nbguyca

No, I did. He outspent the NDP. What's conservative about that? You keep believing that he is liberal and I will believe that the Green Party will form the next government.

I'm guessing that you didn't have a straight face when you wrote that.

I never said he was perfect. But he's a hell of a lot better than all the options were in 2006. He's a lot better than all of the options out there now. Pretty sad state of affairs isn't it.

Yes that Universal Child Care Program is fantastic. Although I did find out that once my son turned 6, he didn't need child care anymore and what was thgat other thing.... og ya... the bemefits that we did receive were taxable. Yup, it's a good program.

You sound like a Reformer. They're gone now, none left in the Conservative Party. All of them lost their tongues when the gained power. I am very surprised to see Conservatives on the East Coast speaking out more and more, like the Western Reformers did during the 90s. I have to wonder about all those Sasketchwan MPs who show up in the commons and sit, silently, saying nothing while their province doesn't receive what it was promised. I am not nor have I ever been a Reformer. Didn't agree with the way they operated or the people who were running that party. In fact I have never been a fan of Bill Casey but I think that he stood up for his constituents was fantastic. This is something that is truly lacking in our system.

Your 'proof' is an undocumented statement in the House of Commons by Jack Layton. Take that one to court. The fact that Peter MacKay was not allowed to address the issue himself speaks volumes. Seems that cirumstancial evidence and his past history would weigh heavily in many courtrooms.

Do you think there should have been an election over this budget? That is what Casey voted for. No Casey voted for the people he represents. He was principled enough to stand up for not only a promise that was made but a signed agreement his province had with the federal government, an agreement that was completely disregarded by the Harper government. If more MP had the balls to do what Bill Casey did, there might be more faith in the system. Booting him from caucus served no real purpose, especially given the fact that they knew the budget would pass.

Tradition or not, a system that does not allow an MP to represent the people who elected him has a serious flaw. What exactly does booting him from caucus accomplish? I don't care which party does this, it is just plain dumb.

That's true but the monarchy has no real power in the country. Our system has evoved to the point that the monarch, through the governor-general, does not interfere in the running of the country. The governing party is the body that truly holds the power in the country.

I guess that is what I'm asking you because as far as I can see, she does nothing other than act as a figure head. If that is the case, what's the point? Like most heads of state in parliamentary democracies she does act predominantly as a figure head, but in reality is vested with all executive authority in and over Canada; hence sovereignty is vested in her, she is one of the three parts of Parliament, all laws are passed in her name with her (or her representative's) signature, and she holds command-in-chief over the Armed Forces. These powers she "exercises" on the advice of her Ministers - the Cabinet. Though, to maintain the stability of government, she remains out of the political fray and almost always follows her ministers' advice in the use of her powers of government (meaning that, in effect, the ministers are the ones governing), because she ultimately occupies the position of supreme authority politicians cannot, and if any prime minister or government attempts to act extra-legally, or any other problem arises that threatens governmental stability, it is the Queen's constitutional duty to dismiss them. The analogy is that she acts like a fire-extinguisher - it's always there, it's very visible, but isn't actually used until an emergency, and the less it's used obviously the better things are working. Of course, her vice-regal representatives are authorised to act in the Queen's place, though unforeseen circumstances may necessitate her direct intervention. Beyond the legal technicalities, the Queen also acts as an impartial focus for patriotism - because the Crown is the apolitical embodiment of the nation Canadians can have a human locus of national pride without having to love the members of the incumbent partisan government. And then, of course, there's the whole history thing. See the "Monarchist arguments" section of this article for more detail. Didn't the Constitution Act (1982) actually remove those powers from the queen?

That doesn't answer my question. I know that she the head of state but she has no real role or powers in Canada so what does she do for Canada? Sorry, I suppose the correct answer to your question would be: she acts as head of state - or, more correctly, as the personification of it. It's somewhat contradictory for someone to be head of state but hold no role or powers - the only actual example of that happening is the Emperor of Japan, and that situation leads to debate around whether or not he actually is the Japanese Head of State. To the contrary, ask yourself: what does any head of state do for their country? Perhaps, more specifically, what does any head of state in a Westminster parliamentary model do? I guess that is what I'm asking you because as far as I can see, she does nothing other than act as a figure head. If that is the case, what's the point?

That doesn't answer my question. I know that she the head of state but she has no real role or powers in Canada so what does she do for Canada?

What would be wrong to simply call them "the Canadian Army", "the Canadian Navy", and the Canadian Air Force"? And could you please explain to me what the Queen does for the country at this time?

He wasn't. He was defending the authority of Parliament. Now who is trying to set up a strawman? Strawman? The Conservatives supported the bloc motion, and Michael Chong defended it. If they didn't want to waste time and money on this issue, they wouldn't have voted for it now would they? So please do explain why the Conservatives, and Michael Chong, supported the motion. If you want to avoid the question again, don't bother waiting for a response. The conservative supported the motion because to oppose it would open them up to being portrayed in Quebec as insensitive to the plight of the poor, downtrodden Francophone, constantly harassed and victimized by those evil bigoted Anglophone bastards. I'm sure they supported it reluctantly, but they supported it for political reasons anyway. However, the opposition did something more, they initiated it and vigorously pursued it. Sorry but that is crap. If the conservatives had any balls at all they would have opposed the motion and had been vocal in their opposition. They all saw this simply as a way to get their 10 second sound bite on the news.

You said it yourself that going on the trip is a privilege and not a right. The school, however, does have the right to decide on who is going and who is not. If the students have the freedom to make statements that damage the reputation of the teachers and the school, then the school has the freedom to say they do not belong on the trip.

Sorry I don't see the abuse of power. The kids posted in a public forum and made remarks that may or may not be libelous. They are free to do so. The school has a trip planned and they determine who gets to go. They have decided that these kids can't. Where is the abuse of power?

Not all teacher union are as strong as say Ontario. In some provinces, getting rid of the union would give the provincial governments carte blanche do do what ever they wanted to do with the teachers and the schools. I'm not a big supporter of unions but in some situations they are still needed.