OddSox

I don't get this whole issue about coalition governments. When you think about it, every party (at least the mainstream ones) are already a coalition - they continually adjust their policies depending on the wishes of the membership, or at least they are supposed to. For example, the Conservative party includes many from the far right, as well as the so-called 'red tories' and lots of people in between who have worked together to develop a cohesive policy that they can all accept - democracy in action. The Liberal party works much the same way, although they have interesting ways of electing their leaders. In fact, any party that wants to be successful has worked out ways to accommodate multiple points of view. The so-called fringe parties are the ones who actually reject democracy. Many people who vote for the Green party only do so because they are unwilling to compromise or 'work with others' on their particular pet issue - making them the most undemocratic of all.

As I understand it, the Gun Registry is linked with CPIC - so every time the police plug in your name to see if you have a record, it counts as a hit against the gun registry. In fact, that figure of 2.4% of actual gun-related requests seems kind of high... If you volunteer in your community, it is likely that you will be asked for a 'background check' -> CPIC. If you rent an apartment, you may be asked for permission to have a 'background check' done -> CPIC. If you are involved in a traffic infraction or accident -> CPIC. If you apply for a government job -> CPIC. Actually, the whole issue of CPIC and the Gun Registry raises a few privacy issues as well. For example, if you apply for a civilian job with your local police department do they really need to know if you own a shotgun? Should the fact that you go deer-hunting every fall impact on your eligibility to join the Big-Brothers group? http://www.cpic-cipc.ca/English/crfaq.cfm

In other breaking news, researchers at the University of Missouri have unveiled tiny 'nuclear batteries' that will last for hundreds of years, let alone hours. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8297934.stm

The link says a lot about the CBC - I didn't see anything about the arts.

I've never understood why 'oppose' means jumping up and down shouting "No!No!No!" with your thumbs stuck in your ears. Opposition could easily mean something concrete like actually stating the reasons you're against something and suggesting alternatives...

I've just read through most of this thread, and there seems to be a lot of comparing Denmark to Canada or the US, or China. Let's not forget that Denmark is a small country with a relatively temperate climate. It's roughly the same size and population as southern Ontario (excluding most of Toronto), combined with the climate of Vancouver. I fail to understand how any intelligent comparisons can be made at all.

This all sounds a lot like California's system - where spending has to be voted on by referendum, and tax rates as well. How's it working out for them?

Not the end, just a reboot...

Yet the auditor general doesn't seem to think the sky is falling. http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnist...369471-sun.html

What are you talking about? He's just won the Nobel Prize! He can do no wrong.

Something like 25%-30% of the cigarettes sold in Ontario are already illegal and untaxed. I wonder if the Ontario government is planning to sue those manufacturers as well? As far as the trucker's 'workplace fine', I have to wonder if this isn't someone trying to set up a court challenge to the law? I find it hard to believe a police officer would concern himself/herself with something like this without encouragement from someone...

Let's not forget that he was 44 years old at the time, and in a position of authority as well.

Not sure what you're getting at - but just how sustainable is that woodlot going to be when push comes to shove? Besides, isn't wood one of those 'dirty' fuels?

Aren't you on the same side as all those guys who claim the money hasn't been spent yet?

What about all the other things that are bad for you? I suspect that the cost to society from alcohol far exceeds the health costs associated with smoking tobacco. Is the provincial government going to sue the LCBO for promoting the use of alcohol? If not, why not? What about gambling addictions? It's been shown many times that the casinos operated by the Ontario government (and others) have no real interest in curbing problem gambling - that's where they make most of their money. They show lip service only to the promise of educating and/or treating those who are addicted. Are we going to sue McDonald's next? After all, they promote obesity directly to children - and it can be argued that it is more dangerous to children than smoking.

Wow, a fifteen minute break and a dozen more posts! Oh well, I guess if democracy was easy, everybody would be doing it.

Wow, just saw this thread. Missed something. What does the Roman Empire have to do with 'making whoopie', or do I just not want to know?

The point I am thinking of is not that Quebec gets 75 seats, but that they are guaranteed a minimum of 25%. I believe they currently have over 25% of the seats with less than 25% of the population, and will still do so even with the new proposed seats. My understanding is that there are minimum numbers for other provinces, but not minimum percentage clauses? But if the western provinces continue to grow at rates outstripping eastern Canada, there will eventually come a time when Quebec has 25% of the seats, with 20% or less of the population. All subject to change, of course. Is that right, or am I misunderstanding the issue?

Well, don't forget that "small impressionable minorities" exist at the extremes of just about every ideology out there - even yours.

Currently there is more protectionism between Ontario and Quebec than there is between either province and the states. If this agreement serves to reduce that protectionism by even a little bit it would be beneficial for both provinces. There is a huge amount of trade between Ontario/Quebec and the northern United States. Their industries are so intertwined that there have been American companies strenuously complaining about the restricton of their Buy American policies. There is support in the States for more cooperation - it's just a matter of numbers.

Is there not a condition where Quebec gets a minimum of 75 seats or 25% of the total - whichever is greater? Future population trends can have some huge implications in seat distribution... These changes may benefit one party or another right now, but despite everyone's best efforts - nobody can predict what will happen in 10 years or twenty years. There are so many variables involved (population growth, rural vs urban vs suburban, constitutional rules, etc. that it's almost as hopeless as trying to predict climate change!

Well, if it was easy it would have been done sooner. Besides, McGuinty is an embarrassment (until just recently, I lived in his riding for many years).

I believe everybody concerned on both sides was hoping it would be 'a minor irritant'. No matter what happens, it's a significant step forward on the part of the provinces and may still serve to help improve inter-province trade within Canada, which has been lagging behind the spirit of NAFTA for many years. In the long run, if successful, it will be a fine feather in Harper's cap! If not successful?

Sorry, I missed something. Our government managed to negotiate an agreement which does not involve a trade war, in part by bringing the provinces onboard in cooperation, which is something that several previous federal governments have not managed to do successfully. It sounds like Layton was advocating a full-out trade war and still is - which both sides would lose out on. There is a difference.

A padded room?