Moonlight Graham

There exists many people on both sides who don't care if the other side is 'satisfied' with a deal, as long as they what they they want.

Visiting Afghanistan and speaking to the troops, Harper says: Al-Qaeda presence in the country is hugely reduced, but i'd say you're overstating it a bit there Stephen. Will this be a "Mission Accomplished" moment for Harper? Any other thoughts?

It infers it isn't a constitutional amendment. Read the every end of article. This is not a new idea. The term limits and advisory elections to the Senate is similar to Bill C-19 and C-20 that came up a few years ago. The CPC are trying to get around the constitutionality of this Senate reform by not making Senators DIRECTLY elected. Citizens in provinces will be able to vote for the Senator(s) they want the PM to appoint to the Senate. The PM will then, presumably, use these election results to appoint any senatorial openings. But as the article states, the PM is not legally bound to use these election results in choosing who to appoint to the Senate. It can be ignored at whim, basically. A very good analysis article by Jack Stilborn on Senate reform: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0742-e.htm#bbillc20

Please tell me how people liking the the auditor general and the GG more than our elected officials means our democracy is just fine as it is?

Minus being strong on arctic sovereignty, IMO Harper and the CPC rank quite poor on foreign affairs/policy: - eager to please the oil people funding/lobbying his party (not to mention working for or being elected to the party as well) based on the their eager participation in the poorly-planned shit-storm that is the Libya mission. - Harper supported Canada joining the "coalition of the willing" in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. If he were in power in 2003, damn sure Canada would have been in there. - dumped on Canada's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council. - Ramped up Canadian military involvement in the shitstorm that is Afghanistan, and wasting time & money training a military/police that will extremely likely use such training & equipment to stage a authoritarian military coup vs the "democratic" regime put in. May even have our guys killed some day in the future by the weapons/training we're supplying them. May have never even agreed to end the "military mission" so soon if they had a majority previously. - Yet another party that is a disaster on international development (including exploitative trade policies with developing nations), plus put their personal religious stipulations on maternal health initiates for other cultures.

Be aware this was recorded around 2007 so the references are a bit dated. But super hilarious stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyFeXFGFuTE&feature=related

How does the PM/gov picking the GG not make it partisan? I mean that just because the opposition chose the GG, that doesn't mean the GG will act in a partisan way if their role is to be bipartisan, like GG is now, or the auditor general, or speaker of the house.

People have problems with appointments. But appointing non-partisan positions such as the auditor general and the GG shows that the can and often do stay non-partisan and can function very well. Hell, i (as do many Canadians) like the auditor general and GG more than pretty much all elected politicians in the House. That says a lot about our "democracy" doesn't it?

That's why i suggest the official opposition do it. That doesn't make it partisan, it simply removes the PM's power to appoint his/her own power check. If you don't like either of those, then what about selection by a multi-party committee? Or let the Senate appoint it, or a multiparty senate committee? Or let the provincial premiers choose. Or throw some alphabet soup on the floor and see whose name it most resembles. Or elect a president. The main point is, we have many options beyond having the monarch as our head of state.

Certainly not. The GG has certain "reserve powers", which by convention they rarely use but it provides a check on abuse of power by the PM/government. For example, the GG can refuse the PM's recommendation of proroguing parliament or calling an election, can refuse appointments, refuse to ascent bills, and dismiss the PM if they refuse to step down after an election (which actually did occur in the late 19th century).

Oh, and here's my favorite: there was no such legal entity called a "Canadian citizen" until the 1947 Canadian Citizenship Act. Before then, we were all British subjects. For someone like me who didn't live through most of these events, it's amazing to me how long it took Canada to become legally independent from Britain.

Simply make the GG our head of state. Replace the Queen with the GG, with the GG selection process the same as now. That would be the easiest alternative i can think of.

WMaybe "'victimized" is too harsh a word, since we kept Brit ties post-confederation because we also benefited from them (ie: military protection). But we were greatly dependent and subservient to Britain on a great many political functions following Confederation until 1982. I've mentioned some in this thread already not long ago (ie: Statute of Westminster, JCPC, constitutional amendments etc.) too lazy to repeat.

You can recognize your history without keeping an essentially British flag, with a few edits, as your own. History is great, blah blah blah, but time to move ahead. I recognize the fact that I came out of my mother's vagina, but i don't wear a patch of my mother's vagina on my jacket sleeve. Were British, now we ain't. So why not remove some of the easily removable brit legacies and replace them with uniquely identifiable ones created by Canadians, for Canadians.

very excellent point. but, we've been victims of this imperial control too, since its taken more than a century since confederation for us to remove all legislative dependence on Britain.

I agree, is it outdated and unnecessary. I don't see much of a problem with appointing a GG, and they becoming our highest official head of state. I just don't want the GG appointed by the PM, since the PM already has too much power and the GG is supposed to act as a check on the PM/government's power. How about letting the official opposition choose the appointment of the GG, and keep it non-partisan? An elected GG, or "president", causes its own problems with partisan gridlock and whatnot. The GG seems to have done a fine job in recent history. But it will still be a few decades before this will likely happen, as older Canadians still have fond attachments to the monarchy that many younger people do not.

A lot of people say Harper likes to suck up to the US because their policies can often be similar, especially in foreign affairs.. I don't think this is quite the case. I think the US gov and Harper/CPC simply have similar ideological views, which means their policies can be similar, especially compared to the left-wing parties that make up the rest of the House of Commons. Harper's opposition to Obama's stance on Israeli-Palestinian relations shows this.

hmm, but that's the link they gave me. thanks anyways.

Thanks DOP, don't know why the "media" tag wasn't working for me.

The Bible is the "word of God"? David Cross aptly points maybe not quite so much...

I see your point, however I think a lot of people don't really care because it doesn't affect them. The Queen doesn't do a whole heck of a lot for Canada. The governor general does most of Canada's head of state functions, and is much more relevant to our political system. There's no limit to gender for our governor general, but religion i don't know. We've had Catholic, Anglican, Ukrainian eastern orthodox GG's. But i Vincent Massey was raised protestant, then wiki says he switched to Anglican (no reason given), so maybe this switch was a part of his requirement to be GG. If true, this "rule" may not exist anymore, don't know.

Well, as a Dominion of Great Britain and before agreements that would give us more independence, they controlled our foreign affairs at the time of WWI and we essentially forced to declare war when Britain did. Good times! I suppose I get the Red Ensign in that context, but i would think our uniquely own flag would be superior. Call me crazy! My dad still flies the Ontario flag instead of the Canada flag because its a red ensign. On a bit of related note, the brit who lives down the street flew a Union Jack off his house for about a year, with no Canadian flag anywhere. Pisses me off, i was going to buy a Canadian flag and shove it in his mailbox to remind him what country he was in but he recently took it down.

I agree. But it shouldn't be virtually impossible. Sometimes, changes can be good.

I don't think the current situation is peaceful. You forgetting the flotilla last year? 2008/09 Gaza war? 2006 Lebanon war? Second Intifada? The region is constantly on the verge of another big incident, it just needs a spark. I shouldn't even have to defend this point. As for "being satisfied", no they won't be under the current mindset of many on both sides. That's why mindsets need to change in order for there to be peace, not changes in negotiating terms.

Some people still think it's a conspiracy. It ain't. It's very easy to see the appeal of a Euro-like NA currency. It would greatly bolster trade between the countries. I wouldn't have to get my money changed to go to the US. I could buy US merch easier online, and if i had my own Canadian small business i could tap into the huge US market so much easier. It means bigger markets, freer trade, & higher economic growth for all countries...or so the theory goes.