Wilber

This is why the issue was divisive for the Liberals. They ultimately dropped it. It should have been divisive. They should send Harper a case of Scotch for figuring out how to get them off the hook without really giving anything up.

Harper is paying for this issue in the west and not really gaining from it in the east. We'll see in next week's polls how this is playing out. The Liberal motion was to recognise the whole damn province as a nation. If they were ever able to do that the whole country would pay for it big time.

I think it is probably the only way, in reality the larger and more unwieldy the institution the more opportunity for abuse. $300,000 is not much to the Federal government, they can blow that on nothing in the time it takes to blow your nose. I think the AG has highlighted this case not because of the amount of damage done to the public purse (pretty minor on a Federal level) but like the sponsorship scandal it had no other function but to divert public money into individual bank accounts, therefore it could not be ignored.

Ok, how would you split them? Or how about... why would you split them? That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Splitting them would make provinces weaker and the Federal government stronger which of course is even less representative of regions. Makes sense if you love big government I guess.

Nice try. You mean they didn't vote for it?

Hear, hear!!! Ok, how would you split them?

Seems to me it would be redundant seeing as most of them voted for the motion in the Commons. If all the parties voted overwhelmingly in favour, the controversy belongs to all of them.

8 to 12 months to get a trial is too long but if we are only giving 6 month sentences for crimes involving firearms we have a bigger problem than reverse onus.

I think he said each existing province should be split into four, meaning your Alberta would now be split into four smaller provinces. Clarification?

How would you split them?

It depends on the population of the riding of course. Many parts of the country are under represented compared to others when it comes to population. In any democratic system the people who didn't vote for the person who won aren't represented by the person they voted for. I take it you are for proportional representation according to party. In that case I suppose all liberal thinking people who believe in proportional representation would be in favour of a womens party. The problem I have with this policy is any time you set quotas to include a certain category of people, you have to exclude others. When it comes to who gets to run for election in this country, that is not on.

What I am saying is not doing something that may be better just because it is more American would make you stupid. It may be better? Who says, you? Sorry if If I laugh at that thought. But you don't really know anyways do you? This is just your oppinion of what would be better. Maybe what we have is already better. Then you would be stupid to follow the American lead wouldn't you? If you love american values and lifestyle so much, I hear they let people move there. Staying somewhere a person isn't happy, when they could go where things are done the way they like them, sounds pretty stupid to me. Yes, it may be better or it may not, I'm just not stupid enough to let anti Americanism stop me from doing what is best. I've lived in the US and I liked it there. Some things they do better than us and some they don't, but this is my home and I am quite happy here thank you so don't give me any of this Canada, love it or leave it BS, it doesn't sound any better north of the border than it does down there.

Good point. Perhaps if the judicial system shared that view and acted on it there would be no need for government to pass amendments and reforms that give them no choice.

Did I miss something? When did appointment to the Senate have anything to do with the democratic process? I don't know whether to view the idea of guaranteeing gender equality in the Commons as just plain nutty or downright frightening.

Nice concept but too often they work harder on what will get them the most votes in the next election.

So the only system that would be fair to all of them would be a flat tax.

I tend to agree but then managing a nation is a fluid business. Even the United States bullies its way into state business when it suits them. Hello 55 mile and hour speed limit and drinking laws for under 21. Both of which were idiotic.

Although they may make noises about how the Federal Government has handled these responsibilities at times, with the exception of Quebec and foreign policy, I don't think they really want responsibility for either.

Too bad both levels of government can't stick to their own responsibilities. I guess it is often easier to meddle in someone elses business than properly look after your own.

As the Federal government is dominated by Central Canada, I guess the rest of the country should know their place as well, behind and below Central Canada. At least until all the Provinces have an equal say in the Federal government such as in a US style Senate, I am in favour of them having more responsibility than the Feds. My Provincial government understands my needs and is far more accountable to me than the Federal Government. I'll agree with one thing though, if the Federal government is going to dream up new programs like universal daycare it should be 100% responsible for funding and running them. If that is not possible they have no business even bringing it up. In the 90's the Liberals bailed on their funding commitment to health care and left the Provinces holding the bag. There is no reason to think they wouldn't do the same to their proposed daycare program if they found themselves in another financial pickle.

They are only responsible for making and enforcing the laws pertaining to those services. They are not responsible for making them work on a day to day basis and they are not fiscally responsible, which is more than anything what this is about. Money. Actually, yes they are. The federal government is responsible for making sure that the quality of life of all Canadians is roughly the same across the country. The constitution says so. And then it proceeds to put most of the areas that have to do with quality of life under provincial jurisdiction. Pretty retarded if you ask me but that's how it is. The trouble is they don't because the Provinces of this country who in reality do provide the services are not represented equally in its Federal Government. Federal parties trade one off against the other and put their support where it will have the most effect in their effort to maintain power. Yes it is a retarded system and I seriously wonder if the country has a future unless it is changed.

They are only responsible for making and enforcing the laws pertaining to those services. They are not responsible for making them work on a day to day basis and they are not fiscally responsible, which is more than anything what this is about. Money.

This is a major departure in the way the Federal Government operates and a good one IMO. Instead of the Provincial governments having responsibility for all the social programs while the Feds collect most of the tax money and dictate the terms, they are saying that both should stick to their knitting and butt out of each others business. High time as far as I am concerned. I'm tired of the Feds threatening the withholding of funds when my Provincial government wants to do something that the people of this province agree with. It probably won't mean that we will pay much less in the way of taxes but at least I will be taxed by governments which are more accountable to me, namely my Provincial and Municipal governments. If the Federal government is not providing these services they have no reason to collect the money in the first place. For the most part, when it comes to social programs, the Federal government doesn't run them and isn't responsible for them, it just distributes grants and other largess according to how it sees fit. Because they are not responsible for the success of, or how those programs are run, it is basically just vote buying.

How did I belittle their feelings toward their friends who have died? I don't care who's making the argument, whether it's soldiers or not. To say that one of the reasons a course of action must be continued is because lives have already been lost is a specious argument. Look up the word in the dictionary Gerry. Websters Apparently good or right though lacking real merit. Superficially pleasing. Oxford superficially plausible but actually wrong. Misleading in appearance. You believe the opinions of our troops in Afghanistan regarding their mission and their dead friends lack merit, are superficial and misleading? If not, perhaps you had better find a more appropriate choice of words.

What I am saying is not doing something that may be better just because it is more American would make you stupid.