Visionseeker

Yes, but at the cost of his reputation. Not sure what you mean unless you're referring to wounded, if so, I must agree. As for Canadians getting nervous about breaking a hundred, our government has done a piss-poor job at explaining the mission and defining its objective (which is generally hard to do as a junior partner in a coalition). So it's hard to fault the public for getting twitchy about the only metric they can digest. Indeed.

Those poor Branch Davidians, if only time had been on their side.

Well, Colin Powell might disagree. For him it easily represented a dubious end to an illustrious career of public service. As for the "speech" that followed, at a cost of 3774 and counting, the pronouncements are anything but free.

Huh, I wonder what shouting "WMDs in Iraq!" in the UN will net you?

Yes, Lionel Groulx was a separatist fascist; one who heavily influenced how many French Quebeckers saw themselves and an echo of such perspective continues to resonate today. From Parizeau's "L'argent et la vote éthnique" to the present debate on "reasonable accommodation", one can readily see that Quebec continues to harbour some stiff streams of intolerance. Have a look at this past Sunday's edition of the Montreal Gazette. It contains the results and various analyses of a survey of Quebec's attitudes towards ethnic groups. One particularly striking figure is that 31% hold unfavourable views of Jews. I would agree that holding people to the behaviour and beliefs espoused in their 20s is unfair (provided they no longer hold such beliefs nor act in the same manner). However I do think we might benefit by examining how such people came to change their beliefs and behaviour so that we might better understand the person we see in the present. If one's outlook has shifted simply to join the prevailing winds, such a person can be understood to be conformist or even opportunistic; on the other hand, if the conversion is born from introspection and serious intellectual scrutiny, I think we should pay careful attention to the argument as it may well contain truth. Agreed. Why did he change his opinions? I think you mean he never self-disclosed them, for he would've had to be confronted with the revelations to be asked to admit to them. One might ask why such writings and behaviours were never raised before? I suspect it is because only his enemies might have gained by doing so but, in so doing, were likely to expose their unclean selves - glass houses and all that. Indeed, and Mulroney does so by conveniently ignoring context because if such context were provided, his audience would be less likely to share the expressed revulsion. That is demagoguery, pure and simple. Absolutely. While my defense of Trudeau may appear like some attempt to lionize the man, I harbour no such intent. There are certainly many scores upon which one may rightly criticize the man. But any honest assessment would have difficulty denying that, if only imperfectly, Trudeau pursued a higher purpose. The same cannot be said of Mulroney. One need only look at how he throws the blame for his failures on others. Alas, it was not that his policies were inherently flawed or that he failed to properly sell them, no, it was treachery, sabotage, the results of a vast left-wing conspiracy that did them in! I have no doubt that Mulroney truly believes this trite because the depth of his self-absorption makes him highly susceptible to intellectual dishonesty. As he cannot be honest with himself and his thoughts, he's left only with his beliefs; and Brian Mulroney believes in Brian Mulroney.

Alright, this topic has stayed around too long for me not to weigh-in and tell you why Mulroney is a prig to use Trudeau’s past in criticism of the man. Trudeau’s “privileged” education in private Catholic establishments necessarily meant that he was fed a healthy dose of the Lionel Groulx school of thought. This “philosophy” pined that Confederation was a complete failure, that Quebec should strive for independence and that only a leader who followed the example of people like Mussolini could truly secure a future for French-Canadians. Groulx’s teachings contained many underlying racist tracts (he was no friend of the Jews) that were seamlessly interwoven with revisionist stories of peace and heroism of early French settlers. While Groulx gave credit to episodes in Canadian history that worked in favour of the French-Canadians (such as the pact between Baldwin and Lafontaine), he proclaimed that Louis Riel’s execution and the conscription crisis of WWI were evidence that such reconciliation was impossible. This was the history and political science that the monied class of French-Canada were taught well into the 1950’s. This system produced the likes of Camille Laurin (father of Quebec’s language law Bill 101), Michel Chartrand (labour activist who expressed sympathy of the FLQ), Jean Drapeau (Mayor of Montreal 1954-57, 1960-86) and Pierre Elliot Trudeau. The difference between Trudeau and the others was that he left the country to study (first in the US and then in France). His international period of scholarship could easily be seen as a cleansing period (i.e. wiping-out the Groulx drivel). He then fortified this cleansing by traveling to different parts of the globe (backpacking as it were) in a discovery of truth. What he found was that the world may be a terribly complex place, but people and their aspirations are largely the same. Trudeau escaped from some pretty severe brainwashing to develop an outlook and direction that an entire nation followed. Meanwhile, whilst Trudeau learns about the world, Brian Mulroney is only mid-way through his studies at a private college in Chatham NB. In his first year of university, Brian joins the Diefenbaker camp (led by none other than Ted Rogers of Rogers cable and Macleans (among others) magazine fame). Then, he becomes a fan of Dalton Camp. Then, under the guidance of Dalton Camp he becomes a fan of Robert Stanfield. Then, Mulroney becomes a fan of himself and loses the Conservative nomination. Then he tries again in 1983 (by filling the house with homeless people to stack the ballot) and wins the nomination. Talk about loyalty! Mulroney would then move on to forge alliances with later graduates of the Lionel Groulx school (Roch Lasalle, Benoit and Lucien Bouchard) and then seek to seduce another (Robert Bourassa, Premier of Quebec). Bourassa complied by issuing Quebec’s DEMANDS to rectify a constitutional wound that the majority of Quebeckers said they didn’t feel. OK says Brian, with no mandate to do so, we’ll reopen our 6 year old constitution to acquiesce to your demands and change the amending formula to boot. Well, his project (thankfully) failed and his alliances went with it. For Mulroney to deride Trudeau’s early influences with Groulx and yet ignore the allegiances he’d formed with the unreformed members of that sect is either rank hypocrisy or shear stupidity. Or maybe both. As said elsewhere, Trudeau in his present state is more than a match for Brian (Oh everyone else is to blame for my failures) Mulroney.

What I think is immaterial. But the statutes and federal privacy legislation are clear on the subject. I suggest you de-personify your arguments. Your post is arguably offensive.

Great argument there jdb. If you're looking to relive the 18th century, I suggest you try to join the Amish or form your own reactionary community. Ah yes, the Anglosphere. That wonderfully truculent term that presumes an imperial outlook amongst the inhabitants of those English speaking nations who are predominantly white. Well Tony Blair is gone, Howard is in peril and as for Bush, he’ll be gone in just under 500 days and with him this nonsense of Anglosphere may mercifully die.

Really.

I think we will find that the proper protocol was not respected. Yes, Correctional Services has a duty to protect the privacy of inmates. But in the case of an escape from custody, CSC necessarily provides the RCMP (or other local law enforcement) with the necessary identifiers. The police can then release whatever they deem necessary to secure the inmate's capture.

While Elijah Harper is often seen as the fatal blow, Wells was (willfully or not) committed to kill it in Newfoundland. Opposition to Meech was growing everywhere in the land (even in Quebec, though a substantial majority stood staunchly in support). The "distinct society" clause afforded to Quebec was viewed by detractors as creating an inherently unequal federation (i.e. all provinces are equal except for Quebec). The lightning rod that killed public approval for the deal came when, following a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the province's language laws, the Premier of Quebec (Bourassa) invoked the Notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to shield itself from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The ensuing public backlash in the rest of Canada precipitated a new round of negotiations and Lucien Bouchard's defection from the Conservatives to form the Bloc Québécois. With these developments came Trudeau's arguments calling Mulroney a "weakling", mistaking the Constitution with "tinker toys" with the premiers. The public mood for 11 men deciding the constitutional fate of the country behind closed doors suddenly ran cool. Trudeau made compelling arguments against the asymmetry that Meech would create and (outside Quebec) the public had become largely opposed to the whole mess. As for Wells, while he played ball in these negotiations, he did so with the caveat the he would have to consult with the people of Newfoundland. Wells was buying time to see which vision (Trudeau or Mulroney's) would win the day. When the time came, he would side with Trudeau. When Elijah Harper presented a procedural roadblock in Manitoba's ratification of the accord, Wells cancelled the planned free vote in the Newfoundland House of Assembly (knowing that the outcome was to be a refusal). Meech became Mulroney's ill-conceived attempt to reward Quebec nationalists for their electoral support rather than a nation building entreprise. Its hybrid, the Charlottetown Accord, produced an incoherent babble of rights demanded from various interests that stood little chance of consensus. In the end, the whole entreprise had so deeply shaken the federation that it produced two regionally centered political parties that won substantial representation in the House of Commons.

For the record YES! WW2 was a bad idea. But the idea certainly didn't originate in the Oval Office. As for the Iraq is a bargin by comparison line, the sacrifice of 3760 uniforms (4058 if you count coalition forces), countless civilians and $100 billion per year to secure failure seems like a total waste by comparison. I hope you're wrong (both about a depression and its implied solution being war).

Article 25. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual and material relationship with the lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard; Article 26. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, develop, control and use the lands and territories, including to total environment of the lands, air, waters, coastal seas, sea-ice, flora and fauna and other resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. This includes the right to the full recognition of their laws, traditions and customs, land-tenure systems and institutions for the development and management of resources, and the right to effective measures by States to prevent any interference with, alienation of or encroachment upon these rights; I won't speak to potential litigation in other countries, but these 2 articles do accurately reflect the reclamation of rights that are the crux of nearly all land claims in Canada I am aware of. Beginning in 1973, the Government of Canada established a specific claims resolution process as an alternative to the courts. This process was established as a means of streamlining certain common elements in reclamation actions that would otherwise have to be fought and re-fought in countless successive and concurrent legal actions. In establishing this process, the government essentially conceded that the indigenous peoples of Canada were entitled to the rights that can be found in Articles 25 and 26 above. What remained to be negotiated was the territory involved and, when necessary, the compensation to be provided in lieu of. Since 1973, this process has received 1279 claims of which 489 have since concluded. Article 27. Indigenous peoples have the right to the restitution of the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, occupied, used or damaged without their free and informed consent. Where this is not possible, they have the right to just and fair compensation. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status. Again, this right is conceded by the government and examples can be found in any number of the 489 claims already concluded. Of the 790 that remain outstanding, there is quite a few that present serious challenges with respect to restitution because the lands in dispute are heavily developed and adjacent or proximate uninhabited alternatives are simply non-existent. In these cases it is inevitable that the eventual settlement will come in the form of handsome monetary restitution. The potentially substantial sums involved are often cited as the primary reason why these claims seem forever held-up in administrative ruses intended to camouflage political avoidance. Some critics of the recently announced Specific Claims Action Plan suggest that the government intends to prioritize outstanding claims which are more benign and less costly as a means of improving the number of concluded claims, thereby improving the overall conclusion numbers while deliberately leaving the more complex undertakings to fester. Only time will tell, and that unfortunately, is why many aboriginal communities are growing increasingly impatient. Article 35. Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with other peoples across the borders. States shall take effective measures to ensure the exercise and implementation of this right. Indeed, this provision will provide smugglers with inherent legal rights to ply their trade and free them from prosecution.[/sarcasm] I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not so stupid as to believe this and that you simply haven't thought this through. Assuming you've regained your faculties, I invite you to acquaint yourself with Article III of the Jay Treaty (1794), US federal statute (8 U.S.C. §1359), and the US federal court case Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D.Me. 1974). Each of these reinforces the legal fact that there is no border for North American aboriginals. So Article 35 is already a fact of law in both Canada and the United States.

This just sickens me. Harper - Our bridge to the 18th century

Technically, I wouldn't characterize the US economy of 2001 as a recession. If one might consider a recession to constitute an economic hangover, then 2001 in the US doesn't apply because it would be more apt to speak of a wound inflicted as opposed to a consequence of fiscal excess. This helps to explain why Canada was immune. Katrina would be another example. Too true and, in the case of Iraq, too sad. As for wiggle room, I have to admit that the walls are closing in pretty drastically. One can't fuel and economy on ever expanding debt and deficits forever. Eventually, the margin call has to be heeded.

The question is not are we in a recession, the question is how bad will it be and how long will it last. Countrywide plans to slash up to 12,000 jobs When a big fish sneezes, smaller fish catch a cold. The US housing market is finally in the mess that so many conservative analysts had warned about for the last year and a half. US financials and the construction industry are entering a deep freeze. Furniture manufacturing and sales are probably there too and automotive industries aren't far behind. Retail is set to start taking its own beating with all many unemployed from these sectors no longer able to buy. In Canada, the impacts will be felt in our own automotive and hard goods sectors. Forestry will take a double-whammy of reduced US demand and increased protectionism. Commodities will not be spared as demand from China falls in response to the bottom falling out on demand for its consumer nick-knacks (I suspect that the Chinese will try to forestall this by ill-advisedly devaluing the yuan to make thier exports more attractive). How bad and how long this will last largely depends on 2 things: 1. the number of consumer bankruptcies it precipitates 2. how long it takes for the US to withdrawn from Iraq (and possibly Afghanistan) The first item will determine the scope of the meltdown; the second will speak to the States’ fiscal capacity to deploy remedial spending (i.e. investments in infrastructure). I must admit that I’m not terribly optimistic on either score.

I agree. The Liberals' self-immolation with the sponsorship scandal and the intriguing behaviour of Zaccarddelli (re: income trusts) should've been enough for the Conservatives to win a majority. Why didn't they? Harper. He'll get another kick at the can and then get kicked himself. As for fiscal conservatism, the paradigm has shifted so oddly that the best chance on that front is to vote Liberal. They need to placate the centre right to win, with the present Conservatives, the support of the centre right is presumed.

Why should these claims not be settled? Are natives not entitled to full protection of the law? Asserting one's legal claim is a fundamental right in Canada, not blackmail. Civil disobedience is an admirable (and quite often effective) response to repeated injustice. Arresting large groups engaged in civil disobedience often reflects badly on the force conducting the arrests and erodes both the morale and sense of professionalism within the force's ranks. Why should they after all have to clean-up the mess created by gutless politicians? Uh, they do own land and, in the case of the bulk of treaties I am familiar with, the title is often clear. As for a Constitutional amendment, be careful what you wish for. For such protection would afford some aboriginal communities full power to evict all the residents of a number of small to large cities in this country. That is assuming that your desired amendment doesn't explicitly exclude aboriginals from such protection. You're kidding, right? Because I seem to recall that the population of Canada sat at about 33,000,000 while the population of India (where Indians live) was 1,100,000,000 or so. But then perhaps I've misunderstood your use of the word and you are simply deploying the archaic and less respectful moniker that once stood as the common label for non-Inuit aborigines in North America. This interpretation is strengthened by the dichotomous positioning you employ for "Canadian" and "Indian", as if these are to be mutually exclusive. Assuming they are dichotomous, does it not then follow that they should have their own territory and laws for which to govern it? Or is it your expectation that the dichotomy be "resolved" through other means. But alas, I digress. You are correct in your assessment that aboriginals represent a minority in the larger Canadian community. But what you fail to note is that they represent the youngest and fastest growing population of ethnically identifiable groups in Canada. Furthermore, their proportion of the population in SK and MB is approaching a critical political (read electoral) mass and their ability to shape the public policies of those provinces is soon to become quite entrenched. Lastly, your "Canadians" to "Indians" dichotomy presumes that all "Canadians" stand (or would stand) in opposition to aboriginal reclamation efforts. Not only is this false, but as other posters have shown in this thread, ignores the fact that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are sympathetic to the aboriginal entreprise. I see, "we's in Alberta knows how ta handle our injuns, dem folks in Ontario could learn a thing or two from us." What a wonderfully tribal sentiment. Making people equal!? If you cannot see the absurdity, I certainly can't help you. As for your spending claims, back'em up. I am more than willing to do the group the service of showing just how misplaced your appreciation of fiscal transfers are.

A compromise, according to Myriam Webster on-line, is a "mutual promise to abide by an arbiter's decision". It is an agreement attained through mutual concessions; not a take it or leave it offer as you imply when contemplating the supposed compromise's refusal. As for the government exhibiting "good faith" attempts at negotiation, that ship just won't sail. For it is well understood by all serious observers that the strategy of the Department of Justice has been to obfuscate, stall and otherwise imperil any flow to negotiations. The most obvious demonstration of the technique can be found in the constant shuffling of the Minister of Indian Affairs and all its administrative implications. In short, it is the government that is systematically avoiding the attainment of compromise in many negotiations because they fear that the price of agreement would be politically damaging. Tax payer rights fit nowhere in the equation, however tax payer ire most certainly does. Now as for the courts, they likely wouldn't care a whiff about tax payer ire or other political fall-out when considering questions of law (hence the principle of judicial separation). While they would hardly side 100% with each native claim, I dare say they are likely to come much closer to the native position than that of the government. Why? Because the natives tend to have pretty compelling cases. I see, the government's solution to resolve grievance and growing unrest born from its maltreatment of natives will be to force them to take their medicine and to make them like it too. [sarcasm]Why it's just so crazy it just might work![/sarcasm] No, it doesn't. The court concerns itself with the facts that surround the dispute. The extra political actions of some natives will in no way influence how the court deliberates. Your assertion would have us believe that judges would ignore their duty to interpret the law to perform a coercive function; to punish many natives because some are getting restless. Not only would this be unjust, it would be racist. Violence? Seems to me that the violence that has occurred stems from police storming lines of non-violent aboriginal blockades (see Oka and Ipperwash). Extortion? Would it be extortion to block your neighbour’s car in his driveway until he returns your lawnmower, chain saw and other tools that he borrowed long ago but refuses to return? Natives resort to civil disobedience because they recognize that government inaction is born from a fear of political fall-out if they were to seriously work to resolve these disputes. To counter-balance this, some natives seek to create political fall-out as a cost of government inaction. I predict that the longer the government remains inactive, more and more natives will begin to look at ratcheting up that cost.

How quaint. And how do you suppose they would refuse? And what would they refuse in the face of? Highways blocked, reeking havoc on their commutes? Railway lines blocked or dug-up for their trespass? Or maybe international pressure brought to bare against the persistence of Canadian apartheid? No, the plurality already knows who holds the weaker hand. It won’t take much to get a majority to know thereafter.

Before Confederation or after, same Crown, same obligations. You seem to think that the harm in question was performed in the past. Well, as far as land claims are concerned, they continue to be performed to this day. You also seem to hold that the tax payer calls the shots (as they supposedly have for some time) and I say that they will pay whatever bill is negotiated (which will be quite high in some cases) because the government knows that what they are dealing with are property rights; rights that know no colour. It's not about expectations, it’s about entitlement. If they are not entitled to theirs, how are you entitled to yours?

Fair value is what is successfully negotiated between the parties. What is meaningless is your suggestion that such thefts are "alleged". The docket, which had been prohibited to aboriginal claims until the 60s, has more than acknowledged that such thefts occurred. The standard of justice applies and will be applied whether or not you accept its universality. No, the government has a responsibility to live up to its negotiated commitments. I think you confuse finite redress of a dying few (i.e. the Head Tax) with the living redress owed to the ever growing segment of society. One group is content with what you will give them, the other expects what they are owed (and are willing to make life difficult until they get it).

Right, first off, honour treaties. Where this is now improbable due to mass squatting and illegal seizures, provide adequate compensation and then turn your attention towards negotiating a new understanding to replace the Indian Act. In terms of honouring treaties, I think people need to understand that our historical relationship with First Nations was not characterized by conquest, but rather one of alliance in some cases and segregation in others. Each type precipitated the drafting of legally binding contracts between the Crown and the Nation that came to agree to their terms. They are legally entrenched rights to land that must be respected if property for anyone in this country is to mean anything. If governments can continue to ignore the rightful claims of aboriginals because of political convenience, what protection does any Canadian have from political convenience usurping their own "owned" piece of paradise? In this vein, it has to be recognized that many claims are beyond full rehabilitation as the land in question is now well occupied. In such instances, appropriate restitutions MUST be negotiated at fair value. These were thefts, and a law abiding society cannot stand to retain its claim to rights when it continuously ignores its own principles of justice. Appropriation without compensation is simply theft and constitutes an abrogation of property rights of all. If the Government of Canada should accept and achieve these two outcomes, replacing the Indian Act would be a walk in the park.

Best of luck to your neighbour. Multiple interviews are common when a business is mass recruiting. One the one hand they usually have more qualified applicants than available positions, on the other they have to staff more than first level. Your neighbour has been "screened-in" twice already. I suspect they have a job for her, but are trying to determine at which level she should be brought in.

Sadly CLRV, I must agree with the bulk of your post. But I will say that while the US is presently in a deep trough, I remain optimistic that they will pull themselves out of this rut. For the Americans, much like Canadians, are a resilient lot. GW Bush is, and has been a complete and utter disaster as a president. History is likely to argue that he was (in the voice of comic book guy) the worst president ever. But the beauty of the American system is that he is constitutionally prohibited from winning another term (by theft or otherwise). Right now the US is mounting spiraling budgetary and trade deficits, has the bulk of its military committed to unconquerable killings fields, has an economy built on paper with ever-more consumers owing more than they own, has rapidly deteriorating infrastructure, and a labour market that is cannibalizing the middle-class. Add to this that the world outside its borders is growing more annoyed with their imperial posturing with each passing day, and it is rather easy to draw rather negative impressions as to America’s future – as if nothing can change an inevitable trend. But the United States of America has overcome greater challenges in its past, and it will do so again. It will do so because its people wish it to do so and have the ability to make it so: By The People, For The People. As for the millennium “belonging to the US” as the original poster of this thread postulates, I would argue that not even the last century “belonged” to the US. While it was undoubtedly the foremost beneficiary of the prosperity born from the times, I can cite dozens of examples where countries outstripped the US in growth during the last 50 years. While the US remains the strongest economic power in the world and is likely to do so for some time, the fact remains that the number of nations closing that gap grows with each year.