August1991

This would require a constitutional amendment hence it won't happen. There is no way Quebec would accept fewer Senate seats than it has now. Not working? It has worked for over 200 years.Harper's propsal has raised interest in Quebec - although it seems confusing. Several have already noted that it could lead to separatist Senators. Why not let the people decide? Why not have a check on the power of the PM?

This raises such a fascinating question. Consider this: In stead of getting one vote, we get 100. We can then give those 100 votes to various parties as we see fit. 80 to the Liberals, 20 to the NDP. Or, 40 to the Greens, 40 to the NDP and 20 to the Conservatives.IOW, we could express, in part, the relative degree of feelings we have for different political parties. Our prison system must be based on punishment. Reliance on people's better nature is unlikely to lead to civil society. The Tories believe denying voting rights to prisoners should be part of the punishment. But is this really punishment?

The Constitution only states how many senators will come from the different "regions": West 24, Ontario 24, Quebec 24, Atlantic 24. (There are also discretionary "senators" that a PM can also name as Mulroney did to get the GST through.) I think the Constitution even has ridings for Senators. In theory, a Senator born in Alberta could be named to a Quebec seat. The Constitution is silent about selection method. Hence, Harper could easily do as he has said. Appoint a senator who was elected in a particular "riding". Harper could not change the numbers, however. Incidentally, the US Senate has been elected by general suffrage only since 1924. Prior to that, the State governments named the federal Senators. Two questions: Would elected Senators have more weight than appointed senators? Would Harper's change become a respected precedent?

Good point Argus. The Israelis used the term "terrorist" diuring their incursion in Lebanon. Reagan used the term "freedom fighter" in Nicaragua. Tito used the term "partisan" in Yugoslavia. Now, you use the term "militant". Druze militants? Druze terrorists? Druze freedom fighters? Druze partisans? How about the US Revolutionary War term? Militia? Journalists love words, and love playing with them. The real world is something else.

Kyoto is an international agreement that excludes China and India (as well as most other "poor" countries), that benchmarks Germany with pre-1990 East Germany levels, and UK with pre-natural gas levels. In fact, it's an attempt of the poor south to get more money from the US. It has nothing little to do with the environment at all. Chretien may have signed on but the Libs have no way to implement the accord. This is the worst form of bureaucracy: "Say we did it or make the numbers fit because no one checks anyway." Faced with the complex question of protecting the environment, we now use simplistic shibboleths to decide whether someone is good or not. Pro-Kyoto=good and anti-Kyoto=bad. It's as meaningless as Greenpeace endorsing the NDP but not the Green Party. (Greenpeace CEO is ex-NDP.) Is this going to be the next ant-Tory scare tactic?

Who would have thunk? Lapierre lose in Outremont? I've heard the rumours. Outremont has been gerrymandered and has a big chunk of allophones. For Lapierre to lose, the ones would have to vote Tory, or not vote and the Outremont types out of pique would vote BQ. (It went Tory in 1988.) G&M on Lapierre The rumours are enough. And they've made it to a Toronto paper.

That's my point. That's all. Not radical abuse, it's a question of degree. I don't want the State raising kids. Parents have kids because the parents want to raise them. That's life itself. The original question was about State daycare. I'm in favour. But I don't know how to do it exactly. The 2000$ per kid Harper deal or the 7$ per day Quebec solution. In my mind, I thought. I'm three years old and my parents are simply poor. They're disorganized idiots. My parents are plain whacko. Which proposal would be better for me? (If my parents are sensible people, the question is irrelevant.) As a 35 year old looking back, I'd want protection for what parents "God" gave me when I was born.

Before, it was "shred it". In Watergate, Strachan reported to Dean, "The files are clean."Now, the fear is e-mails. Does delete really mean delete? Defrag three times. But what about servers? Do they really keep back up copies? How long? Playfull, good thinking.

Slavik, you're right. I agree Willy. NM, I'll take you at your word.But what happens to a smart kid whose parents are irresponsible nutbar whackos. An adult would walk away from the situation. The kid can't. The kid? It could have been anyone of you. Slavik, Willy, NM. You did not choose your parents. "God" gave your parents to you. Some kids wind up with whackos, and as kids, they can do nothing about it. They're only three years old. State day care makes sense to me. Cheap insurance. I would have bought it before being born. I happily pay the premium now.

I'll respect your NDP twist.[in the debate, did you see Layton say that at least Harper is clear? IMV, Harper should have returned the compliment.] Martin, a Democrat? I think this has happened so fast that he has not had time to think about it. For the past four months or so, PM PM has been travelling in the eye of a storm. He has had no time to sit and think about anything. It's a disturbing sensation.

PM PM is 66 years old. He's a CEO type. He's not going to hang around in opposition.If he gets a minority - more seats than Harper - I think he's also gone. He has said many times, "I didn't get involved in politics to do...." He knows he's about to resign. Look at his face. He wanted to be PM with a majority. It didn`t happen. Don't you see all the knives sticking out of PM PM's back now? Guess who put them there?Don`t get me wrong. I have no sympathy for PM PM. He knifed Chretien. But Chretien has sliced better. Two old stags.

Slavik, I really enjoy reading your posts. True, you sometimes make spelling mistakes, but I ignore them because I'm curious to read what you mean. Keep posting, please.

Trudeau always quoted poets (both French and English) in his election night speeches and in 1979 (or was it 1972?) I think he said "the universe is unfolding as it should". In any case, I recall he waved his hand downwards to objecting supporters when he said that he would resign. Recall the times. The PQ was preparing its referendum question and was extremely happy to see Trudeau lose. [No comparison to 2004. English Canada's rejection of Trudeau in 1979 was perceived as a rejection of Quebec. No one would say that now if PM PM loses.] I suspect that Trudeau would have fought to stay on if the seat results had been narrower. As such, he realized that he would have lost all support in English Canada if he had attempted to stay. At the time (May 1979), he had no idea what was to unfold but I think he suspected that Clark would bungle. I have always thought that Trudeau was more of a federalist than a democrat. (And Lévesque was more of a democrat than a separatist.) The other "modern" precedents are St-Laurent and Diefenbaker in 1957, and Diefenbaker and Pearson in 1963. Incidentally, I was curious about other minority situations in parliamentary systems. I checked Australia and NZ without success. Anyone know? I think Canadians are the experts on British parliamentary minority governments.

Idealist, and TalkNumb, daycare and education are not examples of market failure. They are examples of unfairness. Before we're born, none of us knows what parents we'll have. (Have you ever seen a weird family and thought, "These nutbars could have been my parents?" Have you ever looked at a normal dog or cat and thought, "These animals have to live with these people?") Daycare and kindergarten and school is the attempt to ensure that even if you have hopeless parents, you'll have a chance in life. We're not all born the same.

Trudeau resigned in 1979. That's the precedent, and that's how the parliamentary system works. PM PM would brook that precedent at his peril. Common law is based on precedent, and the best acceptable way of doing things. It is not like a Code or a Charter or a Bill of Rights. A comparison from every day life? In English, to define a word's meaning, there is no single dictionary but rather several, and ultimately usage. In French, everyone turns to Le Petit Robert. Despite the experts, in this case, I'll go with Trudeau's precedent. But I have to say that the Robert dictionary avoids a lot of hassles and silly arguments.

Why? (Your long post doesn't answer that question.)Well, you offer this: What's the difference between "education" and "baby-sitting"? Three year old children don't learn? Nine year old children don't need baby-sitters? Sorry, got me there. If you answer, please don't mix up health care, the CBC and flashy convertibles with the question, unless they are directly pertinent. Otherwise, create a new thread and we'll discuss. With all that said, I understand your point. You are saying that people should assume responsibility for their actions and choices. I don't disagree. Except. Would you apply that idea blindly to three year olds?

I know you don't like the guy. (I suspect what you really don't like is the smugness you'll have to endure.) But look at how he has lined up his ducks. This guy is no Joe Clark. The West, for the first time in Canadian history, has someone who can play chess. I'm gonna watch. Duh. Harper has the perfect excuse for his caucus. How do you think Mulroney kept them in line? Hasbro landmines. I feel kinda sad about that. The NDP will play understudy to the BQ.

There has been talk of Manley and Pettigrew. I suggested Dion. I've heard Charest mooted. What about Tobin, or McKenna? Lapierre? Copps? No doubt the choice will be connected to the errors of this campaign. I may be wrong but I don't see the Liberals getting involved in endless internecine feuds. Turn the page, get on with life. Tradition has it that the next federal Liberal leader will be a francophone. Will the Libs break the tradition this time around? Will we face a wide open leadership campaign as in 1968 where it will take several rounds to decide the leader? I'm assuming that PM PM tanks, of course. But hypotheticals are what Internet forums are all about.

TalkNumb, there is no way Parliament will sit before September, and I'd guess October. The first confidence vote will arrive in November. Harper and Reynolds will go on a soft motion/measure that the Liberals and/or BQ simply can't refuse. Unlike 1979, there will be no question of bringing back PM PM to fight again. (The Libs may be rather involved in a messy leadership race.) The BQ will only go to the polls if Harper presents a motion/measure so outrageous that it is tantamount to a declaration of war against Quebec. Once over the first vote, the others will come more easily. Duceppe and Harper are shrewd. And they both know they're shrewd. All this is predicated on the assumption that journalist Adrienne chooses Stephen to go first, and the NDP alone can't support PM PM.

Do Americans offer to children government run kindergarten and elementary school? Why?

The BQ must justify its presence in a foreign parliament. Merely defending the interests of Quebec will not be enough. That would imply that Canadian federalism can function as long as federal MPs are true to "Quebec's interests". In the English debate, Duceppe made the remark about 74 of 75 MPs in Ottawa "and we saw what happened there." I wished Harper had said, "But they were Liberal MPs." I hope this forum will not become infected with the Quebec disease - le mal québécois. (Believe me, if you think left vs right is tiresome, you haven't seen federalist vs nationalist.) The BQ wants the independence of Quebec and it would like nothing more than an apparent stark divide between French Canada and ROC. This was the PQ's strategy in 1979 before the 1980 referendum. Will it work? I doubt it. I'd like to see Harper negotiate in the name of ROC a decent deal with Quebec. Trudeau's dead and can't fart on the cake. But what I see rather is Dion on the scene. With that, my crystal ball kind of goes blank. If the PQ gets into power, and if the PQ holds a referendum (circa 2011), I don't see massive support for an option that involves lobsters and traps anymore. Trop peu, trop tard. Ça prendra une tête à Papineau, Mercier, Bourassa (Henri), Lévesque. Dieu sait qui. C'est une épopée dans le fonds.

The big error here is to imagine that we're Apple beside Microsoft. No, no, and no again. Trade is not a hockey match. Canada does not trade with the US. Canadians trade with Americans. People trade, not countries. In any single such deal, there's a Canadian on one side and an American on the other. It is not obvious at all that the American can be the big stick cowboy. In fact, the whole point of a market is to change relations from the "law of the jungle" to the "law of numbers". FTA and NAFTA were designed to help the "law of numbers" to prevail. It is in both American and our interests, overall, that it does. Lastly, diversify? Each person decides how much risk to assume. Each person will insure as they wish. Our government should not forbid (or discourage) individual trades with Americans to achieve somehow "diversification".

I disagree. I agree.Harper, if he gets the chance to form a government (and the look on PM PM's face implies to me that he will not fight the GG, Mackenzie King style, for it), will have at least several months of life, if not more. The BQ will not want to provoke another election which people in Quebec might blame on them. The Liberals will be busy choosing a new leader. I sincerely believe that Harper will use this time to establish himself as a fiscal conservative. The Tory programme can be passed by judicious use of BQ and Liberal votes. In the meantime, what Harper has to do critically is to create or have an organization in Quebec in preparation of th next federal election. He will have to do what Mulroney achieved. (Now, Harper might actually get Quebec on side.) Watch for Mario Dumont's reaction on the 28 June.

That may well happen in ROC. But there will be some 55 odd MPs from Quebec who will be, well, what exactly?Too many of those BQ MPs will be left wing types when Quebec is not really left wing. IOW, we cannot have in Canada normal politics. The federal Liberal party will rise again, under the leadership of Stéphane Dion. Watch. (Manley can't do this and Infoman has already decided anyway.) Canadian politics, like Quebec politics, are fundamentally obsessed by ce qu'on appele la question nationale - or Quebec separatism. It's pathological. Cent pour cent d'accord.

WTF? Everybody wants to emigrate there. Everybody thinks their movies and music are cool. Everybody wants to learn English and their slang.Why? Because it's alive and changes in ways no can predict. It discovers and learns.