kimmy

My dad once said "Anybody who calls himself an intellectual... probably isn't." I'm still quite curious, Maple. You blame the right-wing tax-cut agenda for destroying social programs in this country. In August you blamed the Conservatives and Green Party (!) for the poor showing of our Olympic team, presumably because their tax-cut agenda would have led to less funding for Canada's athletes. We still haven't heard what tax-cuts actually happened that caused all this destruction. Are you telling us that the mere opinion of people supporting tax cuts has caused all this damage? If not, then what? -kimmy

No complaint about it being in Montreal, but why on earth are they waiting so long? -kimmy

I'm not "conflating" anything. (at least I don't think I am. I'll have to check my dictionary to be sure.) *You* seem to be the one ignoring the facts. What tripe! There is no arguing the fact that it *is* Alberta's money. It's quite clearly spelled out in the constitution. Does the Federal government have a moral or legal right to tax that money? Quite possibly. But there's no arguing that it IS Alberta's money. You're not paying very close attention, obviously. The reason: OWNERSHIP. The resources BELONG to CANADA. They are merely administered by the Province of Alberta. The resources may (or may not...) be owned by Canada, but the royalties have been granted to Alberta by the constitution. Maybe the feds could tax it or find some other way of redistributing the money, and maybe in the larger picture it might be a good thing to do. But it IS Alberta's money under the law of the land. I wasn't mocking an out of context slice of our prior discussion. I was mocking the whole of your conversation with Stoker in this thread. "Merely if it wanted? No. But Alberta and Saskatchewan even less-so." Maybe I'm dense, but I just don't see any room for degrees of "no." Quebec can't separate, but Alberta extra-extra-can't? (A bit pregnant.) Yes, I recall the astounding feats of constitutional scholarship that brought you to that confusion... but ultimately "no" is "no". -kimmy

Let's do a quick recap of this thread... you come in yelling about how Conrad Black etc have caused tax cuts that destroyed Canada's social programs. But you can't come up with one scrap of evidence to suggest that these tax-cuts have even occured. Blaming media conspiracies and brainwashed people, and apparently Christians, isn't going to help demonstrate that these tax cuts occured. What tax cuts, Maple? Cuts to services were a result of balancing the budget, not these fictional tax cuts. Crying about right wing agendas and Christians doesn't change the fact of what really happened. -kimmy

So I gather you agree that the provinces entered confederation with the intention of keeping their own mineral wealth. First, the purpose of equalization, as I understand it, is to make it possible for provinces to offer similar services across the country. The purpose is not to share out resource rents collected in one province. Is "sharing resource rents" a means or an end? If you're arguing that sharing resource rents is a desirable end in its own, I guess I don't see the point. (and why just one province?) If the end we desire is to offer all Canadians services regardless of which province they live in (which seems like a fine idea to me) then equalization is already in place. I thought it was very relevant to this topic. Well, maybe confederation just "sounded cool". Or maybe confederation is a description of what they came up with. The evidence-- the constitution which gives the provinces a lot of autonomy and control over affairs within their borders, kind of suggests that they meant it to be a confederation and not a federation, don't you think? They could have but they didn't. They created a constitution which left the provinces largely in control of the resources within their borders. Is there any reason not to think it was by design? You said it yourself earlier: I suspect that Ontario did not want to share the revenues of this taxable resource with Quebec or the Maritimes. I suspect you're right. I suspect that if Albertans have been selfish, selfish people since 1947, then Ontarians have been selfish, selfish people since 1867. I suspect that if and when other provinces have their own resource windfalls, they won't be sterling examples of this great Canadian spirit of sharing, either. I agree with you that Alberta is incredibly fortunate that the constitution gives it the right to collect royalties from natural resources. Other provinces have had the same good fortune in the past, and will in the future. The constitution was designed that way, by people who wanted their provinces to retain that good fortune for themselves. -kimmy

hmmmm You're not paying very close attention, obviously. The reason: OWNERSHIP. The resources BELONG to CANADA. They are merely administered by the Province of Alberta. I think the same passage that talks about "administration" also says pretty explicitly that any royalties belong to the province. So yes, for purposes of this discussion at least, the distinction you're making isn't important in the least. Just like that other distinction that you're so fond of. What was that again? Oh yeah... Why? Could Quebec if it wanted? Merely if it wanted? No. But Alberta and Saskatchewan even less-so.

Oh, is this just about the war in Iraq? Or is there more to it? Have the Liberals been antagonistic towards the Bush regime since "Dubya" took office? So if Harper says that the Liberals have done a poor job handling Canada-US relations, he's an idiot, a sell-out, he's a politician trying to score some cheap political mileage with baseless accusations... So what would you say about an Ontario Liberal MP who says the same thing? http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/c...ican_liberals_1 We're all excited about Canadian sovereignty... let's at least recognize the flip side of the coin. -kimmy

The article you posted doesn't seem to support that conclusion at all. Conrad Black, and the National Post, and all their fans, might have hollered long and loud for tax cuts. But is there any evidence that they had any influence on national policy? Your article says the National Post was founded in 1998... Finance Minister Martin's deep cuts were well underway by then. I don't recall any big tax cuts during the Liberal reign. I'm young, I don't remember all of the Liberals' reign all that well; however, I don't see any strength to your argument that tax cuts are the reason for the cutbacks to government services. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks rather obvious to me that the cuts to services weren't caused by tax-cuts, they were caused by the decision to balance the budget. As for the rest? Rich people are Christians; deranged killers are Christians; I don't think it's really worth discussing... we'll file it with some of your other ideas, like tax-cuts for French people. -kimmy

Kimmy, I'd say fine: Let the federal government tax all resource rents and share those revenues with all Canadians. (Oil and natural gas are the big ticket items right now.) We still haven't heard any explanation of why Equalization isn't already a sufficient redistribution of Canada's wealth. From earlier on: I have not found any reference to support the idea that kerosene influenced the framers of the Constitution. But who cares anyway, that's not my point. Is it really beside the point? When the "Fathers of Confederation" got together to get sh*tfaced and hammer out an agreement, what did they actually come up with? We don't call them the "Fathers of Federation", do we? I mean, the word "Confederation" is used on purpose, right? Let's have a quick look at what a confederation is. "A confederation is a large state composed of many self-governing regions. Unlike a federation, a confederation has a very weak central government with little influence over the actions or policies of the member regions. However, on certain key issues, such as defense or currency, the central government will be required to provide support for all members." Was KEROSENE on their minds when they drew up the blueprints for Confederation? Most likely it wasn't. However, I don't think they went in with the intention of ceding control of their provinces' resources, either. Alberta did not exist at the time of Confederation, so somebody might argue that what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind is not relevant to this discussion. However, later constitutional acts have granted Alberta and the other latecomer provinces all of the status and respect afforded to the original provinces. Whether Canada is unfair to Alberta and whether Canada spends a ridiculous amount of money appeasing Quebec are two separate issues, as I see it...

Did Harper say anything that wasn't plain truth? Harper said the problem is protectionism, and it is. Harper said the border isn't likely to reopen soon, and it isn't. Harper said that the Liberals' handling of Canada-US relations has not helped the situation, and you'd have to be an idiot to think otherwise. Anybody care to offer a factual dispute of anything Harper said in the article? I'm looking forward to it. Should be a treat to read As usual, there seems to be an element on this board that fires of an ill-informed knee-jerk reaction at anything involving Harper or the Conservative party. -kimmy

Why isn't "that's the way we've always done it" a good reason? Why isn't "that's the way it's laid out in the Constitution" the only answer required? Jurisdictions outside Canada don't get to collect revenue from their resources? Well, uh, so? Aren't we always hearing about the many unique wonders of Canada's federal system? Why is "we're the only ones who do this" suddenly a bad thing? Since you guys are the ones who want to alter the very rules that this country was built on, maybe you guys are the ones who should offer some compelling reason for changing the basis of federal/provincial relations. And I suppose that maintaining some fairness within Canada would be a compelling reason, except that we already have Equalization for that purpose. If fairness is the objective here, then isn't that end being addressed by equalization? If fairness is the objective here, then why are we limiting the scope of this discussion to oil? Seems like a very arbitrary choice. As for the theory that oh, Albertans are just selfish selfish people... well, maybe. However... within our lifetimes (or mine, at least ) we will see Quebec's huge capacity for generating green electricity become Canada's energy bonanza... and we'll see how willing they are to share. -kimmy

Once upon a time, Sarnia was Canada's oil capital... Western Ontario was Canada's storehouse of mineral wealth... and the only think people thought was under Albertan soil was more dirt. So of course provincial control of resources seemed like a good idea at the time Who says Albertans are the only ones blessed with this chance gift of geography? Saskatchewan has oil reserves of its own. I believe BC has enormous amounts of natural gas. What about the east coast's off-shore oil? What about other chance gifts of geography? What about the vast amounts of mineral wealth under the Canadian Shield, or Quebec's enormous potential for generating clean electricity? Or other natural resources like fisheries and forests? -kimmy

I think it all depends on how you add up the statistics... I think for instance that when you take years of seniority into account, the difference almost vanishes. As well, the statistics don't take into account that often men put in longer hours. A woman might say "I'm going home now to look after my kids" while a man might work all night to get the report out on time. If it means not seeing his family for a whole week, you might question his priorities, but at the same time he's made that choice and it'd be unfair not to acknowledge the extra work he has contributed. As well, and this is the dishonest one I think, is that these statistics don't usually claim it's the same work... they use the word "equivalent". "Work of equivalent value", etc. What is "equivalent value" is highly subjective and might fail to take some key factors into account. Is a garbageman doing work of equivalent value to a grocery store clerk? Neither job requires much in the way of education, so maybe the survey maker would say yes. However, the garbageman is doing work that can be physically demanding and just plain revolting. If he is earning a few dollars more than the grocery clerk, I don't begrudge him that... I think it is his fair compensation for doing work that would have the grocery clerk vomiting. When the person compiling these statistics is deciding what "female" profession would be of equal value to a construction worker, does she remember that the construction worker is doing physically strenuous work and is at high risk of injury, while his female "equivalent" is probably safe and indoors? These statistics have become difficult to trust because the numbers can be manipulated to support a viewpoint. -kimmy

Is anybody very surprised to hear that several of the terrorists were Arab mercenaries? -kimmy

Sure, that makes a tremendous amount of sense. Learn French, in case you decide to visit France some day. While we're at it, we should probably have kids learn Turkish (in case they visit Turkey some day) and demolitions (in case they ever need to defuse a bomb.) Is the case for French so weak that we have to consider peoples' future travel plans to justify it? Or, maybe they're just keeping their bases covered in case some future act of stupidity by the Federal government results in further discrimination against unilingual Anglos. We'll keep comments like this in mind next time you're wondering why people can't be more courteous. It's a typical response for people like you to try and label people who disagree with them as "yahoos" or bigots or rednecks. Usually it's a sign that you're running out of ideas. -kimmy

Says who. This is such nonsense. Why deprive children of aspiring for the top positions in the land by not teaching them French? For a westerner French is as useful as the Moroccan Snowmobile (of TV fame) unless he has aspirations of moving east and working in the government. If he wants to stay in the west and choose a *real* job, then English will serve just fine, and as a second language, one of the Asian languages would provide a whole world more opportunity than French. And, if a westerner really has aspirations of heading to Ottawa to compete for the top government jobs, they're probably being naive anyway. I don't think it escaped anybody's notice that all of the Big Cheese (Grand Fromage?) types who got in deep merde during the Auditor General's report have names like Jean-Marc and Andre and Michel. And somebody posted information in another of these bilingualism threads that a French Immersion education simply isn't good enough to make you fluent according to the civil service's language police. So, really, why would a westerner bother? He's probably excluded from the start. There are real reasons for learning a language (like, people you need to talk to speak that language, or family tradition.) And then there are fake reasons for learning a language (like, to put on your high school transcripts, or complying with some government directive.) In western Canada there just aren't any real reasons to learn French, and nventing fake reasons will never achieve a bilingual society. -kimmy

As I understand it, Muslims can (and already do) agree to have their issues settled according to sharia in an arbitration process. We don't prevent it. But to me there's a distinction between allowing two people to agree to do something, as opposed to allowing a religion to establish some sort of recognized court of their own, even if it's run subject to provisions of Canadian law. The article you posted actually mentions this as an argument in favor of the proposed Islamic court: The article proposes that the Islamic court is actually a good idea because it will be subject to more scrutiny than current sharia arbitration. Is there a recognized Jewish or Catholic civil court in Ontario? (I don't know; I'm asking.) If Muslims agree to have arbitration done according to sharia, it appears they already have that ability, as far as I can tell. I don't think saying no to a recognized Islamic court is an interference in their right to do things the way they want. I just think creating a Sharia court is an unnecessary and undesirable step. Advocates of the court claim that it would be reviewed in 2 years and could be shut down if it's not working as desired. In practice, I think we know that wouldn't happen. If we do this, it's going to be very difficult to undo it later on. Is it a bad precident? Will it be an invitation for other special interest groups to want to create their own recognized institutions in Canada? Can we be sure that the protection supposedly provided by Ontario Arbitration Act is strong, can't be altered or eroded later by court challenges? Can we be sure that the scope of this Islamic court's activities wouldn't expand over time? We better be sure about this, because we could be opening the door. And, do we really want this anyway? The point of creating this court would be for it to be used, right? It's basically an invitation for people to step right past Canadian civil law and go to their Muslim court. I would prefer that Muslims in Canada should get comfortable with Canadian law and process. If a Muslim couple insists on having sharia applied in their civil proceedings, they can go arrange the details on their own. I don't want to facilitate it. I don't see the value of giving people another opportunity to resist Canada's values and culture. -kimmy

Are people keeping pit bulls because they're loving pets? no. The only people who really need pit bulls are drug dealers who need vicious dogs to guard their stash while they're out selling their crops or smacking their prostitutes. Aside from the "businessmen" who need pitbulls to guard their premises, the people who want pit-bulls are most likely tattooed-up grade 8 drop-outs. They might have their rights, but in all honesty, society would be a lot safer if these people didn't have vicious dogs (or drivers licences or the ability to reproduce for that matter.) -kimmy

New hospital gowns... about time. The existing ones are pretty degrading to patients of all creeds. Muslim courts? uh... Well, the description in the article certainly doesn't sound that bad. It won't encroach on criminal law, it'll be run according to some kind of arbitration guidelines that are clearly spelled out, it's subject to mutual consent, and it's rulings would have to abide by the Charter of Rights. So it can't be a threat to anybody, right? This Toronto Star article takes the opposite viewpoint. It makes the point that a Muslim woman might face community pressure to accept Sharia arbitration (how could any good Muslim choose to have her case handled by an infidel judge over an Imam?) Women under Sharia law basically only count half as much as men. Men are entitled twice the inheritance of their sisters. Sharia couts a woman's word to have half the weight of a man's word. A man can divorce his wife on the spot just by saying so 3 times. Would that be legally binding if it happened in one of these Sharia arbitration meetings? Mostly, I'm not very happy about the possibility because I don't like idea of that religion gaining any kind of legal foothold in Canada. Could it expand over time? Could you find yourself in a legal dispute over, say, a real-estate contract, and discover that somewhere in the fine print you agreed that any disagreements would be handled according to Sharia? Maybe this is just alarmism, but as I see it, Sharia kind of sucks, and I don't want it gaining any sort of status in Canada, even if it never directly affects me in my life. I'm also concerned that once you take this step, you can't turn back the clock. France is trying to turn back the clock on fundamentalist Islam in France, and they've got hostage-takers demanding that head-scarves be reinstated. . -kimmy

All kidding aside, I took a few minutes to read their website and I liked much of what it had to say. -kimmy

oooh, new Website! http://www.albertandp.ca/ It looks like they're trying reach out to the colorblind vote -kimmy

I'm sorry, I just find it very hard to swallow what you're claiming. The Liberals, with their own foot-in-mouth controversy last week, would have loved the opportunity to put some heat on the opposition. The Liberals certainly never miss an opportunity to try to depict the Conservatives as backward. I just don't believe they'd pass up an opportunity like this if it had been presented. Since I am registered for the Globe and Mail online, I took a while to search through everything Toews said last week. I also searched the Toronto Star, which doesn't generally have much sympathy for the Conservatives. I couldn't find anything at all in either paper that could be considered a direct criticism of the candidates, and certainly nothing regarding their gender. In fact it appears Toews went out of his way to be clear that he had no specific criticism of the nominees at all, and that his criticism was directed at the PM for the process and for choosing candidates based on advancing his own agenda. Here are the comments from Toews that refer directly to the nominees: Top-court nominees endorsed - but not by all Tories blast 'sham' review of judges Review panel approves Supreme Court nominees -kimmy

I'm just wondering, do you ever stop and read your own messages? Of course. The Conservatives have not been in power since most of the Canadian team was in Elementary School. And the Green Party has never been in power. But they've had such a persuasive effect on Canadian politics that the Liberals, who've run this country for the past 11 years, had no say over funding the Olympic team. It was completely out of their control. Their hands were tied. I have a different thought. The Sponsorship program was supposed to build "brand recognition" for Canada, right? Maybe, what if, the money had been directed into Canada's Olympic athletes instead? In fact, what if just the portion that went to Quebec ad agencies had gone to athletes? "More than $100 million was paid to various communications agencies in the form of fees and commissions, Fraser found. In most cases the agencies did little more than hand over the cheques. " So, $100 million between 1996 and 2002 grifted to Quebec ad firms, that works out to roughly $16 million a year, which is as much as the government spends on funding athletes. They could have found the money to MORE THAN DOUBLE funding for Canada's Olympic team! They supposedly gave Jacques Villeneuve $10 million to wear a Canada logo on his chest... which is almost as much money as Canada's Olympic team gets in a year. The Liberals had the money. They decided how to spend it. Don't blame anybody else. -kimmy

Seems like a pointless distinction, purely academic. It looks like any province could secede with a constitutional amendment. And it looks like no province can secede with out one. So for any practical purpose, that leaves ... just 1 category. I read the Clarity Act to be the federal government saying "Well, ok, if we *have* to negotiate, then we're going to make sure that natives and veterans and visible minorities disabled gay Canadians and Elijah Harper's mom and everybody else we can think of are going to be part of procedings, just to make the process as difficult as possible." Without the Clarity Act, it might just be a matter of getting 7 provinces with a majority of the population to agree. -kimmy

The Greens are still a fringe party. But it's not because they're "too right wing" for most Canadians. It's because the party is still seen as a bunch of kooks. Whether it is goofy Euros or that chick who refuses to wash her hair because shampoo suds are bad for fish, the Greens have to recognize that the image they present is not going to click with most Canadians. The Greens increased their share of the vote by a factor of 4 in the past election... if you're claiming that they are moving in a direction Canadians don't agree with, I don't think the numbers support your theory. And isn't it a shame that not everybody who supports the environment believes in the fantasy-world that Jack Layton lives in. -kimmy