Keepitsimple

Of all the UN countries, why do you think Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US were the only ones to vote against it? Could it be that they have something in common? Certainly, they are all countries that have good Human Rights records. They are not countries that should be compared to Botswana or Chechnya. So what is it? It's because each of these countries have already taken significant steps to address the rights of indigenous populations and elements of the declaration are at odds with the practical solutions and steps that are in progress today. Lets not forget the $9 billion that Canada spends on First Nation issues or the fact that we are currently trying to bring First Nations under the protection of Canada's own Human Rights Code - with First Nations being reluctant to do so. Here's a link to Canada's position and why we voted against the resolution: Link: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/s-d2007/2-2936-eng.asp STATEMENT BY CANADA'S NEW GOVERNMENT REGARDING THE UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 2-2936 OTTAWA (September 12, 2007) - The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, and the Honourable Maxime Bernier, Minister of Foreign Affairs, issued the following statement today regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: The General Assembly will vote tomorrow on whether or not to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada will vote against adoption of the current text because it is fundamentally flawed and lacks clear, practical guidance for implementation, and contains provisions that are fundamentally incompatible with Canada's constitutional framework. It also does not recognize Canada's need to balance indigenous rights to lands and resources with the rights of others. Since taking office in 2006, Canada's New Government has acted on many fronts to improve quality of life and promote a prosperous future for all Aboriginal peoples. This agenda is practical, focuses on real results, and has led to tangible progress in a range of areas including land claims, education, housing, child and family services, safe drinking water and the extension of human rights protection to First Nations on reserve. We are also pushing to have Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act repealed. This would ensure the protection of fundamental human rights for all Aboriginal people, including Aboriginal women who are often the most vulnerable. Canada supports the spirit and intent of a United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But further negotiations are necessary in order to achieve a text worthy of Canadian support that will truly address the interests of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world. We have not stood alone during this process. The U.S., Australia and New Zealand have all voiced concerns with the text as it now stands. Canada's position has remained consistent and principled. We have stated publicly that we have significant concerns with the wording of provisions of the Declaration such as those on: lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of indigenous peoples, member States and third parties. For example, in Article 26, the document states: "Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired." This could be used by Aboriginal groups to challenge and re-open historic and present day treaties and to support claims that have already been dealt with. Similarly, some of the provisions dealing with the concept of free, prior and informed consent are too restrictive. Provisions such as Article 19 imply that the State cannot act without the consent of indigenous peoples even when such actions are matters of general policy affecting both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Despite Canada joining efforts with like-minded States that have a large indigenous population, our concerns with the current text were not addressed. Canada will continue to be active internationally in the field of indigenous rights, and will continue with our practical and meaningful agenda on priorities here at home. For further information please contact: Philippe Mailhot Press Secretary Office of the Honourable Chuck Strahl 819-997-0002 Foreign Affairs Media Relations Office Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada 613-995-1874

This isn't about Harper or Canada - it's about the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. They all oppose the declaration. These countries are unique. They each have a "First Nations" element that have been accomodated to various degrees in terms of helping them retain their original heritage. These countries and the steps they have individually taken to reconcile with First Nations cannot be compared to African countries in the same vein. Again, trying to have a one-size-fits-all "feel-good" document is counter-productive. I ask - which countries and peoples are we really trying to help? If you had to pick 5 countries in terms of how they have abused their First Nations Human Rights - which would you pick? Here in Canada - our First Nations have foot-dragged when our current government wants them to be governed by our Human Rights code - they say they need more time to consult!

A big deal was made of this census data on the news today - bigger than it deserved. Statistics are often misleading. One factor was mysteriously absent - people are waiting significantly longer before getting married - this has a very obvious downward effect on the percentage of married couples. It wasn't that long ago when the natural thing to do was to marry in your early twenties - now it's more likely to be early thirties. Although I know Stats Canada is trying to be consistent with previous census data - it really makes little sense to claim that more than half of Canadians aged 15 and over are unmarried. How many kids aged 15, 16 and 17 do you know that are married? Having said all that, it doesn't dismiss the fact that the percentage of unmarried couples is very much on the rise.....but I don't think the Grim Reaper will be claiming the institution of marriage anytime soon. An interesting aside in these statistics is the percentage of same-sex couples at .006 percent - supposedly similar to Australia and New Zealand. There have been a lot of stats thrown around by gay activists that measure the gay community as being anywhere from 10 to 15% of the population. If heterosexual couples represent about 25% of the overall population in Canada, then by the same measurement, the gay population should be about 2.4% (.006 x 4). That's in line with most other non-activist studies that peg it anywhere from 2 to 4%. That's a good thing - it should make more people realize that same-sex issues should really not be that "threatening". Acceptance, if not embracement, is really not that difficult.

Stephen Harper is the first Canadian PM to be invited to address the Australian Parliament. He has shown more leadership and committment to the world stage than I thought was possible for a "rookie" PM. Many of his comments are intended for domestic consumption back home.......but it's refreshing to see his actual comments, rather than the summarized versions of some of our media. Here's some of what he said: Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070911/...1&printer=1

It makes my blood boil. If someone is given a "Life" sentence for murder - shouldn't it require that they spend more than 12 years in prison? This murderer was given a Life Sentence with no chance of parole for 12 years. "Life" in Canada means 25 years. Yet he was in a minimum security facility - obviously "preparing" for his release even before he was up for review. What kind of justice is this? Componding the issue is that many second-degree convictions are arrived at through plea-bargaining because a first-degree conviction is so difficult to prove. Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/11092007/3/cana...-help-rcmp.html Here's an additional link on Life Sentences in Canada: http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C40.htm#10

The Palestinian situation is not that different from the India/Pakistan partition - which after initial bloodshed, has resulted in two democracies. In 1947, Britain granted independence to India and at the same time, created the countries of India and Pakistan. "Partition" to accommodate religious sectors had been brewing for years. somewhat clumsily guided by the League of Nations. The ensuing displacement of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims was massive - as was the violence....but it abated to a large degree. India and Pakistan accepted partition and the pain of displacement and evolved to democratic countries. Arab countries did not accept partition at all - in fact, they stole the ability of Palestinians to determine their own future by attacking Israel.....and here we are today, 60 years later. Here's the link to the creation of Independent India and Pakistan - I've positioned the link on the Population Exchanges because that will show the similarity to what could have happened in the Middle East - but there is an interesting historical context to partitioning....so you might want to scroll back up to the beginning. Partintion of India/Pakistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

Much of the so-called "disgrace" that supposedly clung to Mulroney was related to the Airbus "scandal". It conveniently sabotaged Mulroney's reputation. Even after Chretien's government apologized and settled out of court for two million dollars five years ago, the RCMP continued to investigate Mulroney until early this year. In Mulroney's CTV interview, he refers to the Liberals creating a parliamentary "rat-pack" - 4 or 5 MP's selected to feverishly attack MP's and the government on a personal level - the commencement of what has been a downward spiral of Parliamentary decorum. Their platform for launching the attacks was centered around the Airbus fiasco and most other criticisms became linked to this so-called corruption - since withdrawn with the Liberal apology. Mulroney was far from perfect but then again, real leadership that seeks to accomplish significant goals almost always clashes with those who prefer the status-quo - hence the protests and negativity surrounding Free Trade, the GST, US Relations, and Meech Lake. Here's an article that chronicles the Airbus story: AirBus: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...6d92ef0&k=0

Since this is coming from the Toronto Star and is knocking the Liberals, I would imagine they did quite a bit of homerwork. The Star doesn't take a bullet out of the Liberal election gun without good reason. Geoffrey - may I ask what general background you have to critique the article?..........it seems pretty bang-on to me - kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't but in the end, as it implies - it's done, it seems fair and let's move on.

That amounts to straight Representation by Population (Rep by Pop). The problem with that, as our founding fathers knew, is that it puts too much power in the hands of the cities - where most people live. For example, 50% of Ontario's population is in the GTA. If you include Hamilton and Ottawa, that figure rises to two-thirds. Finally, 94% of the population lives in Southern Ontario. It makes sense that if you elect a large majority of representatives from cities - they will more often than not do what's best for the cities, to the possible/probable exclusion of Ontario's other regions. In other words, you would be marginalizing the influence of vast swaths of Ontario. That's why we have ridings - to balance the competing interests and to ensure that all Ontarians have a voice. Some Stats can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario#Popul...ario_since_1851

I know we had a long running topic on Income Trusts a few months back but today's Star Editorial caught me by surprise. It's worth a read because now that much of the emotion has left the argument, there's nothing left except the facts...and this Editorial does a pretty good job in explaining where we stand today and why. Link: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/253578

Didn't like either of them and I voted for both of them at one time. Trudeau was arrogant beyond belief and Mulroney had the voice of a preacher - he always sounded like he was delivering a sermon. As a former Montrealer, I would have loved to see them rename Mirabel airport in Trudeau's name, instead of lovely old Dorval - after all, he was the driving force behind that particular huge White Elephant. I know these comments are pretty shallow but why dredge up all the same old arguments, whether real or revisionist.

The real point of why I started this topic was that the Conservatives started what appears to be something worthy and substantial by appointing a Liberal to lead it - Michael Kirby. That's why I titled it "Doing What's Right" - Kirby was arguably the best person for the job and it didn't matter that he was a Liberal - albeit retired. There's patronage and then there is blatant patronage. Career politicians and public servants - who are often (but not always) best qualified for a position - are pretty well guaranteed to be affiliated with the Liberals or Conservatives. That's just the way it is. The issue is always whether they are a good choice for the position.

I'd still like to hear from someone about this...... Can someone explain to me what the Catholic School Board teaches in the way of religion? More to the point, how many hours a day are devoted to religion? It's been a long time since I've been to school and I was always in the Public (non catholic) school system. I would imagine that any approach to faith-based funding would be modeled after the Catholic system. Faith-based schools would likely be compelled to offer similar instruction - no more than x hours per week - to qualify for per-student funding......I think this might provide a better perspective on what we are debating. Thanks.

Not quite speechless.....I've said my bit and you've said yours. I respect your viewpoint but I'll maintain mine - albeit with a little better insight with a couple of the points you've made. No need to go around in circles.

Support for Harper's leadership should be encouraging for Conservatives. I think party popularity lags behind for three reasons: 1) The demise of the PC's, Reform and Alliance has taken their toll with regards to what it means to be a Conservative. There is a "re-branding" process that is going on that has been defining all over again what it is to be a Conservative. 2) Throughout the first 10 years of the last Liberal lock on power, they rightly scoffed at the disfunctional Right. As the Conservatives got their act together in recent years, Liberals tried to brand them as a far-right extremist party. 3) When Harper came to power, the Liberals launch a relentless attack on him - trying to demonize him as someone who would destroy Canada and take away Human Rights. Given the above, "re-branding" the Conservatives as an effective center-right party has been like turning around the Queen Mary.....but slowly and surely it's happening. The longer the Conservatives stay in power, the more that the public is accepting that they are what them seem - a center-right party that seeks to be as inclusive as possible but governs on fairly clear principles. I think we are approaching a tipping-point where the Liberal fear-mongering with regards to screams of Conservatives being far-right will finally resonate with the people for what they are - the rantings of a party that has lost its way, and a party that lacks leadership.

Evan - you seem like a thoughtful person - my comments are not meant as a slight to you. I also think that Howard Hampton is a nice fellow - actually the most likeable of the three leaders. Having said that, the problem with NDP "democracy" has always been "how do you pay for it". They are always authors of policies that sound good on the surface, but are impractical to implement and in many cases, smack of sheer socialism - dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator and sucking the "will" out of people to better themselves. Perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement but with the NDP, there is always the tendency to move in the direction that government will solve everything. Healthcare - we have been throwing more and more monet at healthcare every year and I believe it now consumes about 40% of all government revenues. We need to keep an open mind on whether some additional help from the Private sector might be beneficial. We can't continue to turn a blind eye by citing a Public-only mantra. Let's look at some successful European and Nordic countries who have a blended approach. And if we continue down the same NDP-approved path - who will pay? Green Energy - if we don't use Nuclear and we close the coal plants.....well, I don't even want to go there. Let's just say that industry and consumers will have to pay enormous prices for fuel and power. Again, it sounds good, especially when people wring their hands and say "well, we have to do something!" Who will pay? Poverty - sure we've got poverty - left-leaning activists say that 1 in 6 people are living in poverty. I've been all through the stats in other postings. First of all, stats are based on the dubious use of a Low Income Cutoff which Stats Canada themselves states should not be used as a poverty measurement figure. Secondly, the stats include people as young as 16 years old. If you don't count people who are 21 or younger - and accept that they are just starting out - then "poverty" rates start to read as 1 in 12 or even 1 in 15.......and that ignores exactly what "poverty" really means. In my mind, there's a big difference between living in poverty with no roof over your head or not enough food......and being "income-challenged" where you can't afford Cable TV or have trouble making car payments. But again - who is going to pay for the NDP approach? Who is going to pay? Taxpayers - that's who - individuals and companies. And when individuals have to pay more tax, we have less to spend. And when we have less to spend, we can't buy things that drive the economy and create and sustain jobs. When companies - large and small - have to pay more tax, they also have less to spend. So they can't expand and create more jobs and again, the economy suffers. And guess what? When the economy suffers, less tax is collected - and yet we still have to pay for all the decisions that were made on Healthcare, Greening, and Poverty. That's how we end up with giant deficits. So......be careful what you wish for.

Can someone explain to me what the Catholic School Board teaches in the way of religion? More to the point, how many hours a day are devoted to religion? It's been a long time since I've been to school and I was always in the Public (non catholic) school system. I would imagine that any approach to faith-based funding would be modeled after the Catholic system. Faith-based schools would likely be compelled to offer similar instruction - no more - no less - to qualify for per-student funding.

I share your concern about Provincial jurisdiction but there are some areas of Healthcare that can benefit from an informational clearinghouse approach in conjunction with some sort of National awareness campaign. Helping to develop best practices and encouraging provincial program integration can also help. Having said that, there is often a fine line between "helping" and "intruding" - usually measured by offering or withholding funding or direct aid to a patient. Let's see how it unfolds but at first blush, it seems to be gratefully accepted by the medical community. Quebec is the province who hollers loudest on intrusion so I'll be curious to see their response.

Let's keep in mind what Tory has said. As a starter, he'll consider funding only those schools who adhere to the Ontario cariculum and use certified teachers. He's also said that he'll appoint Bill Davis to fine-tune the process and figure out how to implement it. McGuinty's scare-tactics of calling this "segregation" are not surprisingly, political fear-mongering. Tory is correct in saying that this is an opportunity to bring faith-based private schools into the Public system - it is inclusive - not segregationist. Here's my two cents: 1) We should go beyond cariculum and certification. To qualify for public funding, religious teaching should be limited to a certain number of hours per week - probably on a par with the Catholic system, whatever that is. This is part of Bill Davis' job - to figure out the best way of making it work. 2) Funding is really not an issue - yes it's more expensive but only because some private faith-based schools will "join" the Public system and qualify for per-student grants according to the province-wide funding formula.....and if the only difference is that they receive 5 hours of religion a week (or whatever), then what's the big deal? So what would you rather have? Faith-based private schools that are completely outside the public system? I fear that are Charter of Rights would actually allow something very similar to Pakistan's madrassas. Or would you rather have an environment that openly encourages newcomers to join the public system but still retain a connection to their faith?

Jennie - you sound like a thoughtful person and not necessarily a "Conservative hater". If you have been following Jim Prentice's career, you would find him to be a champion of First Nations issues and the previous initiatives that I've mentioned - and it is he who has crafted the Conservative's plan for First Nations. This plan has been ongoing since the Conservatives took power but has been lost in the opposition and media noise about the Kelowna Accords - a vague promise by a dying Liberal government to spend yet again more money in a manner that has not worked for the past god-knows-how-many-years....and while $5 billion sounds like a lot of money - it was actually over 10 years - with no real plan for how to distribute the money. Phil Fontaine and the Band Chiefs continue to do a grave injustice to First Nations. They want the Liberals back in power so they can continue avoiding being accountable for the money they get. That's why there's a lot of activism going on - in spite of the many good things that Prentice and the Conservatives have done and continue to do, Fontaine and his chiefs do not want accounbtability for the billions that are spent - full audits of what comes in, what goes out and how it's spent. So......was it really the activism that got things moving - I don't think so. Having said that, I think it has had a positive impact. It has put the isse on the average Canadian's radar and perhaps now, the Conservatives will start to get credit for taking a fresh approach and some actual action to better the lives of our First Nations.....but make no mistake, the Band Chiefs must be accountable to it's people and they must be protected by Human Rights and our Charter - just like any Canadian. If we can get past those two roadblocks, I think we'll really start to see some progress.

That's the scary part. The petitioners are saying that our First Nations will use this Charter to further their goals. Those goals should be furthered through Canadian action and legislation - not by loosely worded, one-size-fits-all international charters. We already have important initiatives underway with our First Nations - finally, we seem to have some momentum in the areas of Human Rights, Band "accountability", land claims committments, and more focus on support for off-reserve First Nations people.

As far as I can tell, this story did not get much media attention, appearing on Page 15 of Saturday's Star. Announcements like these are significant - they deal with substance - as opposed to the day-to-day blather about the environment and Afghanistan. Intitiatives such as this along with pursuing Human Rights for First Nations are substantive issues that help to make Canada a better country. Of particular note is that Harper announced that Michael Kirby. a retired Liberal senator, would lead the newly formed Mental Health Commission of Canada. It's nice to see that Harper has chosen the best man for the job, regardless of party affiliation. Link: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/252281

This is a perfect example of trying to create a one-size-fits-all set of politically-correct "rules". I cannot speak for many of the other countries but Canada is following it's own path in reconciling with our First Nations. Contrary to the attitude of some posters, the Conservatives have been fighting to bring our First Nations under the protection of our Human Rights laws, from which they are excluded today. This is far more important than a "feel good" agreement put together by a disfunctional organization like the UN. This whole topic is another tempest in a teapot to demonize the Conservatives. Let's get on with things of substance - but I should add that the opposition parties are criticizing the protection of First Nations under our Human Rights laws - they say we need to "consult" for another year or two. Link: http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detai....php?PubID=1764

This forum has rules. I suggest you watch your language and show some respect. There's a line that differentiates strong opinion, belligerence, and gutter-talk. Your insult to Dancer speaks volumes about your character and the credibility of your postings.

I've posted this CTV video twice before but I don't think some of our more opinionated posters have viewed it. Please take a look if you haven't. There is no doubt that the Police form a threatening barrier and because the protesters turnout was so small, it ended up to appear as undue force......but based on other anarchist-inspired protests around the world, there was always the potential for some nasty violence. Putting aside the show of force, if you watch the entire video and listen to Lloyd Roberts, you'll see that the issue of the three undercover cops is a separate issue and doesn't really relate to what went on. Their presence was irrelevant. It's difficult to pick out the real nasty troublemakers but you'll get a peek at a few of them about a minute and 10 seconds into the video - one of the black-clad, masked yahoos gets hit with a rubber bullet and the camera quickly pans to a few of his cohorts. People who were there say there were quite a few more of these bozos. CTV Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILTtIGVRS9k