Wilber

Canada is a federation. Provincial and federal governments share power. The provinces are the first check on absolute power in Ottawa. You are both right. The Provinces are the only real check on absolute power in Ottawa. Even worse they are almost the only check on the PMO itself. Our MP's have reneged on their responsibility to their electors, either in the hope of favours from the big boss or in fear of his wrath. Why? Because they won't stick up for each other when their parliamentary rights and responsibilities are threatened by their own leader. At Westminster the only real matter of confidence is a budget. Until our Parliament is the same it will remain an autocracy in fact if not in name.

"If the GST is added after to the price then the savings are immediate because the posted price does not have to change. However, if it was included in the price the reduction would not happen immediately because the marketplace is not that competitive. In many cases it would not happen at all. We are better off with tax added after the price." Tell someone who is in the retail business the market is not that competitive. Business will do what it has to do to keep their customers. Some will do it on price, some on service but the competitive pressure on margins will be the same no matter how the tax is applied or even if it is applied at all. "When the Tories brought in the GST, they deliberately made it visible to consumers for political reasons. They knew that a hidden tax is easy to raise and difficult for voters to know about. VAT in Europe is hidden and is around 30%. The visible combined GST/PST is around 15% and no political party would dare raise it. In fact, it's an attractive tax to cut because of its visibility - as teh Tories have discovered." VAT is not hidden, it is just included in the price. Everyone knows how much it is. VAT in the UK is 17% although a few things are 5% and some are exempt. The only one who benefits from hidden taxes is government.

"If taxes were included in the price then consumers would not see a cent of the 2% reduction: retailers would pocket it." I don't buy that. In a competitive market you would be giving all your competitors a 2% price advantage. There are plenty of countries who include the tax in the price. When you buy something in the UK the VAT is included and you know how much it is. It doesn't make the market any less competitive. It's nice when you see something for sale for $4.99, you hand them a five and get a penny change. Like Alberta before the GST.

Don't worry Eureka, I think this country is mature enough to cope with at least one PM you don't like. Rewarding a government that has shown the same contempt for the taxpayers of Canada that this one has would be the height of complacency.

BD We agree on something. There is no such thing as a wasted vote.

Despite the saying all's fair in love and war, I really didn't think that extended to selling out your fellow countrymen. A vote for the Bloc is a vote for Canada because everyone knows the real separatists are those nasty Albertans. This from a party that claims to have a lock on protecting Confederation. This is sleaze on a new scale. It makes me want to puke and I'm not an Albertan. When it comes to national unity, Martin is scarier than Ducepe. Is this bonehead recruiting for western separatist parties?

"The purpose here was to stick the words "Albertan-separatist" to Harper. Mission accomplished. Non-political people don't notice the details. Several seats in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes may go Liberal now." It may play well in Ontario but if they are that willing to use one part of the country against another to gain votes, he divides the country even more. If that really was the motive, it's disgusting.

As long as we have a country we will have regions and we will have to deal with their differences, If we can't manage it, we don't deserve to be a country. A lot of people are getting tired of the Liberal arrogance that claims they are the only ones who can make this country work in spite of what they have done to divide it with their corruption. It shows in the polls.

As the GST is charged on almost everything you spend, I see little difference between it and an income tax except those who pay the least or no income tax still get to pay GST. I know there are rebates but they still have to pay it up front and I doubt the rebate covers what most of them actually pay. I just wish the consumption taxes were included in the price. Doing all this mental math to figure out how much money you need to actually pay for something is nuts. You know how much of the price is tax. In the case of fuel where unlike other consumer items, we are paying a tax on top of a tax, it is included. You also pay GST on the 1 1/2 cent per liter deficit reducing tax for a deficit we haven't had for 8 years. How hypocritical is that?

I guess that might be helpful if the need is there. What a legacy. A nation that can't wipe its own ass. The people who founded this country would turn in their graves.

BD OK, lets just agree to disagree on missile defense but maybe not quite as much as you think. I'm actually not totally convinced we should be a part of it, I do like to push a contrary position at times. Maybe you do as well. I do think our government dealt with it in a dishonest manner. Yea or Nay, we should have been up front with the US from day one. Colour me thick but there are still a couple of points I am not clear on. "What's pathetic is you getting all that from my earlier statement. First, I'm not suggesting Canada would lose control of its military, I am suggesting that, if some had their way, our political leadership would take its policy cues from the U.S. Nor am I suggesting Canada be disarmed: rather, I'm saying Canada should set its own course for its defense, not blindly jump into whatever scheme the Americans cook up soley for the sake of making nice. In other words: we need an independant foreign policy." By "some" I guess you mean a freely elected government. Whats new about that? Or do you mean we can only have a military if Canadians elect a government you personally approve of? Harper has said he will not make foreign deployments without the approval of Parliament. I don't know what he will do if there is an emergency and Parliament is not in session, but any PM could face that dilemma. "But I don't believe all the talk of bolstering Canada's military has anything to do with national defense." I still don't understand this. Is the military a part of an "independent foreign policy" or not? Is the military part of setting "our own course for it's defense" or not? Can Canadians be trusted to have a strong military or not, or can they only be trusted under a Liberal Government?

"I think the people who want to bolster the military (like Washington's idealogical allies in the CPC) want to do so in order to turn Canada into a fighting arm of the U.S. military." Do you believe that Canada is so insecure, it's inferiority complex so large that it could not control the actions of it's own military and should be disarmed to avoid the possibility another country might control it? That's pathetic.

"A simple look at a globe will tell you why Iran and North korea are potential threats to their neighbours, but not North America." The proposed initial sights are in the Aleutian Island chain which is just south of a great circle route from Korea to North America. It is felt that they are not that far off having a missile that it capable of reaching North America. There is almost no one who believes they don't have at least a few nuclear weapons. Iran could definitely be a threat to Western Europe in the future. A great circle from Tehran to the US would pass over Labrador and Northern Quebec. "False premise. Missile defense doesn't make us stronger" How so? "Why don't the principles of MAD apply to Norther Korea? If anything, madmen like Kim Jong Il are even more limited than major powers, given their limited ability to strike (they don't have a missile capable of reaching the continental U.S.). In any case, a nuclear attack (whether thwarted by m,issile defense or not) would mean nuclear retaliation, which in turn would be the end of North Korea. Kim Jong may be crazy, but he's not suicidal." MAD doesn't apply because there is no hope that he could destroy the US, only do them severe damage. I don't know if a thwarted attack would lead to nuclear retaliation. There would be a tremendous amount of fallout, not only radiation but political and possibly military from China, Russia, South Korea and Japan if the US started lobing nukes into the region. Kim Jong-Il is in the process of starving his whole country to death , basically to get nuclear capability. That is a pretty major assumption. "But I don't believe all the talk of bolstering Canada's military has anything to do with national defense." What does it have to do with. Do you believe the ability to defend yourself and sovereignty are two separate issues? "Canada has no nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which restricts who can have nuclear weapons." It restricts those who have signed the treaty unless they decide they want to violate or withdraw from the treaty at a later date. North Korea was a signatory but withdrew, Iran, India and Pakistan never signed. To the best of my knowledge the missile defense program does not involve the use of nuclear weapons. I don't know if this system can be made to work. None of us have the technical insight to now that answer. I do think that there are some arguments that can be made in favour of this system and that some of the arguments against it are valid. I also think that some of the arguments against have more to do with not being part of an American project than the project's merits alone. I know that if such a system can be made to work and one day has to be used, I would rather see it being used over the high Arctic than southern Canada. I also remember sitting there as a kid watching booster after booster blow up near or on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral before the Americans could get one reliable enough to send Alan Shepard on a 15 minute sub orbital flight. Ten years later they had men standing on the moon. Before someone says that some of those involved were Canadian and the project head was an ex pat German, yes they were but it was the Americans that had the vision, resources and initiative to get it done. My biggest problem is the way that this program was handled by our government. Martin spoke in favour of involvement for months. Then Adscam came along, he got into election mode and did a 180 because anti Americanism gets votes. No consultation with the Americans and he didn't even advise his own representative in Washington. That poor sod was still busy telling the Americans we were still in. No wonder one US columnist described us as "our retarded cousins". Just over a year and a half later, again in election mode, in a televised debate he informs us he is going to change the Constitution. All his ministers are going, "say what?" Again no consultation with the major parties involved (or anyone else that we know of) on a major issue. Paul Martin may be a prince of a guy and I'm not saying he does this all the time but the fact he does it at all leaves me with serious doubts about him running this country.

Peter Warren was all over it on the weekend. Can't remember which day. One of those hidden agenda things supposedly from a Conservative party operative. A BC government computer type traced it as far as St. Petersburg. I didn't hear any reference to a Toronto source but neither did I hear the whole segment. I can't listen to the guy for too long. It would be in the audio archives on the CKNW site if anyone wants to take the time to listen to his weekend shows.

"Sure it can. If it does work, it would give the Americans a strategic advantage. Countries like China and Russia aren't going to play it safe by hoping the thing just doesn't work. They are going to put themselves in a position whereby they can be damn sure that, if it does work, they'll still have the ability to shoot back." So when it comes to the major powers, nothing will change. It will still be MAD. It's the nut cases like Kim Jong-il that this thing is designed for. Deterrent is not really an issue here. One Trident sub parked a thousand miles offshore could make the whole country go away but then what would China do? Better to stop Kim's missile than risk war with China by blowing up its next door neighbor. The South Koreans wouldn't be real happy with all those nukes going off a few miles from Seoul either. A far fetched scenario? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. "Well, they clearly don't need our help with this cockamamie BMD scheme." Well, clearly you believe we will ever need their help. Or if you do, you believe we will get it regardless of our behavior toward them. "Even if they developed a system tomorrow that was 100 per cent successful, I'd still think it was a stupid idea for the simple reason that the countries the system is designed to deter (Iran, North Korea in particular) don't pose a threat." Then why is the rest of the world, including the European countries who were against the Iraq invasion having a fit over their nuclear programs? Why is Japan having a bird every time North Korea fires a test missile into the North Pacific through their airspace? Why do you think being weaker makes us more sovereign?

"None of which is particularily germaine to the subject, save to reinforce my point that participation in missile defense would inevitavbly result in Canada taking the role of junior partner. So much for "having a say"." We are a junior partner, always have been, always will. So what, small countries need alliances far more than big powerfull ones. The bottom line is we need them more than they need us when it comes to defense. That's just the way it is. Thank god we shared a border with the US instead of the Soviet Union or Germany for most of the 20th century. Is missile defence a waist of time? Everyone has an opinion but you know what they are like and everyone has one. One day someone, somewhere, will build one that works, that is certain. Whether it can be done with todays technology is the only question.

"As I said in another thread, the expectation seems to be that our participation wouldn't cost us a dime. Well, kids, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If we want a place at the table and if we want to have any say, chances are we'll be required to pony up. And even then, I sincerly doubt the U.S. would be willing to cede any real decision making authority to Canada. (Also: I think the use of the term "ally" in the context of U.S./Canada military relations is disingeneous: such a term denotes a meeting of equals, which is not the case. Under any scheme to further integrate Canda's defense into the United States' goals, we'd most certainly be the client. Or, less charitably, the "bottom".)" None of our politicians from any of our parties ever cited cost as a reason for not joining. We have much of a say? Maybe not, but we do know that we will have none as things stand. The definition of an ally has never been a meeting of equals. British policy in Europe for hundreds of years was always to ally itself with the weaker continental powers in order to prevent the strongest power of the time from dominating the continent. They were never strong enough to do it on their own. Countries form alliances because they are not strong enough to defend themselves against certain threats. The US has never needed us as an ally as much as we have needed them. The pathetic size of our armed forces in relationship to our size and wealth is proof of that. How long do you think the two World Wars would have lasted without the US as an ally?

How does participating give away our sovereignty?

"A little history. During the Cuban Missile Crisis the U.S. put their military on high alert and asked canada to do the same; in fact expected it under NORAD. Then PM John Diefenbaker did NOT have the order issued. More than one person close to "The Chief" as well as several military analysts have suggested he didn't see a whole lot of value for us in missiles destined for Washington being detonated over Canadian airspace." So much for NORAD or NATO for that matter. The US must take a lot comfort in the idea Canada will not live up to it's obligations under a mutual defense treaty.

Accountability Democratic Deficit Justice System Military Health Care Not necessarily in that order but if we can improve on two out of five without going backwards on the others, we will be doing really good. If we can improve on three out of five we will be doing awesome.

You have never heard that statement or anything like it from me. On the other hand, if the military had the right to refuse any of these people with absolutely no political interference, I wouldn't have a big problem with it.

The US military is huge and judges must give offenders a choice, they cannot arbitrarily put someone into the military. The Canadian military is small. It has been reduced to a point where if you took every soldier, sailor and airman we have, you would have a tough time filling Skydome or BC Place. The number of felons you could put in our military would be very small before it would effect those who volunteered. The Foreign Legion is a separate unit within the French Army that accepts mercenaries Qualifications for joining the French Foreign Legion in this era according to one who did. Recommended minimum physical prerequisites are: - 30 pushups. - 50 situps. - Climb a 20 foot rope without using your feet. - Run 8 kilometres with a 12 kilogram rucksack in less than one hour. - 8 chinups with your palms away from you as you grip the bar. The age range for joining is 18 to 40. You can't join if you're married. Women aren't allowed to join. You don't need to be able to speak French when you enlist but it is a good idea to learn as much as you can beforehand. It will be necessary to speak it in order to do your job. You will need a valid passport and possibly a visa to enter France. You must enter France at your own expense. You are not reimbursed if they don't accept you. Think about preparing a last will and testament. You can't have a bank account in France. The Legion maintains an account for you and you can arrange to transfer money anywhere in the world. A criminal history may be overlooked if the offenses are minor but there are no guarantees.

"I'm sorry (not really) but if I hear one more person blame youth crime on ME, I'm going to throw up on my non-subsidized shoes!!! Guess what? I'm society and so are you. These little bastards are not my fault, and they're not your fault. They are a product of themselves. Framework, my ass." Hey, I'm the last person who wants to stick up for these guys but it's not the military's fault either.

No I wouldn't but I wouldn't expect these guys to be allowed to leave boot camp untill they had proved themselves. Also you would be kidding yourself if you thought that every enlistee had a squeaky clean background. IMO, at least in the US a lot of enlistees are drawn from poor and black or hispanic backgrounds who have few options and are to a certain extent compelled to sign up. I believe, but have no direct evidence that most folks in the military grow in their morals and ethics while in the military rather than come into it with thise values already. You are talking about turning an all volunteer institution to a quasi penal colony. That is a huge change and will effect the moral of everyone in it. You have already said you wouldn't volunteer. Why would you expect anyone else to? You are right about the US military but they are all volunteers, they weren't put there by a judge for committing a crime, not now, not even in the days of the draft. This is something that no other modern democratic country has ever dared do to it's military and for good reason.

"Excellent idea. I think the military would offer these people a far better chance at becoming responsible citizens than our current jail system. Would you join the military if you knew that one day you would have to depend on one of these people to keep you alive?