Donaill

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/581309 WOOOHOOO. Way to go guys. Blow it out yer arses, anyone that doubts Canadian talent and perserverance.

Now that made the night for me, as far as forum reading..

So it is a bad thing to pay a worker $25/hour but a good thing to pay an exec $500,000 and give hime stock options and a golden handshack if he screws up and has to "resign"?

Like I said before... Gas milage now equals $$$ for the builders. Why buy a Ford when you can buy a Volvo with better fuel milage and a higher safety rating?

Yes, it is good and bad news. I have been watching the news and reading much about this since it started. It seems that, lately, the barbs have been aimed at the workers themselves. The CEOs and others saying that part of the problem is the high wages of the workers. Anyone in their right mind knows that the wages they earn are not a big part of the cost of a vehicle. If wages were the guiding posts of the cost for a vehicle than execs would not have been getting multi-million dollar hand offs and bonuses. I see part of the problem being that the Big 3 did not keep up with technology. While they were trying to figure out how to put a DVD player in our vans or sat radio, Honda, Toyota and Hyundai were figuring out how to build more fuel efficient cars. This is part of the world economic collapse. It has as much to do with mega-corporate greed as it would a workers desire to have a fair wage and good benefits. We get punished because we have to compete against corrupt and uncaring countries, such as China where safety amd medical concerns of workers is just a byword. WE punish ourselves by allowing jobs to be shipped off to these countries with no strings attatched.

I still think it would be best to get away from party politics and focus the power on the individual MP, allowing the MP to vote according to the moral, or political views of his constituents.

Ummmmm Thats what I sad. Loosely based on.... "It's not identical, but it's pretty damned close."

There is a great Canadian author whose name escapes me at this time. One of the points he makes in a current book is that Canada is a Metis nation. We have forgotten that many of the skills, attitudes and ways of doing things come from our contact with the first nations. Even though we we have a parliamentary system that is loosely based on the Westminister system we also have influences from the Scottish thought, Irish thought and French thought. Deny it if you want but perhaps we need to get back to our roots and stop trying to emulate the American form of goverment.

We, on the East Coast, have seen politicians forced out of the PCs because they went against the party line for different reasons. Harper is not a fan of the free and open vote. he is more of the type of person to saysomething like here is what we think and if you don't like it than you can just go. He says that the non-confidence vote is not constitutional. Yet it is. It has occured again since Joe Clark, with Paul Martin. I do believe that Martin keeps too tight of a reign on his fellow Tories, more so the Reformists in his group. Harper was chosen as a leader in hopes that he would unite the PCs and Reformists from shore to shore. Obviously this has not helped. Harper is not a constitutional leader. I am not a supporter of any one party. If Danny Williams or Mike Harris ran for the PCs I would vote for the PCs. If Ed Broadbent ran for the Liberals than the Liverals would get my vote. Than again it does all depend on who my local rep is and if I get the feeling that he will voice the opinion of his constituents or tow the party line at all costs.

I see no one has a rebuttle. It may be because there is alot of truth here?

With all the talk about how unconstitutional the vote of nonconfidence would be perhaps wew should rethink our current system. Lets get back to the system which we origionally had, post confederation. We elect representatives. Yet time after time we have seen that they do not represent us. They are often forced to vote along party lines. This was not the origional intent of an elected parliament. We do not, as some would believe, elect parties. Parties are only a guide for us to use when it comes to seeking someone that repesents our values. However, of a represntative is from an area that disagrees with a certain bill than they do not have the right to vote the way the constituents want. That right has been taken away by the party system. If a member votes against his party, he can be tossed from that party. Even if the remainder of his values are still along party lines. I would also put forward that Quebec and Newfoundland are the most constitutional provinces. In as far, but not including the sovereignty issure, Quebec MPs look out for Quebec interests. Which is what they were voted in to do. Danny Williams was voted in to look out for Newfoundland's interests and repesent the wishes of his constituents in parliament. Freedom of representation by our represenatives, nothing more constitutional about that. Or would Haper be scared of those hard core reformists that are still part of his party? End the WHIP system. It is unconstitutional.

1- The PC/Alliance was not expecting the liberals to get a majority in 2000.

I agree but proportional repesentation is really the way to go.

You missed something... But in July 2000, Day indicated a willingness to form political ties with the Bloc if it meant ousting the federal Liberals from power. He said his party's position was "to be open to anybody who's interested in a truly conservative form of government.''

Yes, that will be interesting. You know that she also holds the power to disolve goverment on her own, if I remember by Grade 6 history correctly.

The PM does not choose the GG. According to the the constitution, the PM makes a list of candidates that he deems worthy. That list is sent to the Queen and she selects the GG.

This is not the first time we have had such a divisive issue in canada. Tommy Douglas (Awesome as he was) had a very divisive idea. Joseph Howe, one of Nova Scotias greatest leaders, wanted to leave Confederation. At that time we were VERY wealthy in comparison to the rest of Canada. I imagine others can think of other events in Canadian history. We will come through this. Meh... It seems like a big deal now. 15 years from now it will just be water under the bridge. After all it took the PC over 10 years to get people to even think about voting for them, after Mulrooney.

"But in July 2000, Day indicated a willingness to form political ties with the Bloc if it meant ousting the federal Liberals from power. He said his party's position was "to be open to anybody who's interested in a truly conservative form of government.'' "I'm not big on labels," Day told reporters at the time when asked about a possible coalition to oust Chrétien's Liberals. "If there are people who embrace the views of the Canadian Alliance and believe we need a federal government that is limited in size, that respects the provinces and that wants lower taxes, I'm not interested where they may have been in the past politically.'' " From the link.

I ask because we have not had a majority goverment since Chretien. Everyone is weary of politicians, regardless of stripe. It seems that the Liberals tend to be a more unified party, as are the NDP and Bloc. It does not seem that the PC are so. I think that is one reason that Harper did not institute the free vote in Parliament. I get the feeling that there is alot of division within the PC party and it is based on the old Alliance PC line. When the Alliance(Reform) were around many saw them as being even more far right than the PC. The key word to PC is progressive. Does the current PC party still uphold that value or are they just the Concervative Party of Canada? I am just throwing rocks at the glass walls.

Should the two sides of the PC party split? That would still give the West a say in Parliament. Or would ity? Would it mean minority goverments for the rest of our lives?

Its not a what if. The PC, and Reform parties did want an alliance with the Bloc.

There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about what is happening now. AS someone else pointed out, we vote for a parliament, not a goverment. It is in the hands of the GG and that is part of the law. Agree or disagree, this is not a question of law. If it was than Clark would have stayed in power the last time a goveremnt fell to a vote of none confidence.

Well said, well said. Bravo.