sage

Since when did Canada have a "no firearms policy". We actually have a huge number of firearms (between 7 and 10 million depending on the study).

Quinton I agree in principle with your proposition and acknowledge that it is never addressed by most Canadians. The one difficulty with it though is you seem to suggest any environmental degradation is unacceptable, which is absurd, as every time we plant a garden, drink a pop, hell have a glass of water, it indirectly has resulted in some impact on our environment. The question really is what standard of living do we want and what are we willing to risk to achieve it? So far the consensus is to stay the course. Personally I would love to have a goal for population growth of zero. The difficulty though is you then run into a bunch of social issues in the process. Human rights, refugees, splitting up immigrant families that are already in Canada, limiting the # of children a family can have, etc. Although I believe these issues should be tackled, so long as we live in a country with a low population density they will remain points debated only in online forums such as this.

All of your comments had be directly traced to one thing: lack of accountability. When it come to Gomery, the other guys did it. The income trust scandal, just ignore it. The military ad. Rather then simply saying it was in poor taste and should never have been done in the first place, he says: a) It is a justifiable ad. He doesn't have to discuss it because it never ran. c) He approved it. Goodale says he never approved it. Then Martin says he only approved the transcript. All of this could have been dealt with by acknowledging the tastelessness of the ad and saying it was a mistake. Instead he starts to lie and looks like an idiot. I would also ad one more gaff to your list, the notwithstanding clause nonsense.

Are you people just talking about the Supreme Court? I hope so becuase it is generally the only Court with an enumerated number of judges. I can't speak for the Federal Court, but the vast number of appointments are to the Court of Queen's Bench, and provincial Court's of Appeal. There are no specific number of judges on either level. How much of this really matters, Supreme Court or not? The decisions where politics actually matters are few and far between, and I think our Courts have done a fairly decent job. They've been everything from liberal (the sleeze bar decision) to right wing (the health care decision), and anywhere in between. Not to say there's not points of disagreement with some things, but at least our Court, regardless who appoints them, hasn't denigrated (generally) into the partisan nonsense that happens accross the border.

From reviewing this thread and others apparently everyone in this country can be categorized into either US haters or Republicans. For a group that I would have expected to be fairly intelligent, this is an alarming observation.

emailforcanada do you not see the difference in what people around here are trying to say? Being polite to the US does not equal surrender. The point we are trying to make is that simply being anti-American is not an end unto itself. What Martin did was appeal to Canadians who blindly hate the US, not for anything in particular, or any policy in particular, they just simply hate the US. When you are on a thread that is trying to make the point that Martin is the champion of international diplomacy, this is a problem, because it is the furthest thing from diplomacy. Does no-one remember that when Martin took over he was supposed to bring us closer relations to the US, as Chretien had eviscerated them? As for Harper's abilities, the fact remains he really hasn't had an opportunity to illustrate diplomatic skills. I'll give someone a chance who has yet to prove himself, then give Martin another to fail.

Why the hell would Harper even go here? It's this Reform party rhetoric that killed them the last 3 elections. And why even called the Liberals on politicizing the judiciary? You don't think there are 12 years of Queen's Bench appointments wating to be filled to long-time Tory supporters? There's not one voter who thought, "Now that I know the Tories won't be able to implement their agenda, I'll vote for them." Stupid. Just Stupid.

As much as I disagree with much of your post Chuckman, I do agree that religion needs to be removed from the political dialogue. The difficulty though in you singling out Harper is you forget how important religion in is Canada generally. You don't think religion in Quebec politics is important? Martin's a proud Catholic, as I believe Chretien was. Don't think its such a black and white issue my friend and use a reference to God by Harper to paint him as an American bigot.

After Harper's stupid comments over the judiciary and civil service I'm surprised anyone thinks he'll be able to bring in a majority.

You're absolutely right John. In fact I've heard Pat Robertson and every religious zealot in Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama are thinking of moving to Lethbridge if Stephen Harper gets into power, slaying mercilessly every homosexual they cross on their pilgramage.

Drea, if they need our resources, what the hell difference does it make? Unless your going to tell me that we are going to exercise our resource richness to remedy human right violations in China this is all a bunch of B.S. And be real, is any party leader ever going to take the moral high ground in such a fashion if it results in Canadian job losses? Not very damn likely. Foreign relations. An absolute non-issue for Canadian politics.

Partisanship aside, how f-ing stupid do you have to be to call in and randomly accuse someone of sexual assault. Honestly?

How is it international experience in foreign affairs is a requirement to be PM of Canada? There is absolutely no such requirement to be president of the US (in a role that has a much greater role in international affairs). In fact it generally never happens.

Rovik to be clear the NDP in Saskatchewan have not ran balanced budgets. What they do is they set up something called a "rainy day fund" which is basically a savings accoutn. This is something like $400 million. In the past (say 3-5 years) the NDP have been running deficits and dipping into this fund to say that revenue=expenses and thus a balanced budget. As for the raising of taxes, they have in fact raised our PST, and applied it to more items. I am sorry but the NDP of this province for the past 5 years (since Janice McKinnon left as finance minister) is a terrible example of fiscal stewardship.

The hallmark of Liberal policy the last decade plus has been to decry an opposition parties policy, get into power, then either accept it, and/or elaborate on it. Case in point free trade, the balancing of the budget, etc. When GST came in, Liberals despised it. The they were going to "harmonize it". Eventually they did nothing with it and when Harper indicated he's going to lower it, suddenly cutting the GST is a tax cut to the upper class. Free Trade. Absolute hypocrisy on the part of the Liberals and there can be no rebuttal. Balancing the budget. If anyone other then a Liberal had downloaded social programs onto the Provinces in the way Martin did, it would have been treason. Also how does Martin get this "I'm a great economist" image. The economist in the Liberal party is John McCallum (former chief economist with the Royal Bank), who likely will lose his own seat this election. Paul has really done nothing pf significance on his own his entire life. First he was born into a rich liberal family. Then he followed daddy's footsteps and went to the U of T law school. Then he became a director on the board of a few big corp.'s because his last name was Martin and daddy was a Liberal cabinet minister. Then he was forced into dealing with the debt and deficit by virtue of the Reform party's fiscal conservative views. What the hell has Martin ever done on his own other then split his own party and contradict himself every time he opens his mouth. He's the walking definition of a megalomaniac.

I'm with Chimera on this one. As much as I like Harper, lets be clear, politics is politics. Harper for as much as he may privately loathe Ottawa shenanigans, has certainly learned how to use them. What's the saying "When in Rome..." I do not believe for a second that anyone tried to make the last parliament work for the good of the country. Martin only wanted to hold onto power, and perhaps outlast a bit of the Gomery outrage. Layton only wanted to influence the agenda with NDP issues (which is commendable) but in the end brought down the government because he thought he may be able to pick up a few seats. Harper was incessantly trying to bring down the government, and there was never any attempt to make things work. Duceppe, well nobody could ever accuse the Bloc of trying to make parliament work.

News flash for everyone. Canadians already knew that Harper was from Alberta. Already knew that he proposed to give the provinces more taxing capacity. Already knew that there exists a small seperatist movement in Alberta. The sole thing this was trying to do was to scare the GTA into not getting swept away in the blue tide. Of course it was planned. The Lib's have already wrote off Quebec and now are consolidating their attacks in an area where they think they can hold off a Conservative majority government. As for the strategy, absolutely tastless, classless, and a complete slap in the face to western Canada and Quebec. Wasn't it only 2 years ago, Martin was bragging about being the person who would address western alienation?

Don't you think any statement made by Buzz Hargrove of all people is wrapped firstly in ideology considering his occupation, and secondly in hypocrisy considering he's not supporting his natural party the NDP? Anyone who knows who Hargrove is will immediately disregard the comment as ludicrous, much the same as anything else that comes out of his mouth. I guess not much different then Martin on that point.

Simply because someone wants reconfigure how power is held in this country does not imply that he is not patriotic. Again, as he's been stated in other threads, the sovereign threat is a direct result of people thinking that the current system is working. To that end Eureka I would sugest that maintaining the status-quo will directly result in the splitting of the country that you are condemning.

Maybe what we should take away from all this is that our autonomy is more perceived then real?

Mar, the question isn't necessarily "I want more", its "I'm sick of giving my labour to someone else", its "I'm sick of a civil servant who gets more then myself, and I'm paying for it". Ultimately wanting something for yourself isn't the worst thing in the world. We are where we are today because of this system based on greed. Do you have air conditioning? You seem to have the internet. A car perhaps? You've probably took medicine once in your life? All of these items you take for granted come from the system that you're belittling. It wasn't out of a sense of greater humanity that Dell makes computers on a level so people like you and me can afford them. Nor is that why someone stands on an assembly line somewhere. Its out and out personal greed that leads people to do these things. I apologize for coming as such a right wing idealogue, but anytime people start discussing these items in the abstract, all we seem to focus on is the ugliness of capitalism, the fact that some people are left behind. There is a tangible benefit to the system as well, as can be seen in everystroke I read of yours from hundreds of miles away. I'm not saying that we do not need a social safety net. But we need a net, not a ceiling.

On another point Eureka, if you're definition of "national interest" equates to the St. Lawrence corridor then I would aree that the system as it currently stands adequately reflects "the nation's" will.

Eureka if we are ever going to keep this country together we have to recognize and embrace regional diversity. To ignore this is to simply beg individual provinces to perpetually throw out the sovereignty card and bully Ottawa into whatever they want. The current senate does not represent regional interests, as it has no real authority. Take a very current example, gun legislation. We had the federal government ram it down everyone's throats when really only Ontario and Quebec wanted it, despite this so-called chamber of sober second thought. This is the scheme that will unify the country? Hardly. I would actually go one step further and suggest that there are not that many values common to this country; some to be sure, but certainly not as many as people are led to believe. This shouldn't be such a surprise. How can a largely urban, manufacturing based economy province such as Ontario and Quebec have much in common with a primarily rural, agricultural Saskatchewan, or Newfoundland, or the maritimes for that matter? We already have regional confrontation. The question is how do we manage it, and currently nothing is being done to address it. As for the appointment process, what exactly does that cure? Historically it was meant to ensure that the electorate's wishes were kept in check, as they could not be trusted with all of the political power. But when the people appointing the senate are the very same people who are voted in, what has been accomplished? One last point, how does the senate represent regions equally anyway? Last time I looked, the senate distribution was scewed far to the original provinces favour. Look at PEI in this regard. Also does the west have the same say in the senate as Ontario and Quebec? Of course not so the regional problem found in the House of Commons is simply mirrored in the Senate.

Is this not getting away from the real issue. We have 2 choices, both of which will involve U.S. missiles in Canadian airspace. If we don't join, the US (if they ever get it working) will fire into Canadian airspace if they need to without regard to our perceived sovereignty. If we do join, enough said. The difference is that at the very least we are at the table under the latter option and there is some level of consultation. Perhaps not a great deal, but some is better then none. Can we really afford to let the US completely disregard our sovereignty? What if the US does get this working, and does need to fire into Canadian airspace, and we didn't join and they never asked permission? All things that could realistically occur except it is probably far-fetched that the Yanks will ever get the damn working. What then? It would be an intrusion that other countries would go to war over! Obviously we wouldn't do that, so what then? We put our tail between legs and do nothing, that's what. And this is an affirmation of our sovereingty?

As for Hiti's comments regarding the evolution of the senate, what else other then an elected senate with equal regional representation will move this country away from its stark regional conflicts? I'd remind you that in part the current system is responsible for the mess we have now. Generally speaking the model you describe limiting the role of the federal government to "foreign policy, defense, taxation, and social security'' is the one envisioned under the constitution and its division of powers. Health care for example, is one area of complete provincial jurisdiction, yet somehow the fed's have their hands on the strings? The reason you will counter is the lack of funding available to provincial coffers. To this I would agree, and the question is how do we address it? Have an inflexible federal government tax us to the us and remit it to the provinces? Why not simply let the provinces have the taxing capacity to address this on their own? The problem is that convention has become the complete disregard for provincial jurisdiction.