Pateris

I have noticed a number of people on this board comment about the differences in minimum wage from province to province. This ranges from a low of $5.90/hr in Alberta to a high of $8.00 in BC (although Nunavut is higher still). A lot of the comments on this board seem to be related to the fact Alberta's is "so much lower than other provinces", mostly from people in BC.. Note that NB is only $6.30 and Saskatchewan is $6.65. But my big question is, does anyone think we need to change these numbers? What about adjusting them for economic conditions? In Alberta, I think the minimum wage is mostly irrelevant. A lot of the "McJobs" pay significantly higher than the legal minimum now anyway due to a worker shortage. I drove past a McDonalds in Calgary the other day and saw a sign saying starting wage was $8.50. A Superstore had a sign up saying that they had jobs available ranging from $9.00 to $16.50...

Interesting how when the skeptics about anthropogenic global warming brings stuff up it's decried that it's all funded by the oil companies and that the deniers haven't got the guts to publish in peer-reviewed journals. Even more interesting how the "environmentalists" ignore the data and the peer-reviewed papers that don't support their view. How about Nature last year regretfully informing us that the method used by the key global warming authors (the hockey stick) that was propounded as evidence of global warming was "fraudulent". Remember that the IPCC report leaned heavily on this data... without that data, the whole thing looks pretty iffy.

Eureka, Just because SOME scientists believe the current situation is calamitous doesn't make it so. There are THOUSANDS of scientists who doubt the "consensus", but you write them of as non-credible because they don't agree with your point of view. The coral reefs haven't died off in human history... but they HAVE died off BEFORE that. And many of the coral reefs in the world today are POST ice age anyway... I conclude this climate change is minor because it has been FAR DIFFERENT in the pre-human past. Difference air composition, different air pressure, higher temperatures, colder temperatures, etc. Did you expect that just because humans are walking around the world would never change? Back in the 1970s were you on the "ice age is coming bandwagon" that every scientist believed was coming?

Argus, The latest data I have (2003 - CIA factbook) shows Canada spent US$9.8 billion and Australia spent US$14.1 Billion. Australia: There are 51 791 permanent full-time military personnel in the ADF. There are 21 588 reserve military personnel in the ADF. The Royal Australian Air Force has 276 aircraft in service. The Royal Australian Navy has a fleet of 56 ships. Canada There are 60 000 permanent full-time military personnel in the CF. There are 25 000 reserve military personnel in the CF. The Canadian Forces have 347 aircraft in service including 141 helicopters The Canadian Forces has a fleet of 34 ships Also note that Australia has more modern ships and aircraft, and is working with the US on development of the JSF and other future military technologies.

Eureka, The American's don't get a bad rap... LOL The poorest 10% of America are still better off than 99% of Africans. And the "poverty rates" depend on the definition of poverty. If you use a LICO-style poverty definition, then the average "poverty-stricken" american is better off than the bottom half of the OECD... And you've never answered my question - HAVE YOU EVER LIVED IN THE USA? Or is everything you know from the Canadian media?

Eureka, Our ancestors (the mammals) survived an asteroid impact. They may not have been intelligent, but they survived. Higher life forms (more than bacteria) have survived volcanism that resurfaced parts of the earth. The coral reefs have been killed before. In geologic history there has been far greater change to the atmosphere than what is happening now. I find it a little bit arrogant of humanity to think we can kill off life on this planet with a minor change to the climate...

Eureka, You are correct. The geologic record does not show a similar CO2 increase as we are seeing now. It does show much FASTER CO2 increases to much HIGHER levels though. And life survived. Sometimes it had to adapt, but life survived. And we have seen faster changes in climate in geologic history, in fact in the time modern humans have walked the earth. The end of the last ice age for instance. Or the medieval warm period. Or the little ice age. Climate changes. Life Survives. And finally, how much are YOU willing to pay for these scientific solutions. Even if we do nothing this time, life will survive. It may have to adapt, but life will survive.

caesar, Physical size is irrelevant in this discussion. Australia has less than 70% of Canada's population... and has a far bigger military than we do... You are clearly an idiot.

Eureka, The higher CO2 content in the oceans will eventually fall if the CO2 content of the atmosphere does not keep rising. This is because a high CO2 content in the oceans will slowly be converted to carbonate materials by shelled lifeforms. After cataclysmic events in the past, this is EXACTLY how the CO2 levels in the atmosphere were reduced. That and acid rain falling on exposed rocks... I never denied that the current warming trend MIGHT be anthropogenic. But PROVEN? that is a stretch. So, you don't like my solutions... What are yours?

Stoker, Geography should give them a day on us... I would say that the lack of political will in this country to properly fund our military is the primary reason they will have beat us there by a week and be their in far greater numbers....

Eureka, In the history of our planet, the atmosphere has changed composition before, often more abruptly than the current change. Major volcanic events (ie. Deccan Traps) or asteroid impacts (ie. Chixilub) have had far more drastic and rapid impacts on the atmosphere. Another bit of information for you about the claims of oil companies to have reduces emissions... Shell, BP, Suncor, etc have reduced THEIR emissions by SELLING assets that produce emissions. They can claim their emissions have gone down, but in most cases the facilities are still there and are run by other companies. As for humanity doing enough to reverse the impact on the atmosphere, here are things we would have to do to actually REDUCE the CO2 content in the atmosphere: Abandon fossil fuels almost entirely Replace all fossil fuel power generation with nuclear power Add additional nuclear power to supply electricity to power transportation vehicles since fossil fuels will not be available. One option would be to produce hydrogen from sea water using nuclear power, but this is less efficient than electric powered vehicles. Abandon the use of plastics (since they are made from fossil fuels). Develop technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and fix it in a solid form (like limestone). If we simply wait for nature to do it, the oceans will do it - with the resulting low pH for a long period. Think that is going to be cheap or even doable?

eureka, Hey - I said the warming is happening... And yes, the CO2 in the oceans is reducing the pH and killing coral reefs... Guess what - it has HAPPENED BEFORE. And will happen again. And if you have a solution to make it go away without killing BILLIONS of people - please enlighten us

How is it that AUSTRALIA's rapid response TEAMS are already in the most remote parts of Indonesia making 20,000 litres per hour of fresh water and Canada's is still sitting on the tarmac in Trenton? Seems to me that one small country is CLEARLY outperforming us...

maplesyrup, One reason why most business economics don't really consider environmental impact beyond meeting the current regulations is that NO ONE has figured out what the numbers mean... I mean, it's so arbitrary you can make a project live or die based on what you set as a price for some emission... That's why accounting for the environment is absurd...

caesar, If Harper were Prime Minister we wouldn't have to RENT old Russian aircraft to get out DART team to the disaster zone... We could have sent it promptly in our own C-17s...

Maplesyrup, If we all listened to that crackpot Suzuki, we would have gone up the arctic back in the 70s and spread SOOT all over the icepack to increase how much heat the earth absorbed? Know why? BECAUSE Suzuki was one the "global cooling" bandwagon that said the next ice age was imminent. He actually proposed the soot-spreading idea and spent over a year pushing it... Suzuki was a good geneticist by all accounts. However, his knowledge outside that realm is often little better than a hobbyist who read Scientific American. And in some case much worse.... You should pick up a copy of the January Popular Science for the article on why Hydrogen is NOT the fuel of the future...

eureka, The federal civil service has GROWN by 40% since 1998 and is not 10% larger than it was in 1993.... So much for your numbers...

maplesyrup, Have you read the latest research showing a good correlation between asthma and hepatitus A exposure? Or rather, a negative correlation. Before 1970, almost everyone in the world was exposed to Hep A as a child. In the developing world, everyone still is... But in the developed world, where asthma is most prevalent, Hep A exposure has been nearly eliminated. And in a test of thousands of people in north america, those with asthma tested NEGATIVE for the Hep A antibodies one develops due to childhood exposure. And by and large those people with the Hep A antibodies do NOT have asthma... Chalk another piece of evidence up for the hygiene hypothesis - we are TOO CLEAN and our immune systems get bored and attack us.

The fact of the matter is that the current debate on climate change is based on two key pieces of information: 1. There is evidence that the climate is changing. Spring arrives earlier in the arctic than it did 20, 40 or 100 years ago. The ice packs are melting (in some places), although they are not in others (for instance, the ice in the western arctic of Canada is melting, but less is changing in the eastern arctic). It is very hard for anyone to deny the climate IS changing, albeit slightly. 2. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising This is well established. It is also well established at this point that the level of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is rising as well. This makes sense because the higher partial pressure in the atmosphere will increase the equilibrium concentration in the water. Considering our use of fossil fuels, it is not unlikely that human activity has had something to do with this change. What has NOT however been proven is that there is a CAUSAL link from #2 to #1. Yes, the climate models say that #2 would cause #1, but the climate models are not 100% accurate. For instance, none of the climate models are actually able to predict the 20th century... for which we know the result. However, I think the more fundamental questions are not whether or not humanity is the primary cause of climate change: Q1: Would any action at all by humanity result in a difference in result? Q2. Is humanity actually willing to do what would be necessary to SIGNIFICANTLY change our societies? The answer to Q1 is essentially unknowable. But the answer to Q2 is likely No, simply because a signficant change is too large given the "small risk" and because the viable solutions are not seen as good alternatives.

thelonius, If Canada had had the military wherewithall to stop what happened in Rwanda, we could have simply said to the UN: We are going to stop this while the rest of you dither... and if you don't agree - go ahead and stop us. Do you think ANY country on the security council would have actually taken any action to stop us? Not a chance.

eureka, While some programs the government has implemented have been good, others have been wholy a waste. Bilingualism has resutled in FEWER people speaking french than previously. And the failure of any federal government to challenge Quebec on it's language laws means the system isn't applied equally to all parts of the country. I note you ignored the whole Indian Affairs mess... This is CLEARLY a waste of money because natives are NOT better off... The other thing I think many on the left fail to understand is a statement made by Humphrey on "Yes, Minister": The purpose of the civil service is not to serve, but to grow The lack of controls is there because the civil service WANTS there to be a lack of controls. Further, the government (the MPs) are supportive of this because it creates "plausible deniability" when something goes wrong. No one ever takes the fall, but the government can still say "we were trying to do good, don't blame us" Better than trying to improve controls is to simply reduce the size of the government. Particularly the federal government.

Eureka, I never called for private insurance. I called for private provision of health care itself. Private clinics, surgeries, diagnostics - make them compete for the business of the government. Create some incentive for the PEOPLE to help save money. As for your statement about sacrificing the civil society... I would argue that since Trudeau took power in 1968 we have WASTED billions of dollars on the civil society ideals and have gotten nothing for it. Indian and Northern Affairs is a money pit and disaster. HRDC spends money on things with no evidence or justification. The Gun Registry is a multi-billion dollar propaganda device with no real impact Bilingualism and Multiculturalism are failing and multiculturalism is creating rifts in our society based on religion and country of origin. The bureaucracy is really running the show and has created a system where there can be no accountability. This is the most fundamental problem in the Canadian system. Lack of transparency.

Thelonius, If you like Dallaire's book, you should read "A Problem From Hell" about genocide in the 20th century and the developed world's avoidance of the issue until afterwards. There is a focus on america but NO western country is immune to the criticism. I mean, if Canada had had 30,000 troops and the ability to get them there, Canada alone could have stopped what happened in Rwanda.

Ticker, Load of crap.. When oil prices were $10 a few years ago Alberta had a balanced budget and was about to lower taxes (and still had the best health care in the country). Saskatchewan balanced it's budget by raising taxes. The real crime is equalization. When oil prices went up, the additional revenue the Saskatchewan government got from oil was LESS than the amount the feds reduced their equalization payment by... So higher oil prices COST saskatchewan money... Seems pretty unfair to me.

eureka, I'm not claiming the US system is the best in the world... I know that isn't true. Yes, people get health care from their employers. But those plans are pretty good. And there are now laws extending those plans into unemployment for some time. And those plans are in some cases CHEAPER than the additional taxes businesses and individuals pay in Canada for the government system we have. But I am also not so blinded by ideology to recognize that the Canadian system is a mess and MORE MONEY won't solve the problem. In Saskatchewan in the 1990s the government increased the health budget and waiting times went UP. Why? Because the unions fought to get more of the money and the resulting contracts actually REDUCED the number of staff... I agree that having the government insure people's health is the right way to go. But having only government operated health care is stupid. Plus, why are Canadians of some means (and you don't have to be rich to do this) not allowed to pay for some medical procedures themselves? We already force Canadians to pay for some things themselves (like psychotherapy) that are not covered by the various provincial health plans.