blueblood

If he has that long. Right now he controls the timing because he has the lead in the polls. By fall that could change and the Opposition might want to pull the plug. The longer Harper has in office, the better it is for him, people are getting more and more comfortable with him. he knows what he's doing.

Privatization to what? It has no assets. Why can't the gov't get out of it? The MB gov't pulled the plug on MTS, why can't the gov't pull the plug on the Wheat Board? The board would become a marketing firm, and a big one at that. Remember it has 20% of worldwide share, that would be gold for a private company and considering grain going up, why not. Hell make it a corporation.

I have no idea if he is holding off. I guess we'll know if he calls a bye-election. Still, it could be this week or next depending on if he thinks that the polling numbers are the best for him right now. Remember, Harper is known for his stragical prowess, he knows what he is doing, mark my words he'll wait till spring of 09 to call an election.

Under WTO rules, the Canadian Wheat Board is an illegal state trading enterprise the minute it loses its monopoly. I doubt very much that dual marketing will exist. Looks like it's privatization time then, don't worry with the large support it has, it won't die.

This poll was completed before the shooting. It would have taken into account the Dion/May deal as far timing went. Those polls are more volatile than a tank of anhydrous ammonia, up down up down. no wonder harper wants to wait a long time.

I'm not talking about passing another law, I'm saying they shouldn't be selling guns in urban areas anymore and for city dwellers to start turning their guns in. This is by no means going to stop gang violence and illegal gun trade, it was never meant to, this is to put the brakes on normal people who legitimately go out and buy guns legally and due to their irresponsibility and lapse of sanity cause the needless death of people. The Dawson college shooting was with a legal gun, the Kim Walker thing was with a legal gun, Taber AB. I think was with legal guns. Kim Walker claimed his murder was in self defence (and I see his point entirely), but look where it got him. In Canada, the way it works now, even if you shoot someone in alleged or real self defence it's off to the klink. Even if making urban people give up their guns saves only a couple lives, the program works, it's better to have a few pissed off people than dead people. If country people started proving to be irresponsible firearm owners and gun related deaths out in the country took off, I'd turn in my guns. I don't see how a person who goes out and buys a 9mm for home protection is a responsible firearm owner, he's out to kill somebody. My firearm is for pest control, and a huge discount on meat during the late fall and winter time. Due to the fact that they had no guns was why the people of one plane were able to thwart their plan of ramming the plane into another highly populated building.

Actually what happened today was over a girl. So I guess you don't have a point. In fact you never did. And if he never had a gun in the first place no one would have died.

People kill people..... There was a time not so long ago that I worried for my son's life and my life because of an abusive relationship I was in. I can tell you I feel for certain that if the fellow who was abusing me had access to a gun, I would not be here today. There is this concept in society, it is the attitude that we need weapons to protect ourself from those who would harm us... The question is not about gun control and who should have one, or limiting only certain people to use guns... The question should be why do we feel we require them? I felt I required one because I was not being protected, that was the only time in my life where I felt that i may have had the need for one. Instead of getting a gun and taking shooting lessons, I removed myself to feel safe. We no longer have to hunt to survive, we have farms, we have all forms that provide us with our needs, and we need each other to provide for each other. If people want to wield a gun and feel the "SPORTING" edge of killing Bambi grab an action shooting game to play on your computer, or play station. We no longer have to fight a physical war, we have computer's that can take away everything we own by someone who could live on the moon for all we know. April 16th, 2007 is a dark sad day, North America as a whole continent is facing VIOLENCE as a growing trend, it is not shrinking it is growing and all people look to do is try to "justify" having weapons? The only monsters I believe we have as human beings are those who are not heard. We are all too consumed with our own lives to care about what could possibly be going wrong across the street, with a friend, with a co-worker, or even with a relative. Everyone needs to feel safe and have Validation without weapons. For whatever reason people commit violence it (I Feel) is due to them having the feeling of being powerless, either from their childhood (ghosts in the closet) or because of a situation they have tried to deal with, but no one has heard them or recognized the problem. We have to validate each other by listening, and watching and have the ability to recognize a problem and deal with it as understanding adults, do you need a weapon for this? Guns should not be around at all, in doing so you eliminate the possibility of tragedies. GUNS Suck....... I feel for you that you were in such a horrible relationship, men who conduct themselves in such a manner have no class and no honor and do not deserve to be referred to as men. Did you try going to the police? That guy should be in jail, society has no place for people like him. I'm more familiar with the RCMP, if the officer gave you the cold shoulder, one call to a Staff Sargeant or an Inspector would have seen that officer doing latrine duties for the musical ride for the rest of his career and probably that ex of yours in the klink. An officer's #1 job is to protect life, and as your life was probably in danger, to sluff that off is a derilection of duty and should be severely punished.

That's really as far as I'm reading. Tell it to the 30 some that got it today in virgia. So people should be carrying guns to class? I'd hate to see what would happen concerning a dispute over a girl. Why did that guy who shot up the class buy a gun in the first place? What happened today proves my point.

No, that is a poor line of thinking. The only thing they are in danger of is themselves. Owning a gun just for protection from another person is textbook irresponsible firearm ownership. People who think like that should not be given guns in the first place. In Canada owning a firearm is a privelege not a right. Maybe if the cops hands weren't tied, they'd be able to go after the street gangs and H.A. who stockpile illegal guns. But lots of 1st degree murders are comitted with legal guns. Giving everyone guns and a having a protect yourself attitude will turn this country into the wild west of the late 1800's and I don't think we want to go there. Responsible firearm owners out in the country are paying the price because city dwellers want to arm themselves to the teeth from "threats" and are proving time and again to be irresponsible firearm owners.

You can buy ammunition for guns that are over 100 years old still, they still make model 94 30-30 ammo. It's been demonstrated time and again that city people are typically not fit to own guns. Most city people go to outfitters when they go out to the country for hunting, for them it's like a vacation, for me it's a walk out the door and a stroll out in the ravine. Where is a city person going to encounter a coyote, or other varmint? They don't, it's just asking for bad news having them have guns.

You sound like the kind of person who will be liberal until you get mugged. IOW, it is one thing to be a theoretical liberal and quite another to understand the meaning of a liberal society.Returning to the OP, the pressure for Draconian gun legislation is only a tragic event or two away. Those who want to maintain access to firearms, particularly people in rural areas, better get a handle on a workable and politically defendable compromise. In Canada, the attitude to guns is becoming like the attitude to cigarettes. Now for the rural side of things... It just goes to show that urban people should not be owning firearms, they have absolutely no use for them. I'll blast the odd coyote, racoon, skunk, bear, seriously messed up cow, moose/deer for venison meat. That sort of thing. We just don't have serious crime out in the rural areas, gun laws that are passed just inferiorate us, why should we be punished because city boys can't be responsible with firearms? Rural people have hunting rifles and shotguns which only hold 5-6 shells tops, we have no use for say a C8 or AK-47. City people should have their guns flat out confiscated, they don't have animal predator/pest problems. If they want to hunt, an outfitter will gladly provide them with an appropriate rifle. City people buying firearms for protection is flat out scary as that means you are buying a gun to kill somebody not something. Rural people have been responsible firearm owners since the frontier days and will continue, it's part of our "culture"

How many varieties of sustainable edible plant life is self pollinatiting or hermaphroditic naturaly in nature? The important ones that we live off of.

There is nothing stopping the biofuel plants from buying from the CWB right now. Except the fact the biofuel companies don't want to pay high prices for grain, they want the cheapest grain they can find. If its ethanol, they will probably import U.S. corn, or maybe use Canadian Wheat, which ever is cheapest at the time. They aren't going to pay more than they have to. Do you have any idea how much U.S. corn is now? It is sky high, there aren't enough acres to meet demand as the U.S. has a much more powerful biofuel industry than we do. It makes more sense for me to truck my grain myself to the nearest biofuel plant, than to haul my grain to the terminal, sell it to the CWB, pay 1 dollar a bushel in rail fees, and then get screwed over by the pool effect of it. I am eliminating 3 middlemen by trucking it myself. The CWB only works in an export situation and should reorganize itself in that regard. The only people who will be screwed over with the CWB overhaul is CN and CP rail, and maybe some processors in Ontario, and Timmy from Algeria who will have to pay more to get his boat load of wheat.

Now now now now, the CWB is going to be relegated to a different status as a marketing firm that's it that's all, it won't die out due to voluntary participation, enough people want both. As a farmer that's the biggest bunch of malarkey I've ever heard. The CWB has 20% of the worldwide export wheat market share, they'll be fine trust me. Why don't eastern Canadian farmers have to follow their guidelines? The CWB is basically eastern Canadian colonialism. We are forced to sell to the CWB which means we have to haul to the elevators and have to put up with the malarkey from the rail companies. Without the CWB that means plants will have to move out to the prairies to compete with the U.S., and the railways get cut out and they might have to shape up in order to compete. I'd sooner haul my grain to a biofuel plant by super B than be at the mercy of rail companies. This also means Timmy from Algeria is going to have to cough up more dough in order to compete. The CWB can be a marketing firm and survive, there are some farmers that will still export their stuff coming due to the sky high grain prices that are coming. The CWB has to be made voluntary in order for our biofuel sector to thrive. This in turn boosts the Canadian economy. Under the Liberal CWB and handout system farmers have been poorer, ever since the tories took the helm we are finally getting some positive returns, it looks like the Liberals won't get elected in rural Canada ever. Liberals should have no say in the Ag sector, everything they do screws us over.

No, no seat no spot, I'd even go to say have official party status in the HOC to participate in the debate. Why not let the leaders of other parties in the official debate then, how about all the independant MPs then too. Just because May is making a buzz in the media does not give her the right to participate, put people in the seats. Was the reform party in the debate in 88?

Not flooding the market with subsidized foods is our only hope of dealing with the millions that starve, let them be able to grow their own food. All GM foods are modified for is to make spraying applications easier 1 spray vs. 5. It's not poison. Why would they make it harmful, they'd get their ass sued to kingdom come. Stupid fearmongering hippies. Those cows when they are getting "finished" at the feedlots are in pens and are fed basically straight grain and don't move around, that's why they are so fat. And as you know the fat gives the meat it's flavor. Angus beef has a "marbling" quality to it. I personally don't use growth hormones, the calves get shipped every fall/winter. People have been eating beef forever, there's nothing wrong with it.

For Us skiing means going down the North facing slope on a river valley, not quite fernie but it does in a pinch. It does quite well for a place in MB and eastern Sask. I wouldn't recommend it for someone who skis regularly in Alberta.

This is false....no bees does not mean no food. It means more expensive food. Bee husbandry is part of agribusiness. Bzzzzzzzzzzz... True enough, I was oversimplifying to get a point across, but I believe it could cause more starvations in poor countries if western nations had to curtail aid shipments. Higher prices would make it harder on the poor in richer nations. Oh come off it. A few years ago it was killer bees who were going to cause mass attacks and the downfall of the world and now it's a lack of them that's going to do us in. Reminds me of the "New Ice Age" ----> "Global Warming" ----> "Climate Change" one size fits all hysteria. Self pollination and hermaphroditic plants...

Yup. Get's me to Kananaskis in an hour from my place. Where else in Canada do you have the recreational opportunities an hour from your doorstep that you do in Calgary. Ok, maybe Vancouver. Maybe... Montreal and Toronto both have recreation an hour away. As for Vancouver..... the only reason it took you an hour to get to recreation is because you walked there. Well that depends on the type of recreation for me, if I wanted to shoot a deer or fire up the sled all I need to do is walk outside. I have skiing a half hour north and south (not anywhere near as good as Alberta), fishing 10 mins,. away. But if I want to see the latest movie or go to an Olive garden for example I have a 5hr. drive to the nearest "large" city. For pro hockey I might as well forget it.

That's a good comparison. Harper confronting the *scary, scary* against Dion dealing with Adscam. Neither Dion nor Harper have much mojo - they're both policy wonks. All things considered, Dion is sexier. He's thinner and less vain - Dion wears his glasses in public.But reading through this thread (and why do we have two threads - this one was started first), all that I can find are smarmy, whining complaints. Tories are bad losers, and bad winners. ---- If you don't think the environment will be a major issue in the future, then you don't understand economics, ecology or Canadian politics. On a simple level, let me try this argument: as people get richer, they are cleaner. Canadians are rich. IOW, Dion is on the right side of this issue (and Harper knows this too because he replaced Ambrose with Baird). Quibble as the posters on this thread choose, dems da simple facts. As to Dion's integrity, there's an old tradition of stepping aside to let a party leader win a by-election. And where was Harper's integrity in making Fortier a cabinet minister or accepting Emerson across the floor? On the whole, I think Dion will better Harper on the broad strokes of the future. Dion is a better thinker. We have yet to see Harper appeal to people's better angels. Canadians should take pride: they have created such a society where such men of diverse origin debate in for Canadian votes. Harper may well win more votes in Quebec than Dion. And Dion more votes in Ontario than Harper. The thing is both you and I know that Canada isn't as rich as it could/should be, we don't have as much money as we're letting on, and I think that is flat out dangerous. There's cleaning up after ourselves and there's crippling the economy, I think Dion will cripple the economy to do it (Carbon tax, NEPII), I think Harper has a smart plan in the clean air act in itself (actually reading it, it is very fair). I think some of Harper's moves have been shady too, and I don't agree with them the same as Dion's. call me Polynewbie but I'm still dead convinced this is a plot by Kennedy to overhaul the party and take it back to the centre. The real clash will be in about 8-10 yrs. after Harper gets his majority mandate and goes into yet another election.

I think the onus is on those who want to be idiots for leaving. They should realize that if they want to be taken seriously they should be posting something somewhat intelligent. If the conspiracy theorists want to be taken seriously and want to engage in "debate" over their what I think is nonsense, maybe they should realize this isn't the forum to do it in and get off their ass and go elsewhere themselves. IMO this forum is a place to debate left vs. right politics and thinking, which I enjoy and get a lot out of, both sides have their extremists but that's something we have to put up with. Figleaf has it right here, (holy crap I agree with him on something). The "wingnuts" should censor themselves if they want to be taken seriously and realize when their opinions are not "welcome".

I think that the Canada Health Act setting wages would not be accepted by the provinces. Nor would interference in the university system as such. I think provinces might accept help in recruitment in the U.S., moving expense help, bonuses, work certificates for American family members and the like. If the provinces want to screw over the people out of the healthcare system, they're the ones that have to face the voting public. This helps out everyone, the wait times would be reduced, the private boys get to make more profit, doctors get a competitive wage.

This is where I'm going to do a flip flop of sorts concerning my "less gov't interference" stance... -If the gov't doesn't want doctors practicing in the U.S. they should impose a stiff penalty on graduates from Canadian med. school. They are taking spots from those who would practice in Canada. If one wants to practice medicine in the U.S. there's Universities down south and around the world. -Open up the private sector and institute a gov't run insurance agency to help pay for it. Having people who can easily afford med. care in the public system takes the spot of those that don't, it's like a boardroom of a fortune 500 company having a business lunch at the soup kitchen for homeless people. -Have the canada health act set the salaries for health care workers across both private and public sectors at the average healthcare worker rate in the U.S. and adjust the wages for inflation. That way the private sector can't siphon healthcare workers out of the public sector. I think this should help out our healthcare sector big time.

he's competing with harper, the grand poobah of strategy in Cdn. politics. Scott Reid got torn in half over this on MDL. How is Dion going to explain to Canadians that the only way to honor Kyoto without tanking the economy is to send billions of dollars overseas? I like Harper's strategy, I just wish he had more charisma (Danny Williams type). When Harper has more charisma than Dion, there is a problem. Dion had an advantage over Harper walking into Ottawa, He's leader of a very popular centrist party. He's been handed popular support on a plate, what does he do, he squanders it? Harper on the other hand had to work his tail off to shed this scary scary image. Sure the libs had sponsorship, but I'd take that over being a scary radical right wing facist party (according to a sizable portion of urban voters) Harper and co. will spin this very well, hell the NDP is spinning this well too. Maybe having a lame duck as a leader is excellent strategy on the part of Gerard Kennedy to get to the PMO; back up the crappiest leader, get the party destroyed in the next election, completely overhaul the party with Gerard at the top, who during Dion's tenure will have gained some exposure in a high profile critic post. But I like Harper's strategy of waiting till 09 to call an election; more time to conduct popular policies, bang the Afghan mission is over, the troops arrive back home with full media coverage, bang the budget comes out soon after riddled with pre-election goodies --> Tory majority. I think that is Harper's strategy. The question is how long will the Libs hold onto Dion, from what is going on in the media it's like the Liberals want him to be unpopular. The other question is how long will Kennedy wait to spring his trap?