fellowtraveller

Can't help you with that, sorry. I don't think the federal govt should be involved in day care as some sort of social beneift/program. In fact , the feds shouldn't be involved at all and ity has zero to do with partisan politics. Simply put, having children is a matter of personal choice. I chose to have mine, and I accept all that comes with that choice- and that includes some financial sacrifice. I don't see any reason why my government or fellow citizens should subsidize my personal choices. I am willing to help pay for child care for those who are in tough situations not of their choosing: single parents, welfare people and so on. Otherwise - no.

Not sure if these are relevant, Mahatma Gandhi did not have the wardrobe or haircut to make it in todays political world.

Actually, it is significantly different. Stronach swapped sides just in time to prevent the fall of a government, it was much more important than what Emerson has done. Not better or worse, but more significant. If I were Emersons constituent , I'd be very pissed. This is a tactical mistake by Harper, his first important one.

12.5% would be at or below prevailing interest rates of that time. Only a relatively high risk loan would gain that now. Second or third mortgages might get you that.

Well, As It Happens is listened to on 84 American stations, although I doubt Americans will come up for the riots. The Current is listened to by almost 1.4 million Canadians each week. To use Edmonton as an example....a decidedly Western locale where someone with your mindset might think nobody listens to the CBC...they get a respectable 5 point share. The top stations average only about 11/12. Your comment is based on nothing but your bias against all things CBC. You should listen to CBC radio sometime. Open your mind. What our boy Gerry conveniently leaves out is that In the Edmonton market he cites, CBC One finishes ELEVENTH OUT OF FIFTEEN STATIONS CBC Radio 2 finishes fourteenth our of fifteen.

Make sure the Globe and Mail gets $800 milion per year from the government? That is a classicly Canadian solution. It does not matter if the bias is right wing or left wing. The acknowledgement of the existence of bias itself is sufficient to warrant cancellation of any direct government involvement in the media. I would agree that the government should spend advertising money evenly amongst publications or privately owned radio/TV, based on their circulation. But there is no longer any justification for them to continue to provide a few Canadians with entertainment at the expense of all.

It should be easy to determine if the termination was voluntary or not. if he submitted a letter of resignation, it was voluntary. If he didn't, he was fired and entitled to compensation under the terms of his contract. Pretty straightforward. That is NOT straightforward. The PMO and Martin would know the results of the arbitrators ruling 30 seconds after he made it. This is highly political stuff and the Liberals knew the effect it would have on the election - not that Dingwall got money, but that they had lied about the affair in Parliament repeatedly. Would this news have changed the election results? Should Harper ask the Ethics Comissioner to investigate former PM Harper and other MPs for lying to the House?

As I recall, Spencer was turfed out of the Alliance caucus over this issue in 2003, and not allowed to join the new Conservative Party in 2004. I checked my watch, it is now 2006. I'm sure your OP had a point though, would you mind summarizing it?

I think you have it backwards. A PM must be bilingual, a civil servant doesn't have to be. Of course, they will spend their careers as unilingual clerks.....

Giving Quebec more sovereignty is a wise political move for now, but not a wise political move for the future...it is also not a wise move for Quebec. If we look at Quebec today, regardless of whether we believe this province should have special status or distinct society status or not, it DOESN'T. If you give Quebec more autonomy, you will undoubetly here about it from other provinces, like Newfoundland or Alberta. You will also give the soft nationalist voice more authority, and they will undoubetly want more. Time to realize Canada cannot just be ripped into 10 different pieces. We can either function as a federation or as ten governments...the choice needs to be made now. Decentralizing the country into 10 newly empowered fiefdoms replete with new tax points and reduced federal intrusions will do little to satisfy Quebec's demand for recognition of it's distinctiveness. Success for sovereignty is linked to a definition of Canada as a duality of two solitudes - not 10 - with all the implications of such a partnership - shared ownership and shared power over the dominion. It gets worse for Harper. The fiscal imbalance in Quebec includes a dimension that Quebec is contributing much more to confederation than it is receiving. Forget the fact that this is nonsense and realize that at some point the Conservatives will have to risk the attendant political fallout and explain to Quebecers that from a fiscal perspective they are the country's largest beneficiary. Agree and disagree. Quebec is not a monolith. Harper knows full well there is nothing he can do to convince the hard separatist faction that Canada is worthwhile, and I doubt he'll waste much breath trying. He will try to keep the soft nationalists and soft federalists onside - they are the swing vote, not the separatists. And I think that Harper is the only guy on the national scene who will simply tell it like it is to the province of Quebec. There will be greater autonomy for all the provinces. There won't be a partnership. Take it or leave it. Enough wil take it. We saw proof of that January 23.

1. Candidates do not normally personally finance the cost of a campaign, unless they are truly fringe candidates. They raise funds and spend those. If they relaize they can't raise any money eg have no support, they don't run. None of this really applies to true contenders. You're not a contender unless you have support going in. 2. The huge LPC debt(and the actual size seems to be a grey area) is not your concern as a candidate, and would not be a prime concern as Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition. 3. Time out of power may be very short. As leader of the Liberals, you know that it is entirely possible that you could be come PM without doing much of anything. The main reason a 'high profile' person would not run is if they realize that the money/support just isn't there within the Party for them. Chronic Liberal supporters and kingmakers are not going to commit now, they 'll wairt and see which way the wind blows. And we don't know who will declare when the campaign starts in 6 months or so, so we cannot assess whether the higher profile people will run or not at this time. Wait and see.

They all know that it is much too early for any serious candidates to declare their intentions publicly. About 6 months too early.

Seriously. There's no need to be putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about censorship and I don't argue that the CBC doesn't have it's biases. What I'm saying is it's important to have information from more than one source. There's value in a media source that doesn't rely on corporate interests and I know this may be a suprise to you kids, but there is such a thing as coporate sensorship as well. Enjoy privided link. Monsanto & Fox: Partners In Censorship I do not mention censhorship either. Why are you introducing this strawman? I don't care if CBC has bias, in fact it is impossible for any broadcaster not to have bias. Knowing and acknowledging that is even more reason to have it utterly disconnected from government, and that very much and most definitely includes financially. You speak of 'balancing the media' , yet ignore the question: why does that require a govt funded, public broadcaster? As the public pendulum swings from right to left to right, do you expect and require the CBC to do the opposite, to maintain 'balance'. What manner of ideological idiocy is this? There may well be value in having media that is not corpoarate, but why does it have to be publcily funded? Again and yet again, here is an excellent example of what is possible: excellent public radio funded by subscription. All it takes is a little work, and a little imagination. On this type of station/network, you may read Marx or Ayn Rand aloud to your hearts content. And you can pay for it too. I already do, every year.

Giving Quebec more sovereignty is a wise political move for now, but not a wise political move for the future...it is also not a wise move for Quebec. If we look at Quebec today, regardless of whether we believe this province should have special status or distinct society status or not, it DOESN'T. If you give Quebec more autonomy, you will undoubetly here about it from other provinces, like Newfoundland or Alberta. You will also give the soft nationalist voice more authority, and they will undoubetly want more. Time to realize Canada cannot just be ripped into 10 different pieces. We can either function as a federation or as ten governments...the choice needs to be made now. "it DOESN"T" what? I don't understand this sentence. Harper isn't suggesting that Quebec get special status, or at least none that matters. For what he is suggesting , see my and shoops posts above. Nobody is ripping Canada into further chunks, but action must be taken to prevent the complete regionalization of the country, which is well and truly advanced. I disagree that it will give the soft nationalist voice any authority, in fact it will help serve to cut them off at the knees.

Good then, we're agreed. The piont Im trying to make to you(which has already been made to you by sparhawk, in my opinion) is that the CBC cannot exist as a competently run source of information distinct from the bias' of a market-based info source, without our tax-dollars. So I am trying to defend against your idea of tampering with the balance of media and further consolidating information through the filter of corporate influence. Well Canadian artist have contributed a hell-of-alot more than the $2.50per month it costs each of us for the CBC. You must be pinching your pennies pretty hard. "Canada's artists and arts organizations are an economic force at the creative heart of the $39 billion cultural sector -- bigger than the agriculture, forestry, mining and oil and gas sectors combined." Im done with your selfish attitude of how to spend tax dollars. My idea that 'tampering with the balance of media'? Have we regressed to Stalinist times, where the government is somehow responsible for maintaining 'balance in the media'. Crap, complete crap. The government is repsonsible for ensuring freedom of speech, not providing a 'balance'. You and I will establish the balance, not government. Or would you prefer that the commissars vet every broadcast? Edit every newspaper editorial. See any limits to this, or will you be satisfied in just the CBC? Don't answer that, you already have. I think we have very different ideas of the role of government in a society. As for money, you may pay what you wish for your entertainment, but your lack of respect for your fellow citizens somehow forces you to insist that I also must pay what you wish. And I'm the 'selfish' one?

How is my spelling?

Good, then you won't mind paying for them directly, by subscription and relieve all those who do not share your joy of that burden. Or, you could pay for my entetainment out of your pocket as I pay for yours. Either way works for me. Has somebody here tried to somehow link the CBC (taxpayer) investment in Sirius with Canadian content requirements? Crazy talk! XM radio, their competitor, has the same CanCon requirements, and apparently has no need at all of my money- other than by subscription. CBC has zero business investing in business other than their own. Fellowtraveler: If you dont like the canadian made programing on the CBC thats fine, but dont try and take it away from the people that do. Wheres your contribution to canadian culture? Write us a script and send it in to the CBC so they can give you a voice. Unless of course, your not an artist and have nothing inteligent to say. Wheteher I like it or not, or you like it or not , is not the issue. What is the issue is that all taxpayers are obliged to pay for it. I have no intention of taking anything from you, simply giving you the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. You like it, you pay for it. It is a very simple and easy way to retain all that stuff you love. That is what I'm obliged to do for my entertainment, yet you insist that I pay for yours. What an insufferable arrogance. My contribution to Canadian Culture is paid every month through income tax contributions. So by your reckoning, I'm obliged to write a script or sing a song to have a voice in how tax money is wasted so that a few Canadians like yourself may be entertained? Only artists are allowed to have a voice? What pathetic and self serving arrogance.

Agreed. He was a dead man walking until January 23 though. Duceppe and Boisclair must be experiencing major migraines ever since. Things have gobe from perfect to 'I have a sinking feeling' for them in just two months. Anybody know if Goodale speaks French?

Strawman. Please demonstrate first, and amaze me while you do it, that "many people" say this. It should not be hard, since there are, by your count, many people saying this. Poll perhaps? Survey result? Anything? How can I argue against of for your statement unless we have a factual base or a legitimate premise? It's like arguing whether Superman or Batman is tougher. You are directing the question towards whether or not what is good for the corporation is necessarily good for the country, based on the premise that it is an idea that many people support. I'd be glad to do that, but only if it is first demonstrated than many people do support that idea.

Not really. What is an abiding concern of the ROC is that no province should be given special status. That does not in any way prevent Quebec from gaining more autonomy gfrom Ottawa, but implies that all provinces would benefit from the same increased autonomy. A change in the relationship between Ottawa and Quebec City does not necessarily mean a change in the relationship between Quebec City and Queens Park. I doubt that Harper has any intention of giving Quebec alone any large degree of special power within the federation. It would be political suicide.

Good, then you won't mind paying for them directly, by subscription and relieve all those who do not share your joy of that burden. Or, you could pay for my entetainment out of your pocket as I pay for yours. Either way works for me. Has somebody here tried to somehow link the CBC (taxpayer) investment in Sirius with Canadian content requirements? Crazy talk! XM radio, their competitor, has the same CanCon requirements, and apparently has no need at all of my money- other than by subscription. CBC has zero business investing in business other than their own.

Isn't CBC a shareholder in Sirius Canada? Why is our tax money being invested in a commercial broadcaster?

Another Trudeau to screw Alberta is your point fo view. To some, people say ALberta's greed does itself in. Interesting perspective about Albertas greed. Do you fell that Alberta gets more than its share of federal resources, is too greedy in that regard? Or do you feel that the amount that Alberta contributes to federalism is inadequate? I'm genuinely curious.

Well, thanks for the pedantry of "try using google" and essentially supporting my point with the low oil price. It still stands: it's a different world now, Alberta is a different place, and the Tories are a different bunch from the old Reform. There will always be fringe parties with more radical views, but they are certainly no threat in the foreseeable future. Were you talking about real threats, or bogey men? Harper will get a free ride for quite a while, he should spend much of his time and energy elsewhere, improving his position where it needs improving. He can spend a tiny bit of time on maintenance in Alberta, and get away with it. Just like the campaign, where he spent very little time in the province or his riding - and improved his seat count. In the long term, it is just common sense.

Sure. It's because they just swept the province, again with a huge popular vote. Harper walks on water there. A bunch of his Cabinet will come from there. The province is filled with money and hope. None of those things were extant in 1993. For starters. It's impossible to prove, but I am an excellent speller and an inferior typist. I don't use a spellchecker. Be grateful you're not trying to read my handwriting. I'll leave that to you. Diarize this thread. if I'm wrong, I don't mind admitting it. A different world then too, $12 oil and a decade plus of Chretien in the wind.....Harper is on an extended holiday in Alberta. The only way he could ruin is would be to get caught in an intimate moment with Jarome Iginla.