Michael Hardner

This kind of attitude is exactly the problem. You can't pay people to be better parents. It's not lack of money, it's lack of spirituality.

No that is not why we outlaw child porn. We outlaw it because filming it is a crime, and because it is generally disgusting. No, it is not. You are also confusing correlation and causation. There are no such grounds shown here yet. A loving homosexual couple may well be as fit to parent as a loving heterosexual couple. There's no statistical way to say they're not. And I think that common sense should tell us that either couple is fit to be parents.

I think he means that Canadians generally didn't trust Klein to do the same.

I want to add a counter-example that might be relevant to today's election: Ontario experimented with some right-of-centre and left-of-centre governments in the 1990s. The political hang-over is still with us.

Are you saying that the provinces need more power simply because they have less than the federal government does ? How does that argument apply to cities under provinces ? Once again, people are arguing that a certain political infrastructure is "fair" because it benefits their advancing point of view. Please don't open up this debate in THIS thread too. It's not about representing the people, it's about power. Pure proportional representation in parliament (something I oppose by the way) would certainly represent the people. And.. it would result in a Liberal-NDP coalition almost every time. Would you be happy then, with the people all represented and so forth ?

My local candidate and websites for other local candidates were my source. It's not that Free Votes are dangerous, it's that a CPC PM can enact them to satisfy his MPs even when those MPs do not represent the views of average Canadians. Free Votes, Referrenda, Proportional Representation are all the holy grails of democracy, if you believe their proponents. But oddly enough, they best serve the leaders of the parties that propose them.

Me too. I haven't voted Liberal in a long long time. But Martin seems to me the kind of person who could possibly map out a true "third way", ie. truly effective and efficient government providing superior services at a relatively low cost. And I also believe he's smart enough to realize that the West needs some real representation in Ottawa and that he can't provide that himself.

There's something to what you say, but let me ask you: What do you think Chretien would have done I think he looked the other way. But again, there was only so much he could do without resigning the party completely. Chretien was the leader, and this was how he operated. I think he had his lawyer's hat on there. What constitutes "knowing", anyway. We all "know" what's going on, but do we actually know the facts ? If he had any brains at all, he kept at arms length from all of the nastiness, knowing that it would come back to him later.

Thanks for the post, DAC. I think we'll be seeing another, hopefully more positive, approach to redefining federal-provincial relationships very soon, whether the Libs or CPCs win.

There's a lot of talk about how people are unenthusiastic about the candidates and apathetic about the election in general. In my view, the three main candidates were the best we've had in years. ( The last election's main candidates were Chretien, Day and McDonough, remember ? ) Here's what I thought were the strengths of the main contenders: Harper He mostly took the high road during the campaign. He had faith in the voters. He showed intelligence and thoughtfulness all the way through. Layton He had seemingly boundless energy and optimism. He showed that he's not too idealistic to be pragmatic. He correctly pointed to the shortcomings of his adversaries without going into the gutter. Martin He rose to the challenge of this election, campaigning like a man twenty years younger. He acknowledged mistakes, while remaining proud of what his government did achieve.

Well, he met with the provinces and set up stable funding and the framework for future funding, and discussions. How so ? There have been charges laid in the sponsorship scandal haven't there ? Isn't that enough progress to warrant calling an election to ask for a mandate ? Accusing politicians of political opportunism sounds to me like accusing fish of swimming. Not to be cynical, but even Reform had days where it unashamedly grabbed at the brass rign. I don't know about scare mongering. The CPC did a good job of giving him things to talk about.

Maybe not, but he still should explain his position. I only wanted an answer. I didn't care as much what it was. No. That's the whole point There is no clarity. Only vague ideas that there will be more democracy and free votes without explanations as to what specific changes this will entail. The Liberals have been quite open about their scare tactics. I asked the local candidate his position on a variety of issues that might come up in free vote.

Who is my "demonic dude" ? Are you referring to Harper here or Martin ? I don't agree with capital punishment and I think even if I did, I would acknowledge the fact that it shouldn't be the kind of thing that a government introduces quickly or without discussion. It needs a well-thought out restructuring because it has some problems. He could have hid the scandal, but instead he insisted on a public airing-out of the affair. I don't think he has "milked" the system for personal gain. For these actions, he's being punished. Chretien would have deftly kicked everything under the rug. I think that statement is a little extreme. I'm reasonable enough to acknowledge that he has been tarnished by the scandal. But he wasn't the PM so exactly how much could he have done about it ? I think Harper has done his best to hammer home the fact that the scandal was a bad thing for Canada, and people believe that. But it's not enough for me to vote for Harper as PM. He's a politician and a theoretician who needs a little more time in public before he gets the chance to lead.

How much is the average voter expected to do ? I emailed the guy, I went to his website. Nothing. If I have to look for answers that I still can't find, am I allowed to say the answer is hidden ?

This is true. Bureaucracies are central to our government, yet we still don't know how to manage them. My teacher friends have told me stories about the additional bureaucracy that Mike Harris added to the Ministry of Education. There was supposed to be a criminal check done on all teachers, but it's not going well, apparently. Lately, they've asked teachers to volunteer their secret criminal past so that they may be dismissed. Hmm.... McGuinty's new bureaucracies will fare no better. What's the answer ? A top to bottom reworking of everything the system does, with buy-in from unions and management and the government, yet it must be done by people outside the system with no agenda. Oh yes, and they have to be superhumanly smart and fair. Can it be done ? The first politican that achieves this will be rewarded like no other.

Just ask ? Isn't this an election ? Shouldn't they be telling us ? Anyway, I did ask my local CPC candidate what his views were, through the email on his website but I got no reply. If the agenda isn't hidden, the information structure for the CPC to explain how the local candidates will vote is just not there. So maybe it's a murky agenda.

The scandal is a giant black mark against the Liberals, no doubt. But is it worth taking a gamble on Harper because of it ? Every party misleads the voters to a degree - even Reform. There are worse things that could happen. Capital punishment in Canada, massive auto plant closures, and a poorly thought out health system restructuring project come to mind. I'm going with Martin this time, even with the scandals. He's the only one of the three major candidates with substantial experience in government, business and law to effect real change and I think he would actually like to try it.

iamcanadian had a good point: Harris did exactly what he said he would do. But the way in which he did it was very un-Ontarian. I personally don't think he was a very good manager, but he had an excellent publicity machine and excelled at politics. But that can only last so long. People expected government to continue working normally at those lower tax levels. In the end, his attitude and lack of ability caught up with him. Every few years, though, when the conservative leadership is vacated again, his friends leak something to the press saying he's mulling over a run. But the polls don't show him to be very popular any more.

The CPC advocates free votes in its policy, but its members are less than forthcoming on their views on social issues. So the agenda is to allow free votes on issues, but the voter who supports the CPC might have to guess as to his/her CPC candidate's position, as it's ... uh ... "not in public view".

You're right. That was a bad example. I agree that single-parent family versus two-parent family is inferior. That's just common sense. It's wrong to attribute a cause based on those stats. Common sense. I agree with this too. I'm sticking to my point about stats. But in some cases, it's just common sense. I don't think it's been statistically proven that smoking causes cancer either, but common sense (and biological experiments) have probably proven it.

I agree. I'm a pacifist, and I believe an anti-missile space net would truly be a defensive weapon that could save lives. It's not debatable. North Korea has launched test missiles that have landed on outer Alaskan Islands. This is the kind of cold war we need - not a buildup of missiles but of shields. I think the NDP should be behind this, rather than just taking their standard fallback position against the US.

But the cause has not been. You therefore can't say that homosexuality or single-parent homes are the cause of the situation. It would be like saying criminals are more likely to be non-white, therefore they should have to pay more for theft insurance, etc. You don't have any evidence of anything. You have a correlation. I can show you correlations that show that the number of telephone poles in your neighbourhood is a good indicator of your likelihood to commit crime. If I plant a telephone pole in front of your house, will that make you steal ? Of course not. There may be many reasons that homosexuals are more likely to be in abusive relationships, but you can't blame it on the homosexuality, based on the evidence. I'm not sure that that's true. There's probably a correlation between youth crime and poverty. There's probably a greater correlation between youth crime and whether your family was involved in crime. But unless you can show causation, you're only supposing that you know the cause. I wouldn't support blaming any German alive in 1945 for World War II either. You're basically saying "if the theory I'm trying to prove is incorrect, then correct it" But my point is that you can't use correlations as a basis for establishing cause. Obviously there are many factors in producing a young criminal. But if we choose to focus on one over another, we're only showing our biases.

What are the support levels for separating from Canada in the western regions ? How high would they have to be before a serious campaign could start with this sort of agenda ? Maybe another way to frame the discussion would be to discuss federal, regional and local responsibilities continent-wide. I don't care who I pay taxes to, but I'd like to live in a region with a strong social safety net. I also think that user-pay societies are inefficient and put too much of a burden on working people.

I agree with August, Hjalmar and Argus for the most part. But any changes need to be phased out over time to give local economies and individuals time to adjust. One of Paul Martin's successes was in an overhaul of EI that occurred in the 1990s. I expect that another one might happen if he gets another term.

Actually, Hugo, the studies you quote do not show anything of the kind. When analyzing statistics, it's important to separate correlation from causation. Just because a black person, or a single-parent child is more likely to fall into one statistical group or another, it doesn't mean that the distinguishing feature is the cause. Confusing correlation and causation can lead to some very incorrect and dangerous conclusions. If my skin turned black overnight, I wouldn't be more likely to commit crime. If my wife died, I wouldn't become a worse parent. We have to fall back on common sense in these matters. What is most important is that a child have a loving and stable home.