normanchateau

Why doesn't Alberta have such a plan for Albertans? Can Alberta not afford it? British Columbia has a Pharmacare plan for British Columbians.

And then there's Arnold Schwarzenegger who made his opposition to Bush's opposition to stem cell research evident years ago: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGVD9C5P01.DTL

Two-Thirds in U.S. Back Stem Cell Research: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/...em/itemID/15484

"In the midst of the 2002 Canadian Alliance leadership campaign, he (Stephen Harper) told Global Sunday that he was pro-life. During that same leadership race, he told The Interim that he opposed embryonic stem cell research and went on to vote against Bill C-13 (on reproductive technologies) last year." http://www.theinterim.com/2004/mar/01noclc.html

I wonder if his social conservatism has anything to do with the small mindedness.

" During that same leadership race, he (Stephen Harper) told The Interim that he opposed embryonic stem cell research and went on to vote against Bill C-13 (on reproductive technologies) last year." Source: http://www.theinterim.com/2004/mar/01noclc.html So how do Americans, a conservative bunch relative to Canadians on issues relating to reproduction, view embryonic stem cell research? 68% support it. Only 28%, George Bush among them, oppose it. Source:http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15484

You aren't saying the PMO controls the CBC are you? No, but he controls the pursestrings.

Homosexual behaviour is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Similarly, having brown skin is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Can you not see the analogy? Do I need to simplify it further? Boy you sure do love to get into gay debates norman. Yes, I continue to delve into the rationale of supporting apologies to illegal immigrants turned back in 1914 versus no apologies, or even attempts to remove legislated rights from another minority in December, 2006. This topic certainly does seem to rile Stephen Harper supporters. Could it be that after Stephen Harper's latest failed attempt to deal with this in the House of Commons as recently as December, 2006, his supporters are praying that the topic will quietly be forgotten before the next election.

Given Stephen Harper's opposition to abortion and even embryonic stem cell research, and given who controls the CBC pursestrings, the outcome is less predictable than some might think.

We have such a plan in British Columbia called Pharmacare. People pay a premium which is linked to their income but even those of us in the highest tax bracket pay, in my opinion, a relatively small and fair amount. Other provinces have similar plans but I gather most don't. The pharmaceutical industry sometimes complains about Pharmacare because Pharmacare (appropriately) refuses to pay for drugs which are known to be less effective than some cheaper drugs. For this to get off the ground federally, the proposal would have to come from the Conservatives, not the NDP. If Stephen Harper proposed it, Conservative supporters would go for it (after some initial grumbling) and there'd be no objections from other political parties since there are no parties to the right of the Conservatives.

I am, and one day you too will make progress!

Because you think he won't cut and run?

That's an interesting tidbit. Thanks Normie. See, not everything I say about the man is negative.

You can still drive to the States without a passport. And it's not like you didn't have well over a year to figure it out. Do you think you could do some reading (my original post) before posting a sarcastic comment? First, I was not born in Canada so cannot prove my Canadian citizenship with my birth certificate....sooooo, cannot travel using my birth certificate and photo ID in lieu of a passport. AND, I also stated that I travel a lot for my job (with my passport) and was doing just that back in February of this year so I needed my passport. I thought sending my application in March would give Passport Canada enough time to get my passport to me by June 8 which is the original date I was supposed to meet with my potential clients....that would have given them 11 weeks and I was told it would take 10 for processing......it's been 12 weeks now and still no passport. I even sent the application in via UPS Express overnight at a cost of $32 and change....another waste of my money. And why would I apply for a passport a year or more before my current passport expired? Do you really think that well over a year ago I should have figured out that Passport Canada would not be able to deliver my passport to me in a timely manner? The US requirement had been going back and forth for 2 or 3 years and Passport Canada could not figure out that they would actually stick with January 2007 so how the hell was I supposed to figure it out? As sated before, stupid me had more faith in the Canadian bureaucracy than they obviously deserve. The yolks on me!!! It's too late now but did you consider going to the media? The woman in Vancouver with terminal cancer who was waiting in line got expedited remarkably fast after the media got involved. Our Conservative MPs, like their predecessors, sure don't want the media pointing out the incompetence of the ministries they head.

There actually has been research on this question: http://members.tripod.com/Caroline_Bowen/codemix.htm

If that's the reality of Canada, that it's an endless pit of social spending, then I think I'm probably more suited politically to live elsewhere. Or to encourage my home province to depart this arrangement. But that reality could change if the Conservatives (or Liberals) had a strong and determined leader who not only said he (or she) was a fiscal conservative but actually practiced what he preached. It has happened in other countries.

"British Columbia has seesawed from have to have-not since the program was founded. For most of the 1990s, the province got nothing. But when a recession hit in 1998, the taps again began to flow. B.C. has been paid out every year since 2000 -- with a peak of $682 million in 2004. This is something the province is not particularly proud of, according to Hamish Telford, a political science professor at the University College of the Fraser Valley and a member of the Queen's University Institute for Intergovernmental Relations. "My sense of that is that B.C. was never very comfortable in the 'have not' category. We like to think of ourselves as a 'have' province," Telford told The Tyee last week. "I think we were embarrassed a few years ago when we fell from 'have' to 'have not' province." The result, Telford said, is that you don't hear much from the B.C. government on equalization, even though the province has a lot to gain or lose depending on what happens to the formula. If Harper keeps his promise, B.C.'s payments could go up to $2 billion a year, according to a report done by an advisory panel to the Council of the Federation. If he doesn't, they will, in all likelihood, disappear." http://thetyee.ca/News/2007/03/16/HarpersBillions/

This assumes that how parties present themselves before an election accurate reflects how they'll govern. I don't think it does. For example, I expect most people who voted Conservative anticipated that the Conservatives would be fiscally conservative by cutting personal income taxes and by cutting spending. But the Conservatives haven't done that and now I suspect their supporters are rationalizing this by telling themselves that they can't be fiscally conservative while they are a minority government. But the reality is that even if they won a majority, they'd have to keep spending in order to win another majority.

No they don't all talk with a lisp anymore than all Albertans wear cowboy hats.

I could be wrong but I don't think everyone votes for a party based on what it's going to do for them. Some vote for what they think is best for Canada.

There is a signficant difference. Brown people are obviously brown. No one has to know a gay person is gay. Gay people are unreasonable to expect people to just treat them like 'normal' when they aren't. To me, the issue is not whether they are "normal" or not. Prior to 1967, homosexuals were incarcerated for engaging in homosexual behaviour. Putting people in prison isn't quite the same as merely discriminating or being intolerant of homosexuality. Why apologize to Sikhs today because illegal immigrant Sikhs were sent back in 1914 and not apologize to people who were imprisoned for engaging in homosexual behaviour? It seems to me that neither deserve apologies or both deserve apologies.

No, Quebec did just fine. That's why the Bloc is propping up the Conservatives.

I visit frequently as I have relatives in Edmonton. Rural BC and rural Alberta seem not that different to me. Vancouver, as you correctly point out, is different than Edmonton or Calgary, at least politically. We did not elect any Conservative MPs...only Liberal and NDP MPs in the last election. You elected only conservative MPs. This may surprise you but I find many people in Edmonton to be surprisingly liberal so I'm surprised Edmonton did not elect a single Liberal or NDP MP.

So you're saying that in addition to British Columbia and Saskatchewan, Harper screwed Ontario in order to squander billions on Quebec. Sure, I'll buy that. Thanks for pointing out that he screwed even more provinces.

Homosexual behaviour is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Similarly, having brown skin is a feature of a minority group which historically was discriminated against. Can you not see the analogy? Do I need to simplify it further? Boy you sure do love to get into gay debates norman. Yes, the analogy is plain. But false, since gayness is not a ethnic group. No one said gayness is an ethnic group. Homosexuals and brown-skinned people have both been discriminated against. That's the analogy. Get it?