Evening Star

Come now, surely no one would claim that Trudeau spoke English with a thick French Canadian accent.

Oh, I was talking about the votes when there was a private member's bill to abolish the registry. Yes, they do whip votes on government bills.

I was fighting the temptation to say the same thing, albeit more snarkily.

The SSM vote was whipped. The gun registry vote was not for the NDP, at least not publicly, and six MPs voted against it the second time as opposed to 12 the first time. We don't really know what happened within the party so it doesn't seem entirely fair to state as fact that MPs were 'strongarmed'.

We always heard about those things. Were you mentioning them as examples of strong evidence or as typical media coverage of this? I don't think e.g. a record of Google searches for "where to commit a murder" sounds like overwhelmingly compelling evidence.

They didn't vote in bloc on the gun registry. (IIRC, the Grits did whip the vote on that bill.) And punked is right: Desjarlais lost her critic position but she wasn't kicked out of caucus or anything. There's nothing that says her riding association has to choose her as a candidate again.

It's possible to believe that it wasn't an accident but to also think that the evidence of first-degree murder against the two parents might not be 100% airtight and to think that there are unanswered questions, based entirely on what was presented in the media, of course. Anyway, capricorn's quite right: I didn't review all the evidence that was presented in the courtroom (although people who are rejoicing or calling for a harsher sentence didn't either) and wasn't even really rigorous about reading the media reports. Based on the media reports, it didn't sound as obviously open-and-shut as e.g. the Rodney King case, say.

Even in the UK, party discipline is not as strict.

Yeah, I felt the same discomfort. I'm actually surprised at how excited people seem to be about this conviction, given the evidence that was presented.

Hm? I don't see how immigration is the cause of people using American spellings. Unless you're referring to free trade and lax border security...

I said the government should consider every possible outcome, not that they should base their decision on one possible outcome. I've already answered that appeasing someone's objections should not be the deciding factor in situations like this.

Well, yeah. There's a school of thought, exemplified by Friedman, that a corporation's only social responsibility is to legally deliver a profit for its shareholders, that nothing more should be expected of a corporation (e.g. in the absence of legislation). That's what I'm disputing a little. OK, I haven't seen the evidence yet that the govt is involved with this Romanian mine but I've no doubt that the government does get involved in some problematic economic ventures. You realize that these questions are pretty far removed from those in your OP (about whether unemployment or environmental degradation is the more serious problem and about whether the company 'has the right' to proceed)? Your OP also made no mention of the US in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. I think I've answered the first. My answer to the second is "Yes, the government should take every possible outcome into consideration when making decisions".

It's a hard one. To some extent, I think corporations should maintain a certain level of social/environmental responsibility on their own. Human rights and labour concerns. We ripped s--- up at my high school over it, let me tell you. I just think that there's a difference between a private corporation that happens to be 80% owned by private Canadian shareholders and a government that is elected by and represents the citizens of a country. I suppose if the Canadian government's actions in Afghanistan or Libya or some other place pissed some group off to the point that they attacked Canada in revenge, that could be described as "blowback". I guess that even if the actions of Canadian businesses provoked some such attack, it could be described as "blowback". (However, even the most extreme environmental groups tend to attack the corporations and maybe their employees when they're upset about corporate actions.) Is that what you're asking?

Yeah, I'd never heard before that US involvement with Saudi Arabia was the primary motivation for 9/11. My first thought when reading the thread was that there must be some controversial new American economic project in Saudi Arabia I hadn't heard of. xpost to Manny

OK, I'm having trouble believing that Smallc ever said that the 9/11 attacks were morally justified though (so I'm still curious to see the link). Is this really what you're claiming, that many Canadians think violent terrorism against the US is justified (as opposed to explicable) because of US actions overseas? Anywho, since you asked my opinion, I'll give it, based on your explanation and the link in the OP. I'm not sure it's very exciting though: "Objection" from some group or "appeasement" should not in and of themselves be a reason for our governments (or mining companies for that matter) to 'stay out' of a country. I would like to see human rights and environmental factors play a greater role in these decisions but not for the sake of appeasing some group's objections. In this case, it seems like there may well be legitimate environmental concerns about the mining project. I'm not the best person to evaluate it based on what I know. Hopefully, the assessment by Romania's environment ministry will sort it out and determine whether the concerns are grave enough to trump the economic benefits (to answer the first actual question from your OP!). I wish there were better oversight of corporations' international labour and environmental practices. I have to also wonder how long-term the resulting employment would be from this project. I tend to agree with waldo, though, that this situation does not really seem to parallel military actions by a government in another country. It's more comparable to PepsiCo's involvement in Burma in the 90s, perhaps. Your other question in the OP was about whether the company has the "right" to do this, which Smallc answered. (Edited for grammar)

I don't know enough about it yet (nor about the US in Saudi Arabia, which is why I asked; I was especially interested in seeing the context for your quote from Smallc so I could compare the situations).

Where is the discussion on the US in Saudi Arabia?

Actually, I think the switch happens before you get to Lake Superior: Windsor is one of the most solidly orange cities. And afaict the Liberals are not viable in most of Quebec either, not like they were pre-1984. (The LPC would actually be doing fine if they were still the favoured alternative to the CPC throughout the entire part of the country that is east of Lake Superior.)

That's the thing: outside the stretch of Ontario from London to Ottawa, the NDP has established itself as the alternative to the CPC.

There are many situations in which deficit spending is justifiable. Still, this is good.

And tied with the CPC in MB/SK, if it's the same poll I saw.

Ha, there are many things that could be said about the federal NDP's current caucus but it most certainly does not consist of "old farts"! (The Saskatchewan provincial NDP on the other hand...) Anyway, we agree that they have a strong opportunity and power base to hold onto. Quebec is a potential natural base for a labour/social democratic party, as long as they play their cards right. I don't see the Liberals becoming dominant in Quebec or the prairies any time soon.

To be clear, does "pension splitting" mean that this couple can in fact claim a pension of $62 400 each as opposed to $120k for the man and $4800 for his wife? And they thus end up saving on taxes because $60k is taxed (twice) at a lower rate than $120k would be? Just trying to understand.

If that was the case, why did the NDP's surge only manifest itself 8 years after Layton first became leader? And why has the party maintained second place in opinion polls since his death?

Tbf, going by b_c's numbers, the difference between Canada and the US is closer to 157 000 km[2], not 551 695 km[2] (the Wiki figure for metropolitan France). The population density is the more relevant statistic though, and there I think you are on point.