Newfie Canadian

A politician that does have that political will isn't a politician for very long, I would argue. I bet they were interesting meetings. There's no magic bullet for the complexities of the Canada/US relationship. There are too many areas where conflict arise and the only thing to do about it is compromise and cooperate. That hasn't been happening lately.

I don't know what the NDP's problem is. Truthfully, I pay more attention to the provincial NDP than the federal NDP. Our NDP has 2 seats in the House of Assembly. I don't know why. They have good ideas, they have some sound policies (like public auto insurance and merging Newfoundland Hydro and Newfoundland Power) and they aren't full of themselves. But they will never IMO, form the provincial government. I think here, and it may translate into federal politics, there is a perception that they aren't a real party. You just can't picture them in government for some reason. Another problem is the fear that a vote for them may let someone else in power that you don't want. I know it isn't logical, but what about politics is?

Yes we have and it's our own fault to a point. We've made some bad choices and did some bad deals. This however, is our chance to try to turn things around, some would say our best and only chance. Let NL and NS have the total provincial revenues and let them get on their feet, and maybe the "subsidization" can end. I don't call that being greedy.

I don't know. I have heard some pundits ay Bush would be better because: 1) He don't have to worry about getting re-elected, so he would have a freer reign, and 2) Kerry and Edwards, especially Edwards, are considered more protectionist than Bush. (I believe that has been mentioned in earlier threads as well.) In my opinion, no matter who wins on Nov. 2, Canada will still get the proverbial cold shoulder.

I'm not a fan of PM, but the Conservative party has done little to earn my confidence either. You're probably right. Not this time. The whole province, ordinary people and provincial politicians of all political stripes are with Williams on this one. I haven't heard anyone say yet that he did the wrong thing. If Martin wants to keep the 5 seats he has in NL, he'll change his mind. Some of those seats were close in the election. And in these political times, he needs all the seats he can get. EDIT-2 Liberal MP's are already asking questions and indicating some support for Williams: Gerry Byrne and Bill Matthews. We're suffering from getting the shaft.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland both reject their respective deals. http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/...tion041026.html EDIT- Well it's gone in the crapper. He said, he said and now Williams is leaving without a deal and without attending the equalization meeting.

I think if Kerry were going to win it would be clear by now. I've heard interviews of people saying they don't like Bush, but they don't like Kerry either. If the Democrats had a strong, popular candidate, they would have a legitimate shot at it. I don't think that's Kerry, and the Democrats are going to stay out of the White House because of it.

I assume he wrote the letter in his official capacity, which unfortunately brings the church into the realm of politics, which some would say isn't that far from the seventh circle of hell. Although the separation of church and state is a bit of a red herring in my opinion, unless you are a special interest of lobby group with a vested interest in a particular cause, stay out of it. I don't consider the church such a group.

I know it will come to a shock to some (not likely) but the province and the feds have different stories as to what's going on with this oil revenue deal. Short story is the feds say they offered what they promised, Williams et al says they didn't. http://www.vocm.com/cgi-win/vocm.exe/91803-Resource

I just found this funny because I saw in another forum that some Americans are arguing the opposite.

This is one of those situations where a clarification or retraction means squat. Whether or not he meant it, it will be a rallying cry for someone, and like takeanumber said, it's too bad.

Ask Senator Jim Munson. Only they know if they go looking for it, but I don't blame them if it's offered and they take it. I would. I think I agree with August. Harping on and blaming the media for their troubles doesn't improve their image, at least in my opinion. Ignore it, get on with it, keep plugging at the Liberals. The Conservative party is a government in waiting, so everything they say and do is fodder, and let's be honest, they have been pretty loose in the tongue in the last 9 months.

Like I said, I like federal representatives in international meetings, but I can undersand premiers wanting to talk to other countries about things that affect them in particular. Klein and beef, Campbell and lumber, Calvert and wheat are some examples.

And that's the rub, isn't it? Until the Conservatives can find a way to overcome the perception that they are an evil party, if I may use that phrase, and find a niche in Ontario and Atlantic provinces (especially Ontario), we're stuck in this mess. The Liberals can shoot themelves in the foot untill all their MP's are on crutches, but it won't matter one little iota if the CPC can't shake that perception. Done

I wasn't arguing with you JWayne, I in fact agree with point about Federal representatives going to international events. I was just pointing out part of the story, and part of it is he said he wouldn't represent Canada and that:

I suspect if we looked hard enough the closet wouldn't be a closet but a morgue. And I would expect that. Paul Martin has been in government for a long time, in arguably the 2 most important positions in government, Finance Minister and PM. The government has been there for 12 years, with some modifcations, so with the arrogance of not being beaten comes the feeling that you can do no wrong, and if you do, you won't get caught, and if you do get caught you'll still win the election. In regards to Healthcare, people think it's free, so they don't like any talk of change that may change that. Plus it is a distinguishing feature of Canadiana. It is partly psychological. If we lose Medicare, we become something else. Chrétien may have his own questions to answer, now that it's out that his travell expenses for the last 2 years of power cost $15 million. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Charest has promised not to talk for Canada on the trip, and to limit his discussions to topics under provincial jurisdiction. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...967135_93199167

Well, here's one guy who won't be voting for Cherry......Cherry. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...test041022.html

That's strange considering the latest polls I saw today had Bush ahead. But I guess that's the Electoral College for you. Florida sure is going to be interesting.

In the House it all comes down to numbers. In regards to leadership, a different kettle of fish. Harper seems to have lost the momentum he had in the first weeks of the campaign, and hasn't even come close to getting it back. It also has to be hard being the opposition in a minority government, especially this close to having had an election. Going after the government really hard on something could make the government fall and no one, not the parties and definitely not the electorate, wants an election yet. And when the election do come, all parties are going to want to say "We tried", so they may not want to rock the boat. It's gotta be tough.

If it could be proven to be effective, I wouldn't object to it. That appears to be a long, long way off. I would have liked for Canada to have been involved from day one on this. The Soviets didn't just target the US during the Cold War, they targeted North America. I suspect the same would hold true for other nuclear states that have ICBMs (and even if they don't, if they have nukes, ICBMs won't be far behind). In regards to terrorism, I can't see a use for it, unless it is some sort of state sponsored terrorism, if any state would go to that kind of partnership on that scale.

You hit the nail on the head there August. The justice system is totally shagged on this matter. The fines and penalties repeatedly dished out for DUI is pathetic and seriously deficient in deterrence value. I've seen people here lose more (in property and money) as well as get as much or more jail time for poaching a moose than impaired drivers get.

Nice memory Slavik. I voted Liberal in the last election, primarily because I voted for the MP, not the party. Our MP is a popular, former provincial MHA who seems to work hard and doesn't seem to be afraid to mix it up. Plus he happens to Newfoundland's cabinet rep. John Efford. I voted PC in the last provincial election about a year ago, mainly because the Liberal incumbent said he'd look into the shoddy care my daughter received at our local hospital, and didn't. I don't consider myself a Liberal, Conservative or Socialist. I vote from election to election. I don't mind saying I'm primarily center-left on the political scale, but when it comes to certain issues I'm more center-right, especially when it comes to National Defence.

Looks like I was right about the solidarity problem with the provinces. Lord, Charest and Doer want an extra $5.3 Billion for equaiztion payments. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/

No smog in Newfoundland. In my community 2 Novembers ago, a woman was getting groceries out of her trunk a couple weeks before Christmas, when she was nailed by a drunk driver and killed. She was standing behind her car on the side of the road, where the car was parked. According to Transport Canada, almost 40% of fatally injured drivers tested had been drinking in 2001. If we want to talk about monetary cost, in 2001 MADD says: Link for reference I'd consider that serious enough to warrant some attention from the police.