CANADIEN

Excuse me? :angry: :angry: :angry: As much as I believe that special polls at universities are not needed, your comparison of those polls to the outright denial of the right to vote that took place in the Southern USA before the mid-1960's is quite frankly outrageous. If that's the best you have to offer, keep it.

The voice of a province is ultimately the voice of its citizens. Since I have never said that the population of a given province should not have a say in the making in federal laws, the argument that I have said, or claimed, or hinted, or thought that provinces should not have a say falls flat on its face. If there is a Senate, either its members are elected, or its members are not elected. If there is a way of choosing members of the Senate that involves them being neither elected or non-elected, I would like to know what it is.

Because you think they do right now?And I never said, or hinted, or came to the conclusion that the citizens of each and every province should not be involved in lawmaking at the federal level.. They should, thorough their elected representatives, in proportion to the population of each province. and you would rather have either: - an unelected Senate, populated by cronies selected by the federal (or provincial) governments, with no accountability whatsoever to the citizens, unless they could be removed by the government(s), in which case they have the same concerns about doing what it takes to keep their jobs - or an elected Senate, which would have the same issues and concnerns as the members of the House of Commons. BTW, what's the emphasis of regions. Canada is made up of people first, then provinces. Not regions.

dup

Yet you claim that proof is to be found in science. Or more exactly pseudo-science, aka as the Intelligent Design movement. Go figure.

I don't particularly want, or not want, one party to get more than 50%.

Unfortunately for him, this may be exactly what they will do.

You know very well that's not what I am arguing at all. As for the argument that an elected chamber with equal representation by province would be more amenable to minority rights - do you think that such a chamber would have been more likely to support SSM than the House of commons, to name one example? And do you think that an elected Upper Chamber would be less partisan, with its members less concerned with immediate political gain? I don't. Individual rights are paramount. Between the rights of the individual and the rights of the province (or more exactly of the Government of that province), I will choose the rights of the individual.

And after this wonderful demonstration of contempt for anybody who dares not to vote Conservative - which is the same attitude coming from the party itself, you're surprised that most Canadians will vote for somebody else.

Indeed. But then I meant Party conservateur... Oops

Here we go. PC: Gains in Ontario (1, 2 ridings in Toronto?) and Newfoundland-and-Labrador will upset loses in Quebec. 152 LIB: Believe it or not, exact same number. Strategic voting in other parts of the country will offset losses in Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland-and-Labrador BQ: One more seat, at 50, even they will lose some votes NDP: Strategic voting will cause them to lose seats, down to 29. 4 seats in Quebec André Arthur will manage to keep his Portneuf seat (or it will go BQ)

Not a complaint. Simply the notion that one House where representation is proportional to population. Do you actually believe that I think that BC, or my own province, Ontario, should have less representation in Parliament that what their population warrant? Not one bit. And who said regional representation is irrelevant? Not me. What I said if that it should be proportional to population. And BTW, there is nothing that prevents people from electing people who share their vision of what their region needs. Each person's vote having the same weight is a top-down model? It means MPPs representing Ottawa's views to their riding instead of what it should be, the opposite? Excuse me while I'm laughing at the absurdity of the idea.

Fine, as long as the representation is proportional to the population. One person one vote means more than one (or in the cases you mention, two) ballots. It means each person's ballot having an equal weight. To take the American example, the ballots of a person living in California has less weight than the ballot of someone living in Delaware because where he/she lives. That may be fair to the State of Delaware, it is not fair to the person living in California. Between the state and the person, I'll put the person first. As for the fact the Senate is very unlikely to go, that it will stay doesn't mean that I have to like it.

That they all have one does not mean one hould exist - nor it is, of course, an argument against it. If that's all you have as an argument, and quite frankly I doubt that's the case, then you don't have much.

You just forget one thing. EC administers the electoral process, it does not determine who has or do not have the right to vote. That's done by the federal Parliament, in accordance with the Constitution.

It is better, I suppose, when part of the country can block policies that the rest of the country favour? The only limit to the democratic will of the majority should be the individual rights of the citizens, and a regime of laws (Constitutions) based on citizen's rights). Regional imbalance (which is what "equal" upper house creates)is not the appropriate response to the risk of a majority trampling over individual rights. Nor does it offer protection against the possibility of a central government usurping the powers of other levels of government.

I do not believe in elected, or non-elected, law-making bodies where seats are distributed equally by state, region, province, whatsoever. All citizens should be representated equally, that is either one member per x number of citizens or seats attributed to parties in proportion to the number of votes received.

And why should have E.C. done anything? While technically innaccurate, there was nothing there was breaking any rule.

What can I say? I believe in one prson, one vote, period.

why it is funny? Because it is ridculous. No matter what one may think of funding festivals, whether it's the Stampede or PrideWeek. And no, the expense is not imposed on Government. Government chose to do that kind of things.

To come back to the initial topic... There's one thing to do with the Senate.... Abolish it.

Nice try with the argument about religion being a private thing. No religion is being forced on anybody. Now,, we must definitely be of two different cultures, because there is nothing in this that threathens my French-speaking culture. Probablement bien meilleur que le vôtre. Ne vous en faites pas, j'ai l'habitude des petis esprits qui s'imaginent qu'ils peuvent baver des Francophones hors-Québec. In case you didn't notice, I didn't say there were never acts, or regulations, limiting the use of French. I said that, with two exceptions, there has been no laws stating there was one (or two) official language(s). want to use history? Be accurate. Want to comment on what I say? Be accurate. Exactly indeed! Enough with the misuse and abuse of the word imperialism.

Non-respect of the culture. Give me a break. Actually, the only provincials governments that ever enacted an Official Language Act were Quebec and New Brunswick. And my name is Franco-Ontarian, and french-canadian, and Canadian. Not québécois. Do not ever forget that. Pleeaaaase... give us a break, this is 2011.

You clearly misunderstand what I mean. It is exactly because this is a question of what level of access needs to be provided that the claim that "certain locations are too politically charged" is irrelevant. Misunderstanding of my position again, if not misrepresentation. Beyond stating the obvious (there is nothing nefarious in polling stations on university campus, special polling stations does not constitute special access), I haven't said anything about whether or not there is a need for polling stations on university campuses. NOW, I am saying something about it... quite frankly, considereing that the election day is right after the end of the school year, there is no need. That being said, whether or not a special polling station is needed is and should the only criteria in deciding if there will be one. No some far-fetched notion that somehow this puts certain voters at an advantage.

Don't worry, I figured that out right from your first posting on the subject. Actually, there is nothing in there I haven't said for the past three years on this site. And nobody is saying otherwise. As far as individual rights are concerned though, it is irrelevant. When that happens, come and get me out of the grave, will you? The fabric of a country is never static. as for whether or not Mandarin or Cantonese can be considered Canadian languages, I'll dsicuss that with someone who actaully believes that's the case, not someone who uses the argument even though he does not believe in it. TWhat special rights? The right to use my Canadian language? There is nothing special about that. As you admitted yourself,you have no idea what I am talking about. That's fine. Your opposition too it looks pretty clear to me. Me, a leftist? Considering the the number of areas where I hold views that we be considered to the right... As for the issue of the composition of the federal civil service... I for one do not care what is the first language of our federal civil servants, or where they were born, or their skin colour, or their religion, sexual orientation or political leanings. They're Canadians and they do their job? That's all that counts to me. you mean in your dreams and what do people from France have to do with this, pray tell? Iam a French-speaking CANADIAN, thank you very much English is already taught in all French-language schools in Canada, so let's not pretent it's about French-speaking Canadians learning English. It's about French-speaking Canadians not being allowed to use French to communicate with the Government of their country. Oh realy? According to the 2006 census, there were more people in Quebec (to name one province) who understood French only than people who understood French and English. Except the hardship of knowing that their language, their culture, who they are is no longer Canadian enough.