fellowtraveller

I want an uncensored Al-Jazeera.

Yes I disagree with that, a specific tax cut should only be proposed in the context of a summary of expenditures and revenues. It's also a bit dumb to dangle another 1% cut to the GST without knowing the balance sheet in the future. Dion was in government and in Cabinet long enough to know all he needs to know. However, he is Old Guard in a party that will say anything to get elected, a la Chretien and Martin. It's just taxpayers money, who cares what you tell the sheep.

Name a place and time in Canada when the 'Health System' was not or is not in crisis. I look forward to the day when our country can have a reasoned, intelligent discussion on this topic, but it won't be today or tomorrow. It will be when we can accept that: a) there are no 'good old days' for health care in this country there will never be enough money -never- for us all to live happily and forever.

You want to maintain the two existing boards including one that is already faith based, and extend money to everybody else, all outside the public system. Costly costly costly and patently unfair. It just exacerbates and instituionalizes a situation that is already not satisfactory. Think of the money. Think of the children.. Actually, I think you and a couple of others are just here to defend the Catholic system, and recognize that once the glare of public scrutiny notices the inherent goofiness of the status quo, you'll be in big trouble. And about time too. I've also noticed signs of desperation on other boards and newspapers, the wind of change is blowing and not a moment too soon.

How can 'tax cuts' come at the beginning of a process, a la Dion? How can tax cuts be at the forefront of an election campaign? Shouldn't a sensible govt detail how it plans to spend, hiow it plans to tax, then tell us how they will ensure that the net result will be as close to zero as they can possibly make it?. That is good governance or rather good financial management IMO.

Interesting that you would use the term 'personal relationship'. Do you mean passing acquaintances, friends,lovers, or spouses? The first three don't require laws. It is marriage that has everybodys knickers in a knot, and I'm not sure why since we have just had an exhaustive, lenghty debate on a very similar subject - same sex marriage. Now the discussion on polygamy even uses the same old tired arguments and language , that "Polygamy and sexual predation, particularly of children, are two different things. You could as easily have said "Sexual societies shouldn't be welcomed because children must be protected from sexual preditors". Note that this very argument was introduced with SSM, where opponents tried to get all of us to swallow the bait that homesexuality was linked to pedophilia. Another example is the language of abortion rights, where you either are Pro-Life or, I guess, Pro-Death or AntiLife. Next up, in a last ditch attempt to forestall the legitimization of polygamy in Canada: it is against Gods will. It is too late folks, Elvis has left the building.

You could do it that way, but only if you intend to foster stupidity and fiscal irresponsibility. There is no need for 'extra funding' for anybody. There is no need for a Catholic board, or any other faith based board either. Simply allow faith based schools within the public system. If the deamnd exists, allow special interest schools of any type. There are places in Canada who do that now, and it has worked out just fine. Insist that all schools teach a strong, minimum provincially mandated curriculum, that is taught by certified teachers. After that, let individual schools set whatever curriculum they please. They can teach religion, art, drama, hockey or whatever. Allow any parent to send their kids to whatever school they want, assuming the school has room. What is wrong with meeting the needs of the community, the whole community, within the public system? The obvious wrinkle - getting your kid to some specilaity school across town - is up to each parent. And - as it is now- if you choose to live on a farm or small town, you won't have access to every program. We are a very diverse society. Why not accomodate that diversity, instead of splitting into smaller and smaller factions? And there is the significant bonus that it can and must reduce costs, by having a single large board.

Since we freely and joyfully accomodate the 1 couple in 1000 who chooose alternative forms of marriage -ie same sex marriage, - there is no legal reason to deny those that willingly enter such unions. And your comments ignore mine about 'duress'. An example of how to handle and assess 'duress' in a marital contract need be no different than the standard employed in establsihing duress in real estate contracts, under dower laws. Dower laws exist in every province, mainly to prevent married women from being cheated of their rights. It need be no different in marriage contracts. All this blah-blah-blah about child brides is misleading. The issue is not child brides or duress, we already have legislation and law that is supposed to prevent both. If it does not, the issue is not law but enforcement of law. If you claim that a child was involved in a contract of marriage, the contract is void and the marriage is ended. Same for duress. Prove it, and the marriage is ended. The issue is the same as it was for same sex marriage: is it a human right in this country to select those whom you choose to enter into a contract of marriage with, regardless of gender, and regardless of number of consenting adults? Both our Parliament and our Supreme Court have said a resounding 'yes'. It's a done deal. Unless you change both the Charter, and the members of the Supreme Court.

Oh, so you have now backed away from your position that Harper can only appeal to the Supreme Court? The CEO of Elections Canada -like any civil servant- is supposed to provide policies in conformance with the will of Parliament as expressed by the legislation that they create. Clearly he has failed to do that here. Which ignores the fact that this new legislation was passed unanimously, passed by all parties in Parliament. Nothing partisan there.

Baloney. The CEO of EC was providing his interpretation of the law when this little buntoss got its 5 minutes of fame. If parliament tells him there is a new law requiring that the CEO wear a pink gorilla suit, he wears a pink gorilla suit. I reckon you're one of those guys that believes unelected officals like Elections Canada or the Supreme Court are the lawmakers. Must be a Liberal, it's a dead giveaway. And here is Elections Canadas mandate, just so you know who is the tail, and who is the dog: "Elections Canada is an independent, non-partisan agency reporting directly to Canada's Parliament. Its ongoing concern is to fulfill its responsibility to ensure Canadians can exercise their choices in elections and referendums in an open and impartial process. Get it now?

Of course, you did know that all four parties voted in favour of the new voting legislation? And that three of the four have condemned the idea that anonymous persons can vote. You did know that, right? Note also that because some people vote via mail has absolutely nothing to do with whether they can do the same thing at a polling station. Maybe you'd lie to rethink the whole thing.

Primary sources: the Toronto Star and the Grope and Flail, both papers with a deep and pathological hatred of Harper and anything not Liberal. Kind of like you. I can understand the appeal of the connection..

The answer to that question has long been and clearly remains: 'no'. So, assuming that - as in every binding contract, including a marriage contract between two adults of any gender, there is no duress......what exactly is the legal argument against polygamy? I think the answer to that, in Canada in 2007, is that there is no compelling legal argument against polygamy. Opponents can claim some Biblical prohibition, or traditional definitions of marriage being between only two persons - but that train left the staion with the legal acceptance of same sex marriage. Now, opponents of polygamy or polyandry are apparently left with only the weakest of arguments: It's against Gods will, or there is something sacred about the number two, or there may be duress on the women, or there are legal issues with the children created in polygamous relationships. All of these are weak, weak, weak under our Charter. The Crown has had a long, hard look at places and situations like Bountiful and done........ nothing. That speaks volumes.

No, polygamy - state of marriage between one man and more than one woman - is not legal in Canada at this time. It does not matter if the adults involved are responsible or consenting. I don't understand your reference to swap clubs or swingers. They have nothing to do with polygamy or any form of marriage.

Summary: it is pointless drivel. And its about the money? Damn straight it is. 150 odd years of paternalism and waste has resulted in an aboriginal people in crisis and a general populace that is equal parts enraged about the waste and apathetic about an intolerable situation. And your solution: more of the same please, more money.

There is no need to have any kind of special international status or adminsitration of the poppy trade in Afghanistan, that just leads to adding another UN tower to accomodate the thousands of new UN personnel required to contribute nothing. But the West should most definitely buy all the poppy from Afghan farmers. They could than divert it into medical use, burn it or whatever. It would only cost a few billion, far less than what the current war is costing . The Taliban (who are most assuredly mostly Afghanis) control the trade now and generate the money to buy arms from the trade. They also pay their local fighters from that cash crop, poor men who need work of any kind. Cut off the poppy trade, and the Taliban must depend soleley on support from abroad, a tenuous link. It is a win -win-lose situation.......and long overdue. Marijuana does not matter, it grows everywhere and nobody much cares any more. Afghanistan used to be a major supplier of high quality hashish to the West, and so was Pakistan. Few Wsetern dealers are willing now to risk decades in jail importing a product that is now grown hydroponically and locally.

Not likely since, incest is a crime because of the pedophilia normally involved. Sex with minor children is a crime, whether or not they are your children. As for adults, there is a genetic issue for the offspring. And polygamy becomes pedophilia when minor children become spouses. But in circumstances where all partners are consenting adults, I don't see a word in the Charter that prevents it. The Supremes won't either when it comes before them. Justice Canada is in no hurry to put it before them either by pressing charges, they know what the outcome must be....... The last polygamy charge in Canada was in the 1930s, yet communities like Bountiful, BC have existed without any repercussions. How can the Supremes confirm that SSM is a human right for all Canadians where two consenting adults of any gender may lawfully marry, then ban the right of more than two consenting adults to enter into exactly the same domestic arrangement? What makes the number 'two special? Answer: nothing. Watch and see.

Jennie, me too. You consistently post crap in response to what I say, with no relevance to what I post, while quoting me at length.

Enjoy it while you can, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle now....... Canadians recognize that the Charter is a tool, it is supposedly all about equity and fairness now, and the free ride - or rather the unique ride you've enjoyed for generations is about to end. The Church will huff and puff and get political in their usual lay-down-the-guilt way, but they are going to lose this one. I noticed this morning in the National Post that the Vaticans Man in Toronto, Father Raymond de Souza, has begun the campaign with a column. It's a nice sidepiece to the barrage of letters to the editor. But, it aint going to help - the status quo cannot survive a serious Charter challenge. And you can bet the farm that a serious challenge is imminent. Given the nature of our system of governance in this country lately, it would not be even mildly surprising if the Suprme Court will offer an opinion unbidden. So, make your choice: nobody gets funded, or they all get funded. And if they all get funded, I don't see Queens Park funding a public system, Catholic system, Jewish system, Muslim system, Fundamentalist system, True Believers of the New Dawn system, and whatever other twinkies flourish. It will have to be one size fits all within a public system. I believe Nfld and Quebec already chose the 'nobody gets funded' route and changed the legislation for their jurisdictions.

Laws against polygamy cannot stand under our Charter, it's as simple as that. So, change the Charter, or get out of the way.

No, you cannot have it both ways. Either no funds go to faith based schools, or all faith based schools are part of a single public system. To insist that Catholic students or parents have an entitlement because they are Catholic is completely self-serving. I favour the inclusion of all special interests within a public system, better to have those interested and committed parents on the inside looking out than the reverse. If any community has sufficient demand to support any special interest, why wouldn't a public board accomodate their needs? Assuming as always that the boards needs are met first and foremost.

There is no need for the word 'or' in the middle of the sentence. Paying for public schools and including faith based schools are not in any way mutually esxclusive. Just bring ALL the faith based schools into the public system, if they are willing to come, oblige them to teach the provincial curriculum, and allow them to teach whatever they please beyond that. Then assignement of parent taxes are not an issue. If they are not willing to join the public system, they can still go private. i think though that you'll find people of faith are from the same financial demographic as any other group, and the mainstream simply cannot afford the cost of private schools. It comes down to a central question: what is the role of government in education? I think it is this: obligatory participation by every child to age 16 in a standard provincial cuuriculum,taught by provincially certified teachers. Going further, it serves us all to have the most persons possible partcipating in a single, quality system - not a fractured, angry and financially segregated community of learning.

It is very simple actually. Sometimes-not always, but sometimes- it makes perfect sense. Would you like some examples? I feel confident you'll understand, I used to provide outsourcing services to government and it isn't that difficult. Corporately, we got zero pay and zero profit unless we could demonstrate that we saved them money. It is called performance contracting. No performance, no pay, it's the ultimate incentive. 1)Janitors: Private sector wage at the time was about $8.50/hour. Government wage about $19 plus killer benefits. Private sector had about a 40:1 ratio between nonlabouring supervision/productive labour. Government ratio was about 12:1, not counting a thoroughly bloated 'management' component. It was easy, we made millions and so did the government. And the government still has those savings. 2) Not my gig, but the provincial government used to employ laundry workers at around $22/hour. Comparable private sector work then , around $10 per hour. They outsourced. You do the math. 3. Liquor stores privatized. Same thing.

Good punchline, but usually they come at the end of long jokes like yours. Self employed are acutely aware of the various types of income, since unlike civil servants they are not guaranteed a penny. And what sector of society do you think Revenue Canada has under a microscope? Wage/salary earners have very simple returns, no money to be found there.. Large companies have much better accountants and lawyers than the government, no money to be found there. Self employed individuals and small companies are the goldmine for CRA.

The more boards there are, the higher the cost per student overall. Indisputable. Adminstartion costs, transportation, capital costs, and instruction costs- all much higher with many boards. Your agenda seems to be to reject any argument that involves changing the staus quo with Catholic schools.