Wilber

This is one conservative who doesn't believe in capital punishment, not because I particularly care if some of these scumbags live or die but because of what it says about a society that condones institutional killing. I don't believe that just because a government sanctions killing someone, it is morally OK. On the other hand, people have a right to expect their government to put their safety ahead of the rights of predators who have continually demonstrated they cannot be trusted in society. Well by the same token, abortion and euthanasia are institutionalised killing. Then again, you could be against those as well... I'm not completely pro-capital punishment, but what is happening now obviously isn't working and is too lax. Actually they are not in this country. There is no law at all concerning abortion and euthenasia is illegal. But you are right, I could be.

Mixed feelings here. I tend to agree on the principal of holding a by-election. On the other hand, Emerson was by far the most capable member of the Liberal caucus in BC and his inclusion in Harpers cabinet will be a very good thing for the Province. With the Olympics coming up and the Pacific Gateway project happening, I think this is a very pragmatic move for Harper and BC. Like Stronach, Emerson now belongs to the party he always should have and if you look at it from a straight trade point of view, the Conservatives got the better deal. The optics really suck and although I didn't like his former party, I've always thought Emerson was in it for what he could do for BC. I doubt very much you will ever see him running for party leader.

Quebec is the only province that doesn't have to offer bilingual service in many areas. If they want French only, then Alberta should be able to go English only. Or wherever your from outside of Quebec and New Brunswick. In what areas does Alberta or any other province have to provide services in French? I'm not aware of any in BC.

Carolyn Parrish you mean? She didn't hate Americans. This is getting pretty sad now. And there was nothing wrong with what she did on that comedy show. Quite funny actually, too bad there's so many PC folks around. "damn Americans, I hate those bastards." Carolyn Parrish Yes, I'm aware of that quote. I still say she does not hatre Americans. It was an offhand comment made during the run-up to the Iraqi war, and she's quite obviously referring to the American administration pressuring Canada to give them support for Iraq. To argue that Carolyn Parrish has a "hatred for Americans" because of that statement is plain silly. That's like saying a frustrated child hates thier parents when they tell you they do. That comparison is idiotic. Carolyn Parrish was not a frustrated child who was pissed off at her parents. She is an adult who was an elected member of this country's governing party and as such she must take responsibility for her words when shooting off her mouth in public. When are we supposed to know when she is saying what she means and when she is not? As you seem to know, I guess we will have to rely on you to act as her interpreter. The woman is a loudmouth and a bigot.

"family affairs critic" then? I changed it. Either way, it's the same in my view. Is your point about the "Harper *government*" to say that he was never in government? What nonsense. The party leader should speak with a member about those issues that are part of the critics area of focus. If Stephen Harper had chosen a defense critic who believed Canada should get Nukes and fire one at Mexico, would you make the same excuse? Come on. Carolyn Parrish you mean? She didn't hate Americans. This is getting pretty sad now. And there was nothing wrong with what she did on that comedy show. Quite funny actually, too bad there's so many PC folks around. "damn Americans, I hate those bastards." Carolyn Parrish

This is one conservative who doesn't believe in capital punishment, not because I particularly care if some of these scumbags live or die but because of what it says about a society that condones institutional killing. I don't believe that just because a government sanctions killing someone, it is morally OK. On the other hand, people have a right to expect their government to put their safety ahead of the rights of predators who have continually demonstrated they cannot be trusted in society.

You got it. The part about the justice system protecting society from dangerous people got lost somewhere in this country. Time to bring it back.

Just one question. When did Pravda become such a paragon of truthful reporting? Didn't they used to be one of the official organs if the Soviet government? Not surprising the Russians are working on something to counter anything the US comes up with but why believe them any more than the Americans when it comes to claims of success? Guess that's three questions.

In other words, you are saying election dates are not fixed: the maximum term has been reduced from 5 years to 4 years. Any gov't can engineer a non-confidence vote if they want to go to the polls early.Also, a future gov't could repeal the 'fixed' election dates act if they wanted. If they had a majority, they would have to vote non-confidence in themselves. Wouldn't that be a great platform to run on in the subsequent election. They probably could change the law but they would have to convince the public there was a need to change it so they could have an election. Also risky.

When I was working in Anchorage the average annual rebate cheques was around $1100 USD per Alaskan, a little more than Ralph's $400 CAD. Alaska also has no sales tax or state income tax. Alberta probably could do a little better.

We are already equipped with pepper spray and a baton. What I'm saying is this, students make up a massive part of Border Services summer work force. So either: A) No more students working the actual border crossings, which means you need to hire a hella lot of part time "professionals" because you cant hire full time guards, they are just taking there vacation time in the summer, there is no need for more guards. or Stricter hiring practices and training would need to be in place. Training a university student to use a gun is no different that training a fresh recruit into the Armed Forces in the use of firearms. Just because they are younger doesnt mean they cant handle it, they just need proper training, same as their "experienced " counterparts would need, because none of them are ready for guns at the moment either. The problem there lies, ending school on April 30th, training runs into mid-May before students hit the job. And thats a shortened program, the reason why students do not have the authority to arrest. If you tack on firearms training (to go with the safe handling and discharge of fireams) training we already have to do, it would be probbably close to June before students started work, 2 months after they were hired. Leaving them just over 3 months to work on the actual job, June-Labour Day. This is a problem that cannot be solved quickly , they have to do some serious planning on how this would affect border services. As a resident of a border community who's police department is regularly called to the border to handle problems and is the only agency available to patrol the Canadian side of a 25 KM stretch of border that has a road on each side separated with nothing but a shallow ditch, I am tired of having this country's border security paid for out of my property taxes. Give it back to the Federal Government to whom it belongs.

August We do no live in a police state, yet. Mulroney was not arrested and the charges were not proved. Ultimately the courts decide who is guilty, not the PM, but if you are making a case for not allowing the PM to make important appointments in the justice system without scrutiny from and the approval of Parliament, I couldn't agree more. Who came out looking worse from this episode, Chretien or Mulroney? Every individual or organization in our country can be held financial responsible in a court for their actions by other citizens. Recent examples of organizations would be the Red Cross over tainted blood and religious groups over abuses committed in residential schools under their control. Why should political parities have some sort of immunity that no one else in the country enjoys? There may be no case against the Liberal party and I agree with Sage when it comes to the optics of suing. There is a political risk for any party that is seen to be going after another in court. If the case cannot be made, it could backfire badly.

There's more than optics involved. We punish criminals as a deterrent for would-be criminals. The punishment has to be severe enough to be a deterrent. "Throwing the rascals out" is the best punishment for politicians because, presumably, future would-be politicians will think twice before setting up "Adscam: The Next Chapter". If the punishment goes beyond what voters impose through the ballot box, if we start throwing politicians in jail wholesale or imposing heavy fines on political parties, we are opening up a can of worms. What stops a future PM from arresting an opposition leader or driving an opposition party into bankruptcy? Parliamentary privilege exists for a reason. In the case of politicians, the best prosecute, judge and executioner is a voter's ballot. That's democratic politics and it should be enough. I have not seen a good case made for anything more than that. A Prime Minister cannot arrest people, that is the job of police and prosecutors. They do not press charges unless they believe there is a good chance of proving them in court. Who's talking about throwing politicians in jail wholesale. We are talking about recovering stolen money. Parliamentary privilege does not include ripping off the public for everything you can get before you are thrown out of office, which is what the above statement seems to imply.

Media has bias. Wow, that's news. Who is ALL POLOTICS NOW and what kind of bius might they have?

Evading the GST is stealing from the public purse - you have pretty low standards if you think the amount of money makes a difference. The party workers who benefited from the illegal funds may have never really known where the money came from but probably knew something was not right. They are no different from somebody who pays cash when they know they are helping someone evade taxes. The real criminals are the people who orchestrated the scheme and that is who the government should go after - not the Liberal party itself. I don't condone anyone evading taxes but it was you that drew the comparison, not me. If you want to go that route, government goes after people who evade taxes whenever they can. They want restitution plus stiff penalties. If it is a company involved, they don't care if it is one individual acting on his own within that company or not, they want their money and will go after anyone they can to get it, including the company itself. Because it is a political party you seem to believe that it is somehow OK for the public to bear the financial burden of this scam. I don't but that is probably how it will end anyway.

Then everyone in this country is a criminal. Have you ever agreed to pay cash for a service to help someone hide income from the gov't? If you have done that then you have turned a blind eye to someone commiting a crime - and likely benefited from a cheaper price. Maybe so but at least in those cases the money was paid for services rendered. In the case of ADSCAM there was no service rendered, just theft. If an employee steals from his employer, the employer fires the employee, presses charges and tries to get restitution. If you think politicians stealing from the public purse is OK because some guy tries to get out of paying GST for having his lawn mowed, I think you have pretty low standards.

In real democracies governments come and go according to the will of the people, not the other way around. Eventually this is true even in totalitarian states. August is right, a country is not its government.

What a load of crap. Comparing the Liberal party to the Hell's Angels is as valid as comparing the Conservative party to the Nazis. In other words, there is no comparison.The facts uncovered at Gomery show that a few individuals broke the rules and a larger number of people of turned a blind eye. There entire affair is despicable but that does not add up to a conclusion that the Liberal party itself is a criminal organization. I don't go with the Hells Angels comparison either but it wasn't just a little matter of the boys breaking a few rules, it was theft from the public purse. I'm not a lawyer but I believe turning a blind eye to a crime when you yourself are benifiting from that crime, is also a crime.

The only thing that they will be able to prove is some individuals in the party broke the rules. Attempting to sue the Liberal party itself would likely go no where. Probably. All I am saying is if it can proved a crime was committed and that the party knowingly benifited from that crime, they should be sued.

If it can be proved in court that they defrauded the public, of course they should.

Personally I think it is a good thing that at least one Province has the financial clout to violate the Canada Health Act. It's high time someone did, it's the only way we have a chance of seeing some real innovation in the way health care is delivered. Everyone else is too busy defending their sacred cows instead of really looking after the system.

What about Hedy?

So the taxpayer gets to pay for the prisoner to do nothing at the same time as they get to pay someone else to dig the ditch.

I agree. It's not what we spend on health care, it's what we get for our money compared to other countries. We rate as one of the biggest per capita spenders but are well down the list when it comes to delivery. And that is not according to the Fraser Institute.

Lay off Hedy guys. She would make a perfect leader for the Liberals.