Molly

Call me dense, but I really don't understand why it is less reprehensible for the CPC to divert money to inappropriate, self-serving uses (and lie about it) than it was for assorted Liberals to do the same. At least the Liberals had whistle-blowers within, objectingand bringing the sins to light. CPC operatives seem to be defending their crap at almost any cost.

It's fun to see so many political beasts ranking high authouritarian numbers while real people tend to butt-out libertarianism. Of course, in order to percieve themselves as relevant, politicians/governments/political parties must have a high opinion of their own importance-- but the truth is that government is the people, not the people they appoint to serve them.

Speaking of unbiassed media, I was really amused this a.m. to see that the Regina Leader Post placed the story headlined "Parliamentarians in dark over summit costs: AG" on page 6 of the second section, the only news story inserted into a couple of pages of ads separating the 'Arts and Life' and 'Television' sections, the only unpaid print separating a commentary about a film about Sarah Ferguson, and an article titled, "Food revolution backwith boost". You simply can not bury 'em any deeper. That said, the CPC is welcome to raisefunds and spend 'em when and how they see fit-- but the rest of us are also free to be disgusted that they'd employ such a wild-eyed, false and paranoid pony-whipping to do it; and we are also free to laugh at the dufusses who would buy into it.

That's the Trudeau gambit: leak something that's so over-the-top outrageous that it comletely enrages everyone, then, after some of the fireworks have blown, announce the real, somewhat less gawdawful truth---- then reap folk's relief that the original report isn't true, instead of their more appropriate outrage about an inexcuseable reality. Folks bought it then, and it looks like they are buying it now, too.

There isn't an active movement right now, but I have long felt that the natural fracture line in Canada is one from Lake Superior to James Bay. It's more likely to actually occur than any other. There will be no long-winded lead up, and no negotiation.

Well, we won't discuss what you may or may not be able to find with both hands and a flashlight, but perhaps when you recieve your own personal copy of that fund-raising letter you can tell us whether it actually spells out c-a-s-h, or is just pretends to be asking for the crumpled sales reciepts and fake phone numbers that one might find in your wallet.

You push the little arrow around with that rolly thingy called a mouse, and when the arrrow lands on the blue print,you push the button under your index finger... and magic! There's the article, and the source!

Gosh, Bill! You should name some of these awful irrational people so we know who to watch out for! (And that they exist at all.) We wouldn't want to be buried in hyperbole, now would we?

I'm guessing he could be extremely interesting if Baird would let him vocalize a word.

This deserves it's own thread.

Ah yes... he described the problems involved, and why he had no particular interest in solving them. The final answer he (Otto Lang) came up with was the LIFT (Lower Inventories For Tomorrow) land set-aside program. The international price was low, so the Wheat board was instructed to withhold international sales rather than allow anyone growing grains in the west any cash flow at all. (Those who could sell into domestic markets were definitely advantaged.) My Dad at the time was picking up the tab for 4 post-secondary students. How he managed I cannot imagine. A local hog farm had the temerity to offer him slightly less than the cost of delivery to take good wheat off his hands. He was desperate enough for some cash flow that he had to honestly think about it before saying he'd dump it in a slough first. Others delivered just so they could pay their grocer. "Why should I sell your wheat?" sounds harmless enough written in history books. IRL... let's just call it 'memorable'. When Trudeau was elected in '68, there were 27 Liberal MP's from the four western provinces in his government. The Liberal party wasn't dominant in the west even under Pearson, but they weren't pariahs until Trudeau worked his magic.

There is a question of tense to that question. The history of the west is one of casual exploitation by 'central' Canada, and Alberta was sca-rewed by the NEP and associated policies to a degree that very few outside the oil patch can really imagine. It would have been a horror even if it had not been part of an ongoing, long-term pattern, but it was part of such a pattern, both in terms of overall Canadian conduct wrt the west, and the very open contempt/neglect routinely offered by that particular PM. (Trudeau is the reason the Liberal party was erased in the west. NEP, Salmon Arm salute, "Why should I sell your grain?"....the anger remains.) When you've been that badly burned in the past, you'd have to be a gold-plated idiot to take anyone's neglectful assurance that it won't or can't happen again, because it could and it might. I agree that Alberta tends to whine over it wa-ay too much, and the story has entered the realm of myth, but I also hear my neighbours in Ontario complaining about the price of fuel and how there should be a two price system, that Alberta is too rich by half and that it's not fair..... that it's Canada's oil, not Alberta's... When I hear the self-serving delusion that Eastern Canada generously served western Canada by building a railroad and financing the oil industry.... achhh! Where does one even start in challenging it? So, Are they being oppressed this very minute? No. Should Alberta assume that it is no longer vulnerable, or that Canada is too 'nice' to ever do it again? Not on your life. That prickly vigilance is a hard-learned behaviour/ the trust was rightly, and only reluctantly set aside.

Except, except... the ones I listed are not in the GTA. They are clustered in the well-to-do burbs to the north and east of the GTA. They aren't really even in the golden horseshoe. The cabinet representation for the GTA and golden horseshoe are in addition to those ridings we happened to drive through that afternoon! (We hit Lisa Raitt and Diane Finley signs the next day, among others, and still thoroughly avoided all city or 400-series driving.) And Alberta... Yep, out of 27 seats they have Harper, Ablonczy, Ambrose, Kenny... Menzies... Any others? I say again, Alberta isn't the seat of government.

Small c, you are almost always the first in to pooh-pooh any sense that federal authourity is just a tad concentrated in or near the GTA, but... Just a few days after the election was called, my sister and I did a little rambling around, wandered some back roads to see sights, looking for a non-400 route between Kingston-ish over to the Georgian Bay area (day-tripping). In killing that portion of an afternoon, we drove past campaign signs for Julian Fantino, Peter Kent, Peter Van Loan, Bev Oda, Kelly Leach (and Helena Guergis), Tony Clement, and Jim Flaherty his very self....that I can remember off the top of my head. The seat of government isn't in Alberta, friend.

Every time someone directs yet another inappropriately sour and personal comment to that young woman I want her to succeed all the more, make you all choke on your runaway sexism. Really, if Maxime Bernier (for one glaring example) can be treated as a credible adult, the bar is snake-belly looooo-o-ow. All she's ever done to offend anyone,or to earn such withering disrespect is to let her name stand, and be chosen. What a crime. What a heinous sin.

Place that federal governance in the hands of the provinces... hmmm. We would certainly have no Mike Duffy under those circumstances/no Lowell Murray. The prime minister would lose the capacity to temporarily expand the senate to end a deadlock (Mulroney GST gambit), and thus federal authourity would be very seriously weakened by the loss of those aces in the hole.... (IMO vigourous federal authourity is an okay thing. While I don't want central despotic rule, I don't want the national federation to be a bare clique either.) What would happen, I wonder, to so many provinces tendency to vote one way federally and the opposite way provincially? What would be the implications of having Mr. McGuinty choosing senators for Mr.Harper?

So why feed the troll? The pony only has one poor trick. Surely you were tired of it after the first 137 times a conversation was interrupted and ultimately scuttled so that it could be repeated again and again and again...

There seems to be an assumption of bare acknowledgement for the north,and to me, that doesn't seem appropriate. That's becoming action central/ is facing huge decisions that will have permanent (not just long-term) effects, yet we would eschew the enforceable advice of those who are intimately familiar with it? Did we learn nothing from the developement of the western provinces?

There are current senators appointed by 6 different prime ministers. A couple of senators are independents and a couple more affiliated with a party that no longer exists. Senators are in it for the long haul. Prime ministers are temporary. X-post there g_bambino.... but let's not forget Senator Murray.

aka: rep by pop/ tyranny of the majority. However you've arrived at the qualifiers, NL having 1/2 the senators as Manitoba or Sask, and only 1/4 as many as Quebec (the very Quebec that is perfectly willing to take unfair advantage re: hydroelectricity)... won't wash. The role of the senate is to balance and soften those population extremes, not to reinforce them. I honestly have to wonder why (Sask/Man) would be bundled as a region with Alta as a set-aside/stand alone anyway, and why the territories, which require some major developement action -theefore in the way of becoming action central,and due for some serious consultation- would be shorted in the influence department...

Newfoundland with half as many senators as Manitoba? Now there's a lead balloon!

Trivial? I'd say it pretty much underlies all others. If your physical person is deemed public domain it doesn't much matter what else might be considered a right.

Punked, New Zealand is a bad example. They've got a little less population than BC, and less than a third of that land mass... and their land mass is pretty much the same all over: same topography; same population; same climate; same history; same resources and crops; same.... etc. They start out not having the problems that the senate helps to address.

Would you honestly expect otherwise? Senators may not be whipped, but they are certainly political beasts who have done enough thinking about it to have firm opinions and well-established worldviews. They don't just suddenly have all their experience/opinions/associations erased. Fact is that voting is not much more than the last-gasp formality portion of a done deal. The real work and the real influence occurs days/weeks/months/years before legislation is offered for a vote. If you want to measure a senator's value, check up on lobbying, research, committee work. Find out what that senator says to newby MP's who think they are in charge and can remake the world in a week.

Blech. Not impressive, y'all. She's right about everything but the acceptability of her actions. Too bad. Of course it's a security issue. If she can smuggle in that sign, then who all else can smuggle in other stuff that presents greater physical danger? But much more than that, it's a respect issue. That a page would do this? Where is the sense of having been honored by being entrusted with that post? It's so sad, so disappointing.