Wilber

The grocery store is not a third party that has no direct interest in producing or selling the commodity. If they choose to sell something at a loss, they accept the loss. No one bails them out. The egg producer still gets his money. The loss is the stores alone, they share it with no one. The grocery store does have the right because because they have that direct interest. A government does not have any interest other than manipulating the market to their chosen party's advantage. When people try to manipulate the stock market we put them in jail. Well not in Canada maybe but that is another issue.

When your grocery store offers a loss leader it is the grocery store that is accepting the loss. Why is this so difficult for you guys to understand?

So New Brunswick puts a cap on gas prices. Do you think the oil companies will care? They will just sell it somewhere else. It's not like there isn't a market for the stuff.

From a practical point of view I agree, however it would be quite a coup for a terrorist or other loony if they could bump off a head of state, even a symbolic one. Even more so if they could kidnap one and hold them hostage. Particularly now that we are taking an active part in a war. As in shooting to kill.

Not me. Specially when it comes to news.

I think you can make a case for the head of government and the head of state not flying commercial, the question is how much travel is excessive. The Queen and probably the Prince of Wales use the Royal Flight but ther rest of her kids fly commercial, even on official business.

We already have rules for behavior which don't hold everyone to the same standard. For example, one reason we have so many hit and run incidents now is because we have made the penalty (the actual penalty, not one of our mythical maximum sentences) for driving impaired greater than for running down a fellow human being and leaving them to die in a ditch.

What "makes sense and manageable" are very nice words but there is no objective test by which to put them into effect. Some people would argue that any alcohol during pregnancy is harmful; likewise smoking. What about a woman who does not eat properly denying the fetus proper nutrition? Who is to say what drugs can be taken and what not? Do we create a huge bureaucracy chasing after pregnant women to make sure they are behaving properly. You don't need a licence to get pregnant - it's a private matter. And the government should stay out of pregnant women's lives. Most pregnant women are under a physicians care, follow that physicians advice and don't use any drugs without that physicians approval. That is reasonable. Unfortunately it is the often government which gets stuck with the consequences of those lives. It's a interesting subject which can encompass much more than pregnant women. Should society be held responsible for the actions of individuals when those individuals refuse to be responsible for their own actions? Of course we have no choice because it is not the irresponsible who wind up being the victims.

Halleluliah!! My feelings exactly. When people concern themselves about which language he starts with they don't have much in life to worry about. If it were as simple as you put it out to be I wouldn't give a damn either. But after 139 years of disunity I would presume Mr. Harper would know better. If he wishes to swallow hook, line and sinker all over again it's his choice and I will look for an alternative party. If all federal national parties still want to play the Quebec game then I will simply join the ranks of the disgruntled and simply not vote at all. It is as simple as that. You just make it more complicated. It's the chicken or the egg. Have we had 139 years of disunity because we are so easily offended or are we so easily offended because we have had 139 years of disunity?

Charging a tariff equal to a subsidy given by a foreign government to it's producers, does not increase prices to Canadian consumers, it just doesn't give them an artificially low price and it transfers that subsidy to the coffers of the Canadian government at the foreign taxpayers expense. If you want to get rid of a subsidy, remove the reason for it to exist by removing the artificial advantage it provides. Theoretically it could lower Canadian taxes because some government revenue is now coming from foreign tax payers. Governments hate subsidies because they cost them money. They like tariffs because they make them money. Some individual politicians like subsidies and tariffs because they can get them votes in their jurisdictions. Charles, do we take the every social program and tax in every country and give it a value to each industry and then give every country the right to subsidize its products by a certain amount based on the tax structure and social programs of the country they are exporting to? Do we also count the average temperature of a region, hours of daylight, amount of rainfall, distance from markets, cost of transportation ad nauseum to determine what is a reasonable cost of production and whether subsidies should be given or not and what is or is not actually a subsidy? If US corn is actually being sold in Canada at prices lower than the cost of production and the difference is not being absorbed by the producer but by the US government, that is protectionism, it is predatory and our farmers are entitled to protection. We have no control over what it costs an American farmer to produce and export corn and there is no reason why Canadian farmers should have to bear the burden of some of those costs. Charles and August, I don't know what you do for a living so I can't be specific but let me present a scenario. You work for a company, do your job well and your bosses are satisfied with your work. One day your boss comes along and says to you. "Government X has told us that if we employ (pick any group in our society to which you don't belong) they will subsidize their wages by 30%. We have an applicant from that group who is as well qualified as you and we're sorry, we like you but this is something we just can't pass on. Your company is happy because they are getting equal value for 30% less which gives them the option of increasing their profits or undercutting their competitors which will also make their customers happy. The guy who got your job is happy. Every one is happy except the guy who was actually producing more than he earned. You, you're unemployed. And of course the taxpayers who are paying for this exercise because they produce more than they earn as well. That's why they are able to pay taxes.

That comment shows a frightening ignorance of basic economics. Jerry, have you ever taken an economics course or read an economics book? If not, I strongly urge you to do so before you state more silliness. August, are you saying that we should leave our producers to the mercy of any tactics a foreign country may use? You seem to be saying that free trade is OK as long as the people you trade with are free to do anything they wish to compete, but your hands should be tied when it comes to reacting to those tactics. Is that your definition of "free". To me free trade means having to compete in a market where the prices charged reflect the real cost of production, not one altered by government support or other interference. It has to apply equally to both sides or it cannot work. When one side does interfere, the other side is justified in trying to reestablish the balance. Sure consumers end up paying an artificial price but that is exactly what is happening when one side subsidizes a product so it can be sold at less than it's cost of production. It seems to me that you don't want a free market, you want a freebie at someone else's expense and the fact the freebie is provided by foreign taxpayers and could put Canadian's out of business is fine by you.

One incentive for the larger wealthier forest companies to nix the deal and keep the litigation going is many of their smaller less well healed competitors will not survive much longer in the present climate. Doman Industries, the last major family owned forest company in BC went under a couple of years ago because of this dispute.

I'm an anglophone and I don't give a rat's patute which language he starts in as long as he uses both. Some people spend their whole lives looking for an excuse to be offended.

Tell you what Charles, lets just turn ourselves into a bunch of bickering little fiefdoms who have no other national interest than what they can extort from the rest of Canada. The US and Australia will still be there long after Canada has Balkanized itself into oblivion.

I have provincial and municipal governments to look after all that. I need a federal government to look after my national interests. The Bloq has no interest in my national interests therefore I do not want the Bloq or any one like them representing me in Ottawa.

I agree that big government is a problem in Canada but mostly because it has a history of involving itself in things that are not really it's concern and neglecting those which are. There are other very large and diverse countries which seem to manage just fine with out indulging themselves in all the regional BS that is endemic in Canada. The US and Australia come to mind. What should other Canadians learn from the Bloq? They are all about looking after their own little patch and to hell with the rest. Learn too much from them and there will be no such thing as a Canadian. You could say that about every country but they don't use it as an excuse to destroy their own nation.

Wilber, you are mistaken. The US government is the wealthiest and most powerful on the planet. Ordinary Americans are no better off than Icelanders, the Irish or Norwegians.The Canadian government will never be in the league of the US government. Instead, we might rather think about why the Icelanders and the Norwegians do so well. Indeed, why ordinary Americans do so well. Americans are confusing on several points. One concerns when WWII started. Like Russians, Americans insist it started in 1941. Another concerns the US Civil War. Too many Americans seem to think it didn't happen. August, I shake my head. Considering our comparative levels of taxation, Canada's government should be far wealthier per capita than the US government. I have have had the pleasure of working in an with Americans over the years and I have never met or heard of one who thought their civil war didn't happen. If only Canadians could know and celebrate their own history as well as Americans. As far as the US and Russia were concerned, WWII didn't start until 1941. Until 1941 it was a European war that included the British Empire, not a world war. Both World Wars were initially European civil wars that ended up sucking in most of the rest of the world. As far as wealth goes, it was American wealth that decided both world wars and rebuilt a devastated Europe at the end of WWII which in turn enabled it to become strong and prosperous enough to resist Soviet expansion. They still act like a real country compared to the bunch of bickering regionalists we call Canada.

Alberta needs to play that card better. Your right, it does work, that's why we pay out Quebec constantly. Quebec is better off on its own, or in like I've proposed before, a set of nations with common defense, foreign policy and currency. You think so. I'm tired of a country where some Canadians feel other Canadians owe them. Where for reasons of geography, location or resources, language etc, some Canadians feel that they are somehow superior because of where they live. A country so well off compared to 98% of the people on this planet that it spends 98% of its time and energy bitching about how they are being screwed by their fellow Canadians. The US fought the bloodiest war in its history over this issue. Less than 80 years later they were the wealthiest and most powerful nation on the planet. No talk of separation and regional alienation there. In spite of their faults, they act like a real country. Just before the last referendum I was working in the US. An American I worked with couldn't get his head around the idea. He said in his country they would consider it treason. I tried to explain that it wasn't quite that simple. I don't think I convinced him but that may be because I'm not sure I was convincing myself.

I don't know August, if a political party which did not represent enough people to form a government denied this country a functioning Parliament, I would not be inclined to reward them for it. But that's just me.

I know that is the history but are you absolutely sure of that? Obstructing Parliament may be a good short term tactic for an opposition in a system where a government can call an election but I think handcuffing a government for months or years in system where it cannot would end up backfiring badly. It would take some huge balls to risk the publics wrath by willingly denying them a government for an extended length of time.

In this case the opposition would have to take responsibility for paralyzing the country's government. It would be their responsibility entirely and they would eventually have to answer for it. A government might actually welcome it under certain circumstances. Also, if a Parliament demonstrates that it is unable to govern, the GG might be quite justified in dissolving it on his/her own. That is after all, one of the GG's primary functions. An interesting scenario to make life a little more so.

No, I don't see your point. If the opposition will not call for a vote of confidence and they don't show up for votes, they are effectively handling the government a majority and it will be able to pass whatever it chooses. It is not unheard of for minority governments to call snap votes in the hope of catching enough opposition members away from the house. Interesting point. There is probably a way around it but I doubt it would be forever. If we could have a situation that would give us successive winter elections we could just as easily have another situation come along that would give us successive elections at another time of year. This might be just one more thing an opposition would have to consider before forcing a confidence vote. When you think about it, this is exactly the system we already have but because few governments serve their full term before another election, it seldom actually happens.

We have a friend who is bringing up her infant grandson. Her daughter in law was on drugs when she was pregnant and the kid has all kinds of serious problems including being almost blind. The parents have split and the mother and her family want nothing to do with the kid. Seems like an OK idea in principal but as Warwick points out, if there are not sufficient consequences for repeat behavior, how can it work? FTA, I think the SCC judgment just confirms my opinion that most of them don't recognize a real victim when they see one.

It's true Harper may regret it but so what? He works for us, not the other way around. Working well here in BC so far and I hope the system stays. Of course a loss of confidence could trigger an election at any time but I am all in favour of a system that prevents a government from throwing all the nations business in the dumpster and puts it through the inconvenience and an expense of an election, just because a party which holds a majority sees an opportunity to press a political advantage. That in my opinion is irresponsible government. We elect a government to do a job for a certain length of time as long as it can maintain the confidence of Parliament. It should do the job it was elected to do for the full time it was hired rather than screwing with the system for no other reason than the pursuit of power.

What price Canada? Quebec at any price, even if it results in weakening the rest of the country? No thanks. The knowledge that the rest of the country will cave when threatened with separation by any Province will be this country's death sentence.