Keepitsimple

Scooters and Mopeds don't obstruct cars - they can keep to the side of the road if they go too slow. A vehicle, small though it is, can be an obstruction - and with a top speed of 40 KPH, that's what it will be - even with its little engine racing at full speed. I'd love to see Cnadian ingenuity at work as much as the next guy - but these golf carts are not suited for general transportation on our roads. Too bad - I've always loved the idea of building a 100% Canadian car.

People still find a way to dredge up Mike Harris' name. The truth of the matter is that when Harris came to power, Ontario's deficit was $8 Billion a year and growing - thanks to a recession and Bob Rae's NDP government. The amazing thin is that revenues back then were only about 45-50 Billion. Think about it - an 8 billion dollar shortfall when you're only collecting 45 billion in revenue. Contrast that to McGuinty's "crisis" of 5 billion on revenues of about 90 billion....and in fact the deficit was really closer to 3 billion - the Libs did some accounting tricks to drive the deficit up "on paper" - for example, they didn't count the almost one million dollars that came from the Feds as support for the SARS epidemic. So how did Harris get out of debt and at the same time make the biggest injcreases in Education and Health spending in history? Well first they lowered taxes to get businesses to come back to Ontario - they had all fled to other juristictions to get away from the NDP taxes. They centralized the education system so that unions could no longer pick on a weak school board, "bargain" the best wages they could - and then demand that all school boards fall in line. That's what led to the per capita funding. And guess what - McGuinty hasn't changed it - nor will he. Why? Because it's the right way to do it - it just needs a bit of tweaking. But I digress - just look at the deficits that I detailed above - what Harris and Snobelon and Flaherty did is absolutely amazing. They were the right bunch at the right time. They were "fixers" - not managers. Their skills had run their course - that's why Harris stepped down. History may very well show that Harris was not only the architect of the Common Senses Revolution - but he actually saved Education and Healthcare in Ontario. It was painful but necessary.

Amen.

The main point of my point is that we have never been able to define what poverty actually is. The Star, the NDP, and now the Liberals are behind inappropriate StatsCan numbers that say 6,000,000 (six million) Canadians are poor. In my original post, I've included categories of people who should within reason, not be part of the 6 million - a number that is outright ridiculous. And by the way - if someone is poor, does that mean they are living in poverty?....or does it mean they can't buy an Ipod for their child? My point is that if you can't define the problem, you can't properly measure any actionsw - nor can you develop effective policies.....all it does is give a continued platform to the babbling and hand-wringing that comes from people like Layton - and now Dion.....and all the while, there really are people who need our help.

If we are to effectively battle true poverty, we need to properly identify and reasonably measure it. Poverty is insidious - it often breeds the next generation of poverty and creates a cycle that is difficult to break. We need to break out of the pious rhetoric that has been spouted by Liberals (end poverty by 2000) and the NDP. We need to pragmatically address it - first by measuring and quanitifying and then developing policies that address the needs of those who are indeed, most in need. ....but here we go again. Stephane Dion, making policies on the fly, has started beating the Poverty drum. There has been a background din from poverty activists over the past 20 years or so - usually ebbing when Liberals are in power and rising to a crescendo when Conservatives gain the helm. As usual, poverty statistics are derived from Statistics Canada's Low Income Cutoff (LICO) - but even StatsCan warns not to use such statistics as an indication of poverty. One thing is for sure - if you can't effectively measure poverty, then you can't come up with a game-plan to tackle it properly....but similar to the heated opposition to Toronto's "counting the homeless" project that couldn't find more than five or six hundred homeless people living on the streets instead of the activist number of over 5000 (that's still not something to be proud of) - there has never been an accepted method of defining poverty - let along quantifying it. I would like to see our Federal Government put in place an all-party commission to do just that. As part of their mandate, I'd like to see the following issues addressed: 1) Differentiating poverty from being "economically challenged". One entails the basics to live, the other provides basic "extras" that allow a person to more effectively participate in society. 2) Defining a "starting age" for poverty. StatsCan includes anyone who files taxes - that can even be age 15 or 16. Certainly people who are 18 or 19 in minimum wage jobs are simply getting their feet wet on the road to better wages. Most still live at home or share lodging with friends. At what age do we consider them to be living in poverty? 20? 21? 25? 3) Refugees - of course these people - about 40,000 each and every year - will be classified as poor - they come to Canada with nothing and we support them while they find their way. Shouldn't they be excluded for a period of time? For how long? 3 years? 5 years? 4) Immigrants - while these people SHOULD be able to support themselves right away, we all know that this is not the case. Many are admitted through the family reunification process and don't necessarily have a predisposed method of support. How do we "count" this section of the population. 5) Seniors - my own mother is classified as poor - yet she has everthing that she needs and more. When you are 75, 80 or older, your lifestyle changes. Many accomodations are somewhat subsidized - clothing, transporation and entertainment needs are modest. How do we make adjustments in our "measurements" to take this reality into consideration? 6) On-reserve Indigenous people - we know there is a great deal of horrible poverty on reserves - but there are many reasons we have to identify this segment separately. There are levels of First Nations government and culture that put restraints on what can be done. Though we have to make every effort to work with First Nations to deal with on-reserve poverty, it should not be invisibly added to statistics for the sole purpose of swelling the numbers. What do you think? Does any of this make sense to you?

I think the reason people don't want an election is pretty simple. Most people, except for die-hard partisans, do not see any compelling reason to have one. Even though a substantial number of people may not be warm to Harper, even they don't think he's really done anything to upset the applecart.

Another bad break for Stephane Dion. Instead of trying to counter their self-serving image and their attitude of "entitlement", this bozo MP picks this time to try and immortalize one of the most controversial and yes, perhaps divisive, characters in Canadian history.

It has repeatedly been said on CBC and in Liberal rags like the Star that Dion is a man of great integrity and character - Jim Travers often says this. While he is probably a very nice man, integrity and character are better tested when having to make tough decisions. Dion has only recently been thrust into such positions. We're going to see whether Mr. Dion's integrity will be put aside for political expedience. Will he be in favour of a throne speech that will obviously go against his stated principles? What does integrity mean anyway? Doing what you believe is right? Doing what's right for your party? Doing what's right for the country? I think we'll be seeing how a nice man's integrity gets comprimised in the rough and tumble world of politics.

Who really knows what goes on behind the scenes. I would put my money on this scenario: Harper probably told Casey "I'll continue to work to fix this - but don't vote against the budget. If you do, you're gone!". He fixed it. Casey's gone. MP's know where they stand.

It was an old shoe store last year when this "secret project" was starting up - and it's still an old shoe store now. The information that the Star accessed had to be at least a year and a half old - they requested it a year ago. and since you have to wait six months before requesting access to information - that means at least 18 months has passed. Now the Star is trying to save face by implying that THEY stopped it in its tracks. Pardon me while I stick my finger down my throat.

Sure Harper tried to make hay by criticizing the Liberals on this issue....but the real prblem was in the way the Liberals handled it - they did not keep their mouths shut.....the information that they MIGHT do something became public so investors who were "plugged in" sold their Income Trusts in a massive selloff. The first people to sell didn't lose anything but by the time the last guys sold (the little guys) the losses were major. Then everybody had to figure out if they wanted to buy back in.....of course the guys who were "plugged in" bought back in at a discount.....so the rich got richer and the little guys got screwed - all because Mr. Dithers couldn't make a decision and they didn't have the cabinet discipline to keep their mouths shut. The Conservatives, rightly or wrongly, showed how to do it right - they caught everybody by surprise. You might not agree with what they did but you have to give them credit for doing it properly.

MacDonald is no dummy and I'm thinking that Danny Boy has overplayed his hand. MacDonald has got himself a reasonable deal that the rest of Canada can live with - he won't be double-dipping as Danny wants to do. But it's not just this deal - it's all the other deals that he knows can best be accomplished as a partner with the feds as opposed to being an antagonist - the Atlantic Gateway has just been announced for example. Danny on the other hand, makes it very hard for Harper to be generous with Newfoundland. Regardless of Harper's so-called promise before the election - if Danny got HIS deal, it would be bad for the rest of Canada. Can you imagine how Ontarians would feel if Newfoundland was getting more per-capita in Program money than Ontarians - and Ontarians (and others) were paying for it with their tax dollars? Danny should have made his point - which he did - win his election - which he did - and put his personal animosity behind him for the betterment of his province. He is starting to look very foolish and the rest of Canada, at least those that understand what he's trying to get out of Ottawa, are thinking that he's just a greedy, bitter, man. Enough already.

From the original Ipsos poll CFRB news story, I think this is the most interesting finding - and one that should make Liberals and NDP go "oh my gawd!!!"

Fortunata....you should read Harper's Biography by William Johnson. It is a biography that was not approved by Harper so is pretty well non-partisan - especially since Mr. Johnson is mainly associated with the Globe & Mail. In the book, you would find that Harper never really planned to be a leader of anything - he was a behind-the-scenes policy guy who, by a set of circumstances, had leadership thrust upon him. He does not come from a rich or influential background, nor does he have any family political roots. He's pretty well an ordinary Canadian from an ordinary Canadian family who grew up in Toronto and went to University in Calgary......so to say he personally has a thirst for power is laughable. He certainly has a thirst for politics and policy but rightly or wrongly (or should that be rightly or leftly), he is trying to accomplish many of the things that he felt would benefit Canada and in time, form a stronger, united Canada. Read the book - it's pretty inexpensive and can be ordered through amazon.com if you can't find it in your bookstore. If you truly care about politics and your country, it's best you find out a bit more about Harper before you bash him - which of course, is always your right....but it's more appropriate when it's an informed bashing.

Incrementalism is the key. Canada IS a conservative country - people just don't know it yet. Currently, there is an Urban/Rural divide where Rural is admittedly Conservative. The cities on the other hand, tend to vote Liberal/NDP. The anomoly is that cities contain a heavily immigrant population. Immigrants come mainly from conservative cultures and thus SHOULD lean toward Conservatism. Immigrants and refugees also tend to come from countries where government has tried to impose on them - so BIG government SHOULD be something they don't like. Having said that, the political right was dormant for 12-13 years until Harper and the New Conservative Party came along - so it will take some more time to build street creds. But also, new Canadians frequently start off using government programs like Welfare and UIC and other supports. Past Liberal governments have made a big show about Conservatives cutting back on "programs" and "rights". The longer the Conservatives are in power, the more people will come to see this as hogwash. So I can see that slowly but surely, as the second-generation of New Canadians start to gain confidence, they will seek out their traditional conservatoive roots. Incrementalism - one step at a time.

Best estimates are that die-hard separatists are only about 20% of the population....personally, I think that's on the high side because of all the baloney that they've been fed by the Bloc and the PQ. The baloney is starting to go mouldy.

There are so many great ways to upgrade our healthcare system but I'm afraid it will take some innovative Private involvement - and it's really not that scary. Canada has an advantage in that we already have a government healthcare system with all the billing and administration that goes with that. Introducing a dollup of Private help is easier than in the states for example where it's almost all Private and introducing broad government involvement is like turning around the Queen Mary....because doctors and HMO's will fight it. Here's two examples that could greatly help our healthcare: 1) The intoduction of Private Clinics Staffed by doctors, registered nurses, physiotherapists and perhaps other specialists, these clinics would provide access to 24 hour care. They would function as your General Practitioner but provide immediate access to complimentary care. This would greatly ease the pressure on ER's. The Private element is only related to the Infrastructure and Billing. A Private company would supply the facilities and equipment, be responsible for cleaning and upkeep, and do all the billing, paperwork, and patient record keeping. In exchange, they get a percentage of the regular OHIP/Medicare fee. Only services that are covered by our Healthcare card would be offered and the Healthcare card would be the only method of payment. The Doctors and other Professionals would get less of the Healthcare fee because they would have to give up a percentage to the Private company.....but they don't have to pay all the overhead and do the paperwork - they do what they do best - look after patients. 2) Assembly Line Surguries Many people do not know that almost all heart surgeons are not able to fill their day with surguries because there are not enough beds and supporting services. I'm pretty sure that many other surgeons face the same problem. So again, we get the Private Sector to provide the infrastructure, support services, and billing and paperwork. Perhaps each major city gets one of two Private facilities for hip & knee replacements. Again - everything is paid for with our healthcare card and the doctors give up a portion of that to the Private facility. Summary That's where I see the Private sector helping out - investment in infrastructure and support services where there can be a scale of economy that allows them to operate more efficiently than a bureaucratic hospital that tries to be all things to all people. That's the key, if they can do it for less because of the sdcales of economy, then they can make a profit without charging any more - and everybody pays with their Healthcare Card. It's not so scary.

You're missing the point. My example of "Quebecois as a nation" as part of Harper's incremental approach is winning over, if not converting "soft" separatists. Of course there will always be die-hard zeolots - they are only going to go away as they die off.

This topic was initiated with a reference to Robert Bourassa's "demands" back in 1985. Personally, I don't think that Harper will start any formal process like Charlottetown or Meech. I think he'll slowly but surely make incremental changes that will continue to make Quebec feel more comfortable within confederation - in a spirit of fairness to other provinces. The "Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada" is a perfect example - it doesn't really impact other provinces but it has great meaning for Quebecers. I believe that Harper would like to use this incrementalism to create conditions - over a long period of time - whereby a Quebec premier, on behalf of Quebecers, asks to initiate a process of Constitutional reconciliation. This would only occur at a time when incremental changes had already taken effect and the majority of the older generation of "old stock" Francophones had passed on or lessened their influence. It's really a change of attitude between the Federal and Quebec governments. Gilles Duceppe phrased it accurately when he said that the former Liberal government had a "Father knows best" attitude - a heavy-handed centralist approach. That approach has been replaced with one of obvious respect for provincial areas of responsibility - and make no mistake - that attitude adjustment has had a profound effect on Quebecers' view of Federalism. Liberals still cannot accept this. It'll take time for everything to congeal - I'd bet anywhere from 10 to 15 years - slow and steady. On a related point, the Liberals used to be viewed as the party that could hold the country together. It's obvious they will not get their act together before the next election. Quebec has totally rejected the Liberal Party. If the Liberal Party somehow gets back into power in the next election, it would be like the Rest of Canada smacking Quebec in the face. That's why it's important for Liberals to have a fairly long walk in the wilderness - so they can come to grips with the reality of how Canada and Quebec can strengthen the federation. As they stand now, Liberals are yesterday's party.

I think it would be the best thing for this country. The only way that Liberals can heal themselves is to take a walk in the wilderness and gain some humility. Their thirst for power was only satisfied by the divisions on the center-right. It's time for Canadians to get comfortable with something other than the Liberals - it's not such a scary dilemna - and the longer Harper is our PM, the more people will understand that. Pundits have said that Liberals campaign from the Left and govern from the Right. What that really means is that they campaign on things like "eliminating poverty by the tear 2000", "fixing healthcare for a generation", signing a pledge on Kyoto to make it look like we are heros and then embarrassing Canada on the world stage by doing nothing, promising to cancel the GST - and it goes on and on. As for governing from the Right - it simply means that they do none of the above. Much like the Conservatives under Kim Campbell were annihilated down to 2 seats, the Liberals need a similar thrashing - it's the only way to get rid of the old guard - the behind the scenes power hungry cabal. Give the Liberals 8 or 10 years to get their act together and they'll come back as strong as ever - but they have to earn it. The Liberals are the party of yesteryear and Dion is Yesterday's Man.

Not surprising since he was born and raised in Toronto and then moved to Calgary.

I agree with the law. I think it's a reasonable "infringement" on rights for the protection of society. The spirit of the law is to get an obvious dangerous driver off the road and punish them enough that they will alter their idiotic ways. The only real criticism I've heard is that a cop might be lying or possible, just mistaken. I'm sure that almost all of these cases will be plainly visible to the public and many will be initiated by a call from the public. I think part of the process will entail the police getting witness statements to buttress the inevitable trial - although I would imagine a guilty plea might save the accused a few bucks and speed the process (pardon the pun). As with any law, if it doesn't work well, it will be fixed or done away with. Let's face it - we've all seen these idiots once in a while - not the speeders that stick to the passing lane and at least stay out of your way - it's the guys/gals that weave in and out at breakneck speed that you have to watch out for and sometimes hit your brakes. It goes back to childhood - take away their toys - and save a life.

Topaz is not the most Harper-friendly or Military-friendly poster on this site. It would be best if he would post the source of his accusations to help readers put things in context. Another poster has already provided a link and quote but for those who missed it - here it is again: Link: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...b0-e1a7afe6b805

We'll get a really good idea of where Dion and his Liberals stand when they have to vote on the throne speech. We know the Bloc and NDP will vote against it. Dion will most likely try to orchestrate deliberate absences so that the vote passes. But what if some of those MPs decide to show up anyway to vote down the Throne Speech so they can have an election, lose, and kick Dion out? Indeed, it will be interesting to see who shows up, and who doesn't.

I agree that the overall report is misleading and verges on "class bashing" as someone else said. What surprises me most is that the number of rich people who pay no taxes is only in the hundreds. There are many reasons why taxes can be reduced - the best example is when you take a bath in the stock market. Many people who are "rich" take more risks in the stock market - they tend to win big and lose big. They pay a lot of tax when they win and get the tax benefit when they lose. Let's not hold it against them - ultimately they are investing their money in companies that create jobs, more often than not. I'll bet that in 2000/2001 when technology stocks melted down, a lot of people ended up not paying tax - and lost a lot of money to boot. Those that got out in time made a bundle - and paid a bunch of capital gains tax too.