bk59

I thought the issue was that they were turned away because of racist immigration policies. So wasn't the apology saying that we were wrong to consider them illegal immigrants simply because of our racist policy? In that sense an apology may have been warranted. You are right to ask "who else are we to apologize to". Obviously we cannot spend our time going back through history examining everything. But when a group brings a valid complaint, which can be verified, what harm is there in apologizing for conduct we now find unacceptable? I see no reason to offer compensation though, unless the conduct was such that it requires compensation (like the Aboriginal apology).

The observation is sound: There must be someone who speaks on behalf of a nation and France has chosen a politician, who is their Head of State, to do this. Under your theory no one represents France because according to you a politician is incapable of filling this role. So who speaks on behalf of the French people in your world? Many people who did not vote for George W. Bush are angry precisely because they feel that he does speak for them on the world stage. They know that people from other nations look to him as representing the United States of America. Except for the one flaw in your logic. The people of a nation can agree on a system for choosing who represents them and who speaks on their behalf. That system can be anything. In France it is an election. Yes the election itself divides the nation. But the French people chose that system and agree to abide by it. At the end of the election both sides recognize the winner and recognize that the winner is their representative to the world. The people who did not vote for the winner are not unrepresented. They still buy into the system of how they are represented, including the office held by the winner. No one said that to speak on behalf of a nation the Crown has to agree with you. Nor is it a requirement that you be seen as the one who signs a bill into law. It is enough that the world sees you speaking and then holds the nation to your words. Which is what happens when the Prime Minister speaks. In fact, by international law a country can be bound even by the words of a foreign minister. This is because the minister is seen (wait for it) as a representative of the nation, capable of speaking on the nation's behalf. In the Canadian context this happens no matter what the Privy Council or the Queen does. The way the world works is that the Queen is not the only person who represents Canada and is not the only person who speaks on behalf of Canadians. First, if there is no institutional memory, how is it that one government can be obligated to do something (e.g. pay fees for canceling a contract) when that obligation was entered into by a previous government? Second, if responsibility for the actions of one Cabinet stopped as soon as an election was held then people would not be able to sue when those actions hurt them. And yet they are able to sue, even after that Cabinet is no longer in power. Finally, I can agree that most of these apologies are pure political posturing. But that is not because the Prime Minister does not speak for Canadians (and is therefore unable to offer a legitimate apology), it is because the Prime Minister does not actually care enough to make it more than simply political posturing.

The goal of the plan is to tax all carbon emissions. At the end of four years the goal is to tax carbon emissions at the rate of $40 per tonne of carbon emitted. Current gas taxes equate to a rate of $42 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. Current diesel taxes do not equate to a rate of $40 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, in order to reach the goal at the end of four years: gas can be left alone, but a carbon tax must be added to diesel. In your example, the diesel powered vehicle emits less carbon dioxide than the gas powered vehicle. Therefore the driver of the diesel powered vehicle will pay less money in total than the driver of the gas powered vehicle. Both drivers are taxed at the same rate, but the diesel driver pays less overall.

Well... maybe not. Yeah, Hollywood has to get its ideas from somewhere, but that doesn't mean that aliens have ever invaded the earth on the 4th of July or that talking monkeys ever ruled the earth. All I'm saying is that the wild west wasn't nearly as wild as popular opinion would have us believe. That political will mostly came from the temperance movement which was concerned with religion and morality. Sure criminal behaviour was a factor, but not necessarily the dominant factor. The temperance movement was concerned with all immoral behaviour, not simply organized crime. (How did we get to discussing this again? Thread drift is an interesting thing to watch...) OK, I think I see where you are. It isn't quite what I thought you were saying before. And I'll admit that this makes more sense than what I thought you were originally saying. Still though, I'm not sure I can agree. Even though pot may be illegal that does not mean that organized crime has limited itself to pot. When you say that it is better for OC to focus on pot than harsher drugs that may be a nice idea, but in practice I think OC is more than capable of focusing on both pot and the harsher drugs. So why make something illegal just for the sake of making it illegal? You said it yourself: "My position is all the aspects of organized crime are going to exist no matter what." If OC will still bribe, murder, etc., "no matter what" then why should we give them another source of income? Wouldn't it be better to take that income ourselves (in terms of pot producers, sellers, and tax income)? We could then use that extra money to help combat OC or other things. It is nice to think that if we make something relatively harmless illegal then OC will focus on that. But in reality OC does not just limit itself to one specific area or drug. Rather than spend money to police something relatively harmless, and give OC more income, why not take that income for ourselves and spend the money on stopping OC from the more harmful stuff (which they are doing anyway)?

The Wild West wasn't quite that wild. It wasn't even notable for vigilante justice as Wild Bill has guessed. In fact, many western towns made it illegal to carry guns in town. Not only that, but I'm not sure I see the connection between the wild west of the 19th century and prohibition which the US started in 1920. But the thing I am most confused about is your position regarding how the police should spend their time and resources. You think that they should be concentrating on the minor stuff and letting the major stuff go unchecked? If something "doesn't really... hurt anyone" then why should the police "run after" those people? Personally, I think most people would rather the police run after "what's next up the ladder" then waste their time on minor stuff that doesn't hurt anyone. That is their job!

Why are you asking about a carbon tax? That article says nothing about a carbon tax. It mentions "the eventual carbon trading market", but not a carbon tax. Are you bringing this up in this thread for a reason? Or do you just want to rant against a carbon tax?

No offense, but that is kind of a pointless argument. You can say that about anything. "The RCMP said there was not enough evidence to proceed with an investigation or charges in the Cadman affair. That doesn't make it true!" See? Kind of pointless. It does nothing to support an argument. It is hard to swallow the argument that Elections Canada is blatantly biased against the Conservative Party given its past good reputation and (especially) when it was Harper who nominated the chief electoral officer Maynard. Except that this has been the position of Elections Canada from the very beginning. In fact, this is the reason that Harper is suing them! You can't then go and say this is just them covering their butts when this is exactly what got them sued in the first place. One would assume. Then again one would assume that Elections Canada would have had sufficient evidence to make their original ruling. So I guess we'll see. People sue other people without having good cases all the time. Maybe Harper has some sort of two-for-one deal with his lawyers. But to bring this all back to the witnesses thing, I really haven't heard anything that would justify hauling in people from other parties simply on the Conservative Party's say-so. How cooperative do you think the Conservatives would have been if the Liberals during the sponsorship inquiry demanded that Conservative Party members be hauled in front of the inquiry simply because the Liberals said "they did it too"? Especially if you had an independent organization saying that no other party was involved.

Well let's look at that shall we? We can assume that the Conservative government would want to show the worst of the worst when canceling this program. And what did we end up with? A "general radical" who received $5,000 to travel to film festivals in Australia and Argentina (according to the article). Hmm... wait a minute... could it be that this "general radical" was maybe just going to promote his documentary on Argentinean factory workers? That doesn't seem too radical. Which is why the Conservative rhetoric is so sad. It's over the top and ridiculous. But I guess if they can convince a few people that it was a program that just promoted "wackos" then they have accomplished their newspeak purpose. Heaven forbid that you actually look to see if that was an accurate description of the program. I am not even remotely a part of the arts community, but I have met a few people who are and even attended some events. I have other friends who also are, to use your words, ordinary citizens and they also attend events and have friends who would be considered part of the arts community. The success of a number of Canadian film festivals also indicate that maybe this isn't just "an incestuous little community". Just because you apparently do not take part in this aspect of Canadian life do not presume that others are equally disinterested. Luckily for Canadians, this is a society where people can have different interests. But isn't it funny how some individuals can't stand the idea that maybe those interests hold value for a large number of people, even if they are of no interest to the individual. As for the rest of your post... I have to say it looks like you are the one doing the sneering. It looks like you are the one being condescending. Your narrow-minded stereotype of the arts community only shows your ignorance. (And that isn't because you apparently aren't interested in the arts; that does not make one unsophisticated. It is your own actions - i.e. the stereotyping of a particular group - that show your ignorance.)

Here is an interesting idea from the world of science: when a theory does not agree with real world observations then it is time to adjust the theory. Here is your theory: 1. The Head of State is the only person who can ever represent the people of a nation or speak on their behalf. 2. A Head of State cannot be a politician. And yet we have a nation, France, that does have a Head of State who is a politician. It is not a paradox at all for the French! The French people have chosen a system of government that specifically allows a politician to be a Head of State and speak on behalf of France. Are we supposed to believe that your theory is somehow more valid than the democratic choices of an entire nation? Perhaps it is time to adjust your theory. The people of a nation can choose how to define the role of Head of State. They are not limited to non-politicians. Likewise, this idea that only the Head of State speaks on behalf of a nation is not reflected in the real world. Ambassadors speak on behalf of their nations. I have pointed out examples above where the Canadian Prime Minister does as well. For instance, you have not explained how your theory can accommodate the simple fact that when the Prime Minister makes an agreement with another nation that agreement is binding on all of Canada and not just the people who voted for the Prime Minister or his or her party. One government is not bound by previous governments in the sense that a government can pass whatever legislation it wants within the bounds of its constitutional powers. But governments do have institutional memories. The obligations on one government do apply to subsequent governments, up until those governments decide to break those obligations. Take the very simple example of the helicopter contracts entered into by the Mulroney government. The Liberal government was free to change its mind about the contracts (in this sense it was not bound by the previous government), but the Liberal government was also obligated to pay fees for canceling those contracts (in this sense it was bound by the previous government). Moral obligations can also pass from government to government in this way, making some of these apologies very appropriate and perhaps overdue. Saying that Canada or the Canadian government has no responsibility for something because it happened in the past is not an excuse.

1. Read the post just above mine. Read the link in that post. Yes, Elections Canada said exactly that. 2. Do you have any proof to support that allegation? A lot of people have made that allegation. So far no proof has been provided.

Seems to me that there are a number of Tory witnesses on the list including "A dozen top Tory officials" (according to the article). They were summoned because the officials were either "unable to reach potential witnesses from the Conservative party or were told the witnesses did not want to attend voluntarily." I suppose you were referring to the fact that witnesses suggested by the Conservative party were not added to the list. I can't imagine why the opposition parties would do that given that the Conservative Party blocked any attempt to even hold an inquiry in the first place. Sometimes politics comes back to bite you in the a**. The Conservatives were partisan when they had the chance, now the opposition parties are returning the favour. Does that make it right? (No.) But they can't complain about partisan politics after engaging in partisan politics for months. Also, there is a legitimate case to be made that the Conservative Party's suggested witnesses really had nothing to do with the matter. They were trying to show that other parties engage in this behaviour even though there have been no allegations against other parties and Elections Canada has specifically said that no other parties engaged in this behaviour.

As far as tax cuts are concerned this article link (posted earlier in this thread) points out that the Harper government really hasn't given as many tax cuts as they would like us to believe. They have just introduced new spending programs into the tax system. All that being said, it still might be too early to begin worrying about deficits. Yes, there have been some monthly deficits. But let's wait until closer to the government's year end. It is an annual deficit that really causes problems.

You get points for being consistent at least. Some people would have applied a double standard based on their personal preferences. That being said, I think your philosophy is shortsighted. Not being able to earn enough does not mean that the market does not need that particular job. The market may need the job, but may not be willing to pay enough that a person could live on that salary without a bit of financial help. Giving some financial help allows the market to fill that need without exploiting people. Isn't that part of what government is supposed to do? And yet many of these programs were put in place specifically because private enterprise was not picking up the slack (e.g. the apprenticeship tax credits). Where was the market at that time? These programs can do two things: 1) make up for deficiencies in how the market operates; and 2) speed up market responses. The market is not some magical answer to all of life's questions. Sometimes it needs some help. That is a good theory. However, specifically with advanced R&D, how do you know if that R&D project will be successful? Using this specific example, companies sometimes cannot tell what R&D will be profitable and what won't be. If we were to eliminate R&D funding (or require absolute proof of profitability) then we would hamstring our economy. For Canada to be competitive the Canadian government should be there to take on some of the risk. Providing funding for the arts is about more than just propping up a few people. It is about supporting Canadian culture. To bring this back to the topic of this thread, the program in question was about promoting Canadian arts internationally. Helping to build and maintain Canada's reputation around the world is a good thing. Being proud of what some of our citizens do is also a good thing. It is unfortunate that some people's vision for Canada is so limited. A nation's art and culture says as much (or more) about that nation as its GDP or unemployment rate.

I had read somewhere online that this part of the story had been discredited. (Sorry, I do not remember where I read it and do not have a link.) But the original version of this story was that the acquaintance was a girlfriend or ex-girlfriend of the victim. In fact, the acquaintance in question was not on the bus at all. Some reports also had McLean and Li arguing after the alleged smoke break with the acquaintance. Again though, the acquaintance was never on the bus. Unless the story has been updated again. However the only reference I have so far found to this acquaintance was the one that said the story was not true.

If that is your stance then let's eliminate all job-related funding. After all, this is what you are really saying: if you can't earn enough through your current employment then get a different job. So let's eliminate all government funding of tools and other work-related items (e.g. uniforms). We should also eliminate all funding for apprenticeships. If those people can't afford their own tools or can't afford to work as an apprentice, then they should go elsewhere. This could save the government a lot of money, particularly once they start eliminating all industry specific funding. Why should the government assist in scientific research & development? If a company can't afford to invest in the future then they should do something else, right? Why should the government give subsidies to farmers? They can just get different jobs if they can't survive on their own. The arts are as much a part of Canadian society and culture as any other industry. If other careers deserve funding from the government, why not artists? You see, they do earn money like the rest of us. And, just like the rest of us, the government has programs in place to help the arts "industry" and artists.

It is always interesting to see what programs get cut compared to what programs receive money. You would think that the Canadian government would be interested in promoting Canada internationally. The rhetoric used in the article is also kind of sad.

That's the same logic that says since we can't ever totally eliminate crime we might as well not fight it at all. We cannot make right every misdeed of the past. But that doesn't mean that we do nothing when it comes to those misdeeds that we can and should put right. The only question that remains is was this one of those situations that can and should be put right? To answer that question you will have to do better than "So what?".

So in your opinion, there were no spending cuts by the Liberal government in the 1990s? The deficit was eliminated by factors on both the revenue side and the spending side. Let's not pretend otherwise.

How is that special? Generally I don't think the identity of a plaintiff or defendant has anything to do with why legal costs should or should not be paid. Are you saying that because this involves a political party that if the Conservative Party wins then Elections Canada should not have to pay costs? Are you saying that if Elections Canada wins the Conservative Party should not have to pay costs? It wasn't against the rules. Elections Canada has the discretion to give extensions for paying back debts of that sort as per the Canada Elections Act. Only if you consider allegedly breaking the law to be equal to legally following an established procedure.

Sorry, that is correct. A losing party will not automatically be forced to pay the winning party's legal costs. It is up to the judge. However, usually the losing party will be ordered to pay some costs (generally not all costs). Unless there are special circumstances where it would be inappropriate to have the losing party pay. I don't see any special circumstances here though.

Do you really think that at the time this person immigrated to Canada someone thought he was capable of this type of behaviour? Do you really think that over the years he was living in Canada someone could have predicted this event? I really do not think so. This particular case is not an immigration problem/issue. Should we demand that our immigration officials be able to predict the future so that we can exclude people who might develop problems in the future? I think your labeling this as an immigration problem is inappropriate. If this person was born in British Columbia would you call this a "British Columbia problem"? This person delivered newspapers. Is this a "newspaper delivery person problem"? The accused is married. Is this a "married people problem"? I hope you can see how ridiculous your labeling has become.

I believe so. The party that loses must pay part of the winning party's costs. It is doubtful that either Elections Canada or the Conservative Party would have to pay 100%, but the losing party will probably end up paying something to the other party for their costs.

White Doors, all you have done is essentially repeat your initial statement. g_bambino, I recognize that the PM is not the head of state. However... First, I am not saying that the PM speaks the opinions of every single person in Canada. But your argument cuts both ways. Even the Queen as the Head of State does not speak the opinion of every single Canadian. If this is the definition you are using for "represents Canada" then no one represents Canada. No one could ever speak on behalf of Canadians if all Canadians were required to agree 100%. Also, your arguments are not making a lot of sense. Take the French example. The President is the Head of State, who you (presumably) would recognize as representing the French people. Yet the French President is a politician. Except that you say politicians cannot represent the people. It seems like you have a paradox on your hands. It is totally true that not all Canadians will agree with him. But it is also true that the views given and the agreements made do not apply only to the Prime Minister's government. An agreement made at the G8 by the Prime Minister will bind Canada as a nation. It will bind subsequent governments and subsequent Prime Ministers until such time as the agreement lapses, is modified by mutual consent of the parties, or Canada breaks that agreement. But make no mistake, it is seen as Canada breaking the agreement, not as a new government coming to power and not being held to the agreement. It is in this sense that the Prime Minister represents Canada. When the Prime Minister makes these commitments he or she binds the people of Canada. Of course not everyone will agree with an issue. But as I pointed out above, if that is your definition of representing a country then no one can ever represent a country. Yes, they are political statements. If we apply some logic here, we can see what I mean when I say "speaking on behalf of Canadians". If we are to accept your proposition, that the Prime Minister can only speak on behalf of those who elected him or her (that is elected those Party members whose numbers then require that the PM be appointed), then there would be no point in issuing any apology whatsoever. The people who elected the current government were not alive in 1914 (for the most part). So why apologize? It is because "the government" exists in two senses: the current government party and the Canadian government that has existed as a continuous institution since Canada became a nation. The apology comes from this continuous government since it was responsible for turning away the boat. We are all represented by this government, no matter who we voted for. I think that perhaps only that last bit is really relevant to this topic. So before we take this thread any further off course... if anyone feels like debating the issue more generally then maybe a new topic can be started. If I don't see a new topic then I'll take that to mean that we've all agreed to disagree. Unless we are specifically referencing the apology or apologies in general, of course.

Looks like mikedavid00 is also in the running for "intellectual" post of the year. It is amazing how far some will stretch in order to rant against something like immigration.

Officially the Prime Minister is the Head of the Government. Officially the Queen is the Head of the State (with the Governor General being the Queen's representative in Canada). That is all well and good. Now, who represents the Canadian people on the world stage? Who speaks for them? If the Prime Minister was not able to speak on behalf of the people then does that not make all of the agreements that the Canadian government enters into void and illegitimate? How could the government function if every time they needed to make a representation on behalf of Canada they had to bring in the Governor General or the Queen? Like it or not, practically speaking, the Prime Minister represents the people of Canada. The Prime Minister can and does speak on their behalf. Very rarely does the Queen or the Governor General exercise their right to speak on behalf of Canadians without the permission and/or approval of the Prime Minister and the government. If you want to feel better about this, maybe you can think of it as the Queen, through the Governor General, granting the Prime Minister the right to speak on behalf of Canadians. However you want to look at it though, the practical reality is that the Prime Minister does speak on behalf of Canadians and represent Canadians to the world.