kimmy

No one is arguing that point so far as I know. Your earlier comments that it was impossible for Alberta to leave confederation were unclear on this point. Ultimately your entire argument just boils down to the fact that a constitutional amendment is extremely difficult. The same logic can certainly be applied to any province attempting to pursue separation, including Quebec. Imagine how much time and money could have been saved if, in response to Quebec sovereigntists, Stephane Dion had just gone in and said "Go ahead, have a referendum. Vote yes, for all I care. The negotiations process is so difficult that you'll never succeed anyway." Who'd have though National Unity would be so easy to ensure? Repealing the Clarity Act doesn't overturn the Supreme Court ruling that a government can't ignore a clearly expressed mandate by Quebec. Repealing the Clarity Act would just mean the federal government has to enter negotiations on other, perhaps less favorable terms. -kimmy

The Globe? You mean The Globe and Mail? They haven't gone to online subscription yet. I'll do a search of their articles for Toews' comments, but I'd appreciate it if you could at least paraphrase what he said. We've heard Toews say a number of things in criticism of the "new" process, but I hadn't heard any criticisms of the candidates themselves, and certainly nothing to do with gender. I'd have expected a lot of public reaction from such a comment (as with the VIA Rail guy who insulted Myriam Bedard) and because nothing Toews said has resulted in this sort of controversy, I am skeptical about your interpretation of what his comments implied. -kimmy

...and many of her own party, including the Prime Minister and Defence Minister. -kimmy

The preable of the Clarity Act (fifth or sixth WHEREAS...) certainly makes it clear that the federal government believes a constitutional amendment could effect the lawful secession of a province. I don't think there's any arguing the point. Your only leg to stand on here seems to be that since the Supreme Court ruling is specific to Quebec, the federal government wouldn't have to negotiate with a province other than Quebec who voted to pursue separation. If the Alberta legislature got a clear mandate to pursue secession but the federal government refused to negotiate, the matter would likely wind up in court, and I don't think you could say for sure what the result would be. Earlier in the thread you spoke with complete certainty on the impossibility of Alberta seceding. You compared this thought-experiment to "yeah, but if they were all robots..." But nothing you've provided supports this sort of certainty. The feds own legislation indicates that secession could be accomplished through a constitutional amendment. And given the Supreme Court's ruling, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the same argument could be made for other provinces-- that the government *can't* ignore a clear referendum result. So it kind of goes from "yeah, but if they were all robots..." to, "yeah, they they could separate with a constitutional amendment but if the federal government refuses to negotiate, they might not have any recourse, pending the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling." If you see what I'm getting at. -kimmy

How to get people's attention focused on issues without resorting to cheap, attention-grabbing ploys? That's a very good question. If I knew how the answer to that question, I would be rich. Parrish's remarks obviously attracted attention, but the attention is focused squarely on her. It polarizes the discussion into two camps ("You go, girl!", "Woo-hoo, stand up to the Americans!" vs "She's an American-bashing dimwit" "It's disgusting for our representitives to act like this.") Left out of the picture is any mention of what she's actually talking about. If Parrish was smart enough to know that her remarks would get some media attention, she also has to be smart enough to know the nature of the attention that she's inviting. Her pleading with the reporters to not use the remark (whether sincere or sarcastic) certainly proves that she recognized the sort of effects her comments would have. What would be more constructive? I just don't know. A nice, honest debate in the House of Commons, maybe. Of course, Joe Canadian has no interest in reading about that. Ultimately it's Joe Canadian's own fault that tactics like this are required to get his attention. Joe Canadian would rather watch some sound-bites on the evening news, and in that respect Carolyn Parrish has certainly got her audience pegged. If the Americans are idiots, Joe Canadian's not exactly Mensa material either. -kimmy

Can you post the remark you're referring to, or link to it, or something? I'm very interested in seeing for myself what was or wasn't implied. -kimmy

I think the idea of having to buy pollution credits is a good one. If companies had to pay for the pollution created during the manufacture of each widget, it would promote effeciency (more widgets per ton of pollution.) Currently it costs them the same whether they produce 1000 widgets per ton of pollution, or 10000 widgets per ton of pollution, so there's no incentive. Clearly less pollution is a desirable goal, and yet there's nothing in the marketplace to put a dollar value on the environmental cost, so it's not reflected in the market. And there's nothing in the process to make consumers pay for the environmental cost of the goods they purchase. If Company A has a manufacturing process that requires them to spend $1 on pollution credits for every widget they produce, and Company B has a manufacturing process that means they need to spend $10 on pollution credits for every widget, then the consumer obviously has a $9 per widget incentive towards Company A's more efficient process. Company B would obviously have an incentive to look for a way to spent less on pollution credits. I think in principle it's an idea that should work. What I am worried about is Canada's Kyoto implementation plan. We have already heard that they promised central Canada's automobile manufacturing plants a free pass on the emissions, so who is going to get left picking up the slack? Why should some people get a free ride? Why should the auto industry, of all people, get a free ride? Of course reducing pollution is an admirable goal. But we already know Chretien has laid the groundwork for it turn into a big fat political crap-slinging contest, and it is just a matter of time until it hits the fan. -kimmy

I think if I had political aspirations, it would be to become a media smart-ass. That way I would get to express my opinions in a public forum, but not be accountable to anybody. Maybe I could be a sharp-witted observer like Jon Stewart. Or maybe I could head a cult of personality and have lots of frenzied groupies who would go out and do my bidding, like Ann Coulter. Of course, leading an actual cult might be a possibility too. Especially if I could qualify as a religious institution and receive tax exemptions! At any rate, I don't find the prospect of political life in Canada to be very exciting. Work hard to achieve qualifications that voters will decide make you fit to represent them... and go to Ottawa... to sit on a back bench and keep your mouth shut. No, I think that by the time in my life that I've achieved the kind of qualifications I think an MP should have, I will have other goals that I'm more interested in pursuing. I don't believe in Canada's political party system. I do think they're probably cliques on the inside... where even when you're in, you're not really in unless you've got the right friends, been around for long enough, kissed all the right butts, made the right alliances and contacts, and "played the game". Maybe idealists would like to think that if you come to the table with the energy and abilities and ideas, you'll be rewarded. I personally think that it would be more like that TV show "Survivor", where if you don't play the game with enough cunning, you can't win. -kimmy

What do you want to bet that all this dissatisfaction with Martin is coming from former Chretien people who are jealous that they're not part of the "in crowd" anymore? Too much power concentrated in the PMO? Holy cow! NEWS FLASH! Where have these people been for the past 11 years? -kimmy

Parrish, and people here who are supporting her, should reflect for a moment on what she's accomplished. When Joe Canadian hears about this, what is he going to hear? "Canadian MP expresses concerns about Star Wars" or is it "Canadian MP calls Americans idiots" Guess what, she has shot her message in the foot by choosing controversial language. She is a lot like the globalization protesters. When Joe Canadian turns on his evening news and sees footage of people wearing masks and hockey helmets and protective padding, carrying bats or hockey sticks, waving signs written in extremist language, storming around smashing windows at McDonalds locations... throwing stuff at police, storming barricades, clashing with cops, burning stuff in effigy... Joe Canadian does not see these people on TV and think "Gee, these people must have a pretty important message!" Joe Canadian sees these people on TV and thinks "Holy, these people are wackos! They look like thugs. They act like thugs. They're lunatics!" If the globalization protesters wanted to get their message across, they would be better off to show up wearing suits and ties and speaking in the most polite language. If Carolyn Parrish wants to get her message across, she would do better to politely present the facts. -kimmy

What a silly comment. I think that no matter what your political stripes or your feelings about these two nominees, you have to recognize that this "new, open process" is a big fat sham. So what does he do? He comes up with a process where he appoints two judges. That's it. The non-binding hearing, the committee interview where the candidates aren't even present, it's all window-dressing. It leaves me wondering how stupid they think Canadians are that they won't recognize this for what it is. But the poll you just posted shows that only 14% of Canadians approved of the PM having the having the only say in the matter. (in other words, only 14% of Canadians like the process. Surely you don't believe 86% of Canadians are Conservatives ) Martin has told Canadians that he would change it, but obviously he didn't change anything. He just added a meaningless side-show. -kimmy

The best part... -kimmy

So according to your logic, Alberta couldn't unilaterally declare independence. But the Supreme Court has already said that no province can unilaterally secede (as shown in the reference August provided.) Your logic might (?) apply in the case of a province "putting itself outside the constitutional framework" but doesn't do anything to address secession from *within* a constitutional framework (for example, by following the process spelled out in the Clarity Act.) Your argument might address why Alberta (like any other province) couldn't "legally" secede unilaterally, but doesn't address why Alberta (like any other province) couldn't secede by consitutional means. -kimmy

And the real kicker is that the panel doesn't even get to interview the candidates. They get to interview the justice minister: On the news tonight they said that the justice minister himself has not actually had any discussions with the candidates. As well, the field of questions the panel is allowed to ask is extremely narrow. This appears to be strictly for show. It's almost like Chretien never even left office. -kimmy

Gold for Calgary's Kyle Shewfelt in gymnastics floor exercise, and gold for Edmonton's Lori-Ann Muenzer in cycle sprinting. As usual, Albertans are carrying this country. -kimmy

Can you point me towards anything specific to support your position? I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see anything to that effect in the Constitution Act of 1871 (which details the creation of new provinces), the Alberta Act of 1905 (which creates Alberta, according to the 1871 act), or the Constitution Act of 1930 (which grants Alberta, BC, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan status equal to the other provinces.) In fact, 1871 seems to suggest the opposite: once the government creates a province, that province's legislature is an authority and Canada cannot operate upon that province without the consent of the provincial legislature. The legislature seems to exist in its own right; I see nothing to indicate it would be uncreated by anything the federal government could do. As I read it, the federal government "let the genie out of the bottle" by creating provincial legislatures in the western provinces. If I've missed something, or if you have specific argument with what I've said, I'd be very interested... perhaps in another thread so as to not disrupt August's thread. -kimmy

I don't really think the Quebecois are indecisive... I'm sure that most sovereigntists are decisive, and I'm sure the federalists are too. But the numbers are so close that the issue can't be settled. ...sounds remarkably like a recent Prime Minister. -kimmy

Please elaborate? -kimmy

I think Albertans tend to be pragmatists. Historically, it's the reason any of us are here, other than the aboriginals. Whether it's people who settled here 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, or during the last oil boom or the current oil boom, the common thread is that people came here for opportunity. I think that given the thought experiment, and given Albertan's opportunism, I think we'd all be pretty fluent in that "other" language, purely for our own self-interest. But would we leave the country? Again I think it depends on opportunism. I think Takeanumber is dead on in assessing Alberta's viability as an independant nation. So it would be an option. A good option? That depends. If we weren't bound to Canada through any sense of common language or history, I think we'd be more inclined to chance it on our own. -kimmy

Since the one book appears to be an academic book arguing that Christ is a mythological figure, and the other is a work of fiction based on the premise that Christ was a historical figure, I would say there doesn't seem to be much connection. The DaVinci Code sounds interesting, maybe I will read it sometime, always bearing in mind that it's a work of fiction. As for The Pagan Christ, from the review on Harpur's own website, it sounds like he's trying to revive the theory that Jesus Christ is actually just a rehashed version of the ancient Egyptian god Horus, which isn't exactly a new idea, and which I believe has been debated thoroughly for a long time by people with a lot more knowledge of the subject than I have. I can't claim to know anything on the subject, but I do believe the theory has been around for a long time and it hasn't been widely embraced or done any damage to Christianity's foundation. What "scientific research"? Certainly you're not referring to either of the links you posted. One's a work of fiction, and the other is based on interpretation of art and mythology, not science. I read a couple of the DaVinci related links. Dan Brown himself acknowledges that he's written fiction. He does present some interesting information in support of the conspiracy theory that he presents in his novel. However, I read an article from another scholar who disputes the historical accuracy of some of the claims that Brown makes in his book. I certainly hope Christianity continues to exist. Otherwise, who will keep the Muslims in check? -kimmy

I thought NDPers were opposed to reckless tax cutting! I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to inform Mr Layton of your plan. I'm afraid he will be very disappointed. This is nutty even by your standards, maple But at least it shows that you get the picture. People in the west have no real reasons to learn French, so it's not going to happen unless the government invents fake reasons for them to learn French. People need to learn French if they want to go into federal politics, or if they want a high-paying job ripping off Canadians in the civil service. That should be enough. That's more than enough, actually. -kimmy

You didn't respond to my claim that the "two founding cultures" rhetoric is irrelevant in BC, so I assume you have no argument? You also didn't dispute my guess that French probably isn't even in the top 10 most used languages in BC, so I gather you probably think I'm right? You didn't address the argument that French road signs for BC are a low priority when more important causes are underfunded... so I gather you don't disagree. You didn't argue against my opinion that almost all BC francophones can read english, making French signage a non-issue. So you're ok with that claim as well? I'm aware of the original context. However, it pleased my sense of irony to borrow it. As in, if you don't have enough french stuff to read in BC, go ahead and read the french side of the box. I buy cereal because I'm hungry. I only wish they'd start putting some cool toys in the box like they used to. -kimmy

I don't think signs are a big issue. Are you making assumptions about me? Eureka's message earlier mentioned more serious aspects of Quebec's language laws. I don't think the backlash would be based on small-minded xenophobia. I think it would be based on outrage over a ridiculous waste of government money when many more important areas are under-funded. BC is the last part of Canada that should be expected to show leadership on French-related issues. In the west, and especially in BC, the "two founding cultures" rhetoric just doesn't reflect the reality of the province or its history. I would bet that the number of BC francophones who are also literate in English is close to 100%, so spending a bunch of money on French road signage would be a ridiculous, stupid waste of money. I also expect that the statistics will show that French doesn't even crack the top 10 in terms of usage. If they want reinforcement, road signs are about as helpful as cereal boxes. As Trudeau once said "So turn the box around" and read the French side. The government already spends lots of money supporting French language radio and TV stations in BC. French road signs aren't needed. -kimmy

Where is that right written. I fail to see where road signs are required to be in a minority language. Road signs are fairly international. If you can't read them; stay off the road. Canada is officially bilingual. The Trans Canada Highway is federal jurisdiction. And I want bilingual signs in BC, actually right across the country for that matter, but we can start with BC, and according to the Canadian Constitution Act of 1982 I have that right. Congratulations! I think I can say without exaggeration that you've found the least important issue to face this country since 1867! I can just imagine how thrilled the residents of south-eastern BC will be to hear about your plan. The money that the government keeps promising to find to improve the dangerous portions of the TransCanada in the Rockies isn't there-- again-- but GUESS WHAT, at least the government can find millions of dollars to spend replacing perfectly good roadsigns with... bilingual roadsigns. Whoopee. What a tremendous boost for the Francophone residents of that part of BC... all 3 of them. I still don't really understand how you expect bilingual roadsigns will improve life for BC drivers of any language. Will these bilingual roadsigns say "Salmon Arm 104/ Bras Des Saumons 104"? Perhaps the pictographs on the restrooms at highway rest-stops can be made more francophone-friendly. For example, the "male" pictograph could be drawn with an extra-wide collared polyester shirt, and side-burns. The "female" pictograph could be drawn with hairy armpits and a cigarette. As Caesar mentioned, traffic signage is pretty international. Immigrants arrive in Vancouver without knowing either official language and find their way around just fine. I'm sure BC's poor oppressed Francophones-- all three of them-- will survive somehow. I hope that you're kidding about this pointless cause you keep mentioning. I really hope you're not serious about pursuing legal action. Some French-guy with a lawyer forcing the government to spend millions and millions of dollars on something that's of no benefit just because the constitution says he's entitled? That is not the way to solve language animousity in Canada. You'd succeed in raising an angry backlash. The only people who'd appreciate you would be Quebec nationalists who just love seeing somebody poke that hornet's nest with a stick. -kimmy

Synchronized diving is right up there on the list of sports Canadians love, right alongside the likes of competitive trampoline, skeet shooting, and rhythmic gymnastics. To me nothing says "Olympics" like some 11 year old twirling ribbons and juggling bowling pins to opera music. I don't think I'd walk across the street to watch a judo competition or shotput or whatever. I like sports. I have played lots of team sports, and competed in individual sports. I can run a very respectable 10k but I have always done it for my own enrichment. And if my swimming team wanted to travel to a tournament, we got there the old fashioned way-- by pleading with our parents. I'm not sure why Canadians should be concerned with providing a lot of funding for people who compete in sports that we as a nation could not care less about. I don't think the government should commit a bunch of money with the goal of intending to train a world-class judo-throwing team. However, I don't have a problem with the government providing help for Canadian athletes who *are* exceptional to getting to the Olympics. Like, if somebody can show they're able to meet international standards at sprinting, judo-flipping, ribbon twirling, trampolining, or whatever, I wouldn't object at all to the government spending a few bucks of public money to send that person abroad to represent us. I think that would be admirable, in fact. What I don't think is very admirable is that some people feel taxpayers should fund athletes full time while they train for these events. As for who should host it, I don't agree with the idea of having a permanent site. I thought part of the goal of the modern games is to promote an international spirit. If the games take place someplace new each time, they let the rest of the world learn something about the hosts. Also, I think that some good can come from the international media attention. Like, when China hosts the Olympics, they will have to open their doors to media from around the world, and maybe cause them to reflect on the image they wish to portray. The money that the host nation spends on the Olympics should be made up by the money they receive from selling TV rights and tickets to events. If they're run properly they should be a break-even even, plus leave behind new facilities and lots of tourist money in the local economy. Didn't the Commonwealth Games in Victoria result in a bunch of new housing being built for the athletes, which turned into student housing at the University of Victoria after the games were finished? Some good can come from events like this, as long as they're well run. -kimmy