August1991

Correct, 1984. NOT. It was 1993. (Oops.) The migration occurred much earlier. Basically, the PCs split into two parties: French and English. The reason was the failure of Meech Lake and passim. That, and the complete incompetence of Kim Campbell's campaign.

It's the"I'd just like to see" that I have a problem with. Should the Canadian government do anything to encourage Canadians to trade with non-Americans? I am a taxpayer. I want a good military. I want to buy a wrench for the military. Should I buy the $18 Made in Canada wrench or the $11 Made in Korea wrench? (Both wrenches identical quality.) If you were standing in Canadian Tire making the same choice for your home, what would you do? And like I said before, the French worker is not a Canadian voter, the French worker is not going to keep most of the money within Canada, the French worker is not going to buy with his wages goods and services off of other Canadians, and the French worker is not going to pay his taxes to the Canadian government. What I meant was that the Liberals have been making these kinds of arguments for so long - hiring locally to produce expensive military stuff because it's good for the economy - you will never be able to beat them at their game. Mulroney and Clinton took another tack. Yeah, that would be fine, that would be somewhere around a twenty billion dollar budget. I'd be fine with that. About 2.2% of our GDP. Do you mean smugness - sending guys off to strange places - is more important to Canadians than day care? (BTW, $2000/year is more like 6% of GDP but I'll ignore that.) And we still haven't discussed the main purpose of maintaining our military. I'm sure Trudeau and Mulroney understood this purpose when they both had need of the military at important moments.

If I understand properly, the CA/Tories had about 140,000 members at the moment of uniting. Now, they have some 250,000. Of these 110,000 new members, Stronach added between 20,000 to 30,000. Most of the others were added by candidates running for nomination. More interesting perhaps is the poll of Tory members: You can read it all here: Edmonton Journal article Clearly, if Stronach wins, many will leave - but to go where? And if Harper wins, the Stronach recruits may well leave too. More likely, they won't vote. I hope you know where the "P" came from in "PC Party". This has happened before.

Alot of life is ceremony (think of a wedding). Why do we go through all these strange rituals? (In truth, some people just go to city hall and some people just shack up.) The GG is Canada's Head of State, or the Queen of England's (oops, Queen of Canada's) representative in Canada. It's a ceremonial post with one important single role: the GG asks a Member of Parliament to form a government, or dissolves Parliament. If Harper gets elected with a minority government and loses on a vote of confidence, the GG could ask Martin to form a government. The GG folllows tradition in all this, so that's ceremonial too - except when it becomes a huge scandal: Incidentally, the GG was always British born until Vincent Massey - named by St. Laurent. I don`t know who named Georges Vanier. (Most people only know these names as high schools now.) Trudeau was the first to name a real political type Ed Schreyer. Chretien went for a CBC journalist. Our French PMs have had a decided desire to enlarge the pool of potential GGs. The GG gets to live in a big 19th century lumber baron mansion (across the street from the much smaller 24 Sussex, house of the PM). Clarkson opened the grounds of Rideau Hall (the GG's mansion) to the public on weekends. Since the GG is Head of State, she/he takes precedence in Protocol terms. This is a big deal in foreign countries. Frankly, I think Canada should be a republic but then I guess we'd be saddled with the problem of paying someone to be President. India and Germany have ceremonial presidents. Vive la République fédérale du Canada!

I remember Tom Walkom as a journalist of Ontario provincial politics at the Globe: if memory serves, he was straight up, no axe to grind. This article is fun to read and delivers the goods. Toronto Star Walkom Stronach Lumley, Nolin, even her Dad's Liberal candidacy against Free Trade are all there. According to Walkom, Mulroney didn't endorse her, he just urged her to run. A good read. Form your own opinion.

Sorry, you had me falling off my chair. Ex-military, sense of humour. What a mix. If the Canadian military has to secure a building, you're the guy to send in. I'm sure you'll come back with a five year lease and excellent opt-out clauses. Sorry, this is serious stuff. Very serious. I'm embarrassed as a Canadian that the Spaniards have gone through this and we can't look them in the eye and say, we're with you.

BDC's Vennat was a foregone conclusion. Here's the Globe article: G&M BDC Vennat Firing But what I didn't know was his connection to Mitch Sharp. A smart journalist would go and see Mr. Sharp - 90 something, very ill - and ask him what he thinks about all this Martin stuff. Maybe he'd tell the truth. Sharp's life was Canada and the Liberal Party. It was a critical decision in Canadian history in 1968 when Sharp dropped out of the Liberal leadership race and supported Trudeau. No question, Sharp made Trudeau PM.

Sorry, KrustyKid (I have a sense of humour, and with your moniker, I assumed you did too.) You sound like a bureaucrat! Several posts ago, you noted an "eastern Uzbekistan desert". Do you know anything about Uzbeks? (Quick, go check on the Internet.) I have nothing against bureaucrats. It's just that I genuinely think that the WTC planes were just big car (truck) bombs - the same that destroyed the US Embassy in Beirut. How do you stop people like that? The Syrians occupied, seriously, Lebanon. Or, maybe the Lebanese got tired/bored of killing each other. I don't know. Bush was right in Afghanistan. Iraq, I don't know. (The Israelis invaded Lebanon in 1982, but that didn't stop the car bombs.)

KrispyKreme, Beirut Car Bomb. As we say in Quebec, that's it, that's all.

If you mean that you would make it easy to trade with all foreigners, then fine. But then what happens if Canadians still prefer American trade? Is that OK, or do you "diversify"? Fine, go for the votes or taxpayers. Be a demagogue. But you'll be competing with the Liberals. (Or Nixon: "There ain't a vote in it.") IOW, you'll be telling the workers they'll be rich while telling me (a taxpayer) that a $45,000 vehicle is better than a $20,000 vehicle. Can you say that better than the Liberals? They're so good at it appears they've got you convinced. True, it's a hard argument to make - buy French, not Canadian. Clinton was a free trader, Bush not. But Clinton was a good speaker. OK, I'm wrong. But the the French army boots are better. Do you mean the Brits, Americans, Kiwis, Aussies - heck, the French - have it ALL? But we don't? We ALL have to make choices. If Harper is going to make PM, he's going to have to explain the choices he wants to make to Easterners. I agree. Pony up. How much? I'm serious. $2,000/year? Why not day care instead? ARRRGGGHHHH! I'm beginning to believe that Canadians outside of Quebec can only see the military in a smug way of sending troops off to strange places where the CBC's The National reports about people dying and thank God we Canadians live in a safe country where, since God chose us, we can live in safety and peace but are rich so we can do our part by helping these poor people in crazy places where they seem to kill each other all the time. How much is that smugness worth? Canada's military was used in 1970 and 1991. Both times in Quebec. Both times it mattered to Canada, in a way well beyond smugness, or UN sharing. Imagine Trudeau or Mulroney had had no troops to send in? This isn't ancient history. And we talk of insurance. I don't mean Canada should have a military in anticipation of a Civil War. What I mean is that CA/Reform/CPC supposedly pro-military are clueless about Quebec, Canada, military capability and - well, day care. Should we choose guns or butter? I'm an Easterner, I'm fed up with these Liberals, but I fear the CA types are too naive about the choices to be made, and the arguments the lawyers will make.

Do Artists create "Art" because they want to express something new? Or do they do Art because they want to be rich? Or do they do Art to sleep with chicks - to be attractive to guys? Does this question matter? The Internet means people can get music for free. If musicians don't make music for money, then there will be no problem. But if musicians make music to attract guys or to sleep with chicks, there may be a problem. And if musicians make music for money, then there won't be new music in ten years. We'll only have Mozart, the Beatles, Ellington and Scott Joplin. So, what is Art?

BC, Canada's flaky California. Huggers, loggers. I peddled from Nanaimo to Victoria once. How many seats on the Island? And I still haven't got a good explanation why anyone in BC would vote for Paul Martin. I'll happily explain why people in Quebec will do it. Newfoundland? No problem. But BC types? Don't get it. Stoker suggested CFBs. Is that it? (But Comox is how many votes?) I don't know BC at all. But that's how I saw it when I was there. Mountain guys, pick-ups, chicks in cars. I'd say Tory with about 10 NDP/Lib.

Last point first. So, next year, ordinary Canadians decide they want a vacation in the States, not Europe, and you'd stop them - or make it more difficult for them, or encourage them to think otherwise. IOW, you're not a Communist. You're a Socialist! Next point. So, to have a good defence capability, we should buy a Canadian $45,000 armoured vehicle rather than a French $20,000 armoured vehicle. I have a suggestion: Let's buy the French $20,000 vehicle and give the $25,000 difference, free, to the Canadian vehicle workers who could do something else and have two income sources. Whaddya think? Wow. You want the Chrysler 300! Except, the wife and kids are at home in a 2 bedroom flat eating Kraft Dinner. But you're the man about the house and you want the Olds. But, tell me. What's more important: a new car or a new fridge, or the kids in a decent school. You still have not convinced me why Canadians should have a bigger "military capability". Let's be serious. Why should Canadians pay to send army battlegroups to A-stan? Peacekeeping group? Why? But then you add, ominously to me, this: Natural disasters, terrorist attacks? Were you thinking of this: In 1970, Canada's military was important to Canada in a way beyond any foreign war. And Oka? What was that? A natural disaster? A terrorist attack? Good question. Probably several thousand all in. Through taxes. the average Canadian spends about $400/year on defence, or about $1/day. Do we need more? I'm worried about Oka and FLQ, the other stuff you noted, maybe. Honest? I'm still reading for an answer. My own opinion, nah. I'm satisfied with the coverage.

Listen, KrispyKritter, I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. They were not impoverished. I mean that I don't think they were motivated by a sense of injustice. "They were told? Over and over?" God knows what motivated these guys. What they did was a Beirut car bomb, but on a much bigger scale. How do you stop people like this? That's the dilemma. Why did it stop in Beirut? The Syrians moved in, serious. I think Bush did the right thing in Afghanistan. Iraq? I don't know.

Rich does not mean smart. And poor does not mean stupid. The WTC guys were mostly Saudis, from the south near Yemen, Najran, I think. Syrians (and Lebanese) can pass much better in Western society than any rich southern Saudi. So, why did these rich Saudis, uncomfortable in the West, kill themselves and alot of innocent people? Because they were frustrated by the injustice in the world? Because they were raging against corporations dominating their life?

Gugsy, what was the BC sample size on those polls? If 1000 national, then they'd be 200 in BC. I'd only trust it if I saw several, which you've done. So, why the BC support for the Liberals? Also, is the Vancouver Island NDP? (Just curious.)

I fail to understand the question. Sorry if I wasn't clear. "What's that?" means what the Canadian military should have the capability to do. IOW, what do you think Canadian army people should do? Sorry, I don't see the connection with Canada's defence We're talking about 20% of about 40%. About 8%. I'd be unhappy if I lost 8% of my income. But would I be willing to give up 4% of my annual income to protect the small chance of losing 8%? More, a country is not a person. There are 6 billion people in the world. I'm sure Canadians could find others to trade with. Are you suggesting that, even though individual Canadians want to trade with Americans, the government should stop them and force them to trade with non-Americans? Are you a Communist? BTW, this is interesting. You make me think!

Are you comparing American troops (sorry, coalition troops) to Nazis? Credible threat? It was all a question of "maybes". There's a chance that a rogue state will assist some terrorist group to get WMD and cause havoc in the west. Chance? Almost a certainty. How do we go about stopping that. (I like my Lexus and I don't want to see it trashed.)

IOW, the root cause of these terrorist acts is the fundamental problem of injustice in this world: We rich westerners have ignored the poor. They are understandably rising up against injustice, but we must listen and teach them the peaceful way. And that explains perfectly why the WTC terrorists were from impoverished Saudi Arabia and not rich Syria.

I posted a CBC link about a BC Liberal on another thread here. The RCMP raid is weird too. I think everything in the case is closed. Why? Victoria, Vancouver Island, NDP? I thought the island would be Reform. Sorry if I sound ignorant, but I've only been there twice and I'm relying on hear say.

We're assuming the money is well spent, and we only do what we have to. What's that? Well: By that measure, you lose 50% of the vote. Heck, let's buy $13 billion of Viagra and make everyone happy. Is this what is meant by "military capability"? About 80% of our trade is with the US. What's to protect? I can understand that in the 18th century, we may have needed canals, fortresses, even railways. I happen to think Americans are largely peaceful people now. Live and learn.

There are many costs in dealing (co-operating) through markets. For one, people have to figure out what all those numbers mean exactly. Second, the lawyers have to explain exactly what you're buying, and what you're giving up - and these are often things in the future. There are many non-market ways to co-operate, and sometimes, the bigger the better. Microsoft seems pretty good, but then so did IBM. But, Hugo, I get your point. "Power kills?" WTF? What is socialism? Honestly, I don't know. If it means stealing from rich people to give to poor people, then I'm in favour with certain conditions attached. If it means the State should organize certain activities in a society, then I'm in favour but with certain conditions too. On balance, I consider myself "left wing" - socialist, I guess.

Another one. CBC Flags BC Braverman This was raised by the BQ in the House today, and reported on French CBC. The Quebec angle is the flag business. That's touchy. Landry changed the names of every institution in Quebec to "National". So, we no longer have the "Museum of Quebec". We have the "National Museum of Quebec", and so on. The flag deal is part of this saga. The Radio-Canada report was different from the link above. The issue was that Martin approved funds, in the budget, for sponsorship activities knowing fully that they were "off-budget". The Radio-Canada report implicitly tied Martin to the scandal through the BQ questions. Most scandals die through boredom. Maybe this one will too. But I don't think so.

Well, I assumed that if we increase military expenditure that would mean buying more military equipment and hiring more people to do military things. All of this, I assume, would increase the "capability of our armed forces" - if it was done well, of course. My question is: why do we need to increase the capability of our armed forces? (This is not a trick question. I'm genuinely interested to read what you think.) I'm inclined to think we don't need a more capable military. But I'm open to argument.

Lower taxes? No problem here. But why increase military expenditure?