Are we witnessing a turning point in our history?

[geoffrey]

Has eureka ever made a post not comparing us to the US? Just a thought...

--

Capital punishment won't be an issue this mandate. I also don't agree with its effectiveness in reducing crime. Deportation and longer jail time would do the trick.

Lets get out of the rapists only deserve house arrest hole we've dug before we start thinking about capital punishment.

[Guest eureka]

You can't possibly expect me to believe that anyone at any lever of government would go soft on e-coli???

Harris did. It cost 7 lives and hundreds with permanent health problems.

That is what deregulation and the reduction in inspection brings. Harper is proposing the same for federal responsibilities.

Don't you look at the fine print in your leaders blurbs.

[Melanie_]

It is one thing to provide financing through equalization payments or other shared cost programmes, but it is quite another to get involved in the management of programmes or establishing standards.

Different parts of the country work differently. One size does not fit all.

This is how the Liberals planned to roll out their child care plan. Each province received their allottment, and then distributed it through thier own child care programs already in place. The federal government had no role in managing it, other than to say the money had to go towards the QUAD principles (Quality, Universality, Accessibility, Developmental). Harper has already said several times he will only honour the agreements until the end of June this year, then go into his own childcare plan, which will not build on the provincial systems at all. Those provinces, like Manitoba, who have invested the first year's money with the expectation that there were 4 more years of money coming will see the systems take huge steps backwards.

[Harare]

August!

I would say that no country is more than its social programmes. Without them; national programmes, a country is no more than a forcibly held piece of territory inhabited by barbarians. I would be interested in what you think makes Canada more than that, though. What are the "truly valuable things about Canada?"

We are agreed that Harper has said he will respect the Constitution and respect the division of powers. He has also said that he will turn back the clock and get out of the responsibilities that the federal government has negotiated with the Provinces.

Healthcare for one. Childcare for another. Employment Insurance. Equalization is on the chopping block. The list goes on and includes just about everything that makes Canada work.

What Harper has said he will deregulate are those things that are within the federal jurisdiction: it has nothing to do with devolution of powers. Things like Food inspection, pollution controls - learned from Bush and Thatcher who produced disastrous results, and a number of others. Things that affect the health and safety of Canadians. Just as Harris did in Ontario and caused a significant number of deaths. And, because of the accompanying agenda of tax reductions, Ontario is still in a precarious situation in that regard.

Harper wants to do the same. I call that a callous disregard for the safety of Canadians and, with the experience of Harris to light the way, I would call any deaths as much murder as is Capital Punishment.

Really Eueka, after calling all Cons idiots and incapable of sensible posts, you then try to tell us that what defines the French as different from the Swedes or Aussies or Mexicans is their social programmes...good grief man, that is pathetic. What makes the people of a country, who they are and what unites them, is their way of life - their culture, humour, language, food, style, standards and history. It's got nothing to do with whether their water supply is managed by Local, Provincial or Federal supervision. You seem to lay all the blame for Waterton on Harris (who was left with vast debt by Bob Rae) and leave the local drunk in charge quite blameless while conveniently overlooking all the Federally supervised Indian Reservation's crappy water supplies all over the country as shining examples of your preferred model.

Personally, I think that the more local issues that are determined at the local level, the more likely they are to reflect the wishes of the people involved. I'd suggest that you take a look at the wonderful Federal dept of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and what it has accomplished in the last 40 years with some 6 billion per year to improve the lot of some 600,000 Aboriginals under your model of what makes us Canadians.....yea priceless.

Yup Harpers a moron what we need more of your unifying federally supervised social programs.

I know that I would feel far more "united" with my fellow Canadians if I knew they were hard working "play by the rules" types than if most of them were leeches, feeding off the system through welfare, EI, grants, subsidies and entitlements paid for by me.

[August1991]

It is one thing to provide financing through equalization payments or other shared cost programmes, but it is quite another to get involved in the management of programmes or establishing standards.

Different parts of the country work differently. One size does not fit all.

This is how the Liberals planned to roll out their child care plan. Each province received their allottment, and then distributed it through thier own child care programs already in place. The federal government had no role in managing it, other than to say the money had to go towards the QUAD principles (Quality, Universality, Accessibility, Developmental). Harper has already said several times he will only honour the agreements until the end of June this year, then go into his own childcare plan, which will not build on the provincial systems at all. Those provinces, like Manitoba, who have invested the first year's money with the expectation that there were 4 more years of money coming will see the systems take huge steps backwards.

That's a good point Melanie.

I tend to agree with the general Liberal approach of letting each province decide how to deal with day care. Education after all is a provincial area.

At the same time, I like the Tory idea of giving money directly to families, and then letting them decide how to organize their lives. Ideally IMV, provinces would have some kind of mix of payments to families and subsidies to day care places.

I have to say that I didn't like the way Martin went about negotiating separate deals with each provincial government. I simply don't trust this Liberal crew to negotiate anything of lasting significance. The schemes seemed half-baked and done at the last minute.

Harper has said that he would review these agreements, and not be tied to them. That seems reasonable to me.

[Guest eureka]

Harare!

If you have read and understood anything I have posted, you would know that I said Canada, fix that in your mind is united by its social peogrammes.

All those other countries - every other country has the authority to operate in all other areas. Canda's government does not have authority.

Your take on Harris naive at best, ignorant at worst.

Harris was not left a massive debt by Rae. The last 18 months of the Rae government were devoted to reducing deficit. The Rae deficits were properly incurred to counter the worst recession since the 1930's. They were what they should have been. Harris inherited an economy enjoying a strong recovery. Instead of reducing the deficit, he reduced taxes and social expenditures: he reduced healthcare access: he reduced spending on the health and safety of Ontarians.

He gave that money that should have gone to deficit reduction to corporations and the wealthy.

Not that it has much bearing on this discussion except to note that Harper's proposals are of the same kind. Precisely the opposite yo what is required in a civilized nation.

Take your detailing of what holds France, Norway ets. together and see how it applies to Canada. Take Harper's " vision" and decide for yourself if there is anything of nationalism in it.

Have you ever read Thomas Mann's "Death in Venice." Possibly the most powerful passage in modern literature is his descroption of Ashenbach's dream (vision). It is a vision from Hell: brought on by the Devil.

Harper's vision puts me in mind of that passage. A wilfully destructive nightmare.

[Guest eureka]

I have to say that I didn't like the way Martin went about negotiating separate deals with each provincial government. I simply don't trust this Liberal crew to negotiate anything of lasting significance. The schemes seemed half-baked and done at the last minute.

Then let the federal government have the authority to institute policies for the national welfare. Cut out the need for negotiations with 10 bodies none of whom have the national interest at heart.

[Hicksey]

I have to say that I didn't like the way Martin went about negotiating separate deals with each provincial government. I simply don't trust this Liberal crew to negotiate anything of lasting significance. The schemes seemed half-baked and done at the last minute.

Then let the federal government have the authority to institute policies for the national welfare. Cut out the need for negotiations with 10 bodies none of whom have the national interest at heart.

That arrogant top down approach is half of why we're where we are today with respect to Quebec separtists. The Liberal Party and their arrogance to think they could buy Quebecers with their own tax dollars is another quarter. And then to steal that money and use it to get Liberals elected in Quebec, we'll they might as well have went door to door and slapped every Quebecer in the face once they opened it.

[wellandboy]

Harare!

Have you ever read Thomas Mann's "Death in Venice." Possibly the most powerful passage in modern literature is his descroption of Ashenbach's dream (vision). It is a vision from Hell: brought on by the Devil.

Harper's vision puts me in mind of that passage. A wilfully destructive nightmare.

In Canadian politics, All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren comes to mind when I think of the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Guest eureka]

Hicksey, if you knew anything at all about Canada you would realise how silly tour commentary is. The Provinces of Canada now spend as much as the federal government on Provincial affairs, That is more than in any other federation on earth.

Three times as much as the States in the US spend. Canada is the only country, federal or unitary that does not have the auhtority to use what you foolishkly call a "top-down" approach.

Harper has said that we should be more like the Swiss model.

I have news for Harper. The Swiss government has more jurisdictional power than the Canadian. The Swiss government spends more as a proportion of national income on regional affairs than does the Canadian.

Nobody on God's earth has such a weak central government as we have.

But, I think Harper does know this. He is just hell-bent on destroying the country.

[tml12]

Hicksey, if you knew anything at all about Canada you would realise how silly tour commentary is. The Provinces of Canada now spend as much as the federal government on Provincial affairs, That is more than in any other federation on earth.

Three times as much as the States in the US spend. Canada is the only country, federal or unitary that does not have the auhtority to use what you foolishkly call a "top-down" approach.

Harper has said that we should be more like the Swiss model.

I have news for Harper. The Swiss government has more jurisdictional power than the Canadian. The Swiss government spends more as a proportion of national income on regional affairs than does the Canadian.

Nobody on God's earth has such a weak central government as we have.

But, I think Harper does know this. He is just hell-bent on destroying the country.

Eureka,

Your posts become more sardonic as each day goes by.

Yes, Harper is hell-bent on destroying this country and we have the greatest Supreme Court appointment process in the world.

When did the line between fact and fiction become so blurred for you? Are you that left-wing?

I mean, I am open to honest debate and, at least according to some test posted here, I agree with 6 NDP and Liberal and Bloc platforms compared to 6 for the Conservatives alone (which means I am pretty moderate) but I can't even find quotes from your post that makes me think we can talk about the possible good things that will happen in a Harper government.

Are you absolutely convinces this man is that awful? Can you not find any common ground with the CPC on ANY issue?

[Harare]

Eureka ! I'm sorry but I just do not understand what you're trying to say......

"Harare!

If you have read and understood anything I have posted, you would know that I said Canada, fix that in your mind is united by its social peogrammes."

I just can't get my head around how by having the same Healthcare or childcare or EI systems we become a united country. So are you saying that before any of these social programmes were brought in that we were not a Country and were not proud of being Canadians ? Sorry, you lost me on that one.

As for various jurisdictions being Federal vs Provincial or local, I fail to see how that is a factor in determining the unity of a country either. It is the same people - individual voters - who decide how they want things done in their community. It is my view that the more distant the movers and shakers are - ie, Federal - the less representative they are of my community's and my, wishes and the more difficult it is to effect change quickly and efficiently.

If you think that my opinion as expressed in a Federal vote is OK but my vote at a Provincial or local level is destructive to the country then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I don't share your faith in vast and unweildy bureaucracy and frankly don't see what evidence you have for such faith. Let's start with the Gun Registry or the Aborigonal files. Are you a Federal bureaucrat?

[tml12]

Eureka ! I'm sorry but I just do not understand what you're trying to say......

"Harare!

If you have read and understood anything I have posted, you would know that I said Canada, fix that in your mind is united by its social peogrammes."

I just can't get my head around how by having the same Healthcare or childcare or EI systems we become a united country. So are you saying that before any of these social programmes were brought in that we were not a Country and were not proud of being Canadians ? Sorry, you lost me on that one.

As for various jurisdictions being Federal vs Provincial or local, I fail to see how that is a factor in determining the unity of a country either. It is the same people - individual voters - who decide how they want things done in their community. It is my view that the more distant the movers and shakers are - ie, Federal - the less representative they are of my community's and my, wishes and the more difficult it is to effect change quickly and efficiently.

If you think that my opinion as expressed in a Federal vote is OK but my vote at a Provincial or local level is destructive to the country then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I don't share your faith in vast and unweildy bureaucracy and frankly don't see what evidence you have for such faith. Let's start with the Gun Registry or the Aborigonal files. Are you a Federal bureaucrat?

[geoffrey]

I don't share your faith in vast and unweildy bureaucracy and frankly don't see what evidence you have for such faith. Let's start with the Gun Registry or the Aborigonal files. Are you a Federal bureaucrat?

I doubt it. Most bureaucrats don't like the system as it is. Ask our local federallie Argus.