g_bambino

What?

It isn't. The concept of a "nation to nation" relationship has been lately mischaracterised as one between two sovereign states, or dozens of sovereign aboriginal states and a non-aboriginal one. The idea's untenable, though; aboriginal bands are clearly subject to the Canadian Crown (they are, in fact, creatures of federal law), not equal with it. Of course, "nation to nation" is itself imprecise. It does describe the idea that an aboriginal chief can confer directly with the Canadian monarch, since the treaties are agreements between those two parties. However, it conveniently leaves out the imbalance in the relationship; the aboriginal chiefs are, in the end, subject to the monarch's laws (made at the direction of either ministers or parliament); the aboriginal nations (culturally distinct groups with some self-government) exist within the Canadian nation (a sovereign, multicultural state with total self-government). [ed.: +]

Bound by the Queen's laws, you bet they're subjects of the Crown. So? Those existing rights being referred to are those "given" by the treaties, not some nebulous concept of pre-colonial, pan-continental, divinely originating aboriginal rights.

You make it sound deliberate; he didn't make the games anything of the sort. The laws you're referring to were passed by the Russian parliament and then activists and the like-minded less active and the media made the games about oppression, of people identified (by self and by others) as gay, specifically. That seems lazy to me, though; "gay rights" is a simplified and trendy cause; so, it's easy to champion. However, the laws (which do affect more people than just those who call themselves gay) are just a part of the larger problems of autocracy and, consequently, diminishing freedom of expression for everyone in Russia. But, there's no flag for that and Olympics have passed in countries with characteristics similar to Russia's (*cough*, China), yet little to no protest was mounted then. Perhaps people are deliberately missing the forest for a tree. Anyway, I don't believe anything like that is behind Ford's tantrum. I love how he taped up a Canadian flag facing directly at.... the Canadian flag flying on Nathan Phillips Square. What a protest! What a boob.

Well, that's pretty well one and the same thing; all the other ministers in Cabinet are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister, not parliament.

But not all the other laws that tell organisations--unions, corporations, charities--how to run themselves aren't? Isn't it obvious the conventions around parliamentary confidence have been pushed over 40 or 50 years into obscurity? Responsible government is pretty well the convention that makes our system of governance democratic and it has been eroded, the consequence of changes and rules implemented elsewhere, mostly within political parties. The governor general may still only appoint as prime minister the individual the majority of the House of Commons has granted its confidence, but, in a majority parliament, that individual is then essentially accountable in no way to the legislature for the advice he gives to the monarch or her representative, because he faces next to no threat from his MPs. It's no dictatorship--contrary to what the hyperbolic like to say--but responsible government is diminished and so is representative democracy. [ed.: +]

The bill doesn't propose to limit anything except the party leaders' control over their MPs; in essence, its intent is to return us to the way our parliament used to function. Confidence votes decide the prime minister (to put it very simply), not a party leader. In a majority parliament, MPs in the governing party are not going to vote non-confidence in the sitting prime minister, since, while they may be able to put their collective confidence behind another individual (whom the governor general would then appoint as PM), they will still have the same, now-ex-prime-minister as party leader, there until the next leadership convention, which happens whenever the leader says so. That means, in a subsequent election, the governing party's MPs who decide to run will rely on the approval of the very person they voted out of the prime minister's office. It would also likely be unworkable to have the prime minister and the leader of the governing party be two different (and probably, by that point, adversarial) people. Chong's bill keeps the positions of prime minister and party leader fused.

He was evidently communicative enough and convincing enough to lead his party to a majority in the Commons. As for the rest of what you say above, you're describing pretty well every political leader there ever was. Lies can be communicated convincingly (as politicians and voters alike know).

What? As though leftist organisations all the way to the far, far left haven't had and don't now have leaders....

Really, 'premier' and 'prime minister' are synonyms; they both mean the chief minister of the Crown; 'first' or 'prime' in French is, of course, 'première'. If I recall correctly what I read in old history books and newspapers--from the early 20th century and older--provincial premiers used to be regularly referred to as 'prime minister'.

I highly doubt any of them could survive on fees charged. If they could, why are moneys allocated to them in the budget, either directly or indirectly?

I wonder, though: why does a mail service have to make a profit? Why can't it simply be a government service, like the passport office, Parks Canada, public works, etc.? It is allocated an amount of money in the budget and operates on that until the next budget is passed.

Odd terminology in the context.

Only if you live in the riding he's competing to become MP for.

Such as?

Do you mean it isn't written into the Senate rules? Or that it can't work with Senate rules?

Yeah, 'cause that's why so many senators have quit over the years. They never have the endurance to outlast a government they personally don't agree with.

Ah, but he didn't actually call Dale a paedophile. And we all know how Ford loves semantics.

Controversy attracts eyes, I guess.

I think the point of an interview is to get answers and the side of the story from the person smeared. Even if an interview of Ford hasn't been tame, the more pointed questions are simply batted aside by this buffoon with automated responses like "I've admitted I did crack", "I'm only human", "you enjoy a few drinks on the weekend, don't you?", "it's a politically motivated attack on me", "I saved taxpayers a billion dollars", "I have the biggest mandate in Toronto history", etc. Often these are given in retort to a question on a subject not even remotely related. [ed.: sp.]

Where did the component parts come from?

The editors and producers have final say in what gets aired. And--though I didn't watch but have read about--the interview seemed barely any softer on Ford than Peter Mansbridge's was (and that--which I did watch--was disappointingly soft).

Grandpa PIK has spoken. And shaken his fist. Gosh darn whipper-snappers!

Well, I'm not sure what that means, but there is a disparity and that's why certain companies move their facilities elsewhere and I'm still not sure what Harper's supposed to do about that.

Allowed? How would he have stopped it? Augment the salaries of manufacturing employees in Mexico, China, Bangladesh, and the like so their wages would be the same as their Canadian counterparts', thereby eliminating the cost benefit to companies of moving manufacturing to Mexico, China, Bangladesh, and the like? [ed.: c/e]