fellowtraveller

What a ridiculously transparent troll.

One word answer: votes.

They'll work, they always do. The more the headlines scream "Tories will win", the less likely it is that they will.

I agree, and please read my posts on this specific topic. The Politician refuses to and insists on misrepresnting my position, garbling it up with rubbish about religion and sexual orientation. We must protect both indiivdual rights and other rights, such as freedom of religion. Our current and new SSM law allows religious groups to reject same sex marriage rights already, which discriminates against gay people - yet this is perfectly OK with supporters. There is no need at all for the governemtn to define marriage, and obvious and compelling reasons why they should simply get out of the 'marriage' business. There is a need for governemtn to register domestic arrangement, as you note.. They already do just that in other areas of civil law, such as registration of corporations.

???? Aren't 'fiscal imbalance' and equailzation two quite different things? As I understand it, the fiscal imbalance is Quebec buzzword for Ottawa taxing Quebec more than is strictly required, resulting in a surplus. Quebec wants Ottawa to reduce the amount taken by Ottawa at source, rather than collecting too much and returning it too the provinces. of course, Quebec would simply tax more at the provincial level. It sounds like a power shift to me, changingthe relationship of taxation authorities. Equalization is a transfer of money from have provinces tto the havenot provinces to mainatin the same social programs.

My post was intended for Bakunin, he seemed unsure of what was happening in othe rprovinces. The services I described are avalable to available to any resident in Alberta , not just 'the French'.

The dishonesty is implicit in your lengthy rants that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Please do not continaully introduce strawmen in my threads. I have no problem with your disagreement, but get pissed when you argue against things I have not stated, suggested or implied. Get it? I also note that you have refused twice now to answer this simple question: "Why you think that governments at any level should be involved in marriages or civil unions of any kind, for any sex?" And I don't care if none of the major parties have endorsed or not endorsed an idea. Is that a criteria for your thought process, that others must have or endorse an idea before it is valid? I can assure you it does not apply to me. So step away from your rigidity for a moment, abandon your ideology, and answer the question.

Harper may get a bit more emotional, since Martin scored a few points by jumping on Duceppe last time. But he'll get emotional about an issue, not a response to another leader. He knows that anything showing him as Angryman is a losing strategy.

Interested in other provinces Bakunin? This are the opportunities for French Language, Francophone education for Kindergarten to Grade 12 in Alberta Note that this is Francophone education(wholly French spoken,, no English at all). There are also many many French Immersion program schools in the Public and Catholic School Boards. All are paid for by all taxpayers in the province.

Look it up yourself, if you can be bothered. Then explain the relevance of the photo, the very large photo, to the story. Page 5 in most CanWest newspapers, across Canada. Today.

Really, this is an unfair request. His Mum learned long ago that having many crayons, many colours, was an effective way of keeping the lad occupied and out of mischief. It is time you knew that too.

Obviously Layton would much rather have a LIberal minority than a Tory minority, and it has nothing to do with ideology. Martin has proven over and over again that he will do pretty much anything to stay in power, I doubt Harper will be so malleable.

That is the second lenghty, dishonest and off topic reply you have provided. You are ascribing religious and conservative views to me that are simply not valid or accurate. I am not suggesting discrimination or segration of any kind. I'm proposing a completely egalitarian and fair posiition from government to everybody. Your argument does not adress my proposal, you are posting strawmen. Lets keep it simple. Why you think that governments at any level should be involved in marriages or civil unions of any kind, for any sex? Re: thread title - it is a typo, I hadn't even noticed it until you pointed it out!

Todays Can West Misdirection : the headline and story are about how bad minority governments are, fair enough. The very large photo imbedded in the text (which is essentially unrelated to the story, and is not linked in the caption to the story), shows the heads of Harper and Duceppe, with Harpers face distorted as he whispers into Duceppes ear., with an eager expression on Ducppes face. The implication is that they are the best of buddies, cooking something up. Unfortunately, I cannot link.

I'm not missing the bigger picture, it is you that misses the point entirely. It is a common failing of a certain generation, this endless reliance on govt to be involved in every aspect of our lives. The government insisting on defining marriage continues to cause dissent and harm to all. They have wisely refused to legislate abortiion, and that has worked out just fine. I'm not telling 'these people(???)' anything, anything at all. What are you banging on about 'rights', what I have suggested provides equal and complete rghts to absolutely everybody, regardless of gender or combinatioon of genders. How much more fair or inclusive can you be than that? What I am suggesting, again, is that the role of government is simply to register any contractual domestic arrangement that you choose with any adult of any sex. If you choose or choose not to have a religious or civil ceremony after that - feel free. There will be no govt involvement in it, your choice. You don't actually read other peoples posts, do you?

That's a load of..... It's not a choice between sleazebucket, dangerous places where our children will be sold into slavery vs. a centrally operated and funded Liberal Utopia. Many cities already have systems for inspecting day homes and ensuring they are safe, clean, nutritious, limit the number of kids,, etc etc Calgary is one, Edmonton is another, my sister worked as an inspector (private sector too, employed by the province as a contractor) to make sure they are following regulations. You guiys really have to get away from the notion that Canuckistan is somehow an improvement over Canada. Creating big and immovable bureaucracies is NOT a requirement, just a compulsion of your generation.

Estates are handled through wills. Domestic arrangements are handled through government defined marriages performed by civil and church ceremonies, domestics are also defined by prenuptial agreements, and common law m,arriages which may or may not legally define the rights of each partner and children involved. Now we have a whole new body of law related to same sex marriage, in its infancy and a surefire profit center for law firms. Its a hodge-podge, a mess that lawyers just love. I'm suggesting that the ONLY government involvement should be to maintain a registry of any legal contract brought to it. There is no NEED for the government to define marriage at all. If your church or ethnicity or personal preference requires that you have congress only with men, only with women or with a variety of same - it is not govt business, not my business and has no need of anybodys involvement. What is required is that the involvement of each party be defined, and especially how any offspring are treated in the contract. The word 'mariage' carries so much freight/baggage for so many that it has become an area where govt just needs to get out of the way. We have many instituions in society to take it from there.

It's going to take a real paradigm shift, a real kick up the arse, for the Eurekas to wake up and realize that we aren't in Kansas anymore. Quebec is pulling on their best boots, freshly shined, to deliver the wakeup call.

I agree with you tml, but only insofar as that the government should treat marriage exactly as they treat abortion - with no laws at all. The only role for government should be to register domestic arrangements of any combination of genders, really just for tax and estate purposes. If the people involved choose to have some sort of religious or civil ceremeony, they are free to do so and call it a marriage, a civil union or a ham sandwich if they so choose.

Not many will watch the debates, but as you point out the Toronto Headlines are shrieking, already in near panic mode. It doesn't matter that the stories don't match the headlines.

I think we will see a tsunami of CanWest, Grope and Flail, CBC headlines shrieking "CONSERVATIVES TAKE THE LEAD" "CONSERVATIVES SURE TO WIN!!!" and such. One of the ones today in Can West was " Anne McLellan shoots down Harpers crime platform" She did nothing of the sort of course. The backlash alone will give the Liberals a 4 point bump. As usual.

But..... The Cons will have to win a majority to have any effect on events in Quebec in the next couple of years. Same for the Libs really. No, no. I don't believe a government forcing contentious issues through parliament is necessary to turn the tables. I think that just showing Quebecers that somebody other than the Liberals can form the government in this country will have a dramatic effect. August is more qualified to comment on this than me, but I strongly suspect that a fair chunk of the BQ's support is made up of people who vote BQ out of disgust for the Liberals. A Conservative win would alert those voters that they have other options. I also suspect that many people in Quebec who vote Liberal actually dislike the Liberals but vote Liberal because they dislike the BQ even more. I think proving to Quebecers that there is another national alternative would make a far greater positive impact on national unity than any policy that either the Liberals or Conservatives could enact. -k If only there were time to test your theory kimmy. But there isn't. The timeline isn't really driven by Ottawa, it is defined by the timing of the next provincial election in Quebec - in 2007. What is needed - now- and only of course if you support the notion that Canada should make an effort to retain Quebec-is a strong foreceful federal government - a majority government. It is less important that it be Liberal or Conservative, just that it exist. Do you really think Quebec will rally behind Martin, Pierre Pettigrew, McKenna, the ghost of Trudeau or Harper when none of those people can get get it done in the House of Commons? This is a bit premature, but Jean Charest may well end up being the spearcarrier for Canada in 2007. And I don't think the support for the Bloc is lessening in Quebec, or that the new support for the Tories comes from the Bloc, but more likely from Liberals who are defecting from the sinking ship.

You forgot another reason. We might get some aerospace supply contracts , and we could then reduce the meg-subsidies paid to private companies like Bombardier.

RiverGod, how much does the membership in the Young Liberals cost?

We've hardly heard a peep about this since the campaign began, when Harper flatly stated that he would hold a free vote in Parliament on the subject. I have a theory on Harpers strategy for this election and beyond....hs hidden agenda... forget the notwithstanding clause, it won't be needed or used, he is telling the truth but not the whole truth..... At least half of Canadians in general are opposed to SSM. More than half of the supporters of Harper are opposed, but much of this opposition is soft. There is however a significant and vocal minority in the Tories grassroots who will not let it die. They are loud and influential enough that they cannot be ignored forever by the Tory leadership. Harper wants and needs the issue to die. In political terms, it is a big big loser for the CPC and him personally. Same for abortion. Harper cannot be more clear or explict when he states repeatedly that he will not do anything with or about abortion. Many MPs are also opposed to SSM, but any way you count them - SSM is here to stay. A vote to repeal SSM would fail in Parliament. Harper has counted and knows this. He risks little politically by just throwing this dead fish on the order paper, has a free vote, and walks away..... He gains much internally, in that he can go back to the hardcore anti-SSM and say - 'You've had your day and then some. be quiet, it is over".