sage

Well I tried to justify this one, but I must admit its a head scratcher. There must be some reason Harper did this though, I mean the heat he's taking over this for one dinky vote in the house of commons doesn't make sense. Again this makes me think this is honestly Harper trying to have a broader urban voice in his cabinet.

I think you are all dreaming. The sad part is I agree with you. The problem though is people generally fail to appreciate why things are the way they are. The reason there are growth hormones and herbicides and pesticides is because it makes your food cheap. So cheap in fact that there is no return on investment whatsoever in a great deal of agricultural production. Only when people are wanting to pay triple what they are now for food will this be an issue, and quite frankly I can't see that day ever coming upon us. As devil's advocate for a second, everyone harkens back to a day when we were living "healthier". Aren't we living longer now, despite all the rhetoric over chemical use?

Does anyone actually know if Emerson is going to sit as a Conservative, or is he a Liberal sitting in cabinet. To me the question is whether he is going to run in the next election as a Tory or not, and I am not sure we know the answer to this yet. As for Harper being a hypocrite, I think this can spun to be exactly what it is: the Tories trying to seek representation from the major cities in cabinet. That is also why Fortier was appointed. Everyone that criticizes Harper asks why he would do this where there is such limited upside. First people jump on Harper for not having a broad mandate from the urban centres, now Harper is trying to address this criticism and he is a hypocrite? It is also worth noting that during the campaign Harper was specifically asked whether he supported recall legislation. He flat out said he would not support recalls despite the Stronach debacle. If anything it should only be Emerson who has to answer to his constituents. I don't see how Harper can be chastised.

Hollus would you be willing to give up your standard of living so that someone in the sub-Sahara can have a better existance? Just a question.

I agree with you Black Dog. Is this not a continuum though? At some point in time outside intervention may be necessary in some circumstances. Take Nazi Germany. The question is the when not the if.

What is the difference between Clinton's Bosnia campaign and Bush's Iraq campaign? Both were without UN approval, yet Bush is villified for the lack of UN involvement. For the record I can't say as I like Bush, but I've never understood Clinton's "popularity".

I will agree though that it certainly isn't a sense of patriotism or morality that will govern a corporation's conduct.

If a corporation answers only to shareholders, then why is there such a thing as a "poison pill"? Its there to reinforce management and to ensure a takeover does not occur. It has nothing to do with shareholder value. Also how is Magna International doing on the corporate governance side? Last I heard, Frank Stronach controls the corp through voting shares which are not held by the general public. In the world of multi-billion $ corporations no one entity generally has enough shareholdings to actually hold directors accountable. I will admit I over-generalized though.

On another point, when did corporations operate on the basis of shareholder accountability? I suggest that corporate governance is more about maintaining management then any sense of accountability to shareholders.

Hollus your fundamental premise was that outsourcing is wrong. My point was that it is only wrong if you're a Canadian living large already. You are correct you did not shroud your argument in altruism, though many people on the left use language very close to yours and make do indeed appeal this intangible sense of morality. My point was that we need to be clear about the consequence of the decision-making you are about to embark on. I think the majority of Canadians find no contradiction whatsoever in trying to address third world poverty and cry when jobs are outsourced. These comments were meant to address more then just your thoughts on this post, and I am sorry if you took my words to imply that I was calling you "disingenuous".

Shhhhhh! Everyone be quiet. The ghost of Tommy Douglas will kill you in your sleep.

I'm not sure but I think both Ottawaman and Boru are going a little hard on TMl. I believe his original point is that there are alot of Canadians who wouldn't take up arms in defence of this country. On this he's dead-on as the annual Maclean's poll shows every year. I'm not sure if you can categorize those who would or would not defend this country by their political colour though. Except maybe the liberals, they're a bunch of pussies. The NDP has militant union heads, and the Tories got gun-totin' rednecks who are just asking for something to shoot at. I don't believe the Liberals have this kind of character.

Capital moves from one place to another in search of the cheapest labour (among other things). Why would people work for less? Generally because they are poor and something is better then nothing. When Hargrove starts yakking about outsourcing, what he is really talking about is the movement of jobs to poorer places on the globe. When his speaking as the representative of labour, this is misplaced as he is actually the representative for "Canadian" labour. What is really happening is that Canadians (workers) want to reinforce the greater standard of living we enjoy over other poorer nations. They are all for equality and brotherhood so long as the class of people benefitting is strictly their Canadian ranks. My point in all this is that one of the hallmarks in arguments against capitalism is the lack of equality, the fact that few control much, and most have little. The problem with a Canadian criticizing this from a global perspective is that we (collectively) have benefitted more then anyone from this system. In fact it reinforces our dominance (economically) over the majority of the planet, as we live richly off our resources. Restricting the flow of capital may reinforce this but the direct consequence is the global poor remaining poor. As a well off Canadian I'm perfectly happy with our place on the planet. I find it a little disingenuous though when someone uses arguments claiming to have altruism on their side, not fully appreciating that there is a second side to every coin.

Who in the hell honestly believes that the NDP and the Liberals can merge? That's the dumbest thing I've seen on any thread yet.

My point was that you are complaining about the lack of infrastructure whereas I think AB has things pretty good on that front. To illustrate my point I referred to a place where infrastructure truly is in dire need of repair. My point was and is that to a certain degree you should be grateful. (fair enough if we disagree on who is responsible for your provinces wealth.)

The fact that Gomery is biased is news? People should have known this was gonna be a gongshow after Gomery gave an interview while he sitting at the inquiry.

Black Dog : where did you come up with your figures? Kudos if you researched it yourself.

Complain some more Black Dog. You're wining about the state of infrastructure in Alberta? Try driving through Saskatchewan sometime and then we can discuss the dismal state of your highways and hospitals. Take your $400 and buy a soother. Life ain't that bad.

Black Dog don't get started on the ranchers. The fact is they told the government not to provide the support proposed. They (the Canadian Cattlemen's association) knew that if the federal government went ahead with their plan (which forced producers to sell in order to receive support) that the prices would simply plummet and packer's would prosper. In the midst of the BSE crisis nobody understood the vagaries of supply and demand better then Canadian ranchers. What fucked this up was the government refused to listen to the people it was supposed to represent. Much like when people provide opinion's on topics they know nothing about.

Black Dog for whatever reason you criticise and chastise every idea that anyone ever came up with. Unless someone (read NDP) came up with a plan where everyone was guaranteed a salary of $45,000/year regardless what they did or how much they worked, you wouldn't be happy. The point other's were trying to make was that the focus should be on keeping a parent at home to raise their children and not abdicate their responsiblities on the social welfare state. Nobody said they could do this on Harper's plan, but they point is to recognize the goal, and work backwards from there. What exactly is your goal? Have everyone be a civil servant and have their children raised by civil servants?

Fair enough Black Dog but if fiscal policies have nothing to do economic development, why is BC and SK lagging behind?

Black Dog by your implication Alberta may as well double, hell triple their royalty rates. Then send every Albertan a cheque for $1,000, $2,000, maybe $5,000. You go down this path far enough you come to the realization eventually if your royalties were high enough, production would slow, people would be laid off, real estate prices would fall, construction would dwindle, you see where I'm going this. The fact remains taxation and royalty structure do play a role in driving an economy forward. Take Saskatchewan. The oil and gas does not end at the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, even Alberta's precious oil sands are found in Saskatchewan. We have resources Alberta does not have (uranium and potash), yet our economy surely is not on par with AB's, why? One reason is becuase SK taxed the shit out of oil and gas production early and so it thrived in AB. SK also has a capital tax on corporations that try to set up shop here. Don't tell me AB's fiscal policies have nothing to do with its success. I agree they aren't the sole reason, but you have to give them some credit.

August, there is a reason that the judiciary is beyond the control of politicians! We are not talking about rounding up every member of the Liberal Party and charging/suing them. We have a transparent and relatively objective legal system that is designed for this very purpose. The point is to treat politicians the same as a regular citizen, with all the protection afforded by our courts, yet all the consequences as well. Criminal charges are being pursued against the individuals who the crown prosecutors feel are most culpable. In the event informaiton comes out in the trial of these men that leads a crown prosecutor to feel more charges should be pursued, they most likely will. It is also important to note that Gomery laid the blame for the sponsorship program at the feet of Chretien, not because he had specific knowledge of the criminal activity and was an accomplice, but rather due to his mismanagement. There is a distinction between moral responsibility and criminal culpability, and I think this is being lost in this emotional debate.

First, jail cannot result from "suing" someone, though it would be great to see Chretien in jail. As for whether the Liberal Party should be sued, as a lawyer I can state that the first thing you do is sue anyone who you may recover from. Politics aside, it would be prudent for a # of reasons to include the Party in any lawsuit. As for the optics of suing the party however, I'm with those who think Harper should avoid using this mechanism so early. If and when information came out that lead one to believe higher-ups in the Liberal Party participated in the kick-backs, politics should be cast aside however and the Party prosecuted (civilly and criminally) to the full extent of the law.

I agree that the CPC plan is better, my point was that the focus should be in assisting parents to stay at home with their kids, which the CPC plan does (modestly) and the nationalized daycare program does not.