Wild Bill

This is a link from the Sympatico home page: http://news.sympatico.cbc.ca/abc/Local/ON/ContentPosting?isfa=1&feedname=CBC_LOCALNEWS&date=true&newsitemid=to-fantino-mchale-opp-caledonia-protest "OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino encouraged his officers to lay charges against a protester at Caledonia, Ont., in 2007, before there was any evidence the man had committed a crime, according to emails made public this week. "At some point McHale has to go," Fantino wrote Deputy Commissioner Chris Lewis, a half hour after a protest began on Dec. 1, 2007, referring to Gary McHale of Richmond Hill, Ont., who was leading a campaign to hold the OPP accountable for its policing decisions." "When a native woman attacked McHale during the Dec. 1 protest, claiming that he had assaulted her, the police were almost giddy in their email exchanges that they finally had what they wanted. "There is a hidden gem here," officer Rick Barnum wrote to OPP Supt. Bob Goodall. "It appears on the ground the sentiment is that McHale may have pushed a female FN [First Nations] lady who was close to him." Another officer reported to Barnum: "Gary McHale viciously beaten by [native leader Clyde Powless]. He appears hurt." McHale went to hospital but Fantino, who was kept abreast of every action at the scene, was mistakenly told that McHale had been arrested. Fantino wrote to Goodall: "I want every avenue explored by which we now can bring McHale into court seeking a court order to prevent him from continuing his agenda of inciting people to violence in Caledonia." The entire article is well worth the read. It would appear that Chief Fantino actually has little or no respect for applying the law fairly. It's obvious that he had already judged and convicted McHale in his own mind and was just looking to hang anything on him to get rid of him. It's said that the true test of believing in equality under the law comes when you're dealing with someone you personally do not like. If Fantino ever actually does appear in court it will be very interesting to follow the trial. Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?

I didn't think I was confusing them! Someone who sends cash may be a committed voter, but you can only count him for himself. A lot of donations means a lot of committed votes. What has this to do with getting more votes than the number of donations? Obviously, you mistook my point. The success of the Tories at fundraising only shows a highly loyal and committed core. The NDP also has a highly loyal and committed core. It's just smaller and they don't seem to give the party any money. It may well be that the Tories have locked up the demographic that is willing to "put it's money where it's mouth is!" If that's so, then it CAN'T grow any larger! That leaves the much larger demographic of people that are willing to vote but not to give donations. I find it interesting that the NDP, BQ and Liberals would rather get government money instead of working at individual fundraising. Leaving aside the idea of giving a welfare of $1.95 per vote, it can't help but be a point of pride for the Tories to have so much money freely given by their supporters. The fact that the other parties can't claim the same makes it look like they don't have the same level of popular support from people who work for a living. After all this time you would think that the Opposition parties would have done a better job with their fundraising. Surely they have supporters who are just as committed as the Tories! I suspect it's just that they haven't properly put the effort into building the party fundraising machinery.

News flash! Something IS wrong and has been for generations! Anyone who works closely with a government "service" soon learns that it can be as crazy as a soup sandwich! Really! When we search for examples of cost savings and efficiencies, who ever points to a government service? How can you be so naive as to assume that having the government do it will SAVE us money??!! Tell us the truth! If you had to ship a family gift across the country, would you feel more secure about it with the Post Office or a private courier service? If you have no experience to give a qualified answer then please say so! Even if you DO believe in the Post Office, the sheer change in the levels of parcels over the past few decades shows you to be virtually alone in your belief. Any business that ships parcels long since abandoned the Post Office. The only thing customers want them to use the mails for is to send the bill! That's a fact, Jack! Don't believe me, go ahead and try it! See how many customers you keep!

No matter what happens, it's looking worse and worse to be a young girl in Afghanistan. Oh well, who cares about them? Hell, deep down they probably like it! Let's go bash some American policies. That'll prove we must be morally superior people!

You really should get out more. Have you read nothing about things like the National Energy Policy or the Crow Rate? Do you have any idea WHY people in less powerful regions of the country can often be so bitter? A Triple E Senate would have protected them many times in our history. Instead, we had the game always rigged so that farmers out west received low prices for their grain and were forbidden to set up flour mills, so that Central Canada could make high profits for shipping the grain east and doing the milling themselves, then selling the flour back to the farmers. Nova Scotia was originally one of the richest parts of the country, due to Halifax harbour being the main port for goods from Europe. Opening the St. Laurence Seaway completely changed all that, making the Maritimes into a havenot backwater. While the Seaway may have been a good thing for the country as a whole, perhaps if there had been a real Senate something could have been worked out that was good for both the Atlantic provinces and Ontario/Quebec. B.C. has had its share of injustices over the years as well. If you read up on this stuff you start to wonder why they've bothered staying in Canada! Maybe its because they've been too poor to leave! Too many folks need the EI and the welfare. Historically, all the wealth has been favoured to Central Canada. Why do you think that we still don't have the electrical transmission lines for Manitoba to feed into Ontario? There was no problem having them built to set Quebec up as a supplier. Why isn't there big natural gas pipelines running from the west to the east? During the National Energy Policy, we paid world price for oil for Central Canada and subsidized it down to something much lower. However, Ottawa refused to allow Alberta the same world price for its oil! They were given the ridiculously low subsidized price. In effect, Ottawa cared more for Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Libya than they cared for one of our own provinces. We've desperately needed a real Upper House to protect regional interests ever since Confederation. Now it seems some recognize that it might happen so they would rather just eliminate the Senate instead. This would ensure that Central Canada would FOREVER call the shots! The unmitigated arrogance of such an attitude is truly mind-boggling! It's a classic case of "I'm alright, Jack! Who cares about you?"

If you trust the Post Office, then you'd LOVE government banks!

Well, I guess "centrality" is the operative word! The present status quo is just fine for Ontario and Quebec. Under the amending provisions they can ensure that things never change. I guess it all depends on where you live, I suppose.

There's a difference between easy and impossible! Besides, we're not talking about constantly changing the formula. We're talking about the ability to amend our Constitution and Charter. Every other country has instituted amendments over the years. Times change, needs change and yes, sometimes it's recognized that a Constitution may not have been perfect in all respects in the first place. With our formula, virtually nothing can be change, ever! The factors involved could never happen in a real world. Our formula is similar to a system where a party would have to win 95% of the seats IN EVERY PROVINCE to be granted a majority government! That of course is ridiculous! Although we could tell ourselves that the ability to form a majority is there in the real world we would never, ever have anything but minority governments!

Exactly, TB! Our amendment formula is another of those anti-Liberal jokes we used to hear, where an approach would be defined as a "Liberal Solution", which meant "It doesn't have to work! It's enough to say we've got one!" It might be worth another thread to discuss if this was done through ignorance or by design. There was a great deal of last minute bargaining amongst all the players to get enough consensus for Trudeau's Liberals to ram the Constitution and Charter through. The omission of property rights was deliberately done to get the NDP onside. Having an amending formula that is almost impossible to ever work is essentially the same thing as casting the deal in stone so that no one can ever change it. I agree with you that some folks don't really debate but rather keep shouting out their "wishes", with little or no connection to any way to make them real. With this particular poster, I don't know where you find the patience.

You're right, TB. Dollars are not votes. Still, we can take them as a general indicator as to commitment. Not an absolute, but an indicator nonetheless. Voter apathy appears to be much higher in the younger "facebook" demographic, for a variety of reasons. I deal with younger folks daily in my business of building and repairing guitar amplifiers and I am often shocked by how many have never yet bothered to vote! Yet they are online virtually daily! I don't know exactly why this is true but it sure appears to be. Perhaps it's the modern equivalent of how the over-40 demographic has always tended to vote more consistently, taking the trouble to get off their asses and go down to the polling station. I'll bet if you asked many of those younger folks that take part in Facebook and online polls that they have no idea of WHERE to find their polling stations! I would think it just common sense that if someone will actually pony up cash they are much more likely to actually vote. Everybody loves a party but how many are willing to fork out for the beer?

I see. Well then, wouldn't that make the Facebook perogies protest that claimed over 200,000 members a similar sort of "thingie"?

Ah Michael, only someone from Toronto could make such a statement! The whole idea behind having two Houses is to have one set up as "representation by population" and another set up as "representation by regions". This is a check and balance system used to some degree by almost everyone else who has a parliamentary democracy. It means that a big state like California can't steamroller over the interests of little Rhode Island. In Canada it would mean that Ontario, or specifically Toronto, could not trample on the interests of smaller, less populous provinces, like PEI. There never would have been a National Energy Policy, or a Crow Rate, or many of the other things that Central Canada forced on other provinces and caused generations of hard feelings. For some reason we never set up our Senate in Canada as anything more than a nap room for party bag men. Perhaps this was deliberate, to give the appearance of a check on the Commons without actually doing it, allowing Central Canada to call all the shots. Whatever, just because Toronto likes the present setup doesn't mean all the other provinces will be happy.

Exactly! We're not talking a simple business transaction here. It's political, and that means perception is everything! I won't quarrel with you that Quebec perhaps deserved the lion's share for its contribution to the arrangement. However, when you look closely the deal is so incredibly biased financially in Quebec's favour that it could be described as the lion's share meaning Quebec gets everything but the toenails! $1.4 million each day compared to $45,000 is a ratio of about 31:1! Talk about your capitalist robber barons! There is no possible way an impartial common man would consider this fair. Especially when the deal was accomplished with so much federal pressure. I was a salesman for most of my career. I learned very early on that you could try to gouge every new customer for everything he had or you could instead set up a business relationship good for both partners that would make each prosper for a long, long time. Quebec chose the first approach. It worked out well for Quebec but it came with an obvious price. As a customer Newfoundland has been soured now for generations. Frankly, I don't see how Quebec could overcome such resentment to swing another deal with Newfoundland ever again. Certainly not with a premier like Danny Williams. He always comes across as so angry about past exploitations of his province that he seems unable to be dispassionate about any business negotiations or federal deals. This may also be a negative approach but unfortunately such bad histories seem to perpetuate themselves.

IF the GG appoints them that is true only in the most technical sense. For our entire history the sitting PM has chosen who is on the list. The GG appoints only those on the list. This makes a senator beholden to his PM and his party. Also, usually a senator will have established relationships with other members of a party that may involve business, money or other interests. While if he crosses his party he may not be able to be fired there's nothing to prevent damage to all other relationships. I find the criticism of Harper for appointing instead of electing senators specious at best, considering that he CAN'T cause senators to be elected! He has to fill those empty positions today. There's no time to get all the provinces on side and have them elect senators. Not all the provinces even WANT to have such elections! Talk about carping at the man with no legs for being a bad dancer! Next the usual partisans on this board will be blaming him for causing the Haitian earthquake. Only Alberta has elected people as "senators on tap" so that Harper as PM can recognize their choice. It's clear that his intent is to try to encourage the other provinces to adopt this practice. This would not require any constitutional change. It merely establishes a new precedent and custom. A province would not be forced to start electing its senators but if the idea and example proves popular with Canadians then those provinces that DON'T offer their people the same choice as those that DO will face popular pressure. This approach might actually work! It's slow, but any senate reform done in any fashion will always be slow. Opening up the Constitution would be the slowest way of all! 3 steps forward and 2 steps back is always the Canadian way with anything to do with our governments. However, if eventually it is accepted that we all elect our senators and that all senators publicly agree to serve only 8 year terms then we will HAVE an elected Senate, with no constitutional fights at all! Once the first "E" is accomplished then it will be a little easier to work on "effective" and "equal", even if eventually we do have to have a constitutional brawl. Back to the matter of popular pressure forcing provinces to participate in electing senators, something tells me that Quebec will be the last hold out. I'm not entirely sure myself as to why but it has been my observations for decades that Quebecers LIKE a "godfather" style of rule! They don't seem to favour having more direct input but are happy to just elect one "godfather" as a PM or a ruling party and let that godfather tell them what's good for them! JMHO, of course!

Absolutely many of us care about such issues! We just don't believe YOU! We don't accept your definitions of who or what countries are fascist. We don't share your criticisms of the "system". In short, how can we care the same as you when we don't agree with your viewpoints? I could point my finger at you in the exact same manner simply because you don't agree with me! Frankly, I think your premise is ridiculous!

Such points remind me of some of the debates shortly after Trudeau first instituted our new Consitution and Charter of Rights. We had test cases and debates about whether or not convicted prisoners should still have full rights, including the right to vote. Also, if illegal refugees should have full protection under the Charter. There were a couple of other situations as well but memory fails me at the moment. Anyhow, our courts ruled in virtually all these situations that these people were fully covered, to the total extent of the laws. Paul Bernardo gets to vote and if Idi Amin had snuck aboard an airplane and managed to get even one foot off the plane at a Canadian airport he had full Charter rights. As a people none of us ever got to vote on these cases. Nor were they ever planks in the Liberal campaigns during elections, or for any other party. The newspapers covered a surprising amount of debate by columnists and in Letters to the Editor, so it was obvious that a hefty chunk of Canadians had strong feelings either way. Didn't matter! It was just done! A fait accompli that no ordinary citizen had any power to influence. There was some grumbling and some pundits believe that these actions eventually helped add to the resentment that swept out the Liberals for the two most massive Tory majorities in our history but hey, so what? The legal decisions stand to this day. There will always be a segment of the population that disagrees with these rulings. It all depends on how you define or value citizenship and the rights accorded. Some feel that since Khadr is an admitted traitor he abrogated his citizenship and any right to Charter protections. Others feel that the Charter is sacrosanct and should be applied even to Satan himself! Their view is that NOTHING someone did can invalidate your Charter protections! This also ties in with the resentment of the abuse of dual citizenship, as we saw during the Lebanon evacuation, where many Lebanese with dual citizenship were vocal in complaining that Canada didn't do enough for them and yet returned to Lebanon as rapidly as possible after things quieted down. It may be all but impossible now but I suspect that if we don't ever achieve some kind of consensus on the questions of Charter and citizenship applicability that we dodged back in the 70's we will never come together on these points.

I would say that if the opposition parties, after having demonized Harper so strongly for "perogies", DON'T force an election then they have no right to any respect at all! That's leadership! Stand up for what you believe or drop dead, I say! Harper may not be a Mike Harris but Ignatieff is certainly no Trudeau! Once again, Harper may not be perfect but the others have a LONG way to go to earn my respect, let alone my vote!

No, subsidies give political parties a free lunch! A party should be able to survive on donations from its members and the citizenry at large who CHOOSE to give money! A party that relies on government handouts to survive is no different from a private or corporate welfare bum!

You are making some very HUGE assumptions! First off, virtually all Conservative voters are painfully aware that independent MP's have very little power in our parliamentary system. They would consider this to be a wasted vote. Second, while many do not approve of "perogies" it is a BIG stretch to assume that they would care enough to switch their vote! There hasn't been enough time to show if the perogie issue has staying power. Conservatives have long memories. They remember long stretches when the Liberals were in power and Conservatives had no effective voice at all. That was the whole purpose of the rise of the Reform Party and also why the Right choose to re-unite. To suggest that they would now choose to fragment into a lot of independent representatives is VERY unlikely! While you may know the odd Conservative voter it doesn't seem like you have enough of a representative sample to predict how most Tory voters would act. I wouldn't put any money on your predictions.

Encore, M l'enfant de Voltaire, I am not quarreling with the legalities. There was a time when it was legal to rape your wife. You've expressed the lawyers' view quite adequately. I'm saying that to anyone who is NOT a lawyer the entire deal reeks terribly! What's more, someday Quebec will not be able to extend the deal any longer. Or they will need Newfoundland's support on some other project. At that time expect Newfoundland to exact their revenge! Do unto others as they have done unto you. It's the only way to teach some people!

Topaz, you're either a Canadian or you're not. If you feel stronger ties to your original homeland, then you're not a Canadian! If your original homeland is at war with Canada, then if you go back to fight against Canada then you are a traitor! Period and end of story! Khadr was old enough that if he didn't want to fight he could have deserted. I seriously doubt if his father was there all the time to continually "exert duress"! He chose to fight against Canada and its allies. Now he wants the protection of being Canadian again to help mitigate his punishment. It's like the boy who kills his parents and then asks the judge for sympathy because he's an orphan! If Harper backs Khadr then he cheapens the very meaning of Canadian citizenship! It would be saying that loyalty to a terrorist country or cause trumps loyalty to Canadian values. It would be saying that in cases of dual citizenship tie goes to the OTHER country! Screw them and the horses they rode in on!

My internet server is Sympatico. They have a survey everyday on their home page. Today they asked "If an election were held today which party would you vote for?" The figures so far are : 51% Conservatives 25% Liberal 9% NDP It's only 9:30 am here and they show 12,654 votes counted. Now I know this is an unscientific poll. I'm just confused as to how it can be so different from EKOS and the others! Does Sympatico only serve Conservative areas of the country? These figures sure don't jive with the official word for Ontario having the CPC and LPC running neck and neck. EKOS only used 3 thousand people. Where the hell does Sympatico get their 12,654 and (climbing!) folks and where do they live?

The reports said it was a tofu pie! That's why I believe her when she says how it tasted! Tofu tastes disgusting to me!

I dunno, I've not been that impressed with Harper. Perogies or not, he hasn't been that good a match for my values. 'Course, I still have no choice but to vote for him! I won't feel proud after casting my ballot but frankly, if I voted for any of the other choices I'd probably upchuck right into the ballot box!

Yes Topaz, everyone makes mistakes. Even Einstein made mistakes. However, the type of mistakes we make can tell everyone how smart we are. There are some approaches that are a real good try and there are some approaches that show the person trying is simply a bonehead! THAT's why so many people don't respect Bob Rae for his term as Ontario premier! He made BONEHEAD mistakes! If you saw someone bailing with a bucket held upside down would you keep forgiving him his mistakes? Especially as the water is filling up the boat??!! Or would you throw him over the side and let someone who at least knows how a bucket WORKS have a try at the job?