dlkenny

The Herald? The Sun is far worse...The Herald at least tells the story without bias.

Makes no difference really, the GG does his job. Getting rid of him would be nothing more than symbolic and most people don't even understand the role of the monarchy in Canadian government anyway. It would be a waste of good money that could be spent on much better causes.

Yep, I heard someone say that pandemic is 99% panic and 1% epidemic which I think is about right. Besides, I have a friend in Calgary who had the swine flu and it passed within 4 days just like any flu. He said he wouldn't have known the difference but his fever went above 102 degrees and so he went to a doctor and they tested him. It might be good though, people are more vigilant this flu season and maybe that'll help to lower the incidents of all sorts of sicknesses.

Yeah, but rage doesn't help anyone. If you think you're getting sick, stay home...if your kid is sick, don't send them to daycare or school. Maybe the panic will make people realize these things are true with any flu or sickness, don't spread it!

No, I don't think there are any more "bad" muslim people than anyone else. Every society has it's bad apples and its unfortunate that the media (particularily american media) has created a fear that every muslim or "brown person" is a potential terrorist. I suppose there is some justification to this simply because most terrorists in the past 10 years have been from a muslim background but that's about as logical as saying all americans are like the Mormons of Utah. It makes no sense. It is true though that muslim people generally have more conservative ideologies and I suppose that makes some people uncomfortable. I had a roommate at the University of Calgary who was muslim and I got along great with the guy, we even opened a company called "Condoms Unlimited" and his involvement in that project shattered my image of muslim people. You're right though, it isn't fair and I wish more people could see it that way.

No, it's very likely to see minority pariliaments for a long time. If a majority were formed by either party in the near future it would likely be a slim majority.

Haha, exactly! The registry leads to faulty assumptions...and those assumptions cost more lives than legally owned guns. My father used to tell me "Assume makes an ass out of u and me".

They do get off with a slap on the wrist, and so do most violent offenders in Canada. There's no deterrent to our justice system when the offenders are back on the streets...the whole system is rediculous. Law abiding people cannot protect themselves anymore and the criminals are being let out on the streets. Drug dealers are not "non violent criminals" they are some of the most violent!!! What's worse is that the interpretation of the laws in this country make it inhumane to lock up an offender, yet incriminate average people for owning a gun or for defending themselves. It's high time for an overhaul!

Haha, if Ruby Dhalla has her way we'll have every impoverished person coming here to collect their free OAS pensions and since they won't be required to work it really won't impact the unemployment rate...just the rate at which we are taxed.

Fully agree!!! First off, an immigrant should have to be a Canadian Citizen before being considered for OAS at all, period. Secondly, I too am tired of being taxed and to have immigrants sponsoring their friends and family to come to Canada on the notion that there is free money to be had is ludicrous. The current system says that an immigrant must be present in Canada for a minimum of 10 years to become eligible for the pension. It's a slap in the face to the seniors who have lived and worked in this country for many years to be eligible to receive OAS benefits. In fact, there are many seniors already here who are living at or below the poverty line and instead of giving money to foreigners maybe the money would be better spent improving living standards for the ones who have spent their lives contributing to Canadian society.

It might not last but the Governor General does have the ability to make a change if she doesn't see progress in the house of commons. All that we'd see is another minority Conservative government. The coalition might get a chance simply because the GG wants to see new initiative but I promise that it would fall apart and instead of another election so quickly she'd look to the CPCs to form a minority parliament. My sense on this matter though says that support for the Liberals has gradually been shifting towards the CPCs over the last 6 years. The shift began in 2004 when the Liberals called the election and were reduced to a minority parliament. Canadians at the time did not trust the CPCs, but were losing faith with the Libs also and we all remember the statement that "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't." The liberals have since been gradually crumbling and have had unstable leadership. In the meantime I think Canadians have grown less afraid of the Conservatives and we've seen their support gradually increase. If an election was called today I think parliament would consist of either a Tory majority or a very strong minority.

I did the same thing. By the way, the conservatives have only added that policy section recently. I was one of the people who wrote in asking about CPC policy going forward because their website seemed to show a lack of vision also. I got a letter back from my MP saying that he'd received a number of similar suggestions and I'm pleased to see that they've addressed this issue. That said, you're right about the Liberals...they have no vision whatsoever and cling to this idea that Canadians should trust them to do the right thing. This idea that they're the "natural governing party" and that they'll win an election simply because Canadians trust them is wrong. Canadians (including myself) don't inherently trust any politician of any stripe; they all stretch the truth, they all get caught in scandals, they all make mistakes. In reality it's unhealthy for the country to have an opposition with no vision for what they want to see accomplished. We cannot have healthy debate without the opposition having a clear view of what they stand for. At this point it doesn't matter whether the liberals agree with something the CPC does, or whether the legislation is good for the country...simply that it comes from the CPC at all is reason enough to oppose it. To average Canadians that makes no sense at all.

It's in everyone's interest to continue the stimulus. Every party voted for stimulus spending because they all knew it was important. They're right that in 1929 the money supply was contracted causing a deep and long depression. Nobody wants to see that happen again.

I could agree with that statement, however I don't agree that there ever was a "natural governing party." The Liberals are no more entitled to be in government than anyone else and their popularity over the years had to do with sound principles and popular ideals, not entitlement. Today we're watching the Libs sink their own ship by clinging to this idea that they're entitled to be in power, regardless of what their platform might be. The problem is that if you visit the liberal party website or some of the bloggers sites, there really is no platform other than slamming Harper and its causing the party to collapse upon itself. I'm with you though, Harper should wait a while to call the election. Strategically it would might be prudent to allow the Liberals to self destruct and jump on them with an election call.

This has become way too much of a partisan matter. Harper knows he's living with a minority government, so yes he has given way to the opposition parties at times to do what's best for Canadians. Minority parliaments are woefully slow at getting anything done but the good thing is that it holds the government's feet to the fire. The EI reforms are needed and it is a good thing that the opposition parties forced Harper to make the changes.

Yeah, I just went to the Liberal Party website and scanned through it. There is absolutely no platform at all...though the same could be said for everyone except the Bloc. So what is the point of having an election? What are we voting for?

Since the Tories have been unable to kill the gun registry in the minority parliament, and only imposed an amnesty (one year at a time) I suppose that if the Liberals were to win the next election that they'd bring back the boondoggle...Considering it cost $2 Billion, while less than 1/3rd of all long guns in Canada are registered and absolutely no criminal to date has registered his firearm I think Canadians should challenge the liberals on this before they get back into office.

I must say that Jack Layton comes across as the nicest guy in politics. Certainly not someone I'd vote for but certainly the least creepy that's for sure. Michael Ignatieff is power hungry and I don't trust him, Stephen Harper is fake, and Gilles Duceppe comes across as being a disgruntled and very mean person.

I don't think we're going to see it go to zero anytime in the near future. That said, because of the amount of money printed in the last couple of years we're already seeing significant devaluation. The key to this is to watch the price of gold both in comparison to the dollar and in comparison to everything else. There's a good chart in the book Rich Dad's "Increasing your financial IQ" where it shows the value of the Dow Jones vs Gold and vs. Dollars, and while the Dow's value increased in dollars it decreased relative to gold. When I look at this I see not that the value of paper assets are increasing but that the value of the dollar is decreasing. Gold's relative value always stays basically the same, one ounce of gold today has roughly the same purchasing power as it did 10 years ago. Some will disagree with me on this point, but remember that the value of gold was artificially devalued for about 40 years from 1931 through 1974 where it was held at $60 an ounce. In reality it's the only commodity to outpace inflation for over 5000 years, a pretty good track record if you ask me. I can't predict what will happen. I do know that the price of gold has risen $200 over the past year and we've seen world food prices rise faster than they have since the 1960s. This tells me that inflation is rampant. I read an article this morning on Money Central that wages and hours of work are stagnant and another regarding Obama wanting to raise taxes to cover his medicare plan. To me this says that people are making no more money but their hard earned dollars aren't going as far, and now the government wants to take more of them as taxes. People's paycheques are already slowly being eroded. You're right too about the price of oil (same with all commodities) that as inflation erodes the dollar oil will get more expensive. I do not know what will happen long term. It is something I've been talking to many people about and something that is incredibly difficult to envision. My intuition is to look at the past though because Germany went through this before WWII and after the "Turnip Years" wound up with a new form of money that was tied to the value of gold (on the gold standard). It is possible that the US currency may follow a similar path.

This isn't exactly true. While judges can make judgements there does exist the notwithstanding clause that allows parliament to override the judicial system. It makes no sense to be able to change the constitution at the whim of any one political party who happens to be in power.

Ignatieff and the Liberals are power hungry. There's no other way to explain his recent statement that he will oppose any measures that the Conservatives put before the house. He wants the Government to fall, and it doesn't matter whether the spirit of a piece of legislation is supported by the Liberals he won't vote for it. That to me tells me that he's power hungry.

Sure, hunger fell because of of the way that wealth has been redistributed. Globalization has had that effect and maybe that's the answer to many problems. Globalization spreads wealth from a handful of nations and puts major manufacturing and production in the hands of some of the worlds emerging economies. What I'm concerned with though is the need for capitalism to consume. While wealth has been redistributed it has given rise to greater consumption, and it is this consumption that I speak of when I talk about runaway trains...consumption is growing exponentially and the planet cannot sustain the current levels of growth. The human population is growing exponentially as well and as wealth spreads it also creates strong demands for commodities such as gold, oil, food, land and water. The increased demand makes prices rise and creates a further gap between the rich and the poor. My point is that exponential growth is unsustainable, our financial system is weak and there are going to be changes and it is my personal opinion (call it intuition if you like) that there are going to be some very significant changes. In terms of the financial system I think it's a house of cards with more and more money being printed with no assets to back it up. There are many countries in the world that are already in a state of bankruptcy (Japan & Italy are two very good examples) and I do think that there is going to become a day when we see the system restructured. There will be another collapse, it will be painful for many people and it won't be simply not going on vacation or having our cable vision cut off. Imagine losing your job and standing in a lineup along with 30% of the population looking for a job. Imagine being out of work and not having any money to buy groceries for your family or to pay the mortgage. Nevermind traveling or watching hockey, survival becomes an everyday battle and breadlines take up a large part of your day. If the financial system isn't fixed, eventually this will happen. You cannot issue unlimited numbers of IOUs because eventually someone has to pay for it. It's an unfortunate truth that bad things must happen before changes are made. A collapse of our financial system would certainly lead to more good times, we would recover and charge forward hopefully smarter.

I can guarantee one thing though, if after the election we wind up with a coalition government the Conservatives will be looking for a new leader. I can't see a coalition lasting very long and I would imagine that in the event a coalition were to fall apart that the governor general would then ask the conservatives if they could form another minority parliament instead of going to another general election.

You're entitled to your opinion and though I do disagree, you do have some valid points. When I talk about communism, I'm not talking about communism as we've known it over the past 80 years but a new way of thinking that doesn't rely on unsustainable growth. In any case, I'm not a devout socialist and I have no intentions of trying to save the world I simply like to listen to alternate theories and try to educate people about what's actually happening, particularily in the world of money and finance because thats what I'm trained in. I only speak of ideological communism to create conversation about alternative social systems. In addition, I talk about doomsday scenarios because right now there are some runaway trains that people need to be aware of and by becoming aware perhaps there can be some changes made to our way of life to become more sustainable. Like another poster said, if we don't make the changes nature will do it for us. Its our choice. I also am not suggesting that a collapse of our financial system would result in absolute catastrophe, in reality it could be just the correction that's needed (nature doing the work for us). Every great civilization comes and goes, it doesn't mean the end of the world or the end of all civilization but it does mean massive changes and I do think it's coming. Whether you think that's doomsday or not is up to you but the reality is that we're living in an age of geometric growth and geometric growth eventually gets corrected somehow. These things are already happening through famine, disease, war, terrorism, and poverty. Nature hates imbalances and these imbalances will be rebalanced eventually.

This number has nothing to do with cushy retirements. These numbers are the amounts that are due upon the social security and medicare programs in the US alone over the next 25 years. If you add in retirements that number grows considerably. I do not know how many people have 401(k) retirement plans in the US (the equivalent of our RRSPs) but if there are 70 million baby boomers and if even half of them have 401k plans and they were taking even $500 a month each out of their funds, that would be a monthly contraction of $17.5 Billion (or $210 Billion annually from the markets). Combine that with the aforementioned needs of the social security and medicare programs and no market in the world could withstand that kind of withdrawal and still grow. What's worse is that these programs were supposed to be funded, but they're bankrupt since president Clinton used the funds to "balance the budget." It's a time bomb.