Nocrap

Very tragic. Many members of the Bush Administration should have to face a War Crimes Tribunal, but I'm not holding my breath. I think that if George W. did not have the money and power behind him, he would have probably been a serial killer. That sneer on his face when he speaks of the war is chilling. Reminds me of Charles Manson.

I would be interested in the outcome of the study if it happens. Many similar social experiments take place all the time. If there has been some babble that sports' fans are more likely to be bigots, this gives both sides an opportunity to put it to the test. Personally, I think they could do the same test anywhere; in a grocery store or restaurant; and get the same results, good or bad. Perhaps they feel that a competitive venue might bring out the passion of people already keyed up for a fight.

Gee Gerry, those guys deserve punishment then. Better leave them there to get shot at and killed rather than go home and live their lives in freedom and have this ten year old girl killed in sectarian vilolence. Yes lets dictate policy by the actions of a few. COME ON PEOPLE! How many civilians were massacred in world war 2? Should we have pulled out of Europe for one massacre? Im not saying its right but a Platoon Commander who could not keep control of his Squad is hardly grounds for radical change in policy. I'll bet this is not an isolated incident. Many of these soldiers are just kids, thrown into a war where the people they were told they were fighting for, just want them to heck out. Bush and his administration can defend their policies at home until they are hoarse, but it is the young men and women in Iraq who are left to make sense of it all. My heart is with the soldiers, my anger is directed at the Bush administration.

Oh come on, we all know the GST was a visable replacement to another hidden tax. At least we knew the government was taking our money, before it was just a hidden 15% on some random collection of items. The GST lowered the tax burden, and now the conservatives are lowering it again. The liberals have constantly shown they will not lower taxes, until an election is a calling. CORRECTION You said, "until an election is a calling" It should have read, "until an election is a calling, and they fear they will not win it" Every other time the tax promises are just empty promises like the rest. When Martin feared losing they became real. Bryan said: "The extinct Progressive Conservative Party brought in the GST. The Conservative Party of Canada wants to cut it. Different parties, different priorities." I wish people would stop calling the CPC Tories. They are a complete 180 from the old Tory party. That being said, while the GST may have in part replaced a hidden tax, many of the goods and services that were taxed with the new GST were never taxed at all prior to it's implementation. Hair cuts, rents, etc. Most economists will agree that the GST brought in far more revenue than the old hidden federal tax did. The only people who will benefit from a cut in the GST are those with exposable income. The more you can afford to spend the more you will save...IOW the rich will just get richer. As to the tax cut, CBC ran a piece comparing the $1200.00 taxable benefit against the 1% income tax reduction, and most did better with the tax break. Even if a parent stays home to raise the children, so gets to claim the credit; it will still affect any other provincial or territorial tax credits that are based on total family income. Canadians need to read the fine print. I would sooner the GST stayed the same and the money put toward a better environmental plan than the CPC has put forward.

I'd be interested to know what kind of campaign they were paying for. If it was to support a daycare plan that was being scrapped by the Conservatives, that's not really against the Conservative Gov't, just against the daycare program being axed.

The idea of confederation was that all provinces and territories could share the wealth. The "Have" provinces would help out the "Have-Nots". Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Alberta was in an economic crisis, didn't Newfoundland or one of the Atlantic provinces send them fish? Can't remember where I heard that. Maybe one of the debates or perhaps it was ancient history. I do believe in transfer payments but all revenue should be considered on a year to year basis like income tax. If Alberta is allowed to keep their oil revenues out of the equation, conceivably they could be eligible for transfer payments - just what they need - MORE MONEY! My point in this case, however, is that when Ontario bellies up to the bar, Jim Flaherty must step back due to conflict of interest. If his wife is a member of the Ontario opposition, he cannot have a say in any decision that would negatively affect the current Ontario Liberal government. This would be partisan politics at it's worse. We will have another provincial election in 18 months and his actions could affect the outcome. Ethics? Accountability?

Yesterday's throne speech promised to address the "so-called fiscal imbalance". That was expected. Jim Flaherty has already been all but calling it a myth and suggests that the Atlantic Accord deal could also be scrapped (Toronto Star) "The Conservative campaign promise to remove revenues from non-renewable natural resources from equalization calculations has muddied the picture. Any move to do that could further anger McGuinty. That's because taking energy resource revenues out of the equation would mean that Ontario — one of only two provinces (along with Alberta) that does not receive equalization payments — would have to pay out more than it otherwise would. " Albertans will be dancing in the streets. However, I have a problem with Jim Flaherty having anything to do with the debates. He left the opposition party of Ontario to run in the federal election, so how can we expect him to do anything to help the Ontario Liberals? His conservative party was given a resounding kick to the curb after scandal and corruption paved the way for a Liberal victory. But perhaps, more importantly, his wife just won his seat. She is now a member of the opposition party in Ontario that will come off smelling like a rose if McGinty is forced to cover Alberta's share. Can you imagine the pillow talk? Flaherty's Wife Wins His Seat Of course Ontarians can be reassured with Harper's Accountability Act. There is no way he will allow Flaherty to vote on the issue. He'll make him leave the room, right? Am I right? Anyone?

These same people who are never wrong gave Mulroney 2 majority governments and in 84 Canada's largest ever majority gov't!! I think Harper will get his turn at majority, much to the dismay of people like you! The Liberals will only return to power if they get a leader above reproach.....hmmm...slim pickings so far. However, "Mr. Accountability" Harper has a long way to go before he can prove to the Canadian people that he resembles anything of an ethical person. He has done more to discredit himself and his party in the first few months than any other politician. The NDP is looking better all the time.

I too would like to understand exactly what you are saying. I don't accept that small groups of militant Muslims represent the entire faith, anymore than the Ku Klux Klan speaks for all Christians. And again, what is a transmater?

I agree. Most anti-American sentiments, are more anti-George Bush and Anti-Iraq War. Most Canadians saw through the reasons for the invasion, and are luke warm to Harper's obvious admiration of all things Republican. Again, let's not forget that 2/3 of Americans now share our dislike and mistrust of Geroge Bush and Tony Blair is in the hotseat over loan scandals. If I were our PM, I'd keep my distance.

Actually, this is not the first Tory throne speech in fifteen years, but the VERY FIRST throne speech for the new CPC; which is a hybrid of the Reform and Alliance parties. Not that there's anything wrong with that! However, I would think that Mr. Harper would be more proud of the fact that his NEW party was able to accomplish so much in such a short period of time, and not have to ride on the coat tails of the now defunct Tory party. They are a new kind of conservative, and reflect the direction that our country appears to be heading. However, they are not now, nor have they ever been TORIES!

Yes. Yes it does. Well, I wouldn't expect the "ordinary people" to care, what with a new season of Canadian Idol just around the corner. They have their priorities, I have mine. Of course, you realize what a ridiculous statement that is. What Harper "does" is conveyed through the media. But don't worry: the press in Caanda are a complacent lot: they'll soon lern how to play the game the Harper way and we can get on with the business of government telling us what's important. Geoffrey said: "Since when is a government unaccountable when they don't have a press conference every 25 minutes". I don't need a press conference every 25 minutes, but when Mr. Harper is doing things that alarm us, he needs to EXPLAIN WHY! First and foremost, why he won't let our elected MP's talk, when taxpayers pay them to do so. Why he won't let the media keep us informed. Why he still refuses to be accountable for Emerson, Fortier and O'Connor. Why he refuses an open discussion on Afghanistan, but simply reworks a Bush Iraqi speech. For a man who campaigned on accountability, ethics and transparency in government, he has shown none of these. Hiding himself away in his ivory castle with Mulroney and Flanagan and his other cronies, is simply not good enough. I don't want to know that Hill & Knowlton can write well crafted media bits or videotape (probably with paid actors since that's their usual MO) their spin on important events, I want to know what our elected officials have to say. I agree that the Liberals were in office too long, and developed "a culture of entitlement"; but Canadians saw what can happen when we don't pay attention. We're paying attention now, and will not give Harper the same free reign. As a matter of fact, he told us many, many times that he doesn't want that. He needs to practise what he preaches.

Anyone crossing the border will need a passport. It doesn't really matter what they choose. It will have the same result. Anyone crossing the border. The US is at least trying to improve their security. Albiet, their southern border is a sieve due to the political reasons mentioned above. However, that's not the point. The point is that our problem, and the financial cost tourism is going to bear, could have been avoided were the Liberas not so completely and utterly incompetent and uncaring about both security and and our relationship with the US. I don't think it really matters whether passports or some other form of security pass is required, and actually could produce a false sense of security. We know how easy it is to forge any kind of document, and border patrols could become complacent, believing that the necessary background checks are already taken care of. Canadians who defend the passport or security pass requirement, say that it will avoid having to wait in long lineups, if all they have to do is flash a card. However, this also means that potential terrorists, drug dealers, etc. will also be able to avoid the long lineups, when they simply pull out their pass. Something to think about.

Obviously you have never had a 6 year old come up to the desk in the library and request something in French. When the sheepish librarian admitted that she didn't know French the child switched to perfect English. And the other librarian whose Granddaughter was sent to French immersion much against her wishes and was floored when the child interpreted a French book for her in perfect English. Give me a break your arguments don't hold much water. How about our neighbours who speak Russian, German, French and English as well as several other languages. Doesn't seem to slow him down, he is a very rich man. I know several children who have completed at least one year of French immersion, and believe me, they are anything but 'retarded'. I think it's money well spent.

That woman's derranged. You don't like seeing her take the President to task. Hardly means she's "derranged". Attack the message, not the messanger. She's a little out to lunch. There are plenty of journalists that are respectful and ask important questions. Saying things like the US is out to kill innocents and drawing some of those comparisons makes her a little less than crediable. From Montgomery Burn's link: "Bush's news conferences have become increasingly scripted..." Sound familiar? I thought that Helen Thomas' interview was very good and came at a time when 2/3 of the American people want to know what he is doing, since they no longer trust his judgement. She probably won't really care if Mr. Bush now snubs her beause 2/3 of the American people will see her as a political martyr.

I also take anything published by the Fraser Institute, to be biased toward the industries that are important to their funding. Mostly Oil and Private Healthcare. I recognize that their writers "are all extremly bright people, with first rate education and industry leading experience", but they are paid for their services. Even if the pay is not abundant, they enjoy the validity that their words incur as part of a "think tank". When researching the people behind Stephen Harper's rise to the top, many roads led to the Fraser Institute. For this topic, though I haven't researched the figures, I've no doubt that the statistics are correct. Alberta is definitely enjoying a boom, and life is good. I didn't need those statistics to tell me that. However, Geoffrey, can you direct me to a Fraser Institute offering that provided any negatives toward the oil industry or private healthcare? Since you brought the Fraser Institute into the discussion, we have to look at both sides.

Wow, can we drop the sterotypes? Firstly, not all French Canadians live in Quebec. My family is French Canadian and we live in Alberta. Secondly, we have never used government benefits and on applications I'll never say I'm French Canadian. Most people would rather be hired on merit, even if the opportunity presents itself. Since we aren't a visable minority (besides our funny hats right? just keeping with the sterotypes), I know many of us do this. Saying that of all people the French Canadians are a burden on society is a joke. You'll find way more of a burden in the four provinces east of Quebec. Sorry, just not happy when people say "French Canadians everywhere relly on extra benefits and live of government jobs" and "don't work as hard." I know my family has never held a government job, besides my Grandfather who served in the military, and no one in my family has ever used social assistance. So no, its a small group of people that have exploited the government, but no more than the fisherman on either coast, who are mostly English Canadians. I am also French Canadian, born in New Brunswick, but lived most of my life in Ontario. My dad was a veteran of WWII, then worked to feed seven children. We were never on social assistance. The only taxpayer money I remember him getting other than CPP when he retired, was a small military pension because he was wounded in Italy. Despite lifetime back and knee problems as a result of the war, he always worked. I also take offense to the stereotyping. As for the French schools, we have one in our community. It is called French Immersion, and is open to all residents, even those from the outlying communities that have to be bussed. Many families like to have their children complete at least one year at the school, since the exposure in an educational environment where you speak only French, is much better than just French 101. They come out of it truly bi-lingual; a definite asset in today's competitive job market.

I don't think I would censor anything I post because I would have to give my real name. Most of my freinds know of my political beliefs and we often debate sensitive issues. I've written two letters to the editor with my real name and accepted the fallout. I'm a fan of political satire shows like Airfarce and 22 minutes, so at times my off-handed remarks are taken more seriously than I intended them to be, but other than that, I stand by what I write. The only reason I wouldn't like to share my personal info, is for security reasons.

First of all, the fact that only a foreigner would accept the offer you made (and not someone resident in Canada) implies that you are paying below the (Canadian) market wage. Second, don't confuse free trade in goods and free mobility in labour. The two ideas are distinct. I can see several legitimate reasons to restrict the free mobility of labour, but almost none for limitations on free trade. As I understand it, foreign nannies are paid minimum wage but have room & board deducted from this and must pay income taxes on the difference. They (and the employer) make statutory contributions. They can change employers and, of course, are free to return home at any time. This last point makes it hard to claim anyone is exploited. This is not slavery.After working as a nanny for two years, they are entitled to apply for formal immigration to Canada. Riverwind, foreign nannies amount to (almost) unrestricted mobility of labour. If anyone is exploited, it is the Canadian public. Foreign nannies accept poor conditions because they know they can immigrate to Canada as a result. Women with little education and spotty language skills, who would never meet normal immigration criteria, have a way to enter the country. Worse, they leave behind husbands, children for several years and in effect the family is divided when the main purpose of Canada's immigration law is family reunification. Argus had a long thread on the social problems caused by the foreign nanny programme. As you probably know, I'm not a big fan of George Bush, but something he said during the summit made sense. The migrant Mexican workers did jobs that Americans refused to do, and the money they made was usually sent home to help their families in Mexico. I realize that there would be problems, but we should not simply turn our backs on the opportunity. However, they should be paid minimum wage so that Canadians can at least compete for the jobs. They should also have to pay income tax, since they will be enjoying the rights and protection of all citizens while here; and if their behaviour warrants it; eventually citizenship, if that's what they desire.

They are coming here next year. It wasn't a 'support the troops' vest, but a hunting vest, and certainly not something you wear to Mexico! He is representing Canada, and made us look like hicks. A simple white shirt and khakis would be dressed down enough. I go to Tim Hortons all the time, and rarely see anyone in a hunting vest, except maybe during hunting season. If he plans a summit with Cheney, the vest will be fine. Just make sure it's bullet-proof. Since Mr. Harper has denied access to the media, I'm sure they will not be kind to him in the coming months. If he won't keep them informed, or allow them to speak with his MP's, they will have to build on the small snippets of information, and most will probably spin it in a poor light. I know that's another thread, but I think he is going to really regret his closed door policy. As far the press conference at the end of the summit, I still feel that he caved; leaving nothing open for discussion on a topic of vital interest to Canadians. I'm not just talking about those who like to cross-border shop, but the impact that this will have on trade and the movement of goods. He simply appeared like a third wheel in a summit that emphasized and reinforced relations between Mexico and the US. They won; we lost. On a different note, could somebody tell me what 'trolling' is? I'm not computer savvy and have no idea what the term means.

What I find interesting is how Canadians from different political sprectres feel about Mr. Harper's performance so far. What some here view as Lefties, are saying I told you so (guilty as charged), the Right Wing, like Hicksey above; feel that Mr. Harper is not Right Wing enough, and those in the middle, while still taking a wait and see approach, are having second thoughts and looking ahead to the Liberal convention. He tried to be all things to all people, but that didn't work. Now he appears to be just a figment of our imagination, because the brief glimpses we see on TV, do little to reassure us that he is the right person for the job. This latest 'gag order' may be the last straw, and the media will not be kind.

The passport issue will not really affect me because I rarely go to the states, but it could be a devastating blow to companies and individuals conducting business, on both sides of the border. It certainly warranted discussion and Harper throwing up his hands in defeat, did not represent our interests. I know he's trying to mend fences, but ceding power to Mr. Bush is not the way to do that. We come off as pawns.

I have been following the Mexican summit with interest, since I felt that the issues arising from the Fox/Bush/Harper meeting would be of vital interest to Canadians. However, I was disappointed with the outcome, since it appears that we merely caved and Harper did not 'Stand up for Canada' at a time when we really needed him to. I was pleased that an effort was made, no matter how small, to improve our relations with the US, though it would appear that we put more importance on this than our American counterparts. When I read accounts from US papers, the summit to them was about dealing with the migrant worker problem, and Harper was barely given honourable mention. There is an article in the Toronto Star this morning that sums it up well. I tried to provide a link but it didn't work. Perhaps the most important outcome from our perspective, is that Canadians and Americans will require passports when they cross either border. Toronto Star "The problem is only one in five Americans and fewer than 40 per cent of Canadians have a passport and most others wouldn't bother to get a pass that has no other purpose. Correctly, Harper is worried about the economic impact but unwisely seems willing to fold rather than continue campaigning to convince Washington to accept driver's licences made secure with biometrics. ' and: "Despite a joint decision to make the issue a priority, Bush isn't showing the same creative flexibility he's applying to the migrant problem. He's pushing for a solution that's not in Canada's interest and Harper is all but conceding the pass system is now inescapable even though the business communities on both sides of the border are just beginning to mobilize." In his press conference shown last night on CBC, he merely suggested that the US Congress had already decided that passports were necessary and there was nothing that he could do. As to the Ianiero murder, another topic of interest to us, he merely said that no extradition orders were in the works, and I believe that was addressed sometime ago. Finally on softwood lumber, nothing beyond the Liberal deal already on the table. More from Toronto Star Article - "Harper's challenge is not to become Bush's new best friend. Instead, he needs to show that a stable, adult relationship produces demonstrable benefits.That didn't happen here, despite Harper's competent international start. The U.S. is about to win its long-standing argument that Canada should abandon endless — if successful — litigation and negotiate a softwood deal. Equally troubling, a tighter border built on the illusion of security is now almost a certainty." And, I'm sorry, but I can't help myself here...what was up with the hunting vest? Who wears a hunting vest to Mexico?

Argh. You keep ducking the fact he's not just controling the message, but he's restricting access. It's one thing to have everybody singing from the same songbook, as they say, another to slink out the back door. I'm not ducking anything. Unless they have something new and substantive to say, why avail then until the do? They don't need to send the press an itinerary of each persons day and make them available for a press conference in between items. The last I checked Canadians expect more from their elected reprsentatives than just talking to the press. Maybe instead of holding a perpetual press conference Harper would rather have his people doing their jobs. When they accomplish something, then they can stop and pay attention to the media. I like it this way. Thanks for the link Black Dog. I too can understand why Mr. Harper wants to censor his MP's, because frankly there are many who could embarass him if they were allowed to speak. However, IT IS NOT HIS JOB. He does not pay the salaries of his MP's. WE DO. He did not elect his MP's. WE DID. I want to know what their beliefs are, since they will be voting on important matters that affect us all. I don't want reports coming from a PR firm, I want them coming from our ELECTED officials. If he feels that they have nothing intelligent to say, then perhaps we may have to rethink putting them in such important positions. When the next election rolls around, we will remember how little faith the Prime Minister had in their abilities, and will look for candidates WILLING to do their job, and SPEAK for us! I think he's making a big mistake that will come back to bite him in the butt next time around.

Rubbish. Martin (or if you prefer, Chretien) puls a stunt like this, you'd immediately hear the word "dictator" from the same parties currently nodding in aquiesence. Sure, just not here. Cuba, maybe.... What party issues? We're talking about government policy, not internal divisions. I really fail to see how a guy that runs a tight ship is a danger. I think a good leader always makes sure his people are on the same page with him. Considering a lot of the Harper government are inexperienced I think its smart to move forward as he does until he finds he can trust each of them. I think with experience his noose will loosen. Just think where Martin might be if he had done the same thing during his campaign? He might possibly still be our Prime Minister. It is smarter to think before you speak and vetting that with someone else often helps to make sure you get out the message you meant intend to get across. If Martin had done this with his people he might have been reelected despite AdScam. Public figures are always taking the media to court over invasion of privacy, but rarely win, because it is deemed that because they are a public figure, the public has a right to know what they are up to. How much more public are the MPs WE voted into office? If they are not allowed to even talk to us, we might as well have a dictatorship. One leader, one newspaper, one television station, one PR firm keeping us 'informed'. That is not a democracy. Shortly after he was elected, Stephen Harper spoke of his minority victory and the promises he could keep, by stating that it was not like he had 'absolute power'. I found the term odd, because in a democratic country nobody has 'absolute power', even with a majority. Well, he's certainly acting like he has 'absolute power'. You still haven't made a case to me that justifies vilifying anyone for reigning in his staff and making sure they're on message. They can't afford to have rogue MPs in such a small minority government. So there's not going to be a bunch of idiots unintentionally tanking him like Martin had during the election. That's a bad thing? If Martin had done the same its arguable he'd still be our Prime Minister. I think keeping your underlings on topic is the mark of a good party leader. Whether that will translate into him being a good PM is yet to be seen. If you're looking to ditch on Harper for a good reason, rehash Emerson and the senate appointment as those were bad choices and I'd stand with you in demanding Emerson and Senate Man(his name escapes me in my advanced state of exhaustion) be removed from office. There is a difference between reigning in and shutting up. The MP's appear to be running scared and when they do have to give an interview, they are absolutely terrified. I watched Diane Finley on CTV Sunday a while ago, and she looked like she was going to cry. You can read the interview here Carol MacNeil was not rude or did not deliberately try to anagonize, but simple questions were too much for Ms Finley. She just kept bringing up the 1200.00, like that was a cure all. When you read the interview it appears to be somewhat intelligent, but when you watch the interview and Finley's absolute terror, it's rather painful. We've already debated the childcare plan, so will now have to see how it plays out, but when MP's are not allowed to speak their mind; despite the fact that we elected them to speak ours; it creates mindless robots, about to malfunction. It's like watching an episode of the Twilight Zone.