August1991

Sorry to say this but it's true, Canada has a significant linguistic minority that is small in North American terms. For Quebec to remain part of Canada, Canada must provide some kind of protection for the French language. The Triple E proposal doesn't do that. No Quebec government would accept Triple-E except in the context of devolving powers to Quebec.

I think the percentage is higher.Saudi Reserves at 25% Tar Sands Reserves greater than Saudi reserves

What you say is true, kimmy. But bear in mind there is alot of ignorance in Canada about different parts of the country.

Did you vote a few hundred times? There 13,489,559 votes cast in the past election. Of these, 2,116,536 were case for the NDP. If we had had strict PR, for example, it would have required 43,831 votes to elect one MP. The NDP would get 48.28 MPs, or rather 48 MPs. Even in PR, your single NDP vote will change nothing. (If there had been 2,116,535 NDP votes, the final result would be absolutely identical.) Worse, as an individual, you gain nothing from voting. Democratic votes are a poor way to make collective decisions.

Like working in underground mines, or trading on the stock market, being a politician is a risky job. Women, on average, dislike risk more than men do. Women and men should have equal rights but what they do with those rights should be their own choice. A related question is why there are no or few women posting on political discussion forums.

Offhand, no. Royalties on natural resources are complex. The provinces receive them and this boosts the Albertan government's revenue which is then skimmed for equalization payments.The right to receive royalties on underground resources is provincial. Caesar, you seem hung up on this size question.In sports and war, victory goes to the fastest, biggest or strongest. In trade, well in trade, the sports metaphor doesn't work at all. When you buy gas from Exxon, everyone wins. Want a metaphor? Trade is like a good family. All sides win, from the smallest and weakest to the biggest and strongest.

Nonsense. Nonsense. Nonsense.A stranger walks up to you on the street and says he is interested in buying a new car and has $40,000 to spend. He asks you to go and find about all the available cars, options, best price and to meet you in a week and advise him. He will give you absolutely nothing for your efforts. Do you accept? This is what happens in an election. And more and more people are saying, "I've got better things to do." Please don't tell me that we are choosing our own government etc. etc. Your individiual vote will change absolutely nothing at all. (If you stop singing, will the choir not be heard?) Furthermore, voting means not only putting an X but also taking the time to inform yourself and think about the candidates. True, your vote gave $1.75 to the party of your choice. Wow. As to PR, your vote will still count for nothing since we can't have fractions of MPs. This won't give more weight to my vote.Cartman implies however that we should encourage people to vote by, say, giving each voter $100 for their vote. Or, as in Australia, fining them $75 if they don't vote. This would raise voter turnouts. But would it make Canada more democratic? I'm not depressed about low voter turnout. I'm depressed at the simplistic reaction to it.

Trade is not a boxing match. One person benefits when trading voluntarily with a large corporation composed of thousands of people. Voluntary trade, by definition, is a non-zero sum game. The richest countries in the world tend to be small ones that trade freely. Iceland has about 300,000 people, belongs to no world trading bloc and has one of the world's highest standards of living. Singapore is similar. So is Lech Walesa and, I think, the Pope. What's your point?

Who receives the royalties is the question. At present, they go to the Albertan government and then the feds siphon off a chunk. So, both governments "own" these natural resources, in the name of their citizens.

Far be it from me to advocate Albertan independance but Albertans pay for all these federal services now, I believe. The $11 billion in 2003 is net over and above this. For example, Alberta pays the federal government now for RCMP services. The net $139 billion transferred out of Alberta between 1961 and 1992 is measured in 1992 dollars and includes the implicit subsidy of the NEP's oil pricing below world prices. Underneath all these numbers, the question arises: who truly owns the oil and gas?

Do you mean that Canada suffered mayhem prior to 1982?

WTF?If government's take of the economy hasn't changed much between 1976 and 2003, it certainly grew between 1950 and 1976.

You've heard of the military-industrial complex, MS? Well, this article is based on a news release from the social-therapeutic complex. I am not at all surprised to read that the National Council of Welfare says there is poverty in Canada.

Huh?I see no evidence of that at all. In fact, I don't see any evidence of, well, anything. Take a look at the statistics at this federal government site. Since 1976, year in year out, all levels of government together take about 40% of people's incomes. Then, governments hand back about half of the takings in transfers (social security payments) to individuals and the other half of the takings, governments use to buy stuff. At most, transfers (social security payments) tended to rise in the early 1980s and early 1990s when there were recessions.

Have you seen this web site? Is this for real? Separation Alberta L'Alberta aux Albertains!

Do you sincerely believe that Martin and the Liberals care about the "disadvantaged"?Do you sincerely believe that throwing even more money at the "disadvantaged" will make a practical difference?

On the contrary, this is a good argument for evolution. A million years? Try a million experiments of the sort for a million years each. IME, there are two sets of numbers of which people have little grasp. Time and space. To say that the universe is 15 billion years old is meaningless. To say that the universe has some 100 billion X 125 billion solar systems is also meaningless. Finally, people have a very poor grasp of probability which in fact is critical to the functioning of the universe. We can't predict perfectly because the universe is not deterministic. This incomprehension leads to the Ronald Reagan simplism of "with such a lavish banquet, how can anyone believe there is no chef?" (BD's watchmaker above.) IMV, BD has put his finger on the key issue.We have no ready answers to how the universe started or why certain laws of probability are the way they are. So, if you want, assume that some entity got the ball rolling. (Who started the entity is just as good a question but I'll let that slide.) But that is far, far removed from the religion portrayed around me. In fact, I long ago concluded that religion is simply another form of politics. IOW, religion simply contributes more ways to organize society. A good thing?Christians fought at every turn modern science. Galileo died a broken man. Some Christians still deny evolution. Precisely. Let's keep "God" out of this completely.IOW, let us argue about how to organize ourselves in society without making injunctions (invariably self-serving) to God Almighty.

Don't be hard, MS. I prefer to be open to a conversation,whatever the accent, even foolish. Who knows where the accent will lead?Playfull is right. There is no clear answer. The evident accent is not an obvious answer. Hollywood!

Been there, done that.I don't know what else to say and that bothers me. Why? I don't know what to explain to my grandfather in Bonavista Bay, Nfld. You are right playfull, and my "Nfld Daddy" would say, "That's not the Canada we chose."

Cartman started this thread by noting Crime. I offered stats showing that Crime was not serious in Canadian cities in comparison with US cities. Please, go to the start of this thread (one click) and get through one argument about Canada. Am i wrong?

Hawk and DAC, it appears that you frequently use the the Internet. At the same time, the Internet is used to commit crimes. The police wants only to question you. Please co-operate. We all know you have done nothing wrong. You won't be afraid to show what you've done. Maybe this will be a new world where everyone knows everything. If someone does bad, the punishment will be immediate. "Did she just buy a condom?" Her Visa card screen says yes.

Arbitrary arrest? Do you have any idea of the power of the State?In the US, it is said that a "liberal" becomes a "conservative" once a victim of a mugging. But a "conservative" becomes a "liberal" once accused of a mugging. DAC, what would you do if the State accused you of child molesting? Who would provide support to you? Who would give you the benefit of the doubt?

You resign! Accept defeat? "Factor analysis?" "Multicollinearity?" "Eigenvectors?" No!!! TalkNumb, your election predictions were almost dead on. Anyway, IMV, it's Morton that's clueless. And I read Flanagan's stuff on Indians. Well, I spent a month in Northern Ontario and then a night in Calgary's bus station. IMV, Flanagan is a jerk. Jerk? Could anyone on the left get that satellite to Saturn? Mathematics is the "precise language" of the future. Or rather, mathematics is the language that uses probability to express "imprecision" best. Let us ensure that our children are "bilingual".

I'd love to see your proof.1. Where do two soft drink sellers stand on a 300m ocean beach? 2. Where do three soft drink sellers stand on a 300m ocean beach? 2a. Where do the three stand if the beach is on a round lake? And did you see this (from the same source as above)? "Possibly so"! "More complicated"! "...empirically boil down to..." Ha, ha, ha... The math of social scientists is a joke. But at least you economists attempt to speak Math rather than most left wing types who are abjectly unilingual mutes.

Thanks, MS. I'm going to post this elsewhere and see what happens. On s'amuse.