kimmy

That is a large claim, for what you believe to be 'right' may or may not be right at all. Still, the notion that people who disapprove of Canadian policies ought to move comes rather close to the Ugly American's motto "Love it or leave it!" -k

Ok, but what about 1997? 2000? Even in Ontario, the PCs received a smaller share of the popular vote than Reform/Alliance in those elections (as well as in 1993). If Ontario voters wanted a non-Albertan alternative to the Liberals, they had an option in those elections, but ignored it in droves. -k

Canadian lumber producers were ripped off by the tariffs. US consumers were ripped off by artificially high prices that resulted. I would assume that compensating US consumers for past market conditions is beyond the scope of the trade tribunal. -k

Joe Clark is sitting at home right now asking "like, what the fuck?" Ontario might have have had a long history with the Progressive Conservative party, but that appears to have come to an end well before Reform/Alliance ate the PCs. If Ontario hadn't so thoroughly rejected the PCs in the 1990s, the Progressive Conservative party would probably still be in existance. -k

That figure is extremly suspect because it does not say how they calculated the amount of 'money not returned'. It is easy to inflate such figures by over estimating the amount 'paid' by Alberta and under estimating the benefits received. Quebec seperatists are masters at this kind of financial deception - they actually believe that Quebec pays more into the federation than it receives! Well, if people take Dalton McGuinty's $23 billion figure for Ontario's "fiscal gap" at face value, you'd have to assume the corresponding "fiscal gap" for Alberta would be larger *per-capita*, for obvious reasons. -k

If avatars were allowed, I'd use a photo of "the Shawinigan Handshake". -k

That's it? I went to all that effort and this is all I get? A whiny response to one line out of a logical and well-supported argument? pfff. I take it from your lack of response to the rest of my message that you have been convinced and now see the wisdom of extending DST. -k

They also get to buy stuff without paying provincial sales tax. And there's the problem. People don't go to Alberta because they want to, or because Alberta needs them, they go to get some of the accidental manna of geological history. (Don't believe me? How many fewer migrants to Alberta would there be if sales tax was, say, 8%)It is costly when people move around and equalization payments were intended to limit such costs. No sales tax might be a modest incentive for people to move here, but opportunity and lucrative careers are the chief motivation. If luring capable workers to your province was as simple as abolishing the sales tax, I'm sure other provinces would be doing that in droves... unfortunately, people need to have someplace to work when they go to their new location, and this, more than other factors, is what makes Alberta the draw it has become. Were equalization payments intended to keep people from changing locations to pursue opportunity? I don't believe so. I think the goal of equalization payments is to ensure all Canadians have the right to an education, healthcare, and social services. That's what they're called, isn't it? Canada Health and Social Transfers? That doesn't encompass money spent by the federal government to create opportunity in poorer parts of the country, but I'm not sure that falls under the heading of equalization, either. I'd consider it investment, more or less. As for the cost of people moving about, that strikes me as a very odd analysis, coming from you at least. Suppose there is a Newfoundland fisherman does work that contributes value of (just for the sake of argument) $30,000 a year to the Canadian economy, but there is a vacant job on an oil rig that he could fill that would contribute value of $60,000 a year to the Canadian econom. Then the cost to Canada is not incurred when he moves, it is incurred if he chooses not to move. We are in such a situation right now. We have underemployed workers in some parts of the country, and shortages of workers in other parts of the country, and one of the major factors limiting economic growth in Canada is that labor is not fluid enough to keep up with changing demands. -kimmy {I think the book I read had an example about a guy who worked at an ice-cream stand who also knew how to repair cars, but I think the general principle is the same.}

And they should have been excluded. As you note, there are 40% of French Quebecers who voted No. There are many, many French-speaking Quebecers who are vociferous in their defense of federalism and Canada - people like Stephane Dion. All this seems to be based on the assumption that the GG had to come from Quebec. Is that so? -k

I am the last guy to argue that young people make decisions more based on emotion rather than sound reasoning. What's that old W. Churchill gem? something like "anyone under 30 who isn't a liberal has no heart, anyone over 30 who's a liberal has no brain". What is interesting to me is that young people are tending to side with seccession rather than the liberal policies of Eastern Canada. Whether or not young people can make correct decisions, change often starts with them in the streets and on the campus. I think it's always been assumed that as more and more people from the east move to Alberta, and more and more immigrants come here, a pan-Canadian nationalism would become the dominant outlook as people who carry old grudges become by far the minority. And that Alberta pride and so-on were notions carried by older people that would be replaced by pan-Canadian nationalism in younger people. So I think probably the most interesting thing about the survey is that that it seems to refute that theory. I think joining the US would be a disasterous mistake. I think it's been pointed out that in the US, resource royalties go to the federal government, not the state government. No matter how disgruntled people become with the Canadian federal government, it seems to me that it's still better than the idea of joining the US. Giving up an 11-figure revenue stream for the sake of making a political point strikes me as being self-destructive. -k

I don't think people transplant themselves and their families and move to new locations on a whim. They do it for personal reasons. People move either because they want to go (ie, people pursuing prosperity in a new location) or because their situation has become difficult to tolerate (ie, Anglos deserting Quebec in droves.) When people move to Alberta, it's because they want a better future for themselves and their kids than they feel they would have if they remained where they were. They suddenly have a personal stake in this province's continued prosperity. They'll suddenly have a great deal in common with those of us who are already here. -k

By this reasoning, Toronto alone has 20 billion reasons to separate. Well, Dalton McGuinty pegged it at $23 billion for all of Ontario, but the general theme is the same. More total dollars from Ontario, but considerably more per-capita dollars from Alberta. Well, for the sake of argument, one could say that the federal government has shown nothing but disdain for initiatives on senate reform or electoral reform, and that their disinterest has contributed to people seeking a stronger means of expressing desire for change. -k

Geology's immutable. Geography's immutable. People, on the other hand, are tremendously adaptable. Complaining that wealth generated by the resource sector is an inequality is about as sensible as complaining about the location of our auto-manufacturing industry or civil service jobs. Canadians have the fundamental right to move and work anywhere in this country. -k

I guess that's the difference between you and me. I don't consider rumours newsworthy. The rumours themselves might not be newsworthy, but the fact that they are big news in Quebec's sovereigntist scene is undoubtably, undeniably newsworthy. The CBC is the first to report other stories. The National Post frequently ignores news items that other media outlets cover. Each media outlet has to make certain editorial calls that may see unreasonable after the fact. And how do people view the National Post around here? I don't think I've ever posted a reference to a National Post article on this site without getting a response along the lines of "pfff-- National Post? That's just biased crap." The editorial decisions made by media outlets affect their credibility. This is not the first time that this message board has discussed the CBC virtually ignoring a story unfavorable to the government that other major news outlets were carrying front-page. Is it not fair to wonder how independent the CBC really is? Is it fair to wonder whether they had "help" in arriving at this puzzling editorial decision? -k

Typical. Confronting these rumours at their source-- Quebec-- would have taken gonads, so it goes without saying that Martin had to wait for Klein to weigh in before taking action. step 1: make angry phonecall to Klein. step 2: make sure somebody in the Toronto media knows about it. Woo-hoo! Problem solved! And probably scores some extra popularity points in Toronto for taking Klein down. Martin should consider having a friend in the press at all of Klein's media scrums to ask for Klein's opinion on other issues that Martin is too gutless to take on first-hand. -k

Are you sure? Amnesty International mentions makes mention of the torture, execution, and "re-education" of political prisoners. And of mass starvation, as the government spends 25% of the GDP on the military. http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/prk-summary-eng -k

I'm an American? Because I can have a laugh about this and not take ourselves too seriously? -k

Not every single one of us. This is just a matter of playing the percentages. Again, it's the percentages. Consumption of power for artificial lighting might rise in the morning, but not to nearly the extent that it will be reduced in the evening. Do you imagine that a bunch of hacks at the Department of Energy got shitfaced after work one night and hatched this idea? And decided to impliment it, without even stopping to crunch a few numbers, or doing some study of peoples' power-consumption habits? Use your head. Where do you live that you have such strange sunrises and sunsets? Tuktuyuktuk? I concede that at extreme latitudes, this will not produce nearly the benefits that it would for our neighbors south of the 49th parallel. However, by far the majority of Canadians live within a couple of hundred miles of the 49th parallel, and will realize significant power savings as well. Let us spend a few moments with some star charts, and let's use Toronto as an example, because it's Canada's biggest city. This year Daylight Savings kicked in on April 3. Date Sunrise Sunset Apr 1, 2005 5:59 AM 6:44 PM Apr 2, 2005 5:57 AM 6:45 PM Apr 3, 2005 6:56 AM 7:47 PM Apr 4, 2005 6:54 AM 7:48 PM It appears to be planned to ensure a 7am sunrise. And keep in mind that the sky becomes light well before sunrise. It's essentially broad daylight by sunrise. So, how many people are actually making use of daylight at 7am? I submit that it's actually a very small percentage. The paper-boy, obsessive joggers, and shift-workers who keep odd hours. How many people could use an extra hour of daylight at 6:45pm? Just about everybody, except shift-workers who keep odd hours. Here are Toronto's sunrises and sunsets for mid-March: Mar 11, 2005 6:37 AM 6:19 PM Mar 12, 2005 6:35 AM 6:20 PM Mar 13, 2005 6:33 AM 6:21 PM Mar 14, 2005 6:32 AM 6:22 PM Mar 15, 2005 6:30 AM 6:24 PM Suppose we kicked in Daylight Savings Time on March 13? That would give: Mar 11, 2005 6:37 AM 6:19 PM Mar 12, 2005 6:35 AM 6:20 PM Mar 13, 2005 7:33 AM 7:21 PM Mar 14, 2005 7:32 AM 7:22 PM Mar 15, 2005 7:30 AM 7:24 PM First off, this refutes your claim that our typical 9-5 worker is going to be coming home in the dark. He's got time to come home, eat, and still go for an evening walk or something before it gets dark out. And in the morning... what's wrong with a 7:30am sunrise? Sounds fine to me. Torontonians already have sunrises 7:30am and later between December 1 and February 4, so I don't see why having a 7:33am sunrise on the first day of Daylight Savings would be such a hardship. I suggest that moving Daylight Savings up by 4 weeks in spring yields a very workable schedule. My sense of symmetry leads me to suspect that extending DST by 4 weeks in the fall should yield similar results. I don't know what the US plan calls for, as far as exact dates, but I've just shown you how Daylight Savings could be extended by 8 weeks in a painless manner. And supposing there's 5 million 60 watt bulbs on in the Toronto area between sunset and bedtime, that's 300 million watts of power that could be saved. Even if you still think that people will use exactly as much power in the morning as they save in the evening, consider the load on Ontario's overworked power-grid. That's 300 million watts of power that wouldn't be competing with electric stoves and televisions during the peak power consumption hours. Before 7:30 in the morning, the power-grid is at a low load; shifting the 300 million extra watts from evening to early morning would make life a lot easier for the power-generating stations. If you talk in terms of saving energy or reducing pollution, maybe people won't care, but maybe they'll listen to the possibility of reducing brown-outs. Of course you don't. That's exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction I've come to expect from most people. -k

I think this 'solution' causes more problems than it solves and I'm not aware of any significant problems with the status quo that require a solution. So, if marriage is to be taken from the jurisdiction of our governments, whom do you propose shall regulate the game - or am to be allowed to marry my 10 yo neice and my 11yo cousin next week? What Sparhawk proposed, and I think Klein's idea was the same, was to withdraw the term "marriage" from the government's vocabulary, and simply refer to "civil union". -k

Welcome aboard! Yes, your message is just fine. I would only suggest that in the future you might have a look at some of the other topics on the board to see if your topic has already been discussed, and join in an existing thread if it's discussing what you wish to talk about. In the case of Same Sex Marriage, there has been a number of discussions already; you might want to go look over some of them. I like your message because it addresses a couple of things that have not been widely discussed on the issue. -Jurisdiction (I think eureka used jurisdiction as the basis of his argument of why the federal government should not be introducing a SSM bill) -whether government should be in the marriage business at all (I believe it was Sparhawk who first proposed the idea on this board that rather than solemnize both gay and heterosexual marriage, government not solemnize either. I thought it was a fair proposal, and Ralph Klein had a similar stance in one of his interviews on the subject.) -k

Still, the mere fact that such a rate of respondents are willing to even "explore" the idea is an indication of what I've been arguing all along. Dissatisfaction with federalism is high in the west, even if "hard separatist" sentiment is not. In other words, expect another shipment of "Canada Kicks Ass" t-shirts to be heading our way soon. What size would you like? -k

What is more Canadian than being self-effacing, having a laugh at ones own expense, and not taking things too seriously? -k

It would be an unbelievable act of incompetence if PM PM did choose a closet separatist for the GG post - especially during a period of time where we will likely have another referendum. This could be a decision that will put the nail in the coffin of his career. An act of incompetence... but from PMPM, hardly "unbelievable". Appointing a black woman would seem like a surefire way to keep people from blasting your choice... criticize Ms Jean, and you run the risk of being tarred a racist. But if there's anything to this separatist issue, that would surely trump any amount of political correctness in this debate. Has anybody actually watched her husband's movie? A movie about FLQ terrorists isn't *necessarily* sympathetic. Does anybody have any other information as to either his or her feelings towards Quebec sovereignty? I've found no discussion of the subject in the mainstream press, just a few message boards. -k

Are you kidding me? This will not affect that at all. The evenings will still be a set amount of hours weather you push it back or forward an hour. Retarded. The idea is not to change the length of evenings. The idea is to move an hour of daylight from morning to evening to make better use of it. Adjusting clocks so that an extra hour of daylight falls in the evening instead of in the morning will save energy. An extra hour of daylight in the evening = one hour less a day that people will be using electric lighting. Supposing that there's an average of one 60 Watt bulb on in the evening for every American (and that is probably very conservative), that's around 18 Gigawatts of power used on artificial lighting at at any given moment during the evening. So replace that with natural lighting for one hour a day on 60 days, and that's 1.08 billion Kilowatt-hours of energy that could be saved. You might reply that the energy saved in the evening will be paid for by using more artificial light in the morning. Maybe, but only a little. Think about where people are during the morning during that hour of daylight. For most, they are: -in buses, trains, or cars on the way to work or school -already at work or school (ie, they're inside large buildings that use artificial light all day anyway) -or still in bed. In other words, that hour of daylight in the morning is not being used nearly as efficiently as it would be in the evening. It is a simple fact: people do not schedule their lives around daylight. They schedule their lives around time. Does your class or your work-shift start at "1 hour after Sunrise," or does it start at "8:00am"? We schedule ourselves around our timekeeping system... so adjusting our time-keeping system to better fit the natural light that the sun provides us is an obvious way of saving energy. Obviously Dick Cheney is hiding behind every tree. ANDHESGONNAJUMPOUTANDGRABYOU!!!RUNRUNRUNAHAHAHAHA!!! -k {my cousin's kids love that one.}

He's just saying that Christians could detect criminals using their Spirit-Radars. In fact, this very technique is leading OJ to the Real Killer as we speak! -k