bk59

I don't buy that either. If you don't want to offend Borat (i.e. the "foreigner") that doesn't mean that you have to start supplying your own racist comments. If the people didn't feel that way all they had to do was keep silent.

That's your idea of wise? A random statement made without any justification? I found the news about the bear just as insightful. Black Dog, you must be a genius. Please impart more "wisdom" to us.

Wow, a lot of people seem so negative about Canada. Perhaps, if you want to see a country that is really falling apart, we should look to Afghanistan and Iraq. Obviously there is room for improvement, but this talk of imminent destruction, Harper being our last hope, how on earth did Canada survive even this long, etc. seems a bit much. I think our society, which includes our media, likes to focus on an issue, blow it up nice and big, and then complain like crazy. As for Harper's chance for re-election... I think one of his problems was that he kind of painted himself into a corner. He made a big deal about being the party that was going to clean up government and be accountable. Then he goes and gets Emerson to cross the floor and starts to tax income trusts. Now, I'm not saying that those decisions were bad. (Actually... the Emerson one was bad. The income trusts thing was probably good.) What I'm saying is, you can't talk in those absolute terms and then expect people to be understanding when you have to go against that. Of course that might not destroy his chances of re-election, but it does hurt him a little bit. I'll reserve judgment on his chances until after the Liberal leadership convention. But I will say this about the next election campaign... I really hope that somebody somewhere starts talking ideas instead of partisan rhetoric. It would be nice to see someone act like a real leader.

Sections 17, 18 and 19 were all in the original Canadian Constitution in 1867 (see section 133). So this just restates what was always the case. Section 20 says that wherever there is a large enough English community those people are entitled to service from the federal government in English, and that wherever there is a large enough French community those people are entitled to service from the federal government in French. This gives no special status to any province. Sections 21 and 22 say that previous constitutional provisions and previous rights remain in effect. Since you have limited your argument to the Charter, I don't see how this favours any particular province. Unless you want to go digging around the rest of the Constitution looking for something. Section 16 (which I have deliberately left until last) makes the two languages officially the languages of Canada and says that the federal government can promote their use. You haven't convinced me that Quebec enjoys special status because the French language is encouraged by the federal government. After all, there are French speaking communities outside of Quebec. Plus, what right or power does Quebec gain from this? The federal government protects the rights of English and French speakers to get services from the federal government in their choice of language. The federal government is protecting those rights in all provinces. What other rights are being protected in Quebec, but not elsewhere? English has been designated the official language of some English provinces. Like Ontario: Yes, Quebec favours the French language within its borders. But it always could do that, and the Charter did not change that fact. The fact that they made French their official language in 1974 proves this. Before the Charter, federal and provincial legislatures could have changed any law they wanted. Including human rights legislation. That is a fact - they had the power to do so if they wanted, and only with a simple majority. Now they cannot do that, unless the Constitution is changed. Your second point actually supports the validity of that - you don't want a new government changing human rights to suit their desires. However, that's not really what happened with the Constitution. There was no national referendum directly, but most of the provinces signed on. That is two levels of representation across the country. And realistically, opposition to the Constitution seems, forgive me for saying so, limited to a relatively small number of people. Nothing you have said shows how the Charter has been used to discriminate with regard to language. If Quebec is discriminating within its own borders then address that problem. But that has nothing to do with the Constitution, other than that the Constitution has always given Quebec the right to do that.

Yes, it is. Land mass does not come or go. An absolute number is a total. As soon as you divide that number by something then it is no longer absolute, it depends on something. It does not matter that the dividing number (e.g. land area) does not change. You have taken the total amount of emissions and modified it by another variable. (That being said, we still talk about the amount of pollution per year because we don't measure pollution from the beginning of time.) As a general comment here is why population is important for looking at pollution / emissions: people produce these emissions. When you have double the population then you have more people driving cars, more people heating or cooling their homes, more electricity being used, etc. And this is what I mean when I say countries must be able to pollute to an appropriate amount. If every country was equally environmentally friendly (i.e. they all drive the same efficient cars, generate electricity in an environmentally friendly manner etc.) then countries with more people will pollute more. Even though their industries, etc. are just as environmentally friendly as other countries. Population is not the only criteria, but it is one of the biggest, if not the biggest. Saying that everyone must pull their weight means that everyone must try to make their country as environmentally friendly as possible, but that larger populations can't be expected to pollute the same as, or less than, much smaller populations in terms of an absolute number. Who gets to decide what is appropriate? That is something that will have to come from scientists and politicians through international agreements. Scientists can tell us what the environment is capable of absorbing on its own and politicians will have to sort through the competing scientific testimony (because scientists can disagree) and reach a consensus with each other about what countries need to do. Economists will also play a role. No. It means that only 1 billion "units of pollution" can come from Canada per year -- same as India. Only a politician can judge the emissions of the two countries as being different. But if both countries can only generate 1 billion "units of pollution" then that means the smaller Canadian population can drive cars that pollute more, waste electricity, etc. and still come in under that target, while the much larger Indian population could drive extremely environmentally friendly cars, use clean energy sources, etc. and still exceed the target simply because of the number of people involved. There is no incentive for the smaller population to be environmentally friendly because they don't have to be to meet the target. And if India does everything in its power, but still cannot reach the target, then why would it even bother? It too has no incentive. This has nothing to do with politicizing the problem. It's simple economics. Using the same total emissions number for every country creates disincentives for almost everyone. Using that rationale, I doubt the birds care about the size of the country either. I've tried to show how population affects pollution and therefore why a per capita target is effective. I admit that area also has an effect, but only indirectly (by considering things like population density). So why should targets be based on something like area? Saying that area does not change is not a valid reason on its own. There has to be something more to justify using area as the determining factor. Of course not. But I'm not a bird. I'm someone trying to think of a way to solve the problem realistically. And a per capita statistic is not "political" any more than saying an average is political or the number zero is political.

While the US reaction is something that should be factored in to the decision to decriminalize pot or not, I don't give it a huge priority. I think Canada should decide its own policies, not a foreign country. If we did everything the US wanted there never would have been a softwood lumber dispute. Saying that the law says it is illegal therefore that ends the debate doesn't really make sense. I mean, it is Parliament's job to make, change or repeal laws. If all they did was leave legislation as it is now then no new laws would ever be passed. In terms of pot, people in favour of decriminalization generally are happy when someone is acquitted of possession of a small amount (or given a light sentence) while those who want to leave things as they are "shake their fists". So in terms of this crime, people of all political stripes are not upset when light sentences are given. As for the general statement about no punishment in this country, I really don't think that is true. The media will report the exceptions, but will never report the common sentences.

The language of section 1 makes it clear that it applies to the entire Charter. That is, it applies equally to all sections. So section 2 is no more affected by section 1 than any other section. To limit a freedom or right in the Charter then you do have to adhere to a democratic process (Parliament). In this respect you are right. But that is not enough. The limits must be "justified in a free and democratic society". This justification must be made before the courts if any citizen challenges a law that limits rights or freedoms. Even if a majority in Parliament creates limits those laws could still be made invalid. Historically, that is in the years since the Charter came into effect, the courts have been very careful to limit what can be justified. These limits have to pass through both the Parliament and the courts. The hurdles that must be jumped to use section 1 are sufficient to ensure that it isn't just a "swiss cheese" provision. In my opinion anyway. OK, I see where you're coming from. In my opinion, the multiculturalism protected by the Charter is not a denial of a Canadian culture, but rather a statement that says no culture can be discriminated against. That would include the traditional Canadian culture (including both English and French cultures). I think it would be impossible for someone to use the Charter to somehow limit a Canadian tradition. Unless it somehow violated someone's rights under another section of the Charter.

Answered in my previous post. Absolute terms are not easily comparable at face value. Per capita statistics can still give you absolute numbers if you want to figure them out. What is my political agenda? Other than to ensure that each country shares an appropriate portion of the burden when it comes to reducing pollution. How does using statistics based on population size (per capita) over-exaggerate and under-report the problem? First, you can determine absolute levels of pollution from a per capita statistic fairly easily. So if that counts as "hiding the truth" then it's a pretty poor job of hiding. Second, in your example, if a country goes from producing double the pollution from the rest of the world in one year to something less than that, then they should be applauded for moving in the right direction. That doesn't mean that they still don't have work to do. Third, if a country has not changed its emissions levels then you have to look at something like... wait for it... things like per capita statistics to see if their level of pollution is reasonable for their population size. Just because a small country is producing less total emissions than a larger country does not mean that they are being environmentally friendly. A per capita statistic can indicate that. If a small country is being extremely wasteful and polluting like crazy then they still have a duty to reduce that pollution even if their total emissions are less than a larger country's pollution levels. Everyone must pull their weight. If a country is heavily polluting right now, then yes, it will probably take more time for them to get to a reasonable level of pollution. This is to be expected and this problem will exist no matter how you set your targets. The fact that a heavy polluter may take more time to reach a reasonable level of pollution in no way detracts from using one form of a target over another. When you gave your example of an absolute emissions policy you said "one fart per year per square mile of land mass." This is not an absolute number. Instead of using a per capita target you are using a per area target. Here is an example with a real absolute target. Let's say that both Canada and India should reach emission levels of 1 billion "units of pollution" per year. This means that Canadians, because we have so much less population, can pollute like crazy. We don't even have to try to be environmentally friendly and we can hit that target. On the other hand, India has a huge population and the only way they could meet that target is if they all stopped driving cars, never manufactured anything etc. In other words, India could never meet that target no matter what it did if it was to be a developed nation. How does that help the environment? In this situation Canada has no incentive at all to reduce pollution. Neither does India (since it will never reach the targets no matter what). Realistic targets must take into account things like population size, population density, geographic region, etc. Per capita by default takes into account population size and is more helpful in this respect. Pollution is not limited to the borders of a nation. If we place unreasonable restrictions on countries like India (due to their population, etc.) then they will be unable to effectively deal with the issue. And that becomes a problem for more than just India. OK, let's run with this. You are burning crap & I have to deal with the fumes. I may not like that, but I may look over the fence and say "well, the amount of stuff that he is burning is reasonable, so I can live with the results of that." On the other hand, if you were burning the equivalent of an apartment buildings' worth of garbage then I would say "wait, that guy is burning way too much and I shouldn't have to deal with that amount of fumes from only one person." On the other hand, if it was an apartment building doing that then I would say "again, I don't like it, but since it's 100 people's worth of garbage then that seems reasonable." You can't close your eyes to the reality that more people will generate more waste, pollution, etc. Absolute numbers do not take into account mitigating circumstances.

I already did that in the post that you replied to. What is it you are trying to get at? Realistically when someone says the target is to reduce emissions by X% of 1990's emissions levels then that converts into an absolute number of Y units. Likewise, saying that the target is N units of pollution/emissions is equivalent to saying M% of (some year)'s emissions levels. These things can be converted back and forth. What I am saying is that it is more helpful to do this in terms of percentages or per capita numbers. Why? Because it makes it easy to compare between countries. Trying to compare absolute numbers will be unnecessarily complicated. Why? Because of all of the factors that others have brought up on these boards - geographic location, population density, population size, etc. Using numbers that are easily comparable between nations allows us to quickly see who is pulling their weight and who isn't. But don't you see? If India is polluting more than Canada right now in 2006, and we say (for example) that both countries should decrease their emissions by 5% of their current 2006 levels, then India will, in absolute numbers, have a larger target than Canada.

The answer can be found with this post from Aug91 from the above threads. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I know the history behind why Quebec did not sign. My question is really for Leafless. I'd like to know what special consideration he thinks Quebec got out of the constitution, and why he thinks Quebec did not sign the constitution if it supposedly got perks that the other provinces did not get.

Here's what you are missing. First, unless you can, as an individual, pollute as much as our entire population, then if you were the only person in Canada the total amount of pollution would change. It would decrease drastically. Second, a per capita statistic is not a percentage. It is something like X tonnes of garbage produced per person. It is like taking an average. If a segment of the population disappears then on average the per capita statistic will stay the same. What I wrote wasn't an analogy at all. It was an explanation of what a per capita statistic is. Maybe I'll try again... If India consumes 2 billion pounds of food per day and Canada consumes 150 million pounds of food per day then someone could look at that and say "India uses so much more food than Canada." However, the Indian population is 1 billion and the Canadian population is (let's just assume this to make the math easy) 50 million people. So the average Indian consumes 2 pounds of food per day, whereas the average Canadian consumes 3 pounds of food per day. It shows us that even though India as a country consumes more food, Canadian as individuals are eating more. Now pretend in my example that instead of pounds of food we talk about units of pollution. A per capita statistic shows that Canadians are worse polluters than Indians as individuals. In actual fact, Canadians are not doing too well when it comes to pollution and consumption per capita. There are factors that can account for something like that, but in general we don't come out looking too good when for our size we pollute more than we should. Again, I am not talking about percentages here. Also, no one claimed that a per capita stat would tell you who within the country (by region, industry sector, etc.) was doing the polluting. That is not what that stat is for. As a society, we the people of Canada (all of us) are doing the polluting. You have misinterpreted. I said that those who use the oil must be responsible for its use. In your, slightly skewed, comment, that would mean that the person who purchases and uses the knife is responsible for its use - including whether or not they are used to commit crimes. Using the knife analogy it would be the knife manufacturers' responsibility to ensure that knife production was not harming the environment. Shared responsibility comes when you look at the supply & demand. If knives are being overproduced and filling up landfills then perhaps the manufacturers should try to limit their production while the consumers should try to be more responsible with how they use (and not just discard) knives. That is a social and economic agenda -- not an environmental solution.Do you want to reduce emissions or do you want to use the environment as a tool with which to redistribute wealth? I'm not sure I see where you're coming from. Or where you're going. I said that emissions targets are set as a percentage because setting absolute numbers could mean that we end up doing too little compared to our size or taking on too much compared to our size. That seems to be pretty much tied into an environmental solution to me. Reducing emissions is not necessarily tied to wealth redistribution. While some have proposed methods to reduce emissions that involve wealth redistribution, that does not mean that in order to reduce emissions you need wealth distribution.

So worry about Kyoto and hold your breathe.....there,now exhale,you've just done your part for Canada and Canada's foremost climate expert Chretien, who made the Kyoto promise to the world. Or you could send a cheque to Russia for a $billion to cover your share of Kyoto credits. The choice is yours. Here's the problem with that argument. We are global citizens. We can't just say, "Well, we don't contribute much therefore we won't do anything at all to solve the problems that we do cause." It would be like saying, "The amount of taxes I pay are so small compared to all of the taxes that the government collects that I might as well not pay any taxes at all." The problem is, everyone else looks at you and starts to wonder what makes you so special that you don't have to pull your weight. We should be doing what we can to solve the problem in proportion to how much we contribute to the problem - nothing more and nothing less than that. That's why emissions targets are set as a percentage rather than as a discrete amount. People can disagree about how we go about doing that (i.e. Kyoto versus some other plan), but this article advocates doing nothing. It is irresponsible for us to sit back and make others carry our burden.

Per capita?!?!? What is that supposed to mean??? Such a figure is completely ridiculous. Canada barely has a population! If all of the people in Canada disappeared except you and I, per capita, you and I would be the greatest poluters in the entire universe. Per capita statistics are ridiculous? Really? It is generally the best way to compare populations of different sizes. After all, using your logic, you could say that because India as a country consumes more food than Canada on any given day, Indians must therefore be better fed than Canadians. The only problem of course, is that India has a population of one billion while Canada's population is less than 5% of that. When you look at food consumed per person per day then you get an accurate picture of whether or not Indians are better fed than Canadians. Using a "per capita" statistic does not prove that point.Why not just simply measure the amount of pollution and divide it by our land mass????? Would that prove your point?? No, it wouldn't. Why? Because the land mass is not polluting or consuming resources. We, the people of Canada, are.

If you are talking about this distinction being lost in the shuffle on this forum, then I agree with you. After all, most topics end up wandering from their initial post. And yes, I'm as guilty of doing that as everyone else. If you are talking about that distinction being lost in the general media, then I have to disagree. Everything that I have read about this "award" has directly linked it to Canada's position on climate change and on their participation at the current UN conference. Nothing has tried to link it to other environmental policies or natural resource management polices. But please let me know if there have been articles like that somewhere. Your point about supplier versus consumer blameworthiness is important. This has come up in other posts too, regarding Saudi Arabia as a supplier of oil versus those who consume the oil. Personally, I think both ends of the spectrum should be responsible for the environmental friendliness of their respective processes. Saudi Arabia should do everything it can to ensure that the extraction and refinement of oil, and transportation of it, is as environmentally friendly as possible. Just as the consumer then must try to limit the harm to the environment once they take possession of, and use, that oil. The question of overall oil consumption is a shared responsibility. Both the consumers who demand it and the suppliers who extract it share the duty to be careful and responsible.

This has not been the case. In fact, several laws (or more specifically sections of laws) passed by Parliament have been struck down for violating section 7 of the Charter. When they violate section 7, then the Courts look to see if that law can be justified by section 1 (i.e. is the section a reasonable infringement on the right to life, liberty and security of the person). In general, once something violates section 7, it is very hard for that section to then remain in effect because of section 1. It is not the Parliament or the Prime Minister that gets the final decision to see if something is reasonably justified per section 1. There is no vote on that or executive decision. The courts decide whether or not the law can justifiably be used to limit rights and freedoms. This is the huge difference between the Charter and what came before the Charter. Section 1 is not nearly as big a problem as your post indicates. Since no one but politically correct MSM believes in "multiculturalism", this provision should have no support or validity. Remember, I'm a Yank who knows little about Canada. Just my $0.02 (American). I would be curious to know what your definition of "multiculturalism" is (since so many people seem to have so many different definitions). I look at that section and just see a recognition that many people in Canada come from different cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds. It reinforces the idea that you cannot discriminate based on different religions or that it is not justified to deny people their cultural celebrations. Realistically, these things are probably covered by other sections of the Charter. Then again, section 28 about how the Charter applies equally to males and females is probably also redundant. These sections are there to reinforce certain ideas of equality, nothing more.

What amendments were made, and / or what concessions were made that give Quebec any special status that the other provinces do not have? If Quebec has special status, why did Quebec not sign the constitution? Old federal and provincial human rights codes were pieces of legislature that could have been changed or repealled at any time by the federal or provincial governments. The Charter guarantees certain rights and freedoms which the federal and provincial governments cannot override or change without amending the constitution. Previously governments could have taken away many of these fundamental rights with very little effort. Having the federal government use both official languages does not have anything to do with Quebec per se. Is there something that the federal government has done in relation to this clause that you find offensive?

As I said above, part of Cohen's act is showing the tolerance people show Borat. What you seem to miss, from my post and the movie, was that in other cases he brings out the bigot in people. Please don't tell me that when he gets people to say things like "we should bring back slavery" and "all gays should hang" that he's showing or mocking how tolerant our society is. Unless of course "you can't understand" the movie.

This is hilarious. Canada has one of the largest expanses of pristeen environments in the world and some environmental lobby group rates us last. European tourists come to Canada every year because there is no environment in Europe anymore. And Europeans happily consume our raw materials leaving us with the lousy arbitrary environmental stats that they then deplore. I added the bold type above. The "fossil of the day" award was made specifically on the basis of efforts in relation to global warming. It has nothing to do with how much natural environment we have in Canada and has nothing to do with the management of our natural resources. I think you may have confused the various issues.

Comparing a 1% GST cut to a 0.5% income tax raise isn't a one-to-one comparison. The amount a person will save on the GST cut depends on how many goods/services they buy. And the GST must be charged on those goods. Keep in mind I'm not saying that a 1% GST cut is insignificant and the 0.5% income tax raise is monstrously huge. My point is actually that they are a lot closer in dollar values than either the Conservatives or Liberals would have you believe, and for people who are not purchasing a lot of GST taxable goods (i.e. those with less disposal income to spend on these things) then the 0.5% income tax raise can be more beneficial. I just see the GST cut as being quite exaggerated. In the election the Conservatives were saying that a family with an income of $60,000 would save $400 per year with the 1% GST cut. (See here.) But for that to be true they would have to spend $40,000 on GST taxable goods. ( Previous GST Charges at 7% ) - ( New GST Charges at 6% ) = ? ( $40,000 * 7% ) - ( $40,000 * 6% ) = ? $2,800 - $2,400 = $400 From where I stand, I don't see a family with an income of $60,000 spending $40,000 per year on GST taxable goods. Having said all of that, I did go take another look at what I could find about the Canada Employment Credit. I still don't know exactly how it will work (receipts vs. no receipts?), but it does seem more positive than most people are giving it credit for. I think these two articles may indicate what I'm trying to say here: Article #1 Article #2 In the second article look for the quote from John Williamson about how the employment credit does make a difference. The first article basically shows that, depending on your personal situation, you can end up paying more in taxes. You must take advantage of all, or maybe most, of the credits to come out ahead. The bottom line is that the two tax plans really aren't that different in terms of the money you have at the end of the day. The Liberal plan made some people pay slightly more in taxes, but gave them that money throughout the year on their take-home pay. The Conservative plan has some people paying slightly less in taxes, but they don't see those savings until they get their tax return. My personal preference is for more take-home pay and for tax cuts that apply across the board rather than multiple tax credits that you have to spend money to get. However, I do like the transit pass credit... but not for the tax-savings reason that the government seems to advance. I like the transit pass credit for the social policy reasons it embodies.

Things just aren't that clear cut. Not every person or family earning within the lowest tax bracket is better off under this plan. In order to get many of these tax breaks you have to put out your own money. For example you have to purchase transit passes, or pay tuition fees and money for textbooks in order to get those two credits. The GST cut also is not helpful if you are only buying what you need to live - many of these purchases are not taxed by the GST and the cut really becomes significant only if you purchase a lot of goods. The best tax help for the working poor, as a group, is to lower the income tax for that bracket since that will actually apply to everyone. The current government's approach is complicated and the benefits unevenly distributed.

Jerry, maybe you should go see the movie before putting down other people. If you did, you might find that your opinions on the movie are not grounded in fact. The movie isn't just about showing what our society will tolerate. There are some scenes where it shows people tolerating Borat's clearly outrageous behaviour. But there are many other scenes where Cohen uses Borat to show the prejudices that other people have. He uses Borat's anti-semitism to bring out those types of statements / slurs from other people. In a way the movie shows us that beneath that first layer of tolerance that everyone claims to have, is a layer of anti-semitism, racial bigotry and anti-homosexual beliefs. I don't think it's showing that our tolerant society has gone too far, it's showing that for some people, tolerance is only a thin veil. As you say, part of his act is to show the tolerance towards his anti-semitism. What you seem to be missing is that, more often than not, that tolerance is coming from people who agree with the anti-semitism and go on to show their own racial (and other) prejudices. As for statements like this: The only person revealing their ignorance is the one who thinks it's rational to claim "I haven't seen the movie, but based on the movie I think you are wrong."

Your post has hit on the exact reason why voters in Toronto, and everywhere else, did not buy into the ad: it was patently false and misleading. And pretty much everyone knew it. (Except for, as you say, the extreme hardline anti-Harper folks.) I do not want to generalize too much, but just look at how the vote went in the last election. Most urban centres did not vote Conservative. Why? (And this is where I don't want to paint everyone with the same brush, but I do think there are some general trends here.) Because a lot of people in urban centres do not support some of the key planks in the Conservative platform. They did not want to see the same-sex marriage debate reopened. They supported the long-gun registry - even though most wanted to see those costs contained they still wanted the registry to exist. A lot of people liked the income tax cut and preferred it to the GST cut. A lot of people wanted to see a child care program of the sort the Liberals were talking about rather than a monetary sum of the sort the Conservatives were talking about. Believe it or not, but there are valid reasons for voting for either party. And an obviously idiotic ad is not going to change the minds of too many people.

Yes, I am sure that some people like the GST cut. It is simple to understand and makes it look like taxpayers are paying less to the government. Unfortunately the Conservatives at the same time went and raised everyone's income taxes. (By cancelling the tax cut that came into effect for 2005.) For me, even with all of those nice little tax breaks the Conservatives are throwing around, I will be paying more in taxes now than I did last year. Why? Because even if I was eligible for all of those new tax breaks, which I am not, the difference in my income taxes is more than the combined effect of those tax breaks and GST cuts. I would much rather have an income tax cut that applies to everyone than tiny cuts here and there that do not apply to everyone.

Torontonians didn't buy it any more than anyone else did. That is to say, a very few people believed it, but not nearly a significant number. Just like pretty much anywhere else in the country. People in Toronto had their own, valid, reasons for not voting Conservative.

Some random thoughts... 1) The recent changes to income trusts are probably in the best interest of the country. That being said, since someone mentioned short memories (or maybe selective is a better phrase), it's worth noting that I think all those who continue to whine that Chretien did not get rid of the GST when he was elected PM need to choose: A) Take the rational approach and realize that circumstances change. Sometimes when you get to power you realize that an election promise you made just can't work. Go with the crazy approach and figure that nothing ever changes in this world and all promises must be kept no matter the consequences. Either way, Harper and Chretien both made promises that they broke. I will give Harper a nod though and say that I think he did a better job explaining his reasons for the change in attitude. 2) Assuming proper training is provided and that the cost doesn't balloon out of control then arming border guards, especially when that is what they were requesting, seems the right thing to do. 3) The PM telling his Cabinet how to vote is not unconstitutional. They are members of the party. Specifically, high ranking members. If they don't like it they can leave. I know that seems harsh, but that's the party system. What is unconstitutional would be trying to deny same-sex marriage since this has been ruled on by the Supreme Court. In my mind there is no point in trying to re-open this debate. The options are really simple: leave things as they are, amend the constitution, or pass laws every few years that use the notwithstanding clause to ban same-sex marriage. Personally I think it's in the country's best interest to not try those last two alternatives. 4) I won't comment on this one since I don't know enough about the deal the Conservatives got and I don't know enough about what was on the table when the Liberals tried to settle this. 5) You're right, Emerson's crossing was different than Stronach's crossing. It was much worse. Here's a guy who literally switched to the Conservative party just days after running for the Liberal party. He didn't sit even for a second as a member of the Opposition. It's as if the Conservatives had two candidates running in that riding and the Liberal's had no one. 6) I do wish the Conservative government, just like the Liberal government before them, could show a more comprehensive plan for our role in Afghanistan. I don't need, or want, to know everything, but surely there is room for a few more details - not just about the role of our troops, but also how Canada is participating in all of the other areas necessary for Afghanistan to stand on its own. As for the talk from some people about pulling them out immediately with no thought to the consequences... let's just say, I like crazy, but not in my politicians. Just pulling them out is like give a big FU to Afghanistan and our allies there. Not a good idea. As for the Conservatives always attacking the Liberals with "were they any better", etc. I just wish they would tone done the rhetoric. Defend your policies and don't bother with the partisan crap. And that goes for the other parties as well. They are all equally guilty of using insults when they should be using reason to justify their positions or reasonably discussing their opponents' positions. I have no patience for anyone who spouts garbage like "All Conservatives are red necks out to destroy all social programs and force Christianity down your throat" or "All Liberals are corrupt scumbags who are right now stealing money from your wallet while they talk about how they deserve to be in power". While I have no doubt that both parties have a few members who might come close to those characterisations, neither view is representative of the two parties as a whole.