bk59

That's technically not true but ideolgically yes it's true. I'm not one of those people. I feel some people are guily and I don't need a trial. He came here improperly has a refugee, lied, got married to get citizenship - GUILTY! He should be immediately detained and sent back to his home of Syria. I can only hope that you never get to exercise that particular philosophy over another person. Or worse than that, be faced with a situation where you are accused of something that you are innocent of, and be forced to face judgment at the hands of people like you - people who just assume you are guilty. This is hilarious coming from you. After all, you apparently feel no need to go into the facts when judging others. After all, according to you, Arar got married to get citizenship. Ooops... married in 1994, but became a citizen in 1991... Glad to see that you didn't let the facts get in the way of your anti-Arar worldview.

That's not what I said at all. I said she gave at least some evidence of her theory. md00 gave none. In my opinion that makes her theory more plausible than md00's implied accusation. I never said the level of proof was different. Please re-read my third point. She asked md00 to provide evidence that Arar's wife was on welfare. This was given. Then she asked for evidence that Arar's wife was cheating the welfare system. You responded by saying she was being partisan and shrill. I'm just saying that the comments about being partisan and shrill were over the top. How is asking for md00 to back up his implication that Arar's wife is cheating the system being partisan? How is that shrill? I'm not even sure you can classify that as changing the subject. She accepted your evidence and then asked the next logical question with regards to md00 providing evidence. She went too far in presuming to know Arar's wife's motivation? That's exactly what md00 did. Why not accuse him of partisanship? Especially since Melanie_ did provide reasons why she thought not changing your last name does not equate to cheating the system. Asking for some proof is a fair question. Some proof was given, just not enough for your taste. I can accept that and have no problem with that. What I have trouble understanding is how you can accuse her of partisanship when I don't think you have yet asked md00 for the same level of proof for his statements. When will you say that md00 went too far in presuming to know Arar's wife's motivation? When will you say that md00 went too far in presuming to know what the motivations are for every single immigrant who comes into this country?

Here is the post I was referring to when I was questioning your response to Melanie_: First, mikedavid00 in making the accusation / implication should support his statement. When someone asks for proof of his assertion this is not being partisan. Second, with no evidence forthcoming from mikedavid00, and given his previous statements on this site, his current statements do indeed look like a smear campaign. As my previous post just stated, that doesn't mean mikedavid00 meant his statements as an attack. They just came across that way. Third, when Melanie_ first questioned mikedavid00's statements she provided multiple reasons why a person would not change her last name upon marriage. While this is not proof of Arar's wife's motivations, it is more proof than mikedavid00 gave. Fourth, as I tried to point out above, in Canada we presume innocence, not guilt. Yes, anyone's theory is open to questioning, whether that theory be mikedavid00's, Melanie_'s, yours, mine, etc. But the burden fell on mikedavid00 to show that there was any evidence of wrongdoing. Melanie_ brought up enough alternative explanations for why Arar's wife did not change her last name that her theory seems more plausible than mikedavid00's. Those explanations were neither partisan nor shrill.

No I didn't. That's why I didn't bother responding. I said it was a well known trick that is used in the context of another situation. You accused her by implying that the only reason she had for keeping her last name after marriage was that it was a common practice to cheat the welfare system. Had you only wanted to highlight this scam then there was no need to bring the Arar family into the discussion at all. This is exactly what a smear campaign looks like. Imply someone is somehow guilty of something. That way you don't have to give any proof and you can claim that you didn't actually say anything. Even though every single person hearing or reading the statements can only draw one conclusion from your statements. Now you may not have meant to do this. Just because it looks like an attack doesn't mean it was meant that way. But given your severe anti-immigrant, anti-Arar family stance I hope you can see why some people here got the impression that you were purposefully accusing the Arar family.

Ricki Bobbi, why the attack on Melanie_? mikedavid00 accuses Arar's wife of cheating the welfare system by not changing her last name. Melanie_ asks if he has proof of this or if this is just a drive by smear. In the absence of any evidence on mikedavid00's part then yes, it looks like a smear job. You ask Melanie_ how she can reach a conclusion about the motivations of Arar's wife. You are asking the wrong person. You should be asking mikedavid00. It's up to him to show proof of his statement, not up to the rest of us to show proof that it's not true. The fact that the Arar family is on social assistance is not proof that they are purposely cheating the system. If I was to accuse you of stealing from me, should a third-party assume that you are guilty and demand that you show proof of your innocence? Or should the third-party demand that I, the one making the accusation, show proof? If I have no proof at all for my accusation then it would look to the third-party like I was baselessly attacking you and your reputation.

This is a very real possibility. I guess I'm finding it hard to wrap my head around why someone would want to take such a huge option off the table before even trying to define a direction for the CSA. I mean, right now (to my knowledge) the government hasn't even appointed a new head for the CSA. I understand that no one would want to see their project cancelled or cut-back, but by the time they do decide they might realize that this was an option they should have kept open. Canada's space program?? Lol!! oh lordy lordy.. mikedavid00 even for you, that's an excellent job of not reading what's in front of you just so that you could try to quote something out of context. Feel free to read the rest of what I said. Wow. Sometimes things get to a point where I can't even debate something because i don't know where to start. How does one convince another the sky's not falling? It's like.. where do you start? Seems to me you can't debate because you aren't actually saying anything. Within the aerospace industry Canadian companies are quite well known for their space robotics capabilities. When the US was considering a robotic Hubble mission they went to a Canadian company and no one else. Link 1 Link 2

That's a pretty detailed prediction. It's interesting that you think Harper will go to the GG on his own. I figure that if he wants to have an election he might try to introduce something in the House and make it a confidence motion. Something that he knows the opposition parties will vote down. This way he can go to the electorate and claim that he needs a majority since the other parties don't want to work with his reasonable government. Well, he'll probably say that whether he goes to the GG on his own or if there is a vote of non-confidence. So maybe that detail doesn't matter...

So why don't you just come out and tell us "what's really going on here"? I mean, if you want to make a point, just make it. That way we can maybe talk about that rather than reading about the latest game of telephone you've been playing.

This is all the article really says about reasons: I can't find any other reasons out there. But it seems a bit odd to say we don't know the direction we want to take, so we're going to turn down this opportunity.

For a quick second, let's set aside the philosophical question of whether or not governments should be funding research & development. This money is already being spent in the CSA budget. So why not use it to advance a field that Canadians are well known for? Why not use it to try to generate future business for Canadian companies that will not be funded by the Canadian government? The story right now is still a bit "rumour-ish" in that I can't find a big official press release somewhere. But if we're going to be spending the money, I'd really like to know what we're spending it on - i.e. what direction are we taking with our R&D? Now returning to the philosophical question... It isn't economically viable for some basic scientific research to be left up to private industry. Private corporations just aren't going to take the risks for some projects (not just space related). With some government funding up front businesses and academic institutions can assume those risks and turn them into viable products that no longer need government funding.

Thank you for your overreaction and simplistic view. Where do you think a lot of the technology that exists in modern hospitals comes from? I'll give you a clue: research & development. Some of it as spinoff technology from space related applications. Besides, not all problems can be solved by just throwing money at them. If there are Canadians dying on waiting lists* then more money will not help them if the system itself is inefficient. Your strawman is not convincing. Funding scientific research is in no way causing people to die in Canada. * Please feel free to show those statistics in another topic.

The ESA wasn't going to foot the bill. What was being asked was that $10 million per year (for 10 years) out of the existing CSA budget be used for this project. So no new money would be required. To me this seems a no brainer. Without giving the CSA any direction Canada has just turned down the opportunity to get further involved in the space and robotics industries. If we're not going to have a direction for scientific research & development then why bother? Especially because projects like this usually are a foot in the door. Future contracts would possibly / probably come directly from ESA. Without this project it's guaranteed that no one will come knocking in the future.

This story was on CBC a few days ago. The federal government has turned down an opportunity to fund a Canadian built Mars rover for the European Space Agency (ESA). The decision is odd in that it would have cost no more money than what was already in the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) budget. There are immediate economic benefits to this for Canadian companies and potential future benefits from getting more of this type of work. Is this indicative of a larger problem and lack of direction for Canada's science and technology capabilities? It seems to me that this (space robotics) has been one of the most successful technology sectors in Canada. Without any meaningful direction Canada will soon find itself behind the rest of the world. Not just in space robotics, but in all areas of science and technology production / innovation. Do we really want Canada to be nothing more than a natural resources economy?

Without touching on your arguments for a moment, it would be really helpful if you could check your post so that everything you write doesn't end up in a quote. It's much easier to identify your writing when not hidden within a previous quote. Mandatory voting not only goes against an individual's general right to choose whether to vote or not, but also is blind to the fact that sometimes people will choose to not vote on something because they don't know enough about it. You don't want uninformed people being forced to make random choices. That is no way to run a country. Personally, I think everyone should get informed and vote. But if you choose not to inform yourself then a forced vote is more damaging than helpful. We need private groups to explain things to us? Really? I have a very low opinion of that mentality. First, anyone can do their own research and look into matters. Second, private groups have even less incentive to be fair and objective about an issue than government employees do. At least the government is supposed to be objective. (Even if they do fail at objectivity sometimes.) But private groups have no such moral responsibility. Just look at those videos you love to link to to see how private groups love to spin things. Private groups, government employees, politicians and individuals ALL have the responsibility to explain their viewpoints and make their own decisions. To say that politicians shouldn't espouse certain views while private groups should is short-sighted and hypocritical. You are all over the place here. You say that government should only govern. Yet you never define what you mean by governing. In some places (especially when talking about Californians voting down taxes) you seem to be saying that any new taxes should be voted on by the people. And then you go and defend the income trust decision as something that shouldn't be voted on. The income trust decision is a new tax. You are contradicting yourself. You also say above that government should not dictate how taxes are spent. How exactly can a government govern without spending money? This theory of yours does not seem particularly well thought out. I say that in the US federal politicians pass legislation with no other purpose than to get re-elected. You say that is false. I show you a list of projects that are precisely that. And then you say that is the normal function of government. This directly contradicts what you say below about how politicians should not just be trying to get re-elected. WRONG. THEIR JOB IS NOT TO GET ELECTED, IT'S TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE TO OUR BEST INTEREST. YOU'VE BEEN BRAINWASHED FOR TOO LONG. Once again a claim of brainwashing. Of course their job is to represent the people. But to do that they need to get elected. Hence, getting elected is part of their job. But you've missed the point and chosen not to answer the real question in that part of my post. Here was your original claim: My point was 1) you have to get elected otherwise you're not a politician (and therefore cannot represent anyone), 2) to question how they are disrupting our political system. Let's ignore the question of whether or not you have to be elected in order to represent the people. Let's go straight to the second part. Please show how our politicians are trying to disrupt our political system. Two things. First, lay off the random font changing. Second, lay off the character attacks. Disagreeing with you does not mean that I'm brainwashed or that I don't know what I'm talking about. If anything these things only indicate that you cannot support your arguments in any other way (e.g. with facts or logic).

But that wouldn't fit in with mikedavid00's world view. Don't worry about that pesky inquiry thing that cleared his name. And yes, I have no doubt that the US made its own assessment to send Arar out of the country. Of course, that assessment seems to have been at least partially based on wrong information that was provided by Canadian security forces. But ignore that pesky little detail.

That's a bad thing. But it would take too long to explain why. Please feel free to explain. Because democracy should be about real choice, not just A or B. People don't fit into cookie cutter molds. Limiting a voter's choices seems to go against everything you are saying here. So now your argument is not that the parliamentary system is horrible, it's that somehow Canada is unable to use it properly? If the public could decide all laws then we wouldn't need a government. But they can't, because it's too inefficient. Moreover, you can mock and hyperbolize about elites all you want, but sometimes I'd rather have people educated in a certain field making decisions rather then leaving it up to the people at MacDonald's. Is that elitist? Maybe. (Probably... ) But when you have a medical problem do you go to a doctor or start getting opinions from everyone off the street? I believe that everyone should have a say. But sometimes, for the good of the country, you have to do things that go against popular opinion. That is completely false. Politicians here are playing petty politics and constantly running in elections so they can get seats and disrupt our political system which is NOT in the best interest of Canada. Completely false? Right... After all, no one in the US government would add pet projects to legislation so that they could get re-elected... How dare our politicians run in elections and try to win seats! Was that a serious statement? I mean, that's their job... to run and get elected. How exactly are they trying to "disrupt our political system"? I find the hypocrisy here interesting. You say that the voice of the people should be heard, but I guess that doesn't include anyone in an urban area. And certainly not anyone who came to Canada and worked to get their citizenship here. We have a non functioning demococy becuase it has been split up into a regional special interest. How is our democracy no longer functioning? Again, it has its flaws, but it seems to be operating sufficiently. I disagree. It's an idea worth voting on for the people to decide. Harper has so no right determining our democrocy in any way. See thisif you don't believe me. Then admit that you have been brainwashed over the years. Right, let's just vote on it. No need to debate it or consider it. Why discuss alternatives when we can just spend millions of dollars to print up ballots and run a referendum where no one has really thought through the proposed changes? I think Harper could have gone about this in a better way, which includes getting feedback from the people, but that is where the debating comes in. You don't just vote on something like this without really thinking it through. As for my brainwashing... thank you for showing me that video. After all, that man went to play with his kids and his dog therefore he must be right. Give me a break. That type of political advertising disgusts me. It's pandering at its worst. He never really said anything at all about the issue other than "say no". You are advocating for special interest groups to lobby for and against every idea out there. The truly ironic part is that the video you linked to talks about how he doesn't like special interest groups while the entire ad was paid for by... wait for it... special interest groups. Out of curiousity, how have I been brainwashed? Finally, you mention your signature a few times in your post. Your signature is a quote of another poster on here. A poster who has consistently shown a complete lack of understanding of how our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms operate and how they originated. Perhaps not the best reference when trying to convince others how to go about reforming our system of government.

Yes, that's true. I was talking about the fact that in our system every individual elected has a plurality in their riding. But you are totally right that under certain circumstances the popular vote will not match up with the party "rankings" in the House. I don't think that describing our political system as "deeply flawed" is accurate. Our system has flaws, but they are not fatal. We have it pretty good here in Canada. If our system was deeply flawed I would expect our standard of living to be much worse. MMP is definitely an interesting alternative to our current system. Continuous voter education under a MMP system would be required though.

Too easy to take advantage of? Hardly. Our system isn't perfect, but no system is. At least our system allows for multiple parties, not just two. Our PM has to actually answer questions and face debate in the House. The bottom line is that no matter what system you use some people will find a way to exploit it for self gain and to pursue their own agenda. The US system is not perfect. It too has people who exploit the system for self gain and who pursue their own agenda. Politicians there are almost constantly running for election and tacking on amendments to bills that have no purpose other than to pander for votes. The mechanism for electing a President ensures that the person with a plurality of votes does not necessarily win the election. To me that doesn't seem particularly democratic. Our first-past-the-post system may not be perfect, but at least the person with the most votes wins. My point isn't to bash the US. Nor is it to ignore the problems that Canada has. My point is simply this: our system does work, so why turn to a radical solution and try to wipe the slate clean? You don't use a nuke to get rid of a fly. Harper's proposed legislation is an idea worth debating and considering. But his method leaves a lot to be desired. This is not real change. It is the appearance of change. If he really wanted to reform the Senate then he should have kicked off what some here are calling a citizen's assembly, or some other type of body, that would have gone to the electorate and asked them what they wanted the Senate to look like. Then with those results amend the Constitution to create that Senate. Just don't try a half-a$$ed maneouvre to get around the Constitution.

Jerry's quote applies to every single Canadian political party out there. Every single one of them claim to be the only party upholding Canadian values. It's not that the Liberals claim these are not Canadian values, it's that they claim they are the only party that will support these values. Just like the Conservatives. Just like everyone else. Any time a political party starts talking about values I start to tune out. It's all hot air. Politicians just trying to get the electorate all riled up. I prefer to look at the promised policies and then decide if they accord with my values. Whether or not I think those policies will ever be implemented also factors into the decision. The fact is, Canadians hold a range of values. And every party represents those values to a degree. If they didn't, then the party wouldn't exist. But no party will ever say that because it doesn't play well. It's too honest.

Exactly. Just look at how a US Presidential election works. A plurality of popular votes does not make one President.

Wow you just don't get the concept of democrocy do you? Closing your eyes to the pros and cons of both sides of the debate does not mean that you understand democracy or the complexities of our government. Instead of engaging in the debate you have done what many politicians would do - point your finger and spew rhetoric about how I must not understand democracy. It's attitudes like that which will cause more problems than they solve, even if your intentions are supposedly good and democratic. People here seem to be advocating that the Senate become representatives of the Premiers or representatives of the official governments of the Provinces. This seems to me to be a horrible idea. Should we create provincial senates, where representatives of the federal government can make amendments, introduce and pass provincial legislation? The answer is no. Likewise, the Provincial governments should have no say in federal legislation. Please note the capital P. The provinces, that is the people in different regions of the country, should be represented in the Senate. But not the Provinces. Our Constitution divides powers between the Provincial governments and the federal government for a reason. Blurring the line between them is a guaranteed way to cause more problems than we have right now with an appointed federal Senate.

Wow, I think this thought has potential for discussion. I mean premiers are supposed to be busy folk and all, but there is something in this Idea I like. The Senate does not just read a bill and say yes or no. There is no way that the premiers could possibly fill the void that would be left if the Senate was abolished. Not only that, but what happens when the federal government tries to enact valid federal legislation that the provinces do not like for some reason? I understand the desirability of looking after regional interests, but I see some conflicts of interest arising in giving that voice to a provincial official rather than a federal official from the region.

Abolishing the Senate seems a bit too much. There is excellent work that gets done there. Committee reports, research, introduction of amendments to bills, etc. A second set of eyes & minds is a good thing. Yes, not all of the Senate is good. Then again, not all of the House is good either. As for elected versus appointed. For those good senators that take their jobs seriously, there is a good argument to be made for appointed. These people do not have to worry about the political games that go on in the House. They are free to publish their reports and propose their amendments without having to jump through hoops to meet party expectations or without having to pander to the electorate to get votes. They are free to do what is right, even if it is unpopular. Arguments for an elected Senate talk alot about accountability, but wouldn't this just make the Senate look a lot like the House? Thus defeating the point of having a "sober second look"? All of that aside, this bill may not do a whole lot. The PM can still ignore the "voting" results if he/she wants. If we really want the Senate changed then it deserves the debate that can only be had through a constitutional amendment. After all, that is why an amendment is needed to change how it works.

First, this is an investigation called by the government. It has nothing to do with resolving or settling a civil lawsuit. If you want to debate about the legitimacy of suing the government then do so. But this investigation is geared towards finding out if there are problems with how Canadian security forces do (or did) their jobs. Not with giving money to people. Second, did it not occur to you that if the inquiry finds no wrongdoing on the part of Canadian security forces then the lawsuits will have little or no grounds to stand on? This inquiry may make these lawsuits go away. And if it finds evidence of wrongdoing then we get to improve our security forces to fix those mistakes. Yes, this may involve compensating these three men at some point. But that would be because they were wronged and deserve to be compensated to some degree. Third, stop acting as if you have some evidence against these men or Maher Arar. A huge inquiry already found that Arar is not, and never was, a threat to Canadian security. I don't care what your friend's roommate's dog walker thinks. I care what a real investigative body looking at real evidence concluded. On a related note, linking to a website with pictures of women models does not prove how liberal a country is, or prove that its human rights record is somehow blemish free. The link that Black Dog provided to Human Rights Watch seems a little bit more authoritative. And by "seems" I mean "definitely is".

Why is this thread still alive? Please let it die the death it deserves! I was involved with this "debate" earlier on, but it's just not worth it folks. As some have noted, when counterpoints are made or questions asked, the response is to either restate the original claim or to bring up a tangent not related to anything else seen before in the thread. Rarely are counterpoints addressed or questions answered. What it comes down to is some people have their opinions and no amount of common sense or logical discussion will change these opinions. Please stop bumping this thread just so that the craziness can be seen by more people. There is no massive Liberal conspiracy to promote homosexuality over heterosexuality and create a one-sided constitution that somehow imports people from other countries to overrun the alleged English, white, Christian, British majority which will somehow give Quebec and its French-speaking inhabitants control of Canada where they all sit around laughing evilly and drinking wine. But you will never, ever, convince some people of that fact. Ever. It's best just to leave the trolls alone.