idealisttotheend

I used to be against quotas but now I find myself agreeing with them. One poster on this thread says that positions should go to the most qualified, a common argument. Is it realistic then to believe that men are so much more qualified than women that 90% of board positions go to men? Wouldn't that indicate that sexism exists? What makes a man 90% more qualified than a woman? Also, these positions are "who you know" decided on golf courses etc? Wouldn't that indicate that a quota would lead to long term change with more women on corporate boards if they are let into the old boys club?

A national securities regulator just makes sense. Alberta, Quebec or Ontario don't really have any valid differing interests in securities regulation, It is just turf protection and it is unnecessary.

I say Irony over Calculus. In the end computers can do calculus, they are going to have a hell of a time learning irony, therefore irony is the more needed skill, ironically of course....

I am told Liepert is actually a bit of a Red Tory, though he keeps these opinions inside of caucus and represents the Party line outside of caucus (as is appropriate for an MLA). As well, he is tough, and well spoken despite a lack of formal education. Anders just strikes me as a clown, sort of Rob Ford light. Harper would do well to put Liepert in cabinet if there is another Tory majority....

Liepert is clearly the better man, this is good news for Canada....

(many apologies for the mess, I have yet to master the multiquote function...) I understand that the PQ is soveriegntist but election campaigns are fought on which part of your platform you emphasize rather than the entirety of the platform, (modern campaigns will roll out the "big 5" ideas they emphaize during the campaign etc.). The PQ only talks about sovereignty when they feel assured of a win (even in referendums when they add all kinds of conditions like monetary union, open borders with Canada etc.) This campaign the PQ spent the first half of the campaign doing that and the second half backtracking to other issues. Kimmy and jbg's points are well taken, but history is littered with governments who pick and choose what to say in an election campaign and what they really intend to do (Harper in 2011 was going to govern "for all Canadians" (ha!) the federal Liberals were notorious for running to the left and then governing from the right). Election campaigns are more about what you appear to be than what you are... more than usual in politics. I agree that Quebec SHOULD and MUST take steps to maintain and protect its French character and language, but the occasional hijab on a nurse is no threat to that character and language. The charter smacks of racism, cheap nationalism and is an affront to, not a protection of, individual rights. It is, quite simply, un-Canadian. Yes Wolfe beat Montcalm at the Plains of Abraham, and then France gave away its colony in a treaty with Britian but things change, those people in 1760 took that land from indigenous peoples (not always nicely) and I doubt would have given it back to the natives because of it. One indigenous tribe took it from another before that I am sure. Later we have to live together whether we like it or not, and "we" had nothing to do with beating "them" in some ancient war. Having said that, maybe 150 years later an independent Quebec makes sense, (I don't think so), things as I said change, but the point is that the French have been well treated within Canada and have no real actual "national grievances" against the federal state outside of said Seven Years' War. Like the PET quote, but it is pie in the sky theory, in practically a referendum everyday would be chaos. We may choose to live together everyday, but we do so within institutions (like countries, legislatures and provinces) that must occasionally change but mostly must be stable. A "No" Vote should mean as much as a Yes vote.

School boards get all their funding in Alberta from the province, the government decides when, where and how to build any new schools or to fund maintenance of old ones, and the province has complete control of the curriculum. Boards are considered a junior level to said province. The constitution and Charter also applies to boards like the rest of us. It is a bit rich to suggest that forcing them to honour GLBT rights is suddenly infringing on their territory when they are considered to have very little power to start with. In fact, it is ludicrous and simply a way for conservatives to justify allowing bigotry by religious or rural groups....

I thought about it and you are absolutely right, Confederation wasn't forced on Quebec (then Lower Canada), they were equal partners. As to Charlottetown, I don't think that would have stopped the separatists anyway.... in fact it might just have emboldened them with talk of nation status. You are right we here Alberta have had but three changes of government, United Farmers in '21, the Social Credit in '35 and Lougheed's Progressive Conservatives in '71. For the record... I think there should be a law that a no vote means no for fifty years, not "until the next referendum," might be a nice addendum to the Clarity Act if we ever get federalists with guts in Ottawa again (like PET).

The PQ was arrogant and stupid. They should have ran against the Liberal record, the corruption inquiry and the fact that the Liberals had been in power for too long. They would have won in a landslide. Instead they moved the campaign to sovereignty and that godawful charter and got slaughtered. It warms my heart though to know that the appeal to cheap nationalism (ie Quebec nationalism) didn't work, it works far too often in far too many elections around the world (think of the rise of the fascists currently in Europe or Milosevic/Serbia prior to the end of Yugoslavia -- though the PQ is neither fascist nor genocidal). Whether the PQ will wither or not remains to be seen. If we have learned one thing about Quebec politics since the great NDP win of 2011 and now this come from nowhere Liberal majority is that anything can happen in Quebec politics (the polar opposite of Alberta)....

Of course, the alternative is to pay though our wallets for insulin, and pay more. Or to die because we can't pay at all individually. Or to go broke, medical costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States. Medical ethics/decision making is clearly the highest priority for our society as new technologies become available. How do we decide who lives? We can't do it now when it comes to what treatments we should provide the old or chronically ill etc. Look at India and China where the simple technology of sex revealing ultrasound and the combination of a millennium old cultural practice that families of females pay dowries to families of males (plus the usual misogyny) has led to a 60-40 male to female birth split and the countries to try and ban that one simple technology: sex revealing ultrasounds, never mind sex selection abortions. I fear that an inability to raise taxes will lead medical costs to be privatized in Canada which will then make it simple like in the States; if you are rich you live and live well, be poor and you die, or live poorly healthwise. This is consistent with corporatism replacing democracy, and corporatism being the "rule of none," no one will decide, just if you have enough money you can pay.

I think what people are missing here is that Ralph got screwed by the one person one vote system. With only 1200 delegates it was reasonably easy for Dinning and/or Obergs people to get their way and dominate even if the vast majority of Klien's caucas still supports him. I hear that Dinning has got it hands down from people who are "in the know" but I think that whoever posted that more time gives Preston a better chance was right. It is an interesting time to be a political watcher in Alberta where one party rule makes only civil war in the ruling party interesting.

It's not that I don't trust the common man, after all the common man is not who the law is aimed at since the common man doesn't have means (generally) to broadcast his views and the law protects private conversation. It's the uncommon man that I worry about. Many a "leader" in this world has risen to power by 'speaking freely' about an identifiable group. Think Milosovich (spelling approximate). To be free people have to be free from people inciting hatred about them. I like to think I stand for maximum freedom, but that includes both freedom to and freedom from. Think of math, a parabola, set the x variable (say the charge for a service in business) in the equation to high OR too low and you get a smaller number (y or the profit achieved) than when you set it at the perfect point.

Anything is open for political abuse. Advertising for example. That doesn't make advertising inherently bad. There are no absolutes in this life, (besides possibly God if you Believe). There are slander laws, you can't yell fire when there is none, you can't advertise if you are a tobacco company, there are truth in advertising laws, there are laws against telling lies in court or holding the judge in contempt. Plus there are positive and negative freedoms. Your freedom of speech is enhanced by me not using mine to incite people to stop you from expressing yourself.

Criminal Code of Canada S. 318-319 I don't know whose side this supports but I thought adding it may further the debate. Looks like religious condemnation of homosexuality is definately not indictable so I guess it can't be used. IMO the law is a good one. As nice a platitude that unristricted free speech is... events around the world prove it necessary. Rwanda, for one, went one step further and banned identifying people as Hutu and Tutsi after 'free speech' over a couple of radio stations went along way to incite that genocide with a loss of life of nearly a million. Germany still bans Nazi groups and so on and so forth. Think of it like a no insult rule on a certain internet discussion board we know and love. Without this, our particular 'society' would degenerate into useless flaming and trolling so everyone accepts it. The only difference is in the real world when that degeneration occurs people sometimes start dieing.

Alright we will refer to you as a centerist then, Red Tory perhaps? Not so many around federally any more but I think people would be very suprised as to how many of them are in Alberta. And that, I suppose, is what the thread is all about.

I'm glad you realize this, we will make a proper 'lefty' out of you yet. According to StatsCan, Alberta pretty much pays as much for "social services" with her 3 million people as BC did with her 7 million. The Assured Income for the Severely Handicaped program is one of the most progressive pieces of welfare legislation in the country. Statscan survey of provincial expendiatures I would agree that there is a hardworking attitude in Alberta as there is across the praries IMV but would have to disagree that the unemployment rate has as much to do with the efficiency of social workers in getting people "off the Welfare" as it does with the good opportunites caused by the oil boom getting people to work.

I think that this topic is what will ultimately rate the success of the new regime against the success of the old. Chretien, with the arrogance of a populist, feared opening the constitution above all else because he saw the strife and problems it brought to both Trudeau and Mulroney. Harper, with the arrogance of a technocrat, looks at the current situation and sees that it is time for a renewal and sees his chance to jump in with both feet and accomplish it (plus he realizes that Quebec is now his best hope for both a majority and to helping keep the Liberals out of office). IMV Harper's arrogance is too high because he only has a minority government and he should wait until either the people give him the nation wide majority to legitimize his quest to change the constitution or he gets voted out. Trying constitutional change on a minority and with a brand new government is dangerous. But then maybe he is just setting the stage by talking about it and then using it as leverage against the Bloc and the Liberals in the next election. Time will tell.

I would be willing to post under my real name. I think that the people who aren't trolling and are posting reasoned posts that are thought through usually would. Some people like August 1991 or Black Dog could probably be columnists of some sort in their own right and so should be proud of what they write. IMV it's mainly the people who are trolling and making inflamitory remarks who need to hide behind assumed names.

Much as I hate to break up the party Geoffrey, a couple of points. Much as you like to paint Alberta as a Capitalist Mecca, we have the distiction of having the highest governement spending per capita in Canada. I've noticed on other parts of the forum people accuse the NDP of wanting to spend too much money on social programs. Well, no, the Alberta PCs spend the most per head that means we have the 'biggest goverment' in the country. I like that you've noticed the good education and health system, that's what the highest spending per capita goes to pay for. As for the deficit, well, the communists under Romanow next door in Saskatchewan balanced their budget before Klien did. Klien was a liberal when he started and some people say he's a liberal even now.

Hamas is indeed a terrorist organization. But then so is the IRA but in that instance the so called political wing was brought in to the fold not isolated. So far the results in that area of the world seems to be pretty good vis a vie the British withdrawl and not having a lot (any?) of terrorist activity. It makes no sense to completly reject the democratic will of a people, impoversh them further and then turn around and claim to stand for peace. Canada generally knows and acts better. Remember, a man with a full belly and secure domicile is much less likely to strap explosives to himself and blow him up at some soon to be forgoten checkpoint then a starving man. Finally, you have to realize that Hamas does and has supplied much of the public services in Palestine. There is a reason they won that election besides the fact that Palestinians don't like Israels. Anyway, the Arab world will supply the Palestinans with all the aid they just lost from the Western world so you accomplish nothing but to cut yourself off from an opportunity to "normalize" Hamas into something other than a terrorist organization.

People who read my posts when I used to post alot realize I am one of those lefty unionists that everyone here these days seems to despise. This means if I speak (a.k.a. post) in favour of this maverick MP people will think I am just doing it because he seems to be weaking the Conservatives. But think again. When I was growing up I was a lefty unionist (even then) but I used to surprise people by saying I respected Manning and Reform. I respected them because underneath the shenanigans and the cheap visual trickery they were a party of ideas with a desire to change the system. There was an integrity to them. I was horrified as the next guy by the people threatening to charge across the isle and engage in a fist fight with their Liberal counterparts and some of the things said did give them a deserved bad image. Plus I've never seen how it's adventageous to replace democratically elected governments with corporations to deliver services or make policy (the drive for smaller government). But think of the core of the Reform, later Alliance. Think of the Chuck Strahls, the Ian McLellands, the Debroah Grays and even Manning himself. These were people with integrity, who would stand up for their constituents who would stand up for their beliefs, who would (as that stupid Conservative commercial professes) stand up for Canada. And where are they now. Strahl wanted to run for the leadership but didn't have the big Ontario money Harper had, (I liken this to McCain losing to Bush even after the former has served in a bloody POW camp for his country and the latter skipped out on his National guard posting). Martin failed to integrate the Chretienites and the left (represented by the hapless SHelia Copps apparently) of his party. This cost him. I wonder if Harper's loss of the aforementioned group of principled Reform/Alliance people will cost him. Will there be a backlash by the old guard of the party who believe in speaking their minds and being honest with themselves and the people they serve. Frankly I doubt it. As the article points out there are too many perks to be gained by sticking by the party line. Too many people who will toe the line. Even if that means we get an old style top down party run entirely out of the PMO for the sake of the PMO. And if that is the case I wonder how long it will be until the next protest movement arises, shouting "The West wants In."

Perhaps but I can't see Ontario signing anything that would give them the same number of senators as New Brunswick given the population difference. Perhaps wait for a friendly federalist government in both Quebec and Ontario (as reform to the senate and seat changes would require a constitutional amendment) and then go for a 4 or 5 region model.

So why not have an elected senators that are elected every, say, six years but cannot have any party affiliation. They would all run independently like municipal councillors or school board trustees. I think that this would be the ideal situation. The party system is required in parliament so that there is some stability and you can have ministerial portfolios and the like. But in the senate there is no need for that and having people without parties voting their consciousness could be an effective balance to the sometimes skewed voted you get in parliament where free votes are not common. The only major potential problem is that you could end up with increased regionalism as the regions vote en masse and you get complaints from the West that Ontario and Quebec always vote against them etc. There was the suggestion a while back to that the people inducted into the Order of Canada be made the senators but I think that would unduly politicize the Order of Canada nomination process.

You make a good point cybercoma, thank you for pointing that out. The collary is obviously that governments make the decisions that will get them relected so you or I control that process as well. But in both cases the organizations have a degree of power greater than the individual. I can't for example choose to open a savings account that pays 3% interest even though I'd like to. I can't purchase gas at a price less than the current price in my city because all the gas stations charge the same price (barring a price war) so, in effect, the corporations have decided how much I will pay for gas. I have the choice to not buy gas at all but more than likely it will be a bad choice given my need to get to work. I would like to buy clothing that is made in Canada at Wal Mart but I only have the choice to buy the lines that Wal Mart chooses to provide me with. And as Wal Mart put it's smaller competitors out of buisness more and more Wal Mart becomes my only choice to buy anything at. So I guess I will amend my statement. The right believes that individuals should make their choices through corporations and not governments to what extent they can and have corporations make decisions with the residual soverignty these individuals must sometimes give up in a modern society. I point out also that the inherent nature of democratic governments is more egalitarian than corporations where weathy consumers and wealth stockholders have more say (though this is balanced by large pension funds owned by workers I admit) in their decision making process.

I would argue that conservatives are bound by there predilection to favour that corporations make the decisions regarding the environment, supply and demand issues, wages and all other regulations instead of governments. I have certainly met lots of "red tories" who disagree with this and think that society requires a consciousness but they don't seem to be in vogue at the moment at either the federal or provincial level.