Newfie Canadian

Martin seems to think that China is the place to go. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...9457?hub=Canada

Aren't you confusing James Bay with Churchill Falls? I do believe so. I thought James Bay was on the opposite side of Québec from Labrador.

You're right fellowtraveller, Tobin is a recent example of what you're saying, but a case like that is usually only until an election and that person is elected themselves. Tobin never had a seat, and his appointment to the cabinet helped him to get elected. An appointment of a non-MP is usually short term. My point was if you make an exception for the Dept. of Indian Affairs, why not for Veterans Affairs, or appoint an economist as Finance Minister, or a soldier as Defence Minister. We could always appoint a PM. If the government is to make a serious effort to help the First Nations, job one is to listen to and involve the Assembly of First Nations, currently led by Phil Fontaine if I remeber correctly. Another problem is the reluctance of some, and I stress some, First Nations to sufficiently take care of problems in their community. There was a news story on the CBC website not long ago about how sentencing circles are not used. The offender is given the choice and they don't use it, as it brings their crimes into the public. Then there is the dilemma of who do you ask. In NL right now, this very night, a bill to ratify the Inuit Land Claims deal in Labrador is going to vote. The Inuit of Labrador get "...control of a large part of Labrador and the right to establish their own government." BUT the Métis-Inuit of Labrador oppose the deal. Which brings me back to work with the AFN, not treat give them special status at the cabinet table.

I would argue that even the modest improvements you suggest, that is to be able to secure the borders, coasts and ports, would require a substantial increase in funds, equipment and personel after a decade+ of neglect and cost cutting, BD. Housing for new recruits is not up to par, naval equipment is insufficient to protect the thousands and thousands of kilometers of coastline, etc, etc. It will require a substantial increase in funding and resources.

Tommy Douglas said it best. I haven't read all the posts, so I'll respond to the question posed in the title of the thread. No he should not resign. The reason he lost the last election was because of Liberal fear mongering, aided by loud stupid comments by some loudmouthed CPC candidates. Get a policy convention under your belt and have another go. If he loses the next one, find a new leader.

I disagree. The cabinet is and should be made up of elected representatives. Could there be better choices, yes. Could the choices be doing better, sure. But that's the nature of the cabinet. Ministers are not always experts in those portfolios.

That's a valid point there kimmy.

What about this potential problem? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I'm pretty sure Martin has indicated that the world needs more democratic nations, and that Canada should be and will be helping in that. A military, a well funded and well equipped military, is essential to that goal. Not neccessarily as democracy making, but as democracy keeping. Look at Afghanistan, our troops are there to ensure that democracy is not taken away. Martin has talked about Haiti. It wasn't diplomacy that helped Haiti in the last few months, it was the troops, helping to bring back and ensure democracy. Martin has talked about Suadan, same thing. And that's for other places in the world, let alone our own border protection and security. I only hope Martin means what he says: From an interview with Wolf Blitzer last Sunday.

Isn't everyone else? I watched an interview with an official from a South American country a couple of weeks ago that said they were looking to China instead of North America (the US in particular) for trade options.

If wisdom comes with age, he obviously isn't old enough yet. It appears to be a classic example of using anything to avoid a legitimate question, and as we've seen in the last little while, politicians will do anything to avoid tough questions.

Well, at least Stoker got the point.

Martin appears to be a reasonably intelligent man, so I assume the only reason he would say such nonsense is he is delusional. Look at suveillance flights off the coast of NL. Used to be handled by the Coast Guard, but is now handled by Transport Canada. They reduced the flights from several a week to a few a month. There was recently evidence of an illegal bilge dump, but no one has any idea who is responsible. Yep.

Alrighty then. I am not opposed to having Fox News. I've stated elsewhere that the news itself is okay, the commentators are nuts. Here's an excerpt from John Gibson's "My Word" from December 2, 2004, just yesterday. I have several issues with these statements, but the one that irks me most is ..."in fact, refuses to believe that the 9/11 attacks on America were unprovoked. The U.S. had it coming, they say." I have never heard such a crock in my life. Canadians, whether they are politicians or not regard 9/11 as murderous lunacy which nobody deserves. I assume he is talking about Chrétien's interview. Chrétien said: and I don't consider that saying anyone deserved anything. For the record, Chrétien said the attacks were "...a cowardly act of unspeakable violence..." I have never watched Fox News, but I go to their website several times a day just to see what lies, mistruths and half truths Gibson, Cavuto and O'Reilly are "informing" the American public with about Canada. You know what, it isn't pretty. O'Reilly has stated on more than one occassion in the last couple of years that marijauna has been legalised. Has anyone else missed that announcement?

My apologies as well Cartman. I'll catch on to all these things eventually. No hard feelings. LMAO

Those are the 3 bigger networks.

To reiterate August's point(if you don't mind August), how many people here knew that the Happy Birthday song is copyrighted by Warner Communications? I owe them a bundle.

shackwacky, you put me in the unenviable position of defending Bush. The charm here was the acknowledgement of his own ignorance. In other words, if you can't laugh at yourself... I must have missed that one. Did anyone expect it to? It was a reference to P.E. Trudeau's quote. He imlpied that he understood that it was hard for us to be a neighbour to the US(elephant), because as Trudeau said "...one is affected by every twitch and grunt." It wasn't a threat. I can't argue that. I agree. Charming, no, but at least it was honest.All in all, it could have been a lot worse for Canada.

Well in regards to the ad, the rejection of it by the networks has probably gotten it more noticed than if the networks had run the ad in the first place. Can someone tell me what the "homosexual agenda" is, besides the obvious wanting to be treated like the rest of society I mean. Ah, the tip of the slippery slope. With all due respect Cartman, I don't ever recall a gay person trying to convert me to homosexuality. I have however, received several unsolicited visits from a variety of religious groups.

I'll give him this: he has great speech writers. The comments concerning King, the NHL, Thompson's quote and the ever famous Elephant analogy were absolute gold for Bush. In regards to hot topic items like softwood lumber and cattle, there was nothing. On missle defence, well, the issue is growing, which was his intention I assume. But I do agree with you that in regards to diplomacy, he hit a home run. He came off as a human being, a sometimes funny one, and showed something he never showed before: a little bit of knowledge about Canada (a credit no doubt to the above mentioned speech writers). I can't remember from where I saw the headline, but it read that Bushe gave us "a charm offensive", and that's what it was.

You're welcome. Fenwick is a weird cookie. I've seen him since 2000 on the CBC (provincial) political panel and he appeared to still be more in tune with the NDP than other parties. I still haven't discovered why he ran for the CA in 2000.

What this little bio fails to mention is that in the 2000 federal election he ran as a candidate for the Canadian Alliance party and placed 4th out of 5 candidates.

Since when are we required to tolerate ridiculous behaviour? What ridiculous behaviour are you referring to? The leader of a national party was trying to ask a question. He has the right and obligation to do so. The fact that he a bit of a preamble is irrelevant. I've watched Peter MacKay ramble on before asking a question. And I'm not saying this because I like Layton. I don't really. I'd say the same thing for any MP.

I don't know about that MS, but I can see a time, maybe not that far off, that the Liberal party will fracture much the same as the federal PC party did. There are disgruntled Liberals all over the place. I saw an interview the other day by Don Newman with the chair of the Women's Liberal caucus (I can't remember her name) who said the women's caucus was preparing a draft resolution for the Commons opposing missle defence. Discontent is most certainly brewing.

In regards to Layton's little talk with Bush, I don't begrudge it to him. It's probably the only time he'll ever get an opportunity like that. Bush, probably being briefed beforehand about Layton and their (NDP) position probably just ignored him anyway. In regards to the shenadigans in QP, what else is new? I think it was August somewhere in this thread that implied that QP in the HoC can be an exercise in immaturity. Layton, as well as all MPs, should be allowed to ask their questions any way they choose as long as it do not violate the protocols of the House, which apparently it didn't. It's a wonderful example that the booing MPs set for the electorate. If you don't like it, shout it down. So much for tollerance.