kimmy

Indeed, Stoker. I just wanted to point out that despite some media-types acting like "the west" just won the Powerball Lottery, the cabinet actually under-represents the west in terms of population. 8 out of 38 isn't a big triumph. 8 out of 38 is barely acceptable. That 8 out of 38 seats is seen as a big breakthrough says more about how little cabinet clout western provinces have had in the past than anything else. As for BC being "the west", I think British Columbians should remember that to folks in central Canada, everything past Kenora is "the west". And while "Western Alienation" means different things in different places, all 4 western provinces have had complaints about their roles in Confederation. The fact that Alberta has been the most vocal and the most angry probably stems from the confrontation with Ottawa in the 1980s, and the Reform movement that started here was probably a direct result. I think that the fact that central Canada is even aware that western provinces have been unhappy with the status quo has a lot to do with Albertans pushing back against the federal government, although the federal response to western concerns has been lip-service up to now. -kimmy

I don't follow BC news super-closely... but wasn't the last attempt at building ferries in BC (those super-fast katamarans, right?) an unmitigated disaster? I seem to remember that project costing hundreds of millions over budget, arriving late, and having bigtime mechanical failures. After an experience like that, can you blame them for shopping elsehwere? -kimmy

The irony of being challenged to back up my opinion by a guy who continuously posts links to nonsense-articles to "support" his theories is not lost on me. However, I'll give it a go. The 4 western provinces make up about 32% of Canada's population, but only 21% of the new Cabinet. (I would guess that the atlantic provinces are probably over-represented by an equal amount, if not more.) And it is worth noting that the same central Canada media-types who noted that "the west" is *not* a single entity following the election, are now calling this a big victory for "the west" , as if "the west" *is* a single entity afterall. This contingent of cabinet ministers from "the west" consists of 5 from BC, and one each from the prairie provinces. Anyway, the proof is not in whose butt is on what chair, it will be in policies and how the government responds to issues that are important to western Canada. I am approaching the Paul Martin era with an open mind. I believe that he's very different from his pig-headed predecessor, and I do think he is sincere in wanting to bridge regional differences. The new cabinet is certainly a promising start, we will see how things go. -kimmy

Some of Brian Mulroney's biggest cabinet ministers (Clark, Mazankowski, Carney, Campbell...) were from the west. Having ministers from the west doesn't make much difference if the government's policies suck. It depends on how much PMPM actually listens to people around him. If he's like Chretien, then he probably doesn't listen much at all. If he's not like Chretien, then maybe having a few more western voices in the cabinet will help (although, the west is still under-represented in cabinet.) -kimmy

Like he had a choice, eh? Where have you been? Ever hear of something called ADSCAM? Chretien had 11 years to make the ethics counsellor position independant, and somehow never got around to it. He had plenty of scandals where he should have been shamed into admitting that Howard Wilson was just a rubber stamp, but never did. You know why? Because for Jean Chretien, it was always about winning fights. And if Jean Chretien were still Prime Minister, he wouldn't have appointed an inquiry. He'd have shuffled ministers, appointed them to positions in Denmark, whatever it took to deflect blame. He publicly criticized Paul Martin for not doing the same. So don't give me "Adscam". Adscam wouldn't have strong-armed Jean Chretien into doing a bloody thing. Paul Martin's response to Adscam (his "overreaction", according to Chretien) is yet another example of how different the two men are. -kimmy :angry:

I'm also confused about how a page of statistics about car-theft, assaults, and drug convictions is an indictment of Canada's corporate community. -kimmy

The article you posted doesn't support the point you're trying to make at all. Did you even read it? -kimmy

It seems to me like you'd like to have things both ways. We're not legislating Christian beliefs, we're just legislating Christian traditions; Christian beliefs are part of Christian heritage... it's kind of a circular argument. You're not legislating that everybody has to become Christian, you're just legislating that people conform to Christian attitudes. I'm not saying that Christian attitudes are a bad thing, but some of the views expressed on the CHP policy statement seem to be outside mainstream Canadian values. In particular I don't think that most Canadians, or even most Christians, want to see censorship. I think that many Canadians agree that the justice system has flaws. I think that is kind of beside the point, however. My main point is that the phrase "Christian principles" in the policy statement is completely not specific. If "honesty, responsibility, and restitution" are the principles intended, then they should say so explicitly. Rehabilitation "based on Christian principles" seems pretty open to interpretation. If they don't want to have people thinking they are advocating Bible-School for prisoners, they should spell it out more clearly. Can you assure me that homosexuality wouldn't be considered "just cause" for termination? In fact, there have been legal cases on the issue, which was the whole reason that sexual orientation received explicit protection in the first place. Actually, they wish to ban promotion of homosexuality in public schools. "Safeguards and disincentives should be in place, at the federal level if necessary, to discourage any publicly-funded institution from openly teaching neutral or positive attitudes toward abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, suicide, homosexuality, extr a-marital sex, the occult, or any political ideology which favors world government at the expense of national sovereignty. " You're not allowed to say anything positive about homosexuality, and you're not even allowed to say anything neutral on the subject. Banning the teaching of neutral attitudes toward homosexuality sounds like banning tolerance to me. On an unrelated note, this same passage would apparently also require the removal of any Star Trek materials from public schools I disagree that I'm twisting it. The CHP webpage says that they want materials promoting a positive or neutral attitude toward homosexuals removed from public schools. Under the CHP platform, even encouraging a "live and let live" attitude towards homosexuals would be banned. I don't think I've distorted their position at all. Can you cite for me an example of any instance, ever, where homosexuality has been *promoted* in schools? Personally, if you can find an example, I'd be very interested to hear it. And finally, you and several others in this thread seem upset that public schools are not allowed to promote Christianity to students. Aren't you at least glad that the same law prevents your kids' teacher from having them study the Koran during class? -kimmy

Indeed; the article doesn't even say where Canada ranks on that list. As well, it says "perceptions of countries including the US, Israel, Luxembourg and even Canada had deteriorated over the past year". *Perceptions*. Anyway. How to clean up Canada's business comunity? Let Quebec separate! -kimmy

Many places in Canada already have a shortage of doctors. And didn't somebody write last week about how Canadian doctors are being recruited to work in the US? And yet putting doctors on salary seems like a good idea? Canadians need to accept that doctors have rare and valuable skills that are very transferable. The system has to provide financial reward for doctors working in Canada, or else some of them will move on to other places. Remember reduced waiting times? And improved medical access for Canadians? Encouraging doctors to go away is the wrong way to meet those goals. As for cigarettes, the healthcare cost of smoking is one of the justifications for the high tax on them. I think each pack of cigarettes should have a dedicated portion of the tax sent directly to a healthcare fund, instead of going into general revenue. -kimmy

The figures in the article certainly differ from the conventional wisdom that Klein has paid off the debt "on the backs of the poor." On a related note, here is an article on what "Alberta-style healthcare" really means: http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/Articl...National/Canada -kimmy

I need more French programming like a fish needs a bicycle. Anybody in Alberta who wants more French TV can contact their cable provider and sign up for one of the multitude of French channels that are offered, and I'm sure that the same is true in other provinces. As for banning American programming to make people watch more Canadian shows, if that happens I will go burn down CRTC headquarters myself! :angry: What would you want us to have? 55 channels, all showing reruns of Train 48, Talking to Americans, and Canada: A Peoples History? Actually, that's not such a bad idea. It would certainly get people to turn off their TVs, get off their couches, and go get some exercise It would be a healthier country! Since I doubt anybody else here will stand up for US-made TV, I guess I might as well. People have it in their heads that US TV is all junk, but there are some excellent programs being made there as well. I would propose that in terms of artistic merit, some US shows like The Sopranos or Six Feet Under stand up to anything made anywhere (and way ahead of anything Canada has produced.) I think that "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" is light-years ahead of any news/current affairs satire program made in Canada. I think that shows like Law & Order and the many spinoffs and copycats do a much better job of presenting relevant social issues in a thought-provoking way than anything Canadians have come up with. And I think that some of the US-made mystery shows like CSI or Without A Trace do a better job of stimulating neurons than anything Canadian-made TV has to offer. But I guess there are those who don't think American TV is relevant to Canadians because it's not made in Canada. -kimmy

Why? Duceppe already said that he will decide issue by issue whether to support the government. Doesn't it make sense that other parties will do the same? If Paul Martin comes to the Conservatives with an idea that they strongly support, why wouldn't they cooperate? Same with the Bloc. Same with the... well, the NDP doesn't matter because they don't have enough seats to support the government Harper already said that he has no interest in forcing another election right away. The voters would be mad about having another election. And the Conservatives still need to have their policy convention. The should definitely have their policy convention soon! I don't think the Opposition parties will force another election until they think they have an issue that voters will punish the government for. The Liberals won the most seats and were the incumbents. Tradition says that the GG would go to Paul Martin first. I think the best part of the minority government is that the opposition parties have the power to band together to force an election if it is in the country's best interest. (think how many times that would have been handy to have during the Chretien years ) The government can't afford to act like a dictatorship. Also, I think that if the opposition parties could cooperate, they could get together to get private members bills passed! An example would be a few years ago when the Canadian Alliance proposed a bill to make the ethics counsellor independent. All the opposition parties supported it but the Chretiens had too many seats so it was defeated. It could work now because the opposition parties have enough seats to get together if they want. I think the minority government will be better for Canada than the elected dictatorships we have had before.

This is an honest question, not an attack... have you actually read about how Canadian law treats hate crimes, or have you just decided that the law cares more about minorities/gays/jews/muslims than white people? ...ok, so we shouldn't tolerate homosexuals, because after all there is a fringe-group of gays who are promoting pedophilia? Well, that's a good point I suppose. On a related note, we probably shouldn't tolerate Christians, because there is a fringe-group of Christians promoting violence against Jews. (you see what I'm getting at, right?) -kimmy

Who said anything about Jack Layton? -kimmy

In this conversation I use the word extremist in the sense that it was used in the recent election (meaning, if many Canadianns decided not to vote for the Conservatives because they found the party's stance on social issues extreme, then how will they react to the Christian Heritage Party?) I don't think you can argue that several of the positions on their page are outside the range of mainstream Canada. I mentioned issues where their stance is unacceptable to the courts and to mainstream Canada. The fact that it might make for good soundbites doesn't make it any less relevant. I understand the distinction you are making. However, the webpage we are discussing doesn't limit itself to "heritage". God and the Bible are used over and over as justification for their policy positions. That's not Christian "Heritage", that's Christian *Beliefs*. Can you think of any reason why in-vitro fertilization would be incompatible with Christian *Heritage*? Their objection seems to be merely that "it's not how God planned it", which again isn't *heritage*, it's belief. Those aren't Christian principles. They're universal to just about any legal or moral system you could name, *including* secular humanism. They obviously want some kind of change from the way the current corrective system operates (which at least nominally includes each of the elements you mention) so again, what are they proposing? My argument is that most Canadians (and the law) support -acceptance of homosexuals -legal access to abortion -the right of adults to decide what they want to read or watch (As for being "anti-justice", I guess that depends on whether you consider capital punishment to be justice.) I won't bother getting into an abortion debate because that never solves anything. However, I'd like to point out the following quote taken word for word from the very same page: "We believe that the human body is the property of God, and that no one but God has the authority to terminate human life except in accord with the express provisions of the Bible. No person, institution, or government shall tolerate, encourage, or decree death by means such as abortion, euthanasia, or suicide. " Does that really seem compatible with capital punishment? The human body is God's sacred property, and no one has the right to mess with it (except when it's convenient.) And what about if a gay person is fired from his job? Currently, Canada's laws provide gays with protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The passage I quoted says in black and white that they don't believe gays are entitled to that protection. They wish to ban tolerance towards homosexuals from public schools. I've never heard of anybody wanting to ban tolerance towards Christians from public schools.

Thanks -kimmy

Yay! Another example of how much cooler Paul Martin is than Jean Chretien! Ethics Commissioner -kimmy

I just don't understand what your point is. Are you saying that whistleblower legislation is another example of Paul Martin being mean to the public service? Or are you saying that now that there is whistleblower legislation, the public service will be all fixed and there is no need to hold people accountable for the gross mismanagement of the past few years? I strongly disagree. Whistleblower legislation is only one step in making things more accountable. What do Ken Lay or Martha Stewart have to do with the public service in Canada? Are you saying that because Martha and the Enron Guy lied and cheated, it is ok for people in the public service to lie, cheat, or mismanage public money? Sorry, I just don't see your point. Martha Stewart and Ken Lay are facing criminal charges for what they did. If people involved in Ad-Scam participated in fraud of millions of dollars of tax money, they should face criminal charges too. This is our tax money! It is supposed to be used for roads and hospital beds and schools and helping poor people. It is just not acceptible that so much of it has been lost, wasted, or worst of all frauded into friends' businesses over the past few years. That money is supposed to be used to make lives better for all Canadians. -kimmy

I am not making a sweeping generalization about public service employees! As I said earlier, it is probably a case of a few bad apples ruining things for the whole bunch. And, unfortunately, when people at the top screw up, everybody in the organization pays for it. (I know this, because my dad used to work at Nortel. ) But no matter what the case, changes still had to be made. The job they were doing was just not acceptable. Quite obviously some of them are bureaucratic. Like, I don't think the Minister of Defence told his staffers to spend $160 million on HP gear without actually getting the stuff they paid for. I don't think there was political direction in the HRDC screw-up. It was a case of people just not bother to follow procedures. We still don't know for sure if there was political direction in the sponsorship program, but we do know for sure that the bureaucracy was involved... we also don't know yet about the gun registry. It was either corruption or incompetence that made costs spiral out of control, and maybe both! We have not yet yeard a good explanation of what went wrong, but the RCMP has laid charges in connection with some of the money that went into the gun registry. What about it? I think it's a good idea, although I saw an expert interviewed who said that it won't actually make a difference. Well, I think it would be nice if more politicians were stand-up people. But that doesn't let the whole civil service off the hook. A minister, especially one who can get shuffled in and out of a portfolio at the drop of a hat, can't be expected to know an organization of thousands of people from top to bottom. There has to be delegation inside an organization that big. Managers there have to do their job, and make sure the employees are following procedures. If the managers within the public service had been doing their job, Sheila Fraser wouldn't have had much to write about. -kimmy :angry:

Ok, why don't we have a look at this? http://www.chp.ca/partyPolicy/partyPolicy6.htm * They want to criminalize abortion (isn't this what got Cheryl Gallant labeled an extremist?) and they'd have to use the Notwithstanding clause to do it (isn't that what got Randy White labeled an extremist?) * their stance on reproductive technologies is a little beyond mainstream... They'd ban artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, and the "morning after" pill. * what about gay rights? ...no gay marriages, for sure. ...no legal protection for gays, either. ...and no saying anything nice about gays in public schools, either. There will be book-burnings, and the books being burned will be "Susie has Two Mommies". * and forget about adults being able to make up their own minds about erotica... * they'd reinstitute capital punishment... * they'd send convicts to Bible-School... I guess it depends on how you define extremist... but if the Conservatives were extremists in the views of most Canadians, then Christian Heritage is way off the charts. -kimmy

Taft wrote about being appalled by the amount of public money spent in subsidizing an industry... now 7 years after he wrote his article, Alberta's entire debt is on the brink of being paid off, almost entirely thanks to the industry that money was given to. I guess you could look at it as corporate welfare or whatever, or you could look at it as an investment that has paid off. Maybe it just depends on where you live. I think you're mistaken! (ask a Bombardier executive for a more detailed explanation ) Industries all over Canada have received (and still receive) help in the form of tax breaks, low interest loans, grants, and other types of indirect help from all levels of government. In some cases (agriculture, fisheries, shipbuilding) it is barely keeping heads above water. In other cases it is with the hope that the industry will grow and be an asset and produce benefits that are more than worth the expense. In the case of Alberta's oil industry, the combination of the NEP and low oil prices caused literally hundreds of thousands of jobs to leave the province during the period Taft wrote about. I don't think that anybody can question how important getting the oil industry working again has been to Alberta's current prosperity, and so I don't think you can argue that the money put into it during that period was a bad decision. Alberta's financial outlook is rosy... BC and Saskatchewan are currently classified as "Have Not" provinces, right? Maybe BC and Saskatchewan should look into boosting their energy industries with some "corporate welfare". It might pay off bigtime for them down the road! -kimmy

If public service workers are upset that they are under a magnifying glass, maybe they should think about why. They brought it on themselves! It is hard to have much sympathy after the string of disasters the public service has produced. Oh boo hoo! I can't imagine why anybody would expect the Prime Minister to stick up for people who have been, essentially, caught red-handed laundering money. How can anybody feel sorry for these people? And the sponsorship scandal is not the only one, just the most famous. Over the past few years there have several others! -HRDC accounting practices lose track of a billion dollars -the Radwanski affair -paid $160 million to Hewlett-Packard for stuff that was apparently never received -gun registry costs went completely out of control We trust the public service to use our tax money to the most benefit for Canadians! And they have let us down several times in the past few years. I do not think it is unfair to expect better... Since the Somalia inquiry hurt people's feelings and made them feel stressed out, it probably shouldn't have been done Maybe Canada's public service was just a big happy family before, but obviously some people were just a little too comfortable with their positions. Maybe it is just a few bad apples who ruined everything for the whole bunch, but whatever the case it is obvious that there needed to be some changes. If the changes have been handled badly, then that is unfortunate. And if the changes have hurt peoples feelings then that is sad as well, but I can't think of any job that doesn't have some accountability and expectations of performance and consequences if those aren't met. -kimmy

The CHP take on the election. I think the CHP will receive much more support now that the so-cons are going to be relegated to the back burners of the Cons party as the Cons try to appear MODERATE. Of course! Canadians, leery of supporting a party they fear might have a hidden extremist agenda, will flock to support a party they *know* has an extremist agenda. -kimmy

I hope that Martin doesn't give in. I am just very happy that the Chretien era is finally over. I think that Chretien was more interested in winning fights than about doing what was best. I really do think that Paul Martin is sincere about wanting to do things different. I like that he ihas already been to the west several times to meet with real people in Alberta and BC. Chretien never came west except to go skiing (or pepper-spray protesters. ) I am wondering about the people who thought the Liberals would make 250 seats. What were they smoking?? After the string of problems they had (most of which are messes that Chretien left for Paul Martin to fix) I think the Liberals did very well in this election. Considering how mad people were about the sponsorship scandal, the Liberals could have been sunk. But they weren't and they pulled it together. Paul Martin did the right thing when Sheila Fraser's report came out. The public inquiry has generated negative press for the Liberals, but Martin went ahead with it anyway. I think that is a good sign of his character. (and I think the amount of friction it has caused within his party speaks poorly for the people who are opposing him on it.) I hope that Paul Martin continues to be prime minister and that he continues to do things different. I am looking forward to the Paul Martin era! -kimmy