Wilber

Absolutely nothing in the article about the Canuck guards "running away". I don't believe anyone "ran away". According to the media here, they walked off the job after the incident.

Absolutely. In the Fraser Valley there is a 80 KM stretch of border with close to 2 million Canadians living on one side of it. 25 Km of that is the responsibility of the Abbotsford police department. We have no regular military ground forces in BC. All there is for border security are the unarmed customs officers and the police forces of the municipalities along that border. Those police forces are a mixture of local and RCMP detachments but even in the case of the RCMP they are bought and paid for by the municipalities and any time they have to deal with border issues, it takes away from policing in their communities. This was another element of Martin's downloading Federal responsibilities to the cities during the nineties. The Americans know all this. Is it any wonder they didn't take our former government seriously when it comes to securing our borders. One of the US police spokesmen commenting on yesterdays incident said that there was no way that they were going to let those guys cross the border because they might never get them back.

It might work but our politicians would have to change the way they operate. With our winner take all system and history of majority governments, accommodation and deal making in order to govern have not been major part of our system. As a consequence we are not very good at it. They would have to learn some new skills. I think setting aside a certain number of seats for proportional representation would be a good idea, even if it is just a few. That way a party like the Greens which gets a fair amount of support would at least have some voice in Parliament.

I don't blame them either but if you hadn't noticed, our entire border patrol would have to be reformed in order for these people to be armed. Lets face it, we have low wage, poorley skilled staff guarding the 49th parallel. Lets arm "Wall-Mart greeters" first and see how it goes. There would have to be some different rules for the part time help that is used during the summer but as for the full time border people, I'm sure they will be comforted by the high regard you have for them. What an arrogant thing to say. Are you an expert on the qualifications required or are you just shooting off your mouth?

My whole point is, if its become that dangerous - and I never said it wasn't. I said armed security was not defined as part of a customs officer's job - we are not doing innocent citizens of whichever countries are going through the crossing or customs officers any favour by arming them. Armed security should be left to the professionals. And I actually know something about this. A close friend of mine was a customs officer and yeah, hassles with U.S. citizens over their weapons is a daily occurrence, but ask yourself, what do we accomplish by arming the customs officers? If we're talking about regular U.S. citizens - non-criminals - who are unwilling to surrender their guns or go back to the U.S - the standard policy - do we want our customs officer's drawing weapons on them? If we're talking about the kind of organized smuggling of weapons by criminal gangs that all parties talked about during the election, do we expect customs officers to engage in fire fights with groups of better armed gangsters? Just the fact they are armed will have an effect on most people. This is not an issue with US visitors, their customs officers are armed. They just think it is strange that ours aren't. As you can see I live in a border town. Our border crossing is in our city limits and my son is local police officer. They are often called out to the border. I have asked him if they think customs officers should be armed and he says it is crazy that they are not. Customs have to deal with the same kind of people as the police and should be trained to do so. Our police are overloaded as it is. They work 12 hour shifts plus all the overtime they want and don't need Border Guard as an added job description. Since when has it been the job of municipal police forces to protect our borders? Since when has it been the responsibility of municipalities to bear the cost of protecting our borders? This is the same mentality that prevents guards in out maximum security institutions from wearing protective vests for fear it may offend the prisoners.

All right, I'll assume that you really want to know and are not just trying to cause trouble. If Jon were President and I was running for PM then a vote for me would be a vote for him. Only through the miracle of historical revision could I be born in the U.S. but good revisionists are easy to find. Even so, I must decline the nomination (which means that I am actually running for President). No, actually, forget it, I really don't want the job. What I want to do is relax and have a good time. Being Commander in Chief of a superpower will allow me to do neither. What I need to do is get appointed (do you hear me Mr. Harper) to the Canadian Senate. Jon could and can be the President Minister of ... naw, he is going into the Senate just like me. Now you tell me how to vote for Hillary after the election is done. What good is this information now. Also I think your comments are unfair and discriminatory. Just because her side is the other side is no reason to make fun of her. It's not like she believed anything she was saying anyway. She is an actress reading from a different script, that is all. If Hillary wins then there has to be a vote of non-confidence and Harper has to step down if he loses. If he wins then I'm pretty sure that Hillary becomes a lame duck and has to leave within two years. Until then she has to stay in Peachmen NT just like Nixon. No it is not a half term for Harper, it is an additional half term for Bush. Remember, a vote for Harper is a vote for Bush. Weren't you paying attention? Now that I have explained it all I have a headache and have to go home. Until next time remember that US spells "us" as in "we" so of course we ought to get to vote in the States. I got the impression that Harper is not really in favour of the PM appointing Senators so if you and Jon both become Senators, does that mean we get an elected Senate or does it mean the President will now appoint Senators? I was paying attention. I realize you meant a minority for Harper meant a half term for Bush but Bush can't run again so would it mean a half term for McCain/Rice? Would a win for McCain/Rice mean a majority for Harper? After all, if the US means us, Americans should get to vote in Canada as well.

What if the government apprehends an insurrection? Can they continue in those circumstances? Would the legions of law abiding gun owners in B.C. become a problem if the government continued without a vote for too long? See, the gun registry makes perfect sense once you start to understand what the agenda really is. It never was about the safety of the citizens. Thanks Murray, it's much clearer now. We are apprehending insurrections on a weekly basis out here in the wild west. August is right, fixed election dates are nonsense, or is it the gun registry?

Are you joking? Look, I as much said I admired Jon which makes voting for me the same as voting for him. This is simple but what if someone really wants Hillary to win. This is not so easy since the U.S. often discriminates against people who are differently located. Canada is part of North America too, you know. Why should a little thing like citizenship and a border stop me from voting for president? I Don't care about the congressors or senatemen but I do want to vote for president. Its too late now and I'm still confused. The voting is done and still don't know which vote was a vote for Hillary. So, does Harper's minority give George Bush another half term or how do they count it down there? So if Jon ran and won would that make you Prime Minister? If you were born in the US maybe you could be Prime Minister and President at the same time, or could he be both? I was thinking a vote for Belinda might be like a vote for Hillary but Hillary has always known which side she was on so I can't help you. If Hillary wins does that mean Harper would have to step down? Would he be allowed to stay if McCain or Rice wins? You're right, this is confusing. I think a half term for a minority sounds reasonable. Canadians spend so much time opining on US politics, of course we should have a vote.

Why not actually address the issues rather than exchange insults? I was addressing spelling. If he is going to insult me the least he can do is spell it properly.

You've said your piece. I would still vote for the NDP over the Liberals. At least they have more to offer than hate, vitriole and lies that Liberals the likes of you buy hook, line and sinker. The Liberals used to be a decent party but in their current incarnation they're only slightly more useful than used toilet paper. So are you saying that all Liberals are liars and all liberal's promote hate, and all liberals are thieves cause if you are that is pretty hypocritical of you... we will see how much lying your precious Stephen Harper does, and his people, probably about as much as Mulroney did and he did alot of it, and see how much hate they dish out to other people... yeah I said my piece, but I see you did not comment on anything I said, maybe you know that I am right, and guess what hicksey, the conservatives did not win, it is just the liberals lost, if our country really wanted a big change you would of gotten the majority regardless. And answer me this question, why do you feel that when there is need for a change that it has to be a new government, why can't the old governement fix what is wrong and change from within, answer me that. It had 13 years to change. It didn't. It got worse. Your an idiot, tell how canada got worse, list me points in how we got worse, by paying down the debt, lowering the unemployment, by the provinces actually becoming more, by a stronger dollar, more investment in canada, balanced budgets, stronger trade with other countries besides the united states... come on smart guy tell me how it got worse over the last 13 years, list your points... or are you just a disgruntled conservative from the mulroney days when the liberals wiped your party out in 1993, and your are still bitter by it, and not matter what the liberal party does, you will still hate them and think they are all liars and thieves... oh yeah and they promote hate, I believe you said that as well, tell me then, what hate did the liberal party promote. give me your answers smart guy. It's you're an idiot. Calm down before you do yourself some damage.

You've said your piece. I would still vote for the NDP over the Liberals. At least they have more to offer than hate, vitriole and lies that Liberals the likes of you buy hook, line and sinker. The Liberals used to be a decent party but in their current incarnation they're only slightly more useful than used toilet paper. So are you saying that all Liberals are liars and all liberal's promote hate, and all liberals are thieves cause if you are that is pretty hypocritical of you... we will see how much lying your precious Stephen Harper does, and his people, probably about as much as Mulroney did and he did alot of it, and see how much hate they dish out to other people... yeah I said my piece, but I see you did not comment on anything I said, maybe you know that I am right, and guess what hicksey, the conservatives did not win, it is just the liberals lost, if our country really wanted a big change you would of gotten the majority regardless. And answer me this question, why do you feel that when there is need for a change that it has to be a new government, why can't the old governement fix what is wrong and change from within, answer me that. It had 13 years to change. It didn't. It got worse.

I agree with Argus. I think much is possible. The Liberals would need the support of both NDP and BQ members to bring down the government. I'm no expert on Quebec politics but the rise in the federalist vote indicates to me that a majority of Quebec will expect the BQ to act as a national party and not a nationalist party in Parliament. The accountability legislation will pass as will the changes regarding appointments. Only the Liberals would have reason to oppose it and would do so at their peril. Mandatory minimum sentencing for gun related crimes will also pass. Both the Liberals and NDP would have to renege on campaign promises to vote against it. They both know there is an appetite for stronger law enforcement. There may also be an appetite for some sort of political reform within the NDP and BQ, particularly in the Senate. We don't know because the Liberals have never made any serious proposals. If there are to be no tax cuts or child care subsidies it will be because the Liberals and NDP block them. They will have to wear that. There will probably be a SSM vote and it will fail. Hopefully that will be the end of it. Abortion will remain a non issue as Harper said it would. Paul Martin and the Liberals fought two campaigns based on a platform of little more than fear and division. Good riddance to him and shame on the Liberals. My only concern is that the Liberals were not spanked hard enough to make the changes they need if they want to be a party that can fight an election on issues instead of fear. I'm afraid they will be tempted to offer us the same old banger with nothing more than a new paint job and redesigned grill. It will be interesting to see if Harper is up to the task of creating constructive change with minority government. If he can it will make him pretty remarkable individual. It will also be interesting to see if the Liberals extend their campaign of fear and division into the next Parliament.

Terrific article. Nice to hear someone tell it like it is without pandering to any segment of society for a change.

That and Chretien using his Quebec team to get the vote out for the Conservatives. It was in the paper today. Former Chretien Liberals are now working for the Quebec Conservative wing. I mean, don't get me wrong. I don't care what he does as long as it helps the CPC. But it does show you what an odious jerk he is. Why on earth would the Conservatives want anything to do with the man responsible for Adscam. I hope they would have nothing to do with that scumbag.

I'd vote for Murray. But who is he the same as.

"The BC legislation simply shortens that period to four years. Nothing stops a government calling an election before that limit." Not so. Election dates are now fixed in BC. The only exception is a loss of confidence. BC electoral reform Perhaps whim is not accurate but in 2000 Chretien was only 3 years into his mandate and had a sizable majority. The Alliance had just been formed with Day as leader. He saw the weakness and called an election. In 2004 Adscam hit and Martin called a snap election in hopes of retaining that majority. In neither case was the good of Canadians a consideration.

"The idea of fixed election dates is anathema to a parliamentary system of government." How so? We have them in BC. It just means that elections cannot be called at the whim of the first minister for mere political gain as in 2000 or in an attempt to save their political ass as in 2004. It does not mean there wouldn't be an election if the Government lost the confidence of Parliament. Every time a PM calls an election before its term, all the peoples business before Parliament goes in the dumptster and must be started from scratch at the next one, if at all. This is a real anathema to a parliamentary system and an insult to the electorate.

Conservative anger likely wouldn't disappear even if Harper were to win a majority. Sure, they'll drink and party on election night but the anger will soon return. Look at US conservatives. They control the White House, Senate and Congress...but they're still angry. As for the majority of Canadians, i.e., those of us who are voting Liberal, NDP, BQ or Green, I suspect the entertainment value of Harper and his MPs will rapidly attenuate any lingering disappointment. The new social and religious conservative MPs, muzzled by Harper during the campaign, can be counted on to humiliate themselves. The Harper cabinet, replete with men of "integrity" like the backstabbing Peter MacKay and creationists like Stockwell Day, I'm sure won't disappoint. And how about the newly minted Quebec Conservative MPs? Will they be resigning in humiliation and disgrace at the same rate as they were when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister? And will they be just as "federalist" as Conservative MP Lucien Bouchard? Have they been screened by Harper as carefully as the BC Conservative candidate charged with multiple counts of smuggling? And how about the mainstream media? How long a honeymoon period will they allow Conservative MPs? No wonder Canadian conservatives will remain angry. That was one big problem with the Liberals, there was no ministerial responsibility. No one ever resigned voluntarily no matter what kind of scandal was in progress. Take a look at some of the things Mulroneyites resigned for. They seem trivial compared to some of the stuff that has happened lately that no Liberal has accepted responsibility for. Seems to me all the anger is on the Liberal side at the moment. Look at their campaign. Pure fear mongering and little substance. They have discovered that maybe they don't have a Divine right to rule and are having a tough time accepting it. Sorry folks, it will be the people of Canada who will decide if there is to be a change, not Liberals and Conservatives. Deal with it.

I do. Anti-Americanism has always been a fact of Canadian life. Our politicans always talk about standing up to the Americans, not standing up to GWB. Certainly Bush has made it easier for many people to be anti-American.

Of course it is. I just get tired of all this pious BS I hear from Canadians. We owe our whole quality of life to those dastardly Americans and what they do to maintain their own position in the world and what they do to prop up the rest of the G8 or G10 or whatever the heck they are now. Trouble is, we want all the good stuff but aren't willing to be honest about what it really takes to provide it. Exercising power is not a popularity contest. Our country and our system of government is a product of the British Empire, particularly the Victorian period. In the 64 years of Victoria's reign there wasn't one year that British troops weren't fighting in some little war, revolt, mutiny etc somewhere in the world. Their foreign policy wasn't popular with the rest of the world and they were also complicit in many of the worlds wars that sure weren't fought for the benefit of the locals, but we owe our country, our language, our government, our laws and all our freedoms to those people. They weren't just some happy coincidence. We are not the chosen people. You are wrong, it is politically incorrect not to be anti American in this country. That's why most of our politicians can't resist playing the anti American card to get votes.

"Thank you, and I agree. Fear based politics combined with consumerism...sufficient to pull the wool over most American eyes. And yes, we aren't so pressured here to be patriotic, or to lock or doors, or to build walls around our communities, or to further fill up our prisons, to increase our military, or to go off to war to protect ourselves against so called terrorists..." We don't have to. We have someone to do it for us. The US. We would never let consumerism pull the wool over our eyes would we? What a crock.

Why does one country need to excercise global dominance and why do we need to pick one at all ? Why doesn't the US just stay at home and take care of their own problems? Why do we need their military forces to protect us? They are more often the perpetrators than the defenders, they just know how to hide it well, particularly given the average IQ of the American Population is approximately 90. Terrorist forces attack those that have created the problems within their countries. That is why they attacked the United States. If Canada can keep true to its foreign policy of contributing to world peace we shouldn't have to worry about being under attack by terrorists. Sticking to the ideals set forth by the United Nations should be our primary goal, something that the US has always had trouble with. Why? Because there always has. In all of recorded history, if there was not one there were more than one vying to be, so who would you chose to be next if you dislike the US so much? China? Because they sure look like the front runner. Now there is a paragon of personal freedom and democracy. Smaller nations always have to chose eventually. It has been our good fortune to have ones that were on our side for all our history. We may not always be so lucky. I guess if we just keep quiet and never take a serious position on anything, no one will ever get mad at us. How many people have been butchered in Africa and other places because of countries following the UN's "ideals"? Or do we blame that on the US as well? I'm not trying to justify Iraq or anything else in particular but is there anything you would consider important enough to stand up and fight for? With respect to Communism, remember Hungary? I do. I went to school with some of the refugees. Remember Czechoslovakia? Remember the Cuba missile crisis? Remember the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan? Remember the Chinese occupation of Tibet and the border war with India? Remember the invasion of South Korea? Remember Kruschev saying "we will bury you"? I'm old enough to remember them all.

Now they are Nazi's. What are you on? One thing I have always noticed about the raving left. When they run out of cogent arguments they usually revert to using "Nazi" or "racist". "A question for all the US bashers. If you could pick one other country to wield the military power the US has, who would it be?" How about answering the question.

For a hundred years between the end of the Napoleonic Wars till WWI we had a period called Pax Britannica during which there were no major world conflicts. We had it because Britain could project it's power any where in the world that they wanted because its navy was all powerful and through it's alliances maintained a balance of power in continental Europe. Since the end of WWII we have been in a period which should be called Pax Americana. We have had no major world conflicts because of America's ability to project its power throughout the world, together with its alliances with other democracies. Neither one of those countries acted/acts like boy scouts during these periods of domination, it doesn't go with the job description. Often their governments did things that weren't popular with their own people, let alone those of other countries but in democracies those governments inevitably get changed. The simple fact is, the privileged place Canada has occupied in the world since its inception is largely due to the two of them looking out for their own interests. Whether we agree with all the US's actions or not, perhaps a little time should be spent honestly thinking about where we would really be with out them holding the position of power they do in the world. A question for all the US bashers. If you could pick one other country to wield the military power the US has, who would it be? "Through the years, the American government has gained control of the American media and has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy. True democracy allows for freedom of speech. Something that does not exist in the US of A, and something that we still manage to enjoy here in Canada at least to some extent. Will we if Harper gets into power?" Have you ever spent time in the US during an election? Ever heard of Watergate? Iran Contra? etc etc. The press uncovered those, not politcians or the Auditor General. No hate laws in the US. You can badmouth who you please. Gerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Louis Farrakhan etc etc. Americans regularly check an incumbents voting record before they decide how to vote. No need in Canada, they all vote the party line. No democracy in the US.

Steven Harper is 46 John Kennedy was 45 when he became President Tony Blair was 43 when he became PM