer is declined. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1893946,00.html I suspect the offer of therapy was something that Portuguese proponents of drug legalization put into the legislation to placate the opponents. It sure beats the irrational Harper approach to drugs which merely mimics the US approach.

Following a meeting with Abbas – who said he would make settlement expansion a key issue – Cannon called settlement growth “illegal. “Canada has never supported the expansion of settlements. We believe that it’s an illegal move,” he said. http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com...5&Itemid=86 Sounds like Cannon did the right thing and changed his position.

Do you consider these people who can't: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html

The church already has it's hands on the state. The preamble to the constitution makes reference to the supremacy of "God". None of the major political parties have the courage to change it. When Svend Robinson was a NDP MP, his own party leader demoted him for presenting a petition to remove the reference. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb64...7/ai_n25783811/ Religious mumbo jumbo belongs in a theocracy, not the Canadian constitution.

What should Portugal offer?

Conversely, a party can make potential gains by having an opponent who makes voters apathetic, as Dion apparently did. Harper's surprisingly high 38% support in the October, 2008 election was likely influenced, at least in part, by the lowest voter turnout in the history of Canadian federal elections. Harper actually received less votes in October, 2008 than he did in January, 2006. Low voter turnout benefits the Conservatives. Older people, especially seniors, are more likely to vote. Younger people are less likely to vote. If Ignatieff hopes to increase his poll numbers, he'll need to appeal to younger voters who might not otherwise vote. This will be a challenge for him just as it has been a challenge for Harper.

Portugal has eliminated criminal penalties for possession of all drugs and it's been a success: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1893946,00.html Neither Harper nor Ignatieff have the balls to do this.

Based on these numbers, I think Ignatieff was wise not to trigger an election: http://netnewsledger.com/index.php?option=...s&Itemid=90 "...new Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of Canwest News Service and Global Television reveals that a majority (53%) ‘agrees’ (20% strongly/34% somewhat) that ‘Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are doing a good job of managing the issues that are most important to Canadians and should continue to govern’." "In contrast, only four in ten (39%) believe (13% strongly/26% somewhat) that ‘if elected, Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals would do a better job than Stephen Harper and the Conservatives of managing the issues that are most important to Canadians’." Based on these numbers, you'd think that Conservatives would have now overtaken the Liberals in voting intentions. Almost but not quite: "The Liberals (35%, down 1 point) and the Conservatives (34%, up 1 point) are in a statistical tie among decided voters, while the NDP (13%, up 1 point), and Green Party (8%, down 1 point) trail. The Bloc is at 10% support nationally (up 1 point), while 6% of voters remain undecided."

The October, 2008 election showed increasing movement of religious voters towards Harper. Makes sense for Ignatieff to want to recapture that vote. "Three-quarters of Canadian voters who attend evangelical churches (such as Baptist, Mennonite and Pentocostal) opted for the Conservative Party of Canada. That's the same proportion of white American evangelicals who supported the Republicans. It's interesting that Harper can appeal to these Christians, even while he virtually refuses to talk about his own membership in the evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. In general Protestants, who nominally make up 30 per cent of the population, tend to split their vote between the two major parties. But even mainline Protestants have been among those shifting toward the Tories. In 2008, 64 per cent of church-going Protestants (as opposed to those who rarely attend) chose the Conservatives, compared to 51 per cent in 2004. Andrew Grenville, chief analyst for Angus Reid: "To me these findings signal a profound shift in the way religion, culture and politics relate in Canada. "People who attend conservative churches have coalesced around the Conservatives, when they used to vote pretty much like the general public. It is a big change in a short period of time. You have to wonder why. It is clearly not because the Conservatives are running on moral issues or have taken any action on Evangelical hot-button topics. They have actually stayed pretty far away from that agenda and stuck to an economically-focused type of conservatism. So it is hard to know how long this pattern will hold, in the absence of any carrots or commitment from the Conservatives." In addition, Grenville says another big trend is occurring. It may be more politically significant for Harper, in that he's also finding a way to appeal to Canadian Catholics, who nominally make up 43 per cent of the population. They used to lean to the Liberals. Grenville stresses Harper's appeal is mostly to the Catholics who are highly active church-goers (which generally means they're more conservative, since they remain loyal to conservative Pope Benedict XVI). Regularly attending Catholics make up only about one third of the census total. http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...-in-canada.aspx

"Before the fall fiasco he wasn't exactly loved by the public, but he was widely respected by political observers as a competent manager and a shrewd strategist," Tom Flanagan concludes. "But after his misadventure with the political subsidy issue, many are saying that his strategic sense has been over rated. This is a dangerous development for if you are not to be loved, you must at least be respected." What's worse, Mr. Flanagan lists the reasons the once-principled leader has "tattered" his credibility by embracing corporate subsidies, violating his own fixed election date law, diving into deficit and breaking election promises on income trust taxation and equalization calculations. "Taken together, along with other less publicized reversals, they have created a widespread impression that Harper stands for nothing in particular except winning and keeping power. This is a major loss for a political leader who was once seen as a man of conviction." All is not lost, Mr. Flanagan sighs. If Mr. Harper gets back to his base with moderate conservative policies, ending the partisan trickery and reaching out to opponents, he could still rewrite the premature obituaries. Of course, the fundamental flaw with Mr. Flanagan's salvage strategy is that Stephen Harper surrounds himself with yes-prime-minister types who tell the boss only what he wants to hear. He's certain to turn a deaf ear to Mr. Flanagan, believing that the solution to having friends like these is to find new friends. http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Martin+M...6082/story.html

Canadians more-or-less know who Harper is so Harper's numbers aren't likely to change much even when the economy improves. Ignatieff is still unknown to most Canadians so he has the potential for upward movement.

It's more about impression management...who you appear to be rather than who you are or who you were.

Same explanation as to why Harper went grovelling to the GG...to keep the highest paying job he's ever had in his life. Harper's no Ignatieff with a myriad of other career options.

The Liberals didn't vote for C-15 because they support mandatory minima for cannabis. Here's why they supported it: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canad...eal_with_gangs/