mikedavid00

The traditional definition of marriage has been changed many times; see post #65. And who gets to decide morality? I would argue that "morality" is being violated by those who deny equal rights to all members of society. That's where your ideologically wrong. The people shall have the right to decide. Gay's can have all the same benefits as a married couple. It's the wording that has centimantal value to some Canadians. It belongs to us, not the gov't. The gov't is there to represent us, and instead have played closed door politics with this whole thing. This is undemocratic and wrong. The people shall decide and educate themselves on this issue. Only if we were allowed to vote, you would see studies come out and politics would be engaging for once. But no, lets let inside politics and personal viewpoints of a minority decide the definitional for the greater majority of all its citizens.

How do you know most people wouldn't get informed. People would get informed if they had a chance to make a difference. No one cares to get informed because they don't have a say. Why can't you let your Canadian ways go? Why do you refuse to beleive your fellow citizens can't make a descision and can't think for themselves? Why do you feel that a single persons ideals must be professed upon everyone? Yes they would. And it might suprise you that the majority would be immigrants who are extrememly socially conservative. Look at the only Liberals that voted against SSM. That should be your answer. That is actually not true. Non equal rights for blacks was becoming increadibly unpopular amongst the masses. A higher class, morally superior American had Liberal beleifs. The progression of society in the last century has been based off Liberal fundementals. There were discriminitory bylaws in cities that never went challenged federally. When they finally did, they won. But this was backed by a social shift from the people. Rosa Parks sat at the front of the bus because during those times, it was unfasionable and passe to make blacks go to the back of the bus. It was an old outdated law that people were ignoring. The bus driver told her to get to the back and that's what offended her and started the movement. There were HORDS of white people, probably a majority, on tape who lived in the town saying they felt the laws were unfair and outdated. Only a small group of people were interested in keeping those laws. Slavory ended by iteself. In the later years, you didn't own the slave, they were employed servants. This happened on it's own. And it became very unpopular to actually buy and sell slaves. So laws got passed. Again, if there was a popular vote, things would have turned out the same. Society evolves itself. We certainly don't need a politician of a party dictating to us our society and hwo they feel the climate of our society should run. How dare Trudeau in his charter proclaim that Canada shall be multicultural and uphold our ehtnic values. That was a single man's ideas, NOT OURS. Gay marriage is an issue all of a sudden because society has evolved BY ITSELF and is ready to accept it. Again though, this is a vote for the people, not politicians.

Again, Anyone that educates themselves on these issues will see how utterly rediculous some of these things are. I just don't want these things being left in the hands of these politicians. I'd rather we vote for Kyoto. Or that group of business executives. Spending money on Kyoto is as good as flusing money down the toilet. I like the CPC's plan. It's realistic and doens't cost us anything. Around electoin time, Dion will have to change around his platform and focus on something else. Either way, he's not getting into power.

Well I have the answer to that. Let's let 200,000 people settle into Toronto and find work. That really helps the situation. Instead of 10 people going for 1 job, lets have 80 people go for 1 job (true story).

We've seen net full time job losses for years now since 2002 with few exceptions. It's not all because of the dollar value. Having a high dollar value is something that we should strive for. Yes certain sectors will suffer, but as a whole I can't understand how anyone would suggest that we should financially play second fiddle the US. The higher our dollar, the better the lives for each Canadian. The lower our dollar, the more we become like Mexico and the worse our lives become. It's just factual. Of course, you'll have all the intillectualls coming out and claiming bizarre formulas of why our country should be weak and poor. Self hating attitude I guess.

I feel guilty that I don't go to Church. But isn't this all the reason to let citizens vote for some of our own laws?

It's the same in IT. As soon as a woman applies to a job, everyone tries their hardest to hire her. Men like having women around. I would wager to say, that when a team is all women, they are the ones that keep the men out. 'Ladies night out', girls only gyms, 'womens issues', etc. Belinda has helped form a females coalition so she can have a group backing her for her political future in the party. Just a guess. Time will tell.

Well it doesn't help when the women in the Liberal party form a womens coalition for womens issues which is lead by Belinda Stronach. I know that is her clever way of getting herself in power as i'm sure she's going to continue to get herself in power over the years. Politics is not an old boys club. There's just more boys. If there were more girls, it would be a girls club.

She did try to stop the corruption with in the Liberal party and bring democrocy to it. She lobbied for the 'one member, one vote' system that would have ensured Ignatieff/Rae a victory. She lost though. She deserves credit for that. I agree. The status quo is proven not to work. It's been proven over and over and over again. It's proven to help those that are less qualififed, which, in the end, is *not* fair to everyone so it's self defeating.

Less women run at the ground level for politics and take less memberships. More men run at the lower level and thus, more men get elected. Let's just all acknowledge that there is an 'opposite of sexes'. Men and women are different. Let's not over complicate things.

Well I know that Belinda has been campaigning for this so I think it might have to do with inside politics. It's also proven I believe that women don't go into politics simply due to the opposite of the sexes and nothing more. Aha, that's why half of Swedish MPs are women - Swedish women must be men. When you setup a status quo, you will filter out some of the best candidates for the job or position. This is factual and proven. ie: When you have a status quo that says half of police must be women, the men who got filtered out were more likely to be better candidates than the women who got accepted. This same principle applies for Universities, jobs, and anything else where there is a status quo system.

'Riverwind' should be the one deciding. Don't you see? It's the bigger picture of the dictatorship style of leadership that we've been so used to.

This is the perfect example of why gov't by referendum is a bad idea. The US does not dictate Canadian drug policy - however, Canadian policy makers must consider the the broader implications before changing any laws. Legalizing pot in Canada would have a negative impact on cross border trade since the US would continue to enforce its laws no matter what Canada did. Furthermore, the existence of a legal market for the substance in Canada would provide cover for illegal operators who wanted to export to the US. IOW - legalizing pot is a complex issue that requires someone to be fully informed before they could make a sensible choice in a referendum. Don't you see what you are doing though? You are not trusting in the ability of your fellow citizens to learn the same as the points your outlined. It would be an issue talked about at work and through 'NO' campaigns. The country would most likely decide that we do not want to ba a nation (there's that word again) of legalized drugs. Why is it that you don't feel Canadian citizens are not 'able' enough to rationalize these things? Why do you feel you must 'profess to the little people'? I felt the same when I was younger, but this is not a way to run our country view your fellow citizens.

This is the perfect example of why gov't by referendum is a bad idea. The US does not dictate Canadian drug policy - however, Canadian policy makers must consider the the broader implications before changing any laws. Legalizing pot in Canada would have a negative impact on cross border trade since the US would continue to enforce its laws no matter what Canada did. Furthermore, the existence of a legal market for the substance in Canada would provide cover for illegal operators who wanted to export to the US. IOW - legalizing pot is a complex issue that requires someone to be fully informed before they could make a sensible choice in a referendum. Whoah hold on there. There is a differnce between decriminalization and legalization. The latter is what Layton and Ignatieff would love to have. That would mean that the gov't would basically be creating a new tabacco industry. Decriminlization upholds the right of induviduals to consume a subastance of ones own choice as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights. This would mean that if you were caught with it, you wouldn't have a criminal record. Most states and provinces have already decriminilzed pot. I know it's complex, but they say Alaska has the 'right' policy which protects all rights. I don't know what's going on these days though: http://norml.com/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4522

wrong. it's vital to our manufacturing economy, not our resource based economy. What manufacturing sector?

That is proven false. (more idealism)

Well I know that Belinda has been campaigning for this so I think it might have to do with inside politics. It's also proven I believe that women don't go into politics simply due to the opposite of the sexes and nothing more.

Bravo! You can't let in an abundance of people that where only 44% of them are finding work within the first 2 years of them being here. We can't be spending $250,000 on each refugee's health and legal services. This effects healthcare, economy, grid lock, and social services being clogged up for Canadians who have paid into the system and need the safety net. Screening more carefully costs more money on our part. We spending 2.5 billion a year to employe gov't workers to screen these people. The faster they get in the country, the cheaper it is. If you cut the time in half that they are allowed to come, you pretty much have to double the money we spend on this program. And sure they might come here faster, but it doesn't helf when after 5 years of them being here 52% are still living in poverty due to lack of jobs. And then there's the social services that we have to provide them. The thing is, if the CPC tries to screen people more carefully, they will jepordize the immigrant vote they are trying to get so they can get a majority. This is why our current parlimentary system is beginning to fail. The country has been split up far too much into groups of minorities who vote along party lines. The Liberals are the ones who did this to us and now we're in too deep. If you pull that funding, then you'll lose votes. The gov't funds the ethnic newspapers. The Liberals started this funding. Thus, there is a pro-liberal spin in each ethnic news paper. We already spends tones of money in programs to help new immigrants find jobs and get settled. However, the dirty secret is that we don't HAVE jobs for these people. We have low paying factory work and part time jobs, but that's all we have. I totally agree. The Liberals have split ethnic minorities into their own groups and pander for there votes. That's why almost every seat the Libearls got elected in the last election was a high immigrant area. Now if harper wants a majority gov't, is it in his best interest to work with these people, or against them? This is the situation we're in. And this is why you aren't seeing any action being taken in this area.

You have to weigh the costs in doing this. The cost of trying to get carcinogens out of the earth is unexplored territory and still debatable. This is not a time to be expirmementing. Your views aren't well thought out enough. We spend 100B on healthcare and 160B on social services. Along with 80B on schooling. Then there's transport, security and other essential gov't dept. we spend on. That is about all of our budget. Now you wnat to start another huge boondoggle to go after a debatable, unproven, innitiative to cut down emmisisions? You want to spend another 100B to save 10B annually for something that might not even cut down cancer rates. We are taxed and spending at our limits right now. You can't spend $1 to hopefully save 10 cents. You do know that our liver creates 85% of our cholestoral and our diet is responsible for 15%. Medicine can drastrically reduce what the liver creates. You are going by 'what you heard', hype, and personal opinion, but you aren't carefully researching the facts and truth of these matters. It's this wild ad-hoc way of governing that is going to get us in second world status. How about we not let in people into the country who are elder, sick, and ailing.. and won't be paying into the system? That is very logical and factual. Not hype and rumors. You can never prove numbers to back your ideas. They are just a 'hunch' of yours. It's your personal views of what makes logic to you. It's too anecdotal, too expensive, and not proveable. When the US does this with the food, we should do it too. As far as the environment goes, we just don't have the money at this point. (it really is true.. the country does not have the money to spend any kind of money that will result in change of the environment..) or healthcare. I agree. The average young Canadian is getting by with a string of customer service jobs that are low paying beause we have too many people looking for the same job. (factual). Well we're going to have to stop giving the $9,000,000,000 it costs Canadians in services each to bring in the 36,000 refugees we take in. We're goign to have to stop paying out $3,000,000 to corrupt CEO's of crown corperations who quit their jobs because they were caught spending $45,000 on their credit cards on lavish expeses. We're going to have to stop spending billions of dollars on international Kyoto credits that have been useless in reducing our greenhouse emmisions, meanwhile, the US and China officially pulls out of Kyoto. We're going to have to stop giving $37,000,000 settlements to people who are claiming false lawsuits when Canadians who have died from tainted blood or got sick from our own gov't . Now there are more law suits coming it seems from 3 other Syrians that are in teh works. Right now I am watching CPAC vote on whether to let in 125 Vietnamese refugees that are living in the safe Phillipeans. Dion just voted for this. This would be a full state sponsored refugee where we would bring them over here. Yesterday they said while their stories are compelling, they do not meet true refugee criteria. Non the lest, it seems to be getting a unanamous vote from all parties in order to 'not offend' the vietnamese minorities so they can get votes. This has got to stop. This is killing our country and will bankrupt us if this continues. We are spending so much, that we can only afford to take away small nudges of tax over a long period of time. If immigration and refugee status continues in the out of control manner that it is, you will see us loose first world status in another 10 years. What you are suggesting is not possible becuase we are spending so much. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem. This will hold us back. I fully agree. But you really have to understand the fact that we are spending 60% more on social services than we are on healthcare itself. The majority of our taxes go into other peoples pockets. Pensions for seniors won't even be there anymore. The social climate in Canada is that you will get crucified if cut 10 million dollars from a useless womens program. People think that money falls from the sky. I don't think the public including most here are very well educated on the reality of govt's income and how much it spends. I would love to cut programs left, right, and center, and reduce corperate taxes, but I could very well get voted out of office becuase a parlimenatry system is not functional. The average Canadian, like yourself, are interested more in abstract 'idealisms' rather than the reality of the situation. Becuase we are in a 'situation' right now.

I said there is a small tight knit communitty. Basically all the families know each other. I'm not talking about a Toronto community where they would have their own Mosque. And you are listing the poorest areas in Ottawa. Did you know that 1 out of 4 immigrans in Ottawa are refugees? BTW: if a visitot went to those areas listed, they might not see any arab poeple at all becaue they are in such a small minority. (3%?) But If i tell you to come here to Mississauga and you'll see Islamic Pakistani's you WILL SEE IT EVERYWHRE. Don't go around talking like Ottawa has all these ethnic communities when it doesn't.

The cards don't stack in his favor that he was tortured. He simply can't provide the burden of proof. and maybe get a nice fat government job somewhere. That's it though. He's playing with your emotions people, all to get a nice big chunk of money. He's an opportunist at best. I don't feel he is entitled to a job at the gov't in any way, shape, or form. His own people will hire him here in Toronto. He is taking everyone for a ride.. i'm still waiting for my Syrian friend to logon to MSN so I can ask him about Arar and then peope will see what the community thinks of him.

Yeah but everyone has to agree on how the questionis asked. The idea is that websites and media would get an in depth on the issue and Canadians could take part and weight the pro's and con's. I would choice #2 and I feel that if it was put to a referedum, people might be suprised at the outcome.

Yeah the Americans have no clue what they are doing. Canadians got it right. We know how to function.. (forget about our own citizens dying on medical waiting lists). Vive le Canada!

Of course that's only for Christians. The other minoritty Canadian religions have absolutely no stance on SSM? Look at the people in the Liberal party who voted against SSM last week.

People in Canada vote against parties, not for them. They say this is because the average Canadian has no faith with politicians in general. Better to trust the devil you know, then the devil you don't. Also, a lot of Canadians are simply not informed with a lot of issues or have not developed the skill to be able to have an opinion. Thus, they are made to think that they have no say so don't bother getting involved with discussion. Why? Becuase they don't. Is it time that we start to give votes back to the people of Canada instead of letting politicians and judges determine our future? For instance, it is not up to my elected official to determine whether pot should be legal or taxed. This affects everyone and it shall be up to the citizens if we want to live in a country where pot is legal. They have done this in the US in a couple of states and it's always a 45/55 vote. The people decide. That's democracy. And they have decided against it. I feel that since I can remeber, our elected officials have been over-stepping their role as gov't officials. They've started to dictate. It's troubling when a co-worker from mainland China tells me that our politics is just like China's: everythign happens behind closed doors and people have no say. If Canadian citizens were to vote on propositions each year, like for fixed election dates, or electoral reform, immigration, then it would encourage citizens to learn about the issue at hand. It would create discussion at work and people would learn about their own country. Yes there would be commericals saying 'Say YES to prop 215!'. But it would be fun. And maybe, just maybe, Canadians could feel for ONCE, they had some sort of say in our country. And maybe we could even stop the expectation that all politicians are bad because they'll start to work for us the people and not their dictator style 'visions of Canada'. But how do we get there? Is it even possible?