idealisttotheend

Nice diatribe AF. Some points: My "spider sense" is telling me that if abortions weren't paid for than you'd be unhappy about the welfare costs associated with unwanted children. And if the welfare costs weren't paid you'd be unhappy with the costs of keeping a large portion of them in jail if their parent's didn't take care of them well or they were too poor to develope appropriately. I don't like abortion much really either but I don't think the Right is willing to pay the costs associated with it's invective. When the "HRC" starts forcing you to go to the parades or march in them, that would be when I'd start to get concerned. Otherwise how does people marching up and down the streets in downtown hurt you? I agree with TN, just don't go but don't try to stop other people from going. You have no right. I am not sure that this is true. But even if it was, if the child's faith is strong then they will see that the gay lifestyle is wrong for them and this material will not affect them. Surely we should not be censoring our schools, that would be quite totalitarian (like Stalin and Cuba). I won't even deal with the last paragraph. If you could provide some evidence that young people now consider date rape a sport or that anyone on the Left contributes nothing at all to society it might be an interesting discussion. Remember AF, Jesus was almost "left wing" in many, many of his teachings, (for example you may want to try loving, or at least respecting, your left wing neighbours). This is a fact forgotten by far too many people today. Also, the Church was the largest bureaucracy (or 'government') in the world for most of human history post 0 AD..

Thank you for answering my question TN. You made my point exactly, we generalize far too much about these things. Maybe it would've been better if Ontario was split into smaller sections but even with it as is, there are a lot of differences between Ontarians. Good point about Alberta too, Edmonton has a political cultural miles apart from Calgary's. Just which group are the "severely normal" Albertans anyway. And do conservatives in the west disagree with all of "Ontario" or can they agree with the 31.5 % who voted Conservative and just disagree with the rest. Generalizations are easy but usually so wrong.

And back to the top at hand (I'm starting to post like Argus just not quite as fast). August said: The government (on behalf of all citizens) assumes the risks whether it likes it or not. Failed buisness cost money in social costs (EI, welfare) and decrease the tax base. Being specific again, the government had to bail out the cattle farmers who didn't diversify enough. It assumed no risk at the outset but still had costs. Had it not bailed them out then there would've been other costs associated with masses of broke ranchers. SInce they did bail them out there must have been a calculationn done that the costs were less of doing that then leaving them alone. This calculation might have been more political than economic but that is not the problem it would seem. The government can not and should not pretend it is not exposed to some risk in all sectors of the economy. It's about us all being neighbours and connected no matter that we like it or not. Out west, I would argue that just the opposite is true. The American's are hurting a lot of people out here but no one is talking seriously about energy retaliation or anything at all. The (public at least) political pressure in the West seems to be all anti-Ottawa and pro-US even with the duties and bans and such. Many individuals are smarter than that but it's not what you see on the news. Economically, ask a rancher if the need to diversify markets or set up some sort of informal marketing board has anything to do with anti-Americanism. It's a matter of survival in the face of risks that you aren't as exposed to in Quebec. True but compared to the American and European systems it's not a very good way. As far as farmers getting much in the way of subsidies are concerned at least (they'd get more under the American system which I don't think is necessary). The CWB is actually a cheaper way to compete with the Americans. Farmers are disatisfied across the world but that's due to low prices not necessarily one marketing system or another.

August: And it doesn't seem to be working very well out west at least. Manufactured goods are going both ways (to Ontario's benefit) but resources (where Canada has an advantage) are increasingly being hit with tariffs or bans in defience of laws and science respectedly by our neighbours to the south. Lot of people in Welfare offices that never had to be there before in some towns and smaller cities. Governments are the ones that guarentee those contracts and make the rules governing how and for what they can be signed. There is a free market system currently in Russia and one in Canada. The one in Canada works a lot better than the one in Russia because there are functioning government systems to enforce contracts through the courts based on the laws in effect in Canada. (BTW the other crucial difference is said to be the banking system which is also 'guarenteed' in a way by the Canadian government and regulated to some extent by the same government to ensure it's stability and success.) I'm thinking of enviromental laws, labour laws, occupational safety laws, taxation laws, anti-trust laws, intellectul property laws and copyrights. I'm also thinking of the lack thereof and races to the bottom and how that is detremental to society. I did think of same actually. It comes down to your ideal though (shared by many conservatives and more prevelant out west) of capitalism, August. You see the majority of trade occuring between "individuals". This is how capitalism was designed and how it functions best. Consider though, how much do you buy from individuals? The computer you read this on didn't come from an individual, it came from a company. The car you drive, your toothbrush, fast food,the building you work in, all come from companies. Look around your house and tell me what percentage of the items therein you bought from individuals and what percentage you bought from companies, some of which are larger than most national governments. People who argue for smaller or limited governments usually (actually almost 100% of the time) find that their arguments work equally well against companies. Whether it's against bureaucracy, a lack of local control or corruption the problems are inherent to the system that runs both systems (you can tie in Russia's communist society too and argue that the problems there are the same one's of large companies or governments in many respects). Modern economies cannot function under the old mom and pop general store system, it would be impossible to produce the complicated goods we do. These good require experts, systems and very large outlays at startup and to maintain, whether we like it or not. Therefore it is a question of control. Will companies or governments make the rules that control the resources? This argument usually comes down to ideologies. I know you feel companies are inherently more democratic than the government but that's another thread. Specific to something like softwood though you make the argument that this isn't primarily a government problem yourself. The duties on softwood are not in the interests of the American people because they are pushing prices of lumber up (the intention) and therefore housing prices are going up by as much as 10% I read somewhere. It is the lobby group for the private producers of lumber in the US that have pushed for these "bully" tactics. There is no evidence that limiting governments would reign in the real bullies here and if government is to be critisied it should be for not representing the interests of the majority but of the industry.

Question regarding all threads on the territorial integrity of Canada. Just who is Ontario?

Hmm 16 or 17 containing mustard or sarin gas. No age of weapons or anything else. Not exactly definative. I wonder if I could find the same in Canada, (leftovers from WW II or such).

KK: Somehow in the litany of links you posted you missed this one. About CWB directors--PDF The CWB is run by farmers for farmers, period. The fact that you posted seven links does not prove that the CWB is as unpopular as you suggest. I read all seven of them and they all represent the same general group of farmers, several even by the same lobby group. What is not being heard is the silent majority and yes I can prove it. The reality on the ground is this. There is some opposition to the CWB. When the elections are held for the directors some candadates are actually anti-wheat board directors who run for election. One Mr. Chatenay is an example of an anti-CWB director and activist. If a majority of these anti-CWB directors are ever elected then the CWB will be kaput. Currently though the majority of democratically elected directors of the CWB agree with it's existance and that can be taken to represent the majority of voting farmers agree with the CWB and it's existance. The Canadian opposition to the CWB's existance tends to be either large farming interests (rarely) or more often farmers who live close to the American border and can easily sell their grain across the border sometimes for prices above what they might get from the board. Various right wing groups like the NCC oppose it but for idealogical reasons not practical ones. If the NCC spoke for the majority of farmers than the CWB directors would be anti-wheat board. The CWB is sometimes unpopular because prices are low or farmers feel it should have turned left when it turned right or other legitimate concerns that are simply a matter of execution of mandate not the mandate itself. You stated: "...the Wheat Board does not really compete. I believe that it is an extension of Canadian Foreign Policy. All at the expense of our farmers." In the 11 links you have produced so far, not one has a shread of objective evidence that your statement is true. No evidence whatsoever of big bad Ottawa exploiting western farmers nor any reasons why Ottawa would do so. The CWB web states categlorically that the federal government (by legislation) does not have any control over the majority of directors and the directors give the general direction to the organization here. Ottawa still has five votes out of the fifteen but the majority are democratically equal and Ottawa (on behalf of non-farmer taxpayers) has a legitimate interest in the CWB's success because it covers loses incurred by the CWB by law. Here is the Act in question -- see 3.06, 3.07, 3.08 and 4(2) regarding it's governance and the fact that it is not even a crown corporation The CWB is contentious as it debates whether a dual marketing system would work or not. This is a valid discussion. However, the CWB is by no means an example of Ottawa exploiting western farmers, for foriegn policy or another considerations . Such opinions are at best "misinformed." Bored -- here is a very interesting but long argument against dual marketing even acknowleging that a monopoly is not the ideal solution. --PDF

The CWB exists for farmers and only for farmers. Ottawa has no other interest as far as it's foriegn policy goes. The links you've posted only prove that the Americans and Euporpeans subsidize their product more than we do and our farmers have to compete collectively or they'll fail individually. If it was called the Canadian Wheat Corporation I think everyone would have a different view of it.

I believe, AF, that these socially conservative can live their socially conservative lives in freedom and harmony. After all no one who doesn't want a gay marriage will have one nor will abortions be perfromed on the unwilling. And if you think that no one should be able to be gay or have abortions than you are nore than welcome to try to convince them individually of this. It's hard work but if it is as important as you say it is than I'm sure you and your bretheran are up to the challenge. The one thing that the socially conservative and traditional will not be allowed to do is to use the state to force their views on other Canadians through laws making these things illegal. THAT, would be Stalinesque, or at least closer to it than anything you accuse of being Stalinesque or "like Cuba."

Here we go. Such generalities are evidence of a weak argument. Do all Albertans believe in such things? All of the points on this list are agreed to by all members of the province of Alberta? I lived in Alberta up to four or five months ago and these are not my beliefs. Did that make me less of an Albertan or not an Albertan at all? My points are not useless hyperbole. There is a feeling growing in certain parts of Alberta that only people with certain political beliefs are "good Albertans" and this is dangerous to a democratic state.

Nor does British Columbia within Canada. BC may not have the amount of representation you want but it has some representation you must admit. BC especially since it sends all three parties to Ottawa so it always has someone on every side of the debate. You yourself are arguing that certain regions are underrepresented in Ottawa, PEI has a few more seats to try to provide a little balance. This is not ideal but it is practical. The Quebec example is different. The 75 seats is a constitutional quirk put in many many years ago. The Quebec debate in this day and age seems silly because it is obvious that Quebec is not the only unique group of Canadians, and in fact may have more of a majority culture within it's borders than the 'ROC' has. But taken in context, that was put in when it was still obvious there actually were two solitudes and that the Quebecois had been recently conquered. Constitutions and religious texts should probably be thrown out every fifty years, or so the saying goes, but they're not so there will be quirks. Each province tends to act in what it regards as it's best interests, so Quebec might not give up it's 75 seats easily. Eventually the population in the west will grow though and render it irrelevant. I still think that you are very wrong about the two being in cahoots though. The last time the constitution was opened Davis and Levesque weren't exactly on the same side. But now you have to define the community, that‘s where the line is really drawn. Who is the community, how far do we divide to find it and will it feel comfortable with anything less than a lowest common denominator on any given issue. Herein lies the problem, I have not carried the point to an illogical nor absurd extreme. All across the country, cities are having this discussion. Edmonton has this problem and they are (or have) voting to undo the megacities in Quebec very shortly. The problem, in short, is that suburbanites 'freeload' on the cities proper. They commute to work on city roads and use services in the city but do not contribute to the tax base. Furthermore, social 'costs' are almost exclusive to the city proper because of the need for transit, homeless shelters, major crime and such stays out of the suburbs. So suburbs can collect significantly lower taxes while the competitive advantage this gives them erodes the city's tax base and increases the need for services on a per capita basis. Now I stated that the two groups have different agendas and they do. But they also have a similar agenda. It is in both their long term interests that the area as a whole succeeds. In the short term the surbanities save a few dollars on taxes so more and more move. But as the city can afford fewer roads and the demands increase on those roads the system breaks down. Soon the surbanities have trouble getting to work and the downtowners see companies moving out of downtown negatively affecting them as well. It is also morally and in the long term practically necessary for all people in the region to pay the social costs of the poorer people or again the area as a whole will fail and everyone (suburbanites and downtowners) will lose. Therefore even though the surbanities and downtowners seem to have different agendas in the short term they require some sort of common government in the long term to ensure the collective success of the area in question. Not only will this government moderate the competing interests to the combined benefit of all it will also provide significant efficiencies as certain common services (say transit and police) are combined increasing available resources. This is a economic analogy and has nothing to do with the political or cultural elements but it might cover one element. As the divorce rate attests, compromise is something we have forgotten how to do as a society, to our detriment. Any group of more than one person will require compromise at some time or another. Therefore we might as well start off compromising at the higher levels than let things break down and then start compromising. What is fundamental is subjective and will change from person to person so it really is of little help. A stone rolling downhill gains momentum rather quickly (doesn't that sound Oriental ). If you throw the BNA out by separating parts of Canada it gets much easier to further subdivide, in fact it would be part of any negotiation. Both culturally and legally. Agreed. But my point is areas with resources of any type would be reluctant to share them with the larger group especially if there was a significant amount of poverty. This creates divisions and if separation is allowed willy nilly will cause problems. Furthermore the divisions are temporary as take number points out, who is rich today is poor some years down the road regionally at least. By what right do you claim the right for yourself and BC? Or for Vancouver? Or for the Shiners of the Sunshine Valley. At least Canada has a constitution, laws, convention, history, tradition, international recognition. Canada has four million of it's citizens living in BC and you can't take away their rights to be Canadian on your whim. It is always easier to enter into an agreement than break that agreement. As the biggest and most far reaching division Canada is by far the one most worth fighting for and the one worth trying to make work. By agreeing the a line must be drawn we now must get into an argument of legitimacy. Whoever has the right to draw that line must claim to be the most legitimate group of all possible groups. It is not a fun discussion and almost impossible for anyone to ever agree on. There is no evidence to suggest that the west overwhelming leans to the right. This is another thread but I believe it to be a myth. The Cons did not take a majority of the vote in the west last election. The BC Campbell government may be right now but there is little doubt the next government will be NDP and possibly left leaning NDP. Saskatchewan has had four straight NDP governments and Manitoba has a NDP government now. Alberta has a reputation but Klien really isn't the right wing demagogue he's made out to be (though there are seriously disturbing elements in his party that are always pushing him in certain directions). And before Klien, Lougheed and Getty built more hospitals and engaged in more government run 'ventures' than most NDP governments. In fact I would argue that the west -- by circumstance and economic circumstance -- is less right wing than Central Canada historically and even currently but again that's another thread. I agree left and right aren't so clear nowadays but people (though never MapleLeafWeb posters ) tend to go for all encompassing ideologies instead of shades of grey. Unfortunate but true. I think that you're looking for a mathematical number where none exists. You can't quantify people and cultures in the manner that you're trying to. In fact I think that identity is anti-mathematical. It gets into ethnicity and identities and has everything to do with base passions and perceptions and little to do with calm rationality. That is why quasi-ethnic identity is so dangerous (or so useful) and why I get annoyed when people use the term "we" to describe a group of people as if they all agreed with the position of the speaker. Especially when issues of "values" and historical "injustice" come up as well. In other parts of the world it has led to some very very ugly situations, like Rwanda or Yugoslavia. I don't think that would happen here but you can see weaker versions of the same trends in some areas already. People with weaker minds buy the new ethnicity and do all sorts of things to defend it without really thinking through the consequences. Britain and Canada had many cultural similarities, more than BC and NB might nowadays I admit (which is a problem in Canada). On the other hand rural people in BC probably have a lot in common with rural people in Ontario, city dwellers with other city dwellers. The key is not to define things in term of regions but in terms of the myriad of other factors (economic situation, rural/urban etc.) In any case that was not a federal situation in was a colonial situation. You have admitted that they are different. Moving away from Britain was necessary because it was a situation of colonial control without representation. Combining the colonies at that point was evolution because it created a larger and stronger whole. Splitting the apart would be devolution without strong cause and vast majority demand for it. Neither do they talk about how it plays in Brampton or the east side of Thunder Bay. We have to depend on individual Mps to represent their areas.

It is an interesting analogy but not really valid. Canada in 1867 had no real responsible representation in Britian. Britian made the rules from the UK without elected representatives from Canada involved in the decisions made from Britian. BC in 2004 sends a number of MPs to Ottawa equal to it's democratic weight. BC is intimately involved in the Federal government wheras Canadians had no say in the decisions of the legislature or monarchy in Britian. The two are apples and oranges. Yes but where do you stop? Look at megacities, suburbanites and downtown dwellers in any given city have different agendas and needs. The two hate having to share even a municipal government, should they get their own country? What if two sections of BC agree on something but then one day have a fundamnetal disagreement on something like resources royalties. They would immediately seperate from each other. Any region of BC with oil would immediately isolate itself from the rest of the province so that that region could keep the highest proportion of their oil revenues and not have to share them. Yours is a recipe for chaos, the line must be drawn somewhere. If the federal law that you bring up to support your position that Ottawa interfers with your life is gun control, you must be an anarchist. The requirement to register your firearm on some beauricratic registry is a very small imposition on your life given the things that happen in the rest of the world. The State can't look for firearms in your home without evidence, you are allowed to have the things if you register them, you have the right to vote for a party that would repeal the gun control law or change it. I don't want to get into the gun control debate here, but you register you kids with the government, your car your house. This is part of a modern society, anything less verges on every person for themselves anarchy. I apologize but grudgingly. In my experience the seperation movement out west is all about frustrated conservatives who can't get their policies into Ottawa because they can't get enough of the rest of the country to agree with these policies. I have never met, heard or seen anything by a centre or left wing person argue for western seperation or anything resembling it. You use the pronoun "we" to describe British Columbians and suggest they are different from "Canadians" and "Albertas." Now you admitted the British Columbians are different from each other earlier, I'll give you that. But you are still claiming some sort of identity for people who live in BC simply by virtue of them living in BC. And you are claiming that there is enough of that identity there that BCers are different enough from Albertans that they should have completly seperate political systems. Either there is something similiar about BCers and only BCers that they ought to form their own political system seperate from Canada and elements thereof or there is not. You can't have it both ways. Ontario has no say into the affairs of BC nor vise versa. However both have a say into the affairs of Canada. There are many differences between Canadians but there are certainaly enough similiarities that the union of Canadians remains profitable economically, politically and culturally, (profitable vs. no union).

August said: The softwood and wheat tarrifs were set by the central government. The mad cow problem is with the government. All trade deals and rules are set and agreed to by governments. All regulation involving the production and consumption of good are set by central governments. The anology is errounous. It is more like if you own company C and you set up shop ONLY in Toronto shopping malls because you live in Toronto. Even with Toronto being a good market you are still vunerable if the Toronto market collapses for your goods, you'll go broke. So you set up shops in Montreal shopping malls and Calgary shopping malls both to make more money and to protect yourself from adverse conditions in your previously sole market of Toronto. Even though Calgary and Montreal are much farther away and you will have increased costs doing buisness out there. Diversification. But since it is hard for the little guys, the government has to help them to get out to Montreal and Calgary.

The drugs issue is a non starter Argus. But I agree with your last post. THe Cons should have went after Martin on reflaging his ships and on cutting health care transfers. Water under the bridge now though.

It's just they way he looks, he's dishelved, looks hagard, eyes are shifting he is more aggressive. IMO it is more than the usual foot in the mouth disease he is prone too (his style has always been to just talk off the cuff which works for him but gets him in trouble sometimes, he can be too honest for his own good). Could be he's either on or off the sauce too and that's screwing with him too. His health I expect is not the best. But then I am no psychiatrist, maybe Cartman can lean on his sources for more information. It would be a MapleLeafWeb exclusive.

In all seriousness and honesty I wondered if he has an early onset of something like Alzheimer's last time I saw him on TV (the June 30 newsconference). He looked very unfocused, uncomftorable and not his confident self. He's been quite erratic lately too. He started almost screaming in a commitee who questioned his travel expenses and the HC comment had no purpose. I wouldn't be suprised if someone else leads the PCs into the next Alberta election and we might all realize that it was never Klien that was all that far off to the right at all but other elements of his party.

Who is Ted Morton?? (Do I get 1000 pts)

That's a good point Casaer. It's okay if the Americans own half the oil outright but everyone remembers the NEP as is mad at Ottawa. Very interesting,

You may well end up with no one having a seat anywhere or very few people have seats. I don't see the advantage either.

I agree, and I agreed with some of Manning's ideas. Nevertheless, Manning could never sell it to Ontario and he didn't really understand or was prepared for the can of worms opening the constitution would cause, especially in Quebec. But the answer is not to give up but to try to find people that agree with you in say rural Ontario and among the "nationalists" of Quebec. Ah, so you would take my home from me because you don't like my Country, because you believe BC is superior to Canada? Don't you see the divisions inherent to your position? This isn't 1870 and it is possible to get across the mountains without the help of the railroad. Distances are shrinking to the point where they are what you make them out to be frankly. Martin was in Ontario and BC in the same day during the recent election campaign and Vancouver's "culture" is as far from Kelowna as it is close to Toronto's. You are completely ignoring the plain evidence of the vote in the last election. The split is rural-urban moreso than it is regional. You are the one who seems to think that it is not legitiimate since you want to seperate. Beware the next guy who comes along and makes the same argument that you make about Canada regarding the divisibility of BC. Mr. MacDonald fought all his political career for a strong centeral government from before confederation until his death. He annoyed quite a few primiers as I recall. I'd be interested in why you think otherwise. The federal government has practically no say over how you live your life which is another fact you stubbornly ignore. BTW, the rights to abortion and gay rights actually give all people more freedom on how to live lives though I doubt you'll agree. I point out, sir, your insistance on using "we" to refer to a group of people you seem to be trying to convince us think just like you do when they clearly don't. I don't ever whine even when I don't get the election result I wanted. Sir. I am saying nothing of the kind. Canada is a highly diverse country and I relish that. You are trying to claim that "the west" is homogenous enough to have a culture and values so distinct from the rest of Canada's that it ought to be a seperate entity. There is clearly no evidence to support this. Don't believe me look at MSs election anyalsis thread and tell me a majority of "Westerners" even voted Conservative. They didn't and mostly because of BC I might point out. If the PCs would have kept Joe Clark in the early 80s then that's exactly what would have happened (High RIver is close enough to Calgary I expect). And there was this guy from Prince Albert who appointed a senator or two. If you see little difference between Ontario and Quebec you have some seriously dark glasses on. Protestant/Catholic, French/English "small" differences historically I'm sure. To fight sir rarely requires rocks and sticks. There are political fights, emotional fights even verbal ones. The fight in Quebec has little to do with the FLQ but it has been and continues to be a fight nonetheless. One that turns family members against other family members and neighbour against neighbour. And still violence can not be completely ruled out when such ideologies come into play. If people can die over some damn golf course I don't see why this couldn't turn nasty that way. Sure sound like PQists to me. Anyway I'll conclude by agreeing with BD. You can't even get this 'we' you constantly talk about to include even 20% of Albertans never mind any BCers. Good luck trying to convince people to destabilize their lives over some stupid ideological whine you have about the federal government not listening to you.

In the last twenty years this country has seen three new political parites created (Refrom, Bloc, and the Greens). This does not include the various incarations of the Reform/PCs. Two of these new parties have been the Official opposition. To argue that the political topography is so static in this country that PR would automatically lead to constant NDP/LIB coalitions is hard to support. PR would necessarily favour the smaller parties of all types and would also favour the creation of new ones. It would probably lead to a lot of minority governments but the people who complain that we elect our dictator would be satisfied by more minority governments. In short I agree with August and BD entirely (the mixed member system like NZ has is the best). Getting representation tied to the popular vote more accurately reflects the will of the people and is absolutely the logical and moral choice. Not that the Liberals will ever go for it, without a strong shove.

What rubbish. Comprimise is part of living in a democracy, on both sides. Not already easy and sometimes you lose but it can be done. You are a Canadian. That's what it says on your passport and on the money. If you are unhappy being Canadian then you can leave and go live somewhere else. America is quite conservative these days, and Yugoslavia has recently decided to divide itself up by ethnicity and region. Leaving is one of the benefits of being Canadian and you are welcome to excersise it if you are unwilling to work to get your particular perspective accepted by the majority of Canadians. Really. So Canada is not a legitimate demarcation but British Columbia is? Someone living in downtown Vancouver has more in common with someone in the rural North than a fellow urbanite in Toronto or Calgary? The urbanites certainly vote along more similiar lines than a person from rural BC and Vancouver do. Interesting that. That's the problem with dividing you can never quite tell when to stop. We, we, we. The first step towards this kind of bullshit is to pretend your selected group is homogeneous and minimize differences of opinion among your artificially created group. That's how it always done, you just need a favourable media (already done in Alberta except for the 1 o'clock program on Radio One) and you are all set. Do ALL Albertans and British Columbians think this, none of them are proud Canadians? I've seen alot of Canadian flags out in small town Alberta, heard a lot of students in Edmonton say they are damn proud to be Canadian. Are you going to take their heritage simply because it is inconvienant to your little plans. Will you become that which you purport to hate as long as things are done on your terms? But a Calgarian can represent an Edmontonian? People who live 10 feet across the border in BC are somehow vastly different from the people on the Alberta side? Beware drawing too many lines or you'll find one down the middle of your house and your family. Just like Quebec. August has correctly pointed out the utter insanity of this position. Upper and Lower Canadians agreed on nothing in the end and the provinces signed the damn thing even though Quebec hated it and it's passage finally drove Levesque mad. We have the second most 'federal' government in the whole wide bloody world. The only reason anyone cares all that much about the federal government these days is because the national media covers it and the provinces blame it for their own problems (which is the real problem isn't it, why this separatist bullshit is getting stronger out west, among the more impressionable Cons, horray for the Alberta PCs and Steve West). Name one thing the Feds do to interfer with your, 'culture'. We have in this fine country a democracy. More people live in the East than the West. So the East gets more votes but we westerners (oh wait, I'm in Saskatchewan can I still call myself a Westerner, am I allowed) still have a say and when we can get Altantic Canada, Quebec or Ontario to agree with a given position it will pass. And if you think that all the proud Canadians in Alberta and BC will stand by and let you take their country, their homes and their cultures from them then you'd better be ready to fight them for it. Be ready to fight. (This sort of seperatist crap may be not all that serious but it is getting more, if not serious, than at least more common. It could turn into a serious issue if we let it IMO).

The CBC suggested Lord today, he might be a good choice. He's moderate and all though I can't believe he rejected public auto insurance, he might appeal to Ontario without actually being from Ontario. Still Harper is staying I'm sure and unless the CPC is really really stupid they won't push him during a minority government.

Not entirely, the fact that you did both slightly disproves your point. You live in a democracy and you bought a cup of coffee. The democracy did not interfere with your free choice. I hate coffee but I don't have to drink it and like but you can drink it, we both live in a democracy under majority rule. If one party chose to regulate coffee drinking neither of us would vote for it. In a democracy not all of our decisions are ever taken by democratic vote. Only certain key decisions governing general rules about how we make decisions are subject to majority rule. I agree and I liked your idea of voting out of 100 pts or on a graded system. It would only work on a computerized system though. But then many many people would just vote 100 for the option they liked so maybe the ranked system is better. Either way one of the systems may be an improvement. But better than all those other ones even still.

This is an excellant point. Maybe they'll go without a speaker or something or bring one in from outside, (impossible I know but interesting) I suppose the CPC will give up a vote though since they can't very well work with the Bloc. Wouldn't one party or another love a defection right about now? I wonder who the most likely candadates would be?