In the last few years Alberta has rang up surpluses around 6 billion dollars. This year however that surplus is now 10 billion with a projected spending at 22.6 billion. Currently 5 billion is resouce revenue. Say Alberta tossed this resource revenue into the heritage trust fund (thus beefing up this account) which is currently around 15 billion). No added money into the sustainablity fund (the government already paid 3.5 billion into it this year) but decided eliminate personal income tax which accounts for 5 billion And then cut the rates on corporate income tax by half (the government collects 2 billion right now). What would be the reaction from people across Canada. Would we see a further increase in the rate of migration to Alberta? What would the reaction be from other Provincial governments? Would some companies migrate to Alberta? Intresting things to consider.

There would be an increase of migration to Alberta, and an increase of jealousy in the rest of Canada.

Alberta is set for disaster as all of its riches is because of fossil fuels. what will happen when the wells run dry?

but for now, good on Alberta. with this huge surplus, Klein needs to bring back the spending he cutted on social services.

It's good for Canada's economy.

Take the money and build each city, calgary n edmonton, a thousand foot tower designed by todays best architects!!

Alberta is set for disaster as all of its riches is because of fossil fuels. what will happen when the wells run dry?

but for now, good on Alberta. with this huge surplus, Klein needs to bring back the spending he cutted on social services.

Alberta already has. In fact Alberta already has teh highest spending per capita in Canada. It has the highest Education spending per Capita and the highest health care spending per capita as well. It also has no debt, no pst as well. It also has said it is going to give a billion for infrastucture for each Edmonton adn Calgary regions and 1 billion for the rest of Alberta.

Alberta already has. In fact Alberta already has teh highest spending per capita in Canada. It has the highest Education spending per Capita and the highest health care spending per capita as well. It also has no debt, no pst as well. It also has said it is going to give a billion for infrastucture for each Edmonton adn Calgary regions and 1 billion for the rest of Alberta.

i could imagine Ottawa wanting to take even more out of Alberta, even more than how it takes all of Ontario's revenues away.

We will all be dead by the time Alberta runs out of oil. It is a misconception that Alberta's oild will run dry anytime soon.

There are upto 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the oil sands with today's technology.

What the government needs to do with surpluses is to strategically invest in key areas. Cities should be one.

i could imagine Ottawa wanting to take even more out of Alberta, even more than how it takes all of Ontario's revenues away.

Yep. I have pretty much lost all my faith in this federation. Here we are in Ontario with the lowest per capita expenditure on higher ed and health care out of the 10 provinces and we're running up huge deficits and funnelling all our taxes to Ottawa to squander on buying votes elsewhere. I used to be Canadian first and Ontarian second - not anymore. I wonder what the next Quebec referendum will result in now that the Ontario gov has more or less told the PQ they were right all along. Think I'll send a note to this effect to my MP (Ken Dryden) - whahahaha (like he cares). Well, if the place falls apart, blame the feds.

if Ottawa takes a reasonable amount of revenue from Ontario, how many billions more would this province have to spend?

Alberta is set for disaster as all of its riches is because of fossil fuels. what will happen when the wells run dry?

but for now, good on Alberta. with this huge surplus, Klein needs to bring back the spending he cutted on social services.

Alberta has a couple hundred billion barrels of the stuff, and it continues to diversify its economy.

Alberta has a couple hundred billion barrels of the stuff, and it continues to diversify its economy.

lol, maybe BC and Sask. and the territories should secretly drill a horizontal underground tunnel to steal the oil from Alberta. perhaps something from one of the Simpsons shows where Burns steals the oil from the school? :jk:

Both Sask and BC are have provinces now.

I love Alberta.

We will all be dead by the time Alberta runs out of oil. It is a misconception that Alberta's oild will run dry anytime soon.

There are upto 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the oil sands with today's technology.

What the government needs to do with surpluses is to strategically invest in key areas. Cities should be one.


Precisely, and once technology improves and crude oil prices continue to rise, more of that 1.5trillion barrels will become extractable.

$10 Billion this year eh? Well, that means we should build up the trust fund, and cut taxes! :carrot:

This is awesome for Alberta! It is also awesome for Canada! I hope it helps migration out west especially in those provinces that are not doing so well! But be careful with the success because as we have found out from Newfoundland other provinces and the feds can get gready! I think what is in Alberta should help the rest of Canada! But I feel that Alberta has earned it! I do not think this sharing of money between provinces is healthy in some respects! It is because if you can get it for free why work! Why move why try! I have heard of places that teach you how to get on UI or welfare! I just feel that is not the way it should be done! Those places that prosper should because they have earned it and not just because of natural resources! If you dont work move! Go to Alberta!

Fantastic. Alberta is on the up and up. Bastards.s

I love Alberta too, specially Calgary

Wow great news Alberta! I am glad to be living next door to you. :)

The most intresting thing in all of this is that everyone thinks Alberta has tones of money due to resource revenue which is true. However everyone forgets that the resource revenue has been smaller than the government surplus for a few years.

10billion!!!! build a bullet train from Calgary to Edmonton.

10billion!!!! build a bullet train from Calgary to Edmonton.

apparently, a bullet train payed by the Alberta government was planned between Calgary and Vancouver as part of Calgary's Expo 2005 bid, which it loss to Aichi, Japan.

Too bad other provinces don't clue in and do the same as Alberta...good for Alberta.
I don't think Albert should horde all his money to himself as there are MILLIONS of other needed people outside that province, but whatever.
Every province has resources... they just need to use them properly.

Ontario on the other hand, don't even get me started. Ever person in Ontario should be living it up with our economy, but this province is retarded, and I would even consider moving to Alberta.

Too bad other provinces don't clue in and do the same as Alberta...good for Alberta.
I don't think Albert should horde all his money to himself as there are MILLIONS of other needed people outside that province, but whatever.
Every province has resources... they just need to use them properly.

Ontario on the other hand, don't even get me started. Ever person in Ontario should be living it up with our economy, but this province is retarded, and I would even consider moving to Alberta.

What's wrong with Ontario? Booming economy and the best health-care, is it not?

To go along with a $6 billion deficit

Well, the only way an economy grows is through spending. You don't make money if you don't spend money.

What's wrong with Ontario? Booming economy and the best health-care, is it not?

Actually the best health care in Canada is Alberta, then BC.

JARdan, not to mention they both have an economy growing faster than Ontario with Alberta having a significantly higher GDP per capita

Actually the best health care in Canada is Alberta, then BC.

What measures are you using to come up with this conclusion?

JARdan, not to mention they both have an economy growing faster than Ontario with Alberta having a significantly higher GDP per capita
I would certainly like to see proof, thought I know that Alberta's GDP is higher.

JARdan go to the RBC economics site.

www.rbc.com/economics/market

in there you will find the provincal outlooks. Basically 03 and 04 both Alberta and BC economies grew 1% faster in real gdp than Ontario. The pattern is to be the same for this year and will be about .6 or .7% for 2006. In essence average growth for AB, BC from 2003-06 is 1% higher than ON. In fact look at the 4 large provinces and tell me which on Ontario's growth most closely resembles?

Ontario GDP growth
2003 - 3.1% nominal, 1.6% real
2004 - 5.5% nominal, 2.5% real
2005 - 4.6% nominal, 2.4% real
2006 - 5.1% nominal, 3.0% real

Quebec GDP growth
2003 - 4.1% nominal, 1.9% real
2004 - 4.7% nominal, 2.5% real
2005 - 4.5% nominal, 2.2% real
2006 - 4.6% nominal, 3.0% real

Alberta GDP growth
2003 - 13.4% nominal, 2.7% real
2004 - 9.0% nominal, 4.0% real
2005 - 6.0% nominal, 3.7% real
2006 - 6.0% nominal, 3.7% real

British Columbia GDP growth
2003 - 5.2% nominal, 2.5% real
2004 - 8.1% nominal, 3.4% real
2005 - 5.9% nominal, 3.6% real
2006 - 5.0% nominal, 3.6% real

Alberta Nominal GDP per capita 2004 is 58,563 (pop 3,179,066 from statscan)
Ontario Nominal GDP per capita 2004 is 42,372 (pop is 12,312,421 from statscan)

Based on nominal gdp per capita Alberta is 38.21% higher than Ontario. This gap is huge.

Alberta Real GDP per capita 2004 is 42,382
Ontario Real GDP per capita 2004 is 38,278
Saskatchewan Real GDP per capita 2004 is 33,305

I threw Saskatchewan to illistrate the differance between Alberta and Ontario is almost the same as Ontario and Saskatchewan. Just something to consider.

SOrry double post

What measures are you using to come up with this conclusion?

McLeans naming the Capital Health Authority (Edmonton) the best in the country for 4 years might be a good start.

www.capitalhealth.ca/AboutUs/OurOrganization/default.htm

It must also be noted that Alberta the province out to destroy Canadian health care as the media puts it not to mention the Liberal party spends the amongst the most in Canada per capita (even though it has the youngest population) on health care. It also has a lower amount of private health care delivery than the Canadian Average. The facts aren't always what the media reports.

What's wrong with Ontario? Booming economy and the best health-care, is it not?

We may have a booming economy but, all levels of government (other then federal obivously) are strapped for cash. Ontario needs huge investments in infastracture in order to remain competitive. Have you every tried to drive from one end of Toronto to the other, practically anytime of the day? The traffic is madness!

Does anybody know what the federal government takes/gives as transfer payments to each province? It would be interesting to see if Alberta pays as much into transfers as Ontario....

Actaully I remember last year that Alberta paid more into equalization than Ontario. However the total money leaving the province is lower than Ontario.

We may have a booming economy but, all levels of government (other then federal obivously) are strapped for cash. Ontario needs huge investments in infastracture in order to remain competitive. Have you every tried to drive from one end of Toronto to the other, practically anytime of the day? The traffic is madness!

Does anybody know what the federal government takes/gives as transfer payments to each province? It would be interesting to see if Alberta pays as much into transfers as Ontario....

Actually Alberta pays roughly 50% more than Ontario does per capita - $1750 for Ontario versus $2500 for Alberta.

What that really means is that if Ontario contributed to Conferderation at the same rate as Alberta, that 23 Billon dollar shortfall that McGuinty is whining about would be over $30 Billion.

Thanks for the info big W. Your post has made me realize that I need to do some brushing up on the nominal and real GDP calculations as I have a final exam in the next month for Macroeconomics.

Actually Alberta pays roughly 50% more than Ontario does per capita - $1750 for Ontario versus $2500 for Alberta.

What that really means is that if Ontario contributed to Conferderation at the same rate as Alberta, that 23 Billon dollar shortfall that McGuinty is whining about would be over $30 Billion.

Last report, Alberta contributed 200 bucks more per capita. I havn't seen this new report where it is double.

Last report, Alberta contributed 200 bucks more per capita. I havn't seen this new report where it is double.

TD report which was used by Ontario government officials in supporting their claim for the 23 Billion shortfall - see paragraph, bottom left of page 2: www.td.com/economics/topic/db0305_ont.pdf

BTW, I said roughly 50% more ($2500 vs $1700), not double.

Alberta's surplus can be nothing but good for the country as a whole and great for Alberta.

The question asked was "how will this effect the rest of Canada"?
Big W has argued consistantly with respect to the province of Alberta's economic wealth, I believe, the suggestion that he believes that this is symptomatic of a general shift of power eastward towards BC and particularly Alberta. I believe this is only partially correct. There is a re-distribution of power in this country with Alberta and BC seeing gains in financial wealth and population as compared to Quebec and the Maritimes. It must be said however that the centre of power is not shifting west, it is actually consolidating in industrialized Southern Ontario. If we look more carefully at the Ontario numbers, we would see that the overwhelming majority of the economic and population growth in Ontario is occuring in south central ontario. The Toronto area for instance saw econmic growth of 5 percent in 2004 versus Alberta's 4% and Calgary's 4.2 percent. While just a city region, it does represent a larger jurisdiction population wise than the province of BC. South Central Ontario actually gains more in population every year than BC and Alberta combined and has the the highest average household incomes in the country despite having essentially zero natural resource wealth. My point is that impressive growth in Alberta and BC is actually matched in Ontario, even if the Ontario numbers presented are on average lower.

^Lets also not forget that the GTA contributes the bulk, if not basically all.

Well if Alberta has just last year started to pay $200 more than Ontarians I say, Its about GOD DAMN TIME!!! Ontario deserves a rest, where we can invest back into our OWN Province.

Not saying Alberta doesnt deserve its newfound wealth, it is just that Ontario always has to work harder and reinvest into our infastructure to maintain our 42% weight of the Canadian Economy, as our wealth didnt occur overnight by a chance well drilling.

The Toronto area for instance saw econmic growth of 5 percent in 2004 versus Alberta's 4% and Calgary's 4.2 percent.

Source?

Well if Alberta has just last year started to pay $200 more than Ontarians I say, Its about GOD DAMN TIME!!! Ontario deserves a rest, where we can invest back into our OWN Province.

Not saying Alberta doesnt deserve its newfound wealth, it is just that Ontario always has to work harder and reinvest into our infastructure to maintain our 42% weight of the Canadian Economy, as our wealth didnt occur overnight by a chance well drilling.
Where did this $200 come from?? Alberta has consistently paid more into transfer payments than Ontario has for the last 20 years. (BTW in the late-80s when Alberta was in recession and Ontario was booming, Alberta still paid more per capita). And while it was true that Alberta was classified as a "have-not" province during the first two years of Equalization (57 and 58), during that time it received a grand total of 95 Million dollars. Let's just say that the NEP balanced that one out!!

For anyone interested, more info on just the Equalization portion of transfers can be found at www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

^He's referring to per capita. The prior year when Ontario gave 28 billion, Alberta gave something like 2500 per capita, and Ontario was 2300, or something around that.

Shreddog it should be noted that those numbers are for 2002. Ontario paid 21.2 billion, Alberta paid 7.8 billion and BC paid 1.6. Since that time however there has been some changes as BC become a havenot province and came back to being a have province. Saskatchewan is now a have province and Alberta has been growing faster than Ontario. Thus I would say that the gap per capita in terms of shortfall between Ontario and Alberta is widening.

Well, I don't think the gap was widening every year consistently becuase ONT I beleive in 2003 gave 28 billion, with 23 Billion coming from the GTA.

Alberta's surplus can be nothing but good for the country as a whole and great for Alberta.

The question asked was "how will this effect the rest of Canada"?
Big W has argued consistantly with respect to the province of Alberta's economic wealth, I believe, the suggestion that he believes that this is symptomatic of a general shift of power eastward towards BC and particularly Alberta. I believe this is only partially correct. There is a re-distribution of power in this country with Alberta and BC seeing gains in financial wealth and population as compared to Quebec and the Maritimes. It must be said however that the centre of power is not shifting west, it is actually consolidating in industrialized Southern Ontario. If we look more carefully at the Ontario numbers, we would see that the overwhelming majority of the economic and population growth in Ontario is occuring in south central ontario. The Toronto area for instance saw econmic growth of 5 percent in 2004 versus Alberta's 4% and Calgary's 4.2 percent. While just a city region, it does represent a larger jurisdiction population wise than the province of BC. South Central Ontario actually gains more in population every year than BC and Alberta combined and has the the highest average household incomes in the country despite having essentially zero natural resource wealth. My point is that impressive growth in Alberta and BC is actually matched in Ontario, even if the Ontario numbers presented are on average lower.

I believe we will have a shift to the west from the east. But this will come at teh expense of Quebec, the 4 Atlantic Provinces and Sask, Manitoba. Basically the voice of Ontario will continue to be the strongest, but that oif Alberta and BC will get stronger than it is now. I think with a lower tax structure and increased investment into infrastucture etc, Alberta will continue to diversify economically. This will be good for Alberta in that it will be less dependant on Oil. The current problem Alberta faces is lack of Human Capital. It cannot compete with Ontario in this regard. However it will continue to grow by drawing people from the the other 9 provinces. Plus I would think that over time, with greater opportunities for top end jobs in Alberta, it will be able to retain more of its top talent that it currently loses to Ontario. It will not challenge Ontario until long after I have passed away, but it will be able to lure some companies people West. Alberta of 2005 is significantly less dependant on Oil and Gas, than it was in say 1980. The past 25 years have casue some diversification and I would say that this tred will continue for the next 25 years but at a faster pace.

Well, I don't think the gap was widening every year consistently becuase ONT I beleive in 2003 gave 28 billion, with 23 Billion coming from the GTA.

Hmmm, any source to these numbers, because according to both McGuinty and Sorbara, Ontario's contributions to federalism were only 2 Billion in 1995 and then grew to a high of 23 Billion. No mention of 28. And as per my link to the TD report, that 23 Billion was for all of Ontario.


Sorbara plea for fiscal fairness gets lukewarm reception

Ottawa already addressing issues, parliamentary committee says

By KAREN HOWLETT

Saturday, March 12, 2005

Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara received a polite but lukewarm reception yesterday as he formally pleaded his case for fair treatment from Ottawa before a visiting parliamentary committee.

John McKay, parliamentary secretary to federal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, told Mr. Sorbara that the federal government is already addressing a number of issues the Ontario government has raised concerning the gap between what the province contributes to the federal treasury and what it receives from Ottawa.

Mr. McKay also said he found it "passing strange" that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty supported an equalization agreement between the federal and provincial governments last fall, only to complain about it later.

As well, Mr. McKay said Mr. McGuinty did not object at the time to a side deal Ottawa was negotiating with Newfoundland that would let it keep every penny of royalties from offshore oil projects without reducing the money it receives through equalization payments.

"I think if you phoned up Premier [Danny] Williams this afternoon and asked whether he'd do a trade for his problems, he'd trade you in a heartbeat," Mr. McKay said. "The truth of the matter is, Ontario is richer than other parts of the Confederation."

Mr. Sorbara told the newly created House of Commons subcommittee on fiscal imbalance, which held hearings in Toronto yesterday, that Ottawa has allowed the national equalization program to become distorted.

For example, Newfoundland's offshore oil deal will give that province $252 per person more to spend than Ontario on such programs as education and health care, he said.

Mr. McGuinty said this week that the gap between what Ontarians pay in taxes to the federal government and what they get back in programs and services has swelled to a high of $23-billion from $2-billion in 1995, the same year Ottawa began slashing transfer payments to the provinces. He has asked for at least $5-billion to help close the gap.

The McGuinty government has been waging a campaign for the past month aimed at persuading Ottawa to address a long-standing imbalance that sees the province contribute far more to the federal coffers than it receives from them.

While Mr. Sorbara has had several conversations with Mr. Goodale and other MPs over the $23-billion gap, yesterday was his first formal presentation before a parliamentary committee.

New Democratic MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis asked Mr. Sorbara whether Ontario has recovered from the "sledgehammer approach" used by the federal Liberal government back in 1995.

Mr. Sorbara said he preferred not to analyze whether the budgetary cuts that began a decade ago were too drastic, adding: "We are friends and we are political colleagues and we are going to solve this problem."

He said he hopes the province can strike agreements with Ottawa that would see Ontario wrest more funding from the government for immigration and labour market initiatives.

Federal Immigration Minister Joe Volpe, the minister for Ontario, has said Ottawa is willing to negotiate with Queen's Park on such issues as immigration and labour markets but not on the fiscal imbalance.

Members of Mr. McGuinty's cabinet are expected to meet with the federal cabinet some time next month.

Liberal MP Dan McTeague told reporters after Mr. Sorbara's appearance that he was surprised by the public aggressiveness of Ontario's appeal for more funding.

"I thought we had a fairly decent working relationship up until last month," he said. "Maybe we still do."

Could have been wrong. But I doubt it. This issue was origially hatched with the initial TD report back in 2003, that showed household tax burderns in the GTA. To lazy to go back and find the data that was already posted millions of times.

Well, I must admit I have never seen anything from TD on that. I do remember the Toronto Board of Trade report identifing a 9 Billion shortfall for Toronto (http://www.bot.com/assets/StaticAssets/Documents/PDF/Policy/2004_Federal/Jan23_PM_LetterSupport5YearPlan.pdf) in 2003, but the only time I have seen the number 23 come up has been when the Premier or the Finance Minister have started to go for blood. BTW, the link I provided before is the only one I have seen from TD on this topic and it clearly states that the 23 Billion is for the Province.

BTW, on the the GoC Finanace site (my previous) link the information available shows that for at least the last 5 years the difference between Alberta and Ontario on the equalization payments has been quite significant. Again, any source on that $200 number?

^He's referring to per capita. The prior year when Ontario gave 28 billion, Alberta gave something like 2500 per capita, and Ontario was 2300, or something around that.Sorry to belabour a point, but can you provide a link to the 2300 number as I have never seen it before and have read lots on this topic. Thanks in advance.

Guys, may I suggest that we all agree that both Ontario and Alberta contribute alot to Federalism in Canada and leave any heated discussion regarding who takes it the rear more to another thread? I feel like we’ve hijacked Big W’s intent to explore the impact of Alberta’s impending massive structural surpluses.

One thing that has yet to be mentioned is the fact that this supposed 10 Billion surplus really doesn’t reflect the Oil Sands royalties. Looking forward to around 2010 when most of the current Oil Sands operations have paid off their capital investments (until which they pay next to no royalty fees), the existing operations alone will produce over 5 Billion a year in revenue. BTW, that doesn’t reflect any new revenue from the operations now under construction (all 57 Billions dollars worth).

I have seen some very optimistic projections stating that starting in 2010, Alberta could continually run surplus in the high teens of Billions with Oil trading in the $40-45 (2005 dollar) range.

The question that needs to be asked is that since Alberta is already debt free, since Alberta already spends the most on social programs including Health and Education (per capita), since Alberta’s doctors and nurses and teachers are already the highest paid in Canada, what the hell could be the impact if Alberta were to elect a provincial government that is real visionary and focuses on widening the lead wrt the other provinces??

There are many senior government officials (both Federal and Provincial) that are terrified that this could lead to real animosity within Canada wrt Alberta. I don’t know about you Big W, but that is something I am very curious about and somewhat anxious and apprehensive to see evolve. Just imagine, the right politician in Alberta could initiate an up to date version of Japan’s MITI with interesting results.

Ontario will always be strong because it's the centre of everything. Alberta will get stronger because of its fossil fuel industry and so will BC with the evergrowing Chinese economy.

..... evergrowing Chinese economy.

I guess the future will pan out. Most rich Chinese go to Vancouver, but is the local investment that significant, and if so, will it sustain in the future?? We'll see, I am not doubting it, but I am skeptical at its magnitude. There are boatloads more full in NYC, yet you the impact hasn't been signficant. What makes Vancity different than NYC or Toronto, that have larger numbers (albeit smaller % compositions). There are a lot of chinese based property developers in both Van and Tor, but does it stop there in Van? I know you can name of examples here and there, but is it signficiant on a macro level?

Van will continue to boom cause of the olympics, and its spin offs. Plus, all of Canada will benefit from resources in the future.

Shreddog regarding the royalties from oilsands last year it was $110 million basically nothing to speak of. However with the high price of oil right now capital investments could be recouped fairly quickly (in the next few years) then the royalties jump about 25 times. Not to mention by that time the total oil being pumped out of the ground will be several billion barrels more than today. I think that this is only hte first step the future will be even greater in terms of royalty revenue. What is needed is a new government with vision as you say. If that ever happens watchout for Edmonton and Calgary.

By the way if Alberta gets its act together at getting immigrants, and build top notch infrastucture throughout the province (completing Ring roads to full freeway status, fund LRT in both major cities, upgrade highway 1 and 16 to full freeways throughout Alberta, as well as widening highway 2 to 3 lanes, twinning the highways connecting Lethbridge, Fort Mac and GP to the corridor etc) then we will see something great. Things can happen but we need vision. Ralphie is not the asnwer. Thanks Ralphie, but your time is done.

Shreddog regarding the royalties from oilsands last year it was $110 million basically nothing to speak of. However with the high price of oil right now capital investments could be recouped fairly quickly (in the next few years) then the royalties jump about 25 times. Not to mention by that time the total oil being pumped out of the ground will be several billion barrels more than today. I think that this is only hte first step the future will be even greater in terms of royalty revenue. What is needed is a new government with vision as you say. If that ever happens watchout for Edmonton and Calgary.
Exactly like I said - masive structural surpluses at a level unheard in Canada's history.

As much as people like to blast Klein, he was what was needed at the time and did what was required. Going forward we need him to sunset gracefully and be replaced by a visionary. Alberta certainly has opportunities available to it that no other province has, and few other jurisdictions world-wide. The big IF will be whether it can capitalize on these or will it squander them?

This always reminds me of the famous Calgary bumber sticker, "Send me another boom and I promise not to piss it away this time!"

Hey Big W, seems like we're drinking from the same pitcher of Kool-aid!!

Now hold on a minute. This money belongs to Alberta. Why should Ontario have its hands on it? Alberta already contibutes the most dollars per capita in equilization payments, even more than Ontario. It's equilization which is screwing Ontario in the ass. At the very least equilization should be corrected so Ontario could keep some of its $23 billion in sends to Ottawa in excess of what it recieves back. Somewhere in the order of 6 to 10 billion so it can cover the defict and have a little surpuls for infastructure improvements.

What Alberta has done is very impressive and other provinces should be taking note of what works instead of putting a tax on economic growth.

For Ontario to want money from Alberta makes the people of Ontario look like hypocrites since we have always been complaing that we subsidize the rest of Canada.

I missed the part where Ontario said it wanted Alberta's money, though it would nice to have more of our own back.

And about other provinces taking note of what works in Alberta, do you mean to say oil and gas? LOL.

This whole notion that Alberta is somehow smarter and harder working than anyone is tiresome and silly. Wouldn't it be nice for the other provinces to count on up to 1/3 of their revenue coming from royalties? It's hard to fail under such conditions, and, apparently, even under a drunken buffoon such as Klein, which is why it is hard to pity Alberta for paying even more than Ontario on per cap basis, but Ontario doesn't have such an easy, massive revenue stream available to it.

www.energy.gov.ab.ca/

www.finance.gov.ab.ca/publications/budget/budget2004/fiscal.html#12

www.finance.gov.ab.ca/publications/budget/budget2004/fiscal.html#11



Maybe we should all grow a money tree...

I missed the part where Ontario said it wanted Alberta's money, though it would nice to have more of our own back.

And about other provinces taking note of what works in Alberta, do you mean to say oil and gas? LOL.

This whole notion that Alberta is somehow smarter and harder working than anyone is tiresome and silly. Wouldn't it be nice for the other provinces to count on up to 1/3 of their revenue coming from royalties? It's hard to fail under such conditions, and, apparently, even under a drunken buffoon such as Klein, which is why it is hard to pity Alberta for paying even more than Ontario on per cap basis, but Ontario doesn't have such an easy, massive revenue stream available to it.

www.energy.gov.ab.ca/

www.finance.gov.ab.ca/publications/budget/budget2004/fiscal.html#12

www.finance.gov.ab.ca/publications/budget/budget2004/fiscal.html#11



Maybe we should all grow a money tree...
So Brian, please explain then how Alberta had a surplus in 1998 of over 1 Billion dollars when Oil averaged 11 dollars a barrel??

A function of taxation and budgetary expenditures, likely. Ontario was running surpluses, too, just a few years ago with no oil and gas revenues. Go figure.

One thing that every Canadian province should learn from Alberta is the implementation of the Heritage Fund. With prudent fiscal planning, it would be a great and steady stream of income to rely on.

The reason Alberta was the able to address the deficit monster and achive such notable surpluses when Oil was so cheap was that unlike every other province Alberta hacked expenses dramatically in 1994-95 - they addressed the structural deficit issue before touching taxes. Spending was cut by nearly 40% in some Gov't departments - no other province has come anywhere to this level.

BTW, Brian as you have been shown before in other threads, every province has it's own unique source of revenue that is unlike any other (Again for your enjoyment, Ontario with the largest population generates over 15 Billion (EDIT NOTE - I mixed the 20% and 20 Billion - my bad) from its sales tax - something that no other province can even come close to). What these provinces need to do is address their spending addications and then they to can reap the benefits.

Oh yeah, as for your links to how much money Alberta gets in royalties - we've gone done this path before and since total energy revenues/royalties are less than what Alberta contributes to Federalism (7.8 Billion alone in 2002), I think it is safe to say that the fluke of having O&G in the ground has been shared with everyone equally.

Great Charts to Compare 2004-2005(CBC):

Where the Money Comes From:

ALBERTA:

http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/features/budget2004/images/2004-05_revenue.gif

ONTARIO:

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/on_budget_2004/images/comes_from2.gif


Where the Money Goes To:

ALBERTA:

http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/features/budget2004/images/2004-05_Expense_by_ministry.gif

http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/features/budget2004/images/2004-05_Expense_by_function.gif

ONTARIO:

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/on_budget_2004/images/goes_to2.gif

Ontario's budget is being chewed away by Debt-servicing costs.

Just think the government in Alberta spent 1.5 billion on Agriculture due to BSE. However the total surplus in Alberta is lower and has been lower than royalties ercieved now for several years. Think if Ontario had no debt right now it would be in a structural surplus year after year as well.

The reason Alberta was the able to address the deficit monster and achive such notable surpluses when Oil was so cheap was that unlike every other province Alberta hacked expenses dramatically in 1994-95 - they addressed the structural deficit issue before touching taxes. Spending was cut by nearly 40% in some Gov't departments - no other province has come anywhere to this level.

BTW, Brian as you have been shown before in other threads, every province has it's own unique source of revenue that is unlike any other (Again for your enjoyment, Ontario with the largest population generates over 15 Billion (EDIT NOTE - I mixed the 20% and 20 Billion - my bad) from its sales tax - something that no other province can even come close to). What these provinces need to do is address their spending addications and then they to can reap the benefits.

Oh yeah, as for your links to how much money Alberta gets in royalties - we've gone done this path before and since total energy revenues/royalties are less than what Alberta contributes to Federalism (7.8 Billion alone in 2002), I think it is safe to say that the fluke of having O&G in the ground has been shared with everyone equally.


Ontario already has among the most poorly funded cities and services in the country. Over spending is not the issue. Klein has been noted by some as a spend-thrift, actually.

Every province is within its right to levy sales taxes and is not something unique to Ontario. Alberta apparently feels wealthy enough to forego sales taxes for reasons I think are obvious. To individual consumers in Ontario, I don't believe they appreciate being treated as a fountain of wealth as opposed to Albertans who have escaped this personal burden. Ontarians would be so lucky to have its oil and gas royalties confiscated by the federal government, many of whom are out of pocket instead or suffer the quality of our services or both.

Ontario's budget is being chewed away by Debt-servicing costs.

AH, no. Looks like spiralling healthcare costs.

By the way if Alberta gets its act together at getting immigrants, and build top notch infrastucture throughout the province (completing Ring roads to full freeway status, fund LRT in both major cities, upgrade highway 1 and 16 to full freeways throughout Alberta, as well as widening highway 2 to 3 lanes, twinning the highways connecting Lethbridge, Fort Mac and GP to the corridor etc) then we will see something great. Things can happen but we need vision. Ralphie is not the asnwer. Thanks Ralphie, but your time is done.

Regarding twinning the highways connecting Lethbridge and Grande Prairie to the Edmonton-Calgary corridor - I should remind you that it is already underway as a part of the Canamex project, and is supposed to be finished by 2007. And twinning of Hwy 69 from Edmonton to Fort McMurray is likely to get underway within 2-3 years.

And, yes, Ralph's time is indeed up.

I know about highway 43 from Edmonton to GP. But it has to be built as a limited access highway as well as the other highways I mentioned.

^Okay, I see - and I wholeheartedly agree.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/article/article_complet.php?path=/actualites/article/11/1,63,0,042005,989618.php

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1113219907936_21?hub=topstories

It's about time. We're all smart people in this country, and I am glad to see that people are finally waking up and realizing that we can't have this government in power any more!

Liberal support is at new low:25%.

Conservative support is at 36%.

Support for the NDP is at 21%.

Support for the BQ in the province of Quebec is at 51%, while for the first time since the Mulroney days, the Conservatives are actually ahead of the Liberals in Quebec with 18%.

The Liberals disgust me. In my opinion, it's time for change. There are other alternatives out there.

Tell you what's crazy, Liberals at 25%, NDP at 21%, yet it could be the Conservatives at 36% that could possibly pull of a majority. Now that's screwed up...

Let the Liberals sit in opposition for a while to clean up their act. Not while they are the government.

Ugh, the Conservatives....

conservatives.... ugh.

I won't vote for the hillbillies.

Well, under the current numbers, there would be a Conservative minority. The way the system is set up, I don't see much difference betweent that and what we have now... I really do wish we had PR though. Look at these numbers:

Conservative 35%
Liberals 25%
NDP 21%
Bloc 13%
Green 5%

Approximate seats under PR:

Conservative 111
Liberals 78
NDP 63
Bloc 41
Green 15

Ugh...Liberals.

Excuse me, but what's so bad about the conservatives? How in the world are they hill-billies? At least they don't mismanage your heard-earned money like the Liberals!

Let the Liberals sit in opposition for a while to clean up their act. Not while they are the government.

Couldn't agree more. The Liberals have been in power since 1993...that's 12 years! It's time for a change, especially with the information we are receiving these days!

Excuse me, but what's so bad about the conservatives? How in the world are they hill-billies? At least they don't mismanage your heard-earned money like the Liberals!

No, they just mismanage hard earned rights. Take the same sex issue--have I once heard Harper explain what the HELL is so threatening about this to our values? It's a 'threat,' or it's 'wrong'--that's all I've heard. The law has been on the books in Ontario for more than a year. Has the sky fallen? OF COURSE NOT! Bigotry, and marginalization isn't my cup of tea, I guess.

IF the Conservatives adopt a (balanced) fiscally conservative policy that doesn't also include idiotic social conservatism, I wouldn't vote for them, but would certainly find them more acceptable.

Which ever party causes a fuss and pushes for a snap election will not get my vote. I don't want to see another $100 million CAD go down the drain to some power-hungry ignoramus.

My concerns with the Conservatives is their stance on same-sex marriage. I am gay, and while my partner and I (7 years togther--exchanged rings with eachother privately) do not intend to marry (marriage in today's society is obsolete anyhow), many other gay and lesbian couples want that right. Until they can become a more moderate party, I cannot vote for them.

Also, I am affraid that their views on Immigration will throw us back to when we let only X number in whose skills were deemed necessary.

I will not vote for NDP either; and I certainly will not vote for the Liberals. Our damn cities need money, and these assholes are giving millions and millions of dollars away for nothing (a la sponsorship scandal). How dare they piss away all that money!

Sigh. Though I won’t vote conservative, I do hate it when people just ignore the facts.
No, they just mismanage hard earned rights. Take the same sex issue--have I once heard Harper explain what the HELL is so threatening about this to our values? It's a 'threat,' or it's 'wrong'--that's all I've heard. The law has been on the books in Ontario for more than a year. Has the sky fallen? OF COURSE NOT! Bigotry, and marginalization isn't my cup of tea, I guess.

IF the Conservatives adopt a (balanced) fiscally conservative policy that doesn't also include idiotic social conservatism, I wouldn't vote for them, but would certainly find them more acceptable.

Three weeks ago at the Conservative party convention they declared their official policy to be for the full extension of rights and privileges under civil unions to same sex couples.

Interestingly enough, the only Federal party that is actively against this idea are the Liberals who are appealing a court decision that ruled same-sex couples are entitled to the pension benefits of their deceased partners.

From the "Equal Marriage for Same Sex Couples (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/cpp.htm)" website:

Irwin Cotler, our Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, continues to show Canadians that he is prepared to compromise justice and offend equality rights for political expediency. Today his Liberal government announced that they would continue to fight gays and lesbians who are seeking funds owed to them by the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).

In very simple terms, they talk the talk but aren't exactly walking the walk. The Liberals are in fact insulting the intelligence of the electorate... again.

Also, last week the Globe and Mail published a poll showing only 57% of Liberal MPS plan to support the same-sex marriage bill.

And finally, if the Liberals really believed in equal rights wrt same-sex marriages, why did they support the Reform bill* in 1999 that asserted that "marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."??? Any ideas???

*Passed by a vote of 216-55, the motion initiated on June 8 by Eric Lowther, the official opposition children and families critic.

Again, I won’t vote for the Conservatives, but I certainly don’t like being hood-winked wrt the truth.

My concerns with the Conservatives is their stance on same-sex marriage. I am gay, and while my partner and I (7 years togther--exchanged rings with eachother privately) do not intend to marry (marriage in today's society is obsolete anyhow), many other gay and lesbian couples want that right. Until they can become a more moderate party, I cannot vote for them.

Also, I am affraid that their views on Immigration will throw us back to when we let only X number in whose skills were deemed necessary.

I will not vote for NDP either; and I certainly will not vote for the Liberals. Our damn cities need money, and these assholes are giving millions and millions of dollars away for nothing (a la sponsorship scandal). How dare they piss away all that money!
Look into the Greens, you might be impressed - or not.

Sigh. Though I won’t vote conservative, I do hate it when people just ignore the facts.


Three weeks ago at the Conservative party convention they declared their official policy to be for the full extension of rights and privileges under civil unions to same sex couples.

Interestingly enough, the only Federal party that is actively against this idea are the Liberals who are appealing a court decision that ruled same-sex couples are entitled to the pension benefits of their deceased partners.

From the "Equal Marriage for Same Sex Couples (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/cpp.htm)" website:

Irwin Cotler, our Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, continues to show Canadians that he is prepared to compromise justice and offend equality rights for political expediency. Today his Liberal government announced that they would continue to fight gays and lesbians who are seeking funds owed to them by the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).

In very simple terms, they talk the talk but aren't exactly walking the walk. The Liberals are in fact insulting the intelligence of the electorate... again.

Also, last week the Globe and Mail published a poll showing only 57% of Liberal MPS plan to support the same-sex marriage bill.

And finally, if the Liberals really believed in equal rights wrt same-sex marriages, why did they support the Reform bill* in 1999 that asserted that "marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."??? Any ideas???

*Passed by a vote of 216-55, the motion initiated on June 8 by Eric Lowther, the official opposition children and families critic.

Again, I won’t vote for the Conservatives, but I certainly don’t like being hood-winked wrt the truth.


You're fudging the issue. Liberals are appealing the pension benefits of unmarried same-sex couples, an irrelevancy in the case of same sex marriage bill. Civil Unions, Schvimil Unions--this crap is segragation (and thus marginalization) by just another name.

Interesting you bring up that 'only' 57% of Liberals would vote for the same-sex marriage bill. Let me ask you, how did Conservatives vote within their own caucus about putting the abortion issue on the back burner--it was a closer race than that, about an issue that was settled 20 years ago.

You're fudging the issue. Liberals are appealing the pension benefits of unmarried same-sex couples, an irrelevancy in the case of same sex marriage bill. No I am not and no it is not. Point is these benefits are extended to umarried couples of the opposite sex but not to same-sex couples. Either you are for same-sex rights or you're not - can't have it both ways.

Interesting you bring up that 'only' 57% of Liberals would vote for the same-sex marriage bill. Let me ask you, how did Conservatives vote within their own caucus about putting the abortion issue on the back burner Apples and oranges here. The Liberals are being touted as the great emancipators wrt to same-sex rights, when that is indeed not the case - at best it is a slight majority who favour this upcoming Bill - let alone actually extending the rights to same-sex couples.

As I said, I am not pushing the Conservative agenda here, rather pointing out that the Liberal support for same-sex rights is more myth than truth.

Salvius, I ask you another very simple question: When the Liberals had an absolute majority in Parliament and the provincial judges started to say the existing marriage law was unconsitutional, why didn't they take the moral high grand and immediately enact a new law allowing same-sex marriage??

BTW, you adidn't answer my other question wrt to the vote in 1999, when the Liberals voted en mass in affirm marriage as being between a man and woman and not between a man and a man or a women and a women!

BTW, you adidn't answer my other question wrt to the vote in 1999, when the Liberals voted en mass in affirm marriage as being between a man and woman and not between a man and a man or a women and a women!

Changing with the times, perhaps?

No I am not and no it is not. Point is these benefits are extended to umarried couples of the opposite sex but not to same-sex couples. Either you are for same-sex rights or you're not - can't have it both ways.

Indeed, and let's change that once and for all by signing a bill which allows same sex marriage. Issue dropped.

And let's admit it, the only reason why the Liberals are against prior reparations to same-sex couples is because this costs $$$. If Conservatives were in power, they'd do the same thing. But this stance is unpopular (and for a good reason) whether you approve of same-sex couples/marriages, so Conservatives, as the opposition, are milking it for all its worth.


Apples and oranges here. The Liberals are being touted as the great emancipators wrt to same-sex rights, when that is indeed not the case - at best it is a slight majority who favour this upcoming Bill - let alone actually extending the rights to same-sex couples.

How exactly is it apples and oranges? The Conservatives are now touting to be on with the times, when it is a slight majority who doesn't want to meddle with abortion. Sounds to me like a pretty similar issue.


As I said, I am not pushing the Conservative agenda here, rather pointing out that the Liberal support for same-sex rights is more myth than truth.

Seeing as how the PM and the Cabinet support it, it is more truth than myth.


Salvius, I ask you another very simple question: When the Liberals had an absolute majority in Parliament and the provincial judges started to say the existing marriage law was unconsitutional, why didn't they take the moral high grand and immediately enact a new law allowing same-sex marriage??

Because these things don't take 5 minutes to enact, and parties change. I am also under no illusions, and I am sure that the Liberals are feeling the squeeze by NDP and Bloc (props to both of them in this case), but at least the head of the party is willing to say 'hey, you're right, let's do this,' instead of saying 'argh, an attack on Canada, this is a grave threat.'


BTW, you adidn't answer my other question wrt to the vote in 1999, when the Liberals voted en mass in affirm marriage as being between a man and woman and not between a man and a man or a women and a women!

Well, this is silly. Why not such a law in 1980s, 60s, etc? I wish there was, but times and parties change. In the end, better now, than the Conservative never. I mean, it's just such a silly thing for them to drag their feet on. This civil union business is nonsense, and a majority (even if a slight one), support the bloody thing. If you're saying you're going to govern for the majority, act that way.

BTW, I'm not excusing Liberals for anything. I certainly don't intend to vote on them, but I'm certainly a million times more in agreement with them over this issue than the Conservatives.

I think that the Liberals are dispicable and would never vote for them. But I feel even stronger about the Conservatives.

Both parties are very unappealing and have dragged their feet on the Same-Sex issues, but from a purely qualitative evaluation the Liberals have been more progressive on that front.

Another dividing issue is privatization. Both sides are for it to some extent but again based on a purely qualitative evaluation, the Liberals are less so.

It is truely about the lesser of two evils and it really depends what wieght you place on thier stances on the issues. In my case, I would vote for neither as both fail to meet my expectations as a party. (So do all other parties for that matter IMO but I could settle for the NDP)

Ugh...Liberals.

Excuse me, but what's so bad about the conservatives? How in the world are they hill-billies? At least they don't mismanage your heard-earned money like the Liberals!


People just don't trust them. They have no plan for cities, and they still come across as a very regional party. To many voters, they're just the Reform Party with a different name.

Interesting you bring up that 'only' 57% of Liberals would vote for the same-sex marriage bill. Let me ask you, how did Conservatives vote within their own caucus about putting the abortion issue on the back burner--it was a closer race than that, about an issue that was settled 20 years ago.
Sorry, missed this one. Full agreement here - "only" 55% of the delegates voted to leave things as they are, while nearly 45% still want to dabble in areas where they have no business. BTW, if I ever met Elsie Wayne I would dick-slap that twat until she had colon spuge coming out her ears.

As I said, I don't plan on voting Conservativem. While I agree with many of their policies, and think they have some great people on board, baggage like Eylsie make me cringe - just like Hedy.

BTW, for those Reform haters out there, remember Eylsie is old PC stock and was the one pushing the abortion thing - so even 'red' tory's are not what they used to be.

Changing with the times, perhaps?So why don't people drop the Conservatives=ban abortion issue. At their policy convention they adopted as their official policy to leave things as they stand. If the Liberals are allowed to change stripes, so should the Conservatives be.

My concerns with the Conservatives is their stance on same-sex marriage. I am gay, and while my partner and I (7 years togther--exchanged rings with eachother privately) do not intend to marry (marriage in today's society is obsolete anyhow), many other gay and lesbian couples want that right. Until they can become a more moderate party, I cannot vote for them.

Also, I am affraid that their views on Immigration will throw us back to when we let only X number in whose skills were deemed necessary.

I will not vote for NDP either; and I certainly will not vote for the Liberals. Our damn cities need money, and these assholes are giving millions and millions of dollars away for nothing (a la sponsorship scandal). How dare they piss away all that money!

Dude, the Conservatives have stated several times that although they are not in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage, they are in favour of giving same-sex couples the status of civil unions, which gives same-sex couples the very same rights as heterosexual couples. Don't feel threatened...they do not intent to take away anyone's civil rights, they just want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, while still giving same-sex couples the very same human rights. I hope you understand this, and I hope other understand this as well.

Sigh. Though I won’t vote conservative, I do hate it when people just ignore the facts.


Three weeks ago at the Conservative party convention they declared their official policy to be for the full extension of rights and privileges under civil unions to same sex couples.

Interestingly enough, the only Federal party that is actively against this idea are the Liberals who are appealing a court decision that ruled same-sex couples are entitled to the pension benefits of their deceased partners.

From the "Equal Marriage for Same Sex Couples (http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/cpp.htm)" website:

Irwin Cotler, our Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada, continues to show Canadians that he is prepared to compromise justice and offend equality rights for political expediency. Today his Liberal government announced that they would continue to fight gays and lesbians who are seeking funds owed to them by the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).

In very simple terms, they talk the talk but aren't exactly walking the walk. The Liberals are in fact insulting the intelligence of the electorate... again.

Also, last week the Globe and Mail published a poll showing only 57% of Liberal MPS plan to support the same-sex marriage bill.

And finally, if the Liberals really believed in equal rights wrt same-sex marriages, why did they support the Reform bill* in 1999 that asserted that "marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."??? Any ideas???

*Passed by a vote of 216-55, the motion initiated on June 8 by Eric Lowther, the official opposition children and families critic.

Again, I won’t vote for the Conservatives, but I certainly don’t like being hood-winked wrt the truth.

Just curious, why don't you plan on voting conservative? Do you plan on voting Liberal instead?

Well, this is silly. Why not such a law in 1980s, 60s, etc? I wish there was, but times and parties change. In the end, better now, than the Conservative never. I mean, it's just such a silly thing for them to drag their feet on. This civil union business is nonsense, and a majority (even if a slight one), support the bloody thing. If you're saying you're going to govern for the majority, act that way.

BTW, I'm not excusing Liberals for anything. I certainly don't intend to vote on them, but I'm certainly a million times more in agreement with them over this issue than the Conservatives.
Because in the 80's and 60's it was not deemed unconstitutional - again, they had the chance to pro-actively govern rather than react to judicial decisions. Policy should be set by parliament, not the courts.

Funny, we half agree, I don't plan on voting Conservative, but am a million times more in agreement in most issues with them than the Liberals.

BTW, anyone familiar with France's laws in this area??? Marriage is a religous union and has no legal bearing. Civil union is the non-secular, gov't institution that matters. Without it, you ain't "married" in the eyes of the law.

I don't understand the hang-up with the word "marriage" if the same rights/benefits are afforded to couples of the sam-sex as those given to couples of the opposite sex?? Is the issue here the word or the legal recognition. Sometimes I believe that zealots have gotten involved here that care more about the victory over the majority than the real goal of treating same sex couples the same.

People just don't trust them. They have no plan for cities, and they still come across as a very regional party. To many voters, they're just the Reform Party with a different name.

People don't trust them? Is that why they are #1 in the polls? IMO, if there is any party we cannot trust, it's the Liberals. We know what the Conservatives stand for. The are in favour of abortion, and they are in favour of giving same-sex couples the very same rights as heterosexual couples. They also won't fuck up and mismanage your hard-earned money like the Liberals.

Because in the 80's and 60's it was not deemed unconstitutional - again, they had the chance to pro-actively govern rather than react to judicial decisions. Policy should be set by parliament, not the courts.

Indeed. Should have still been settled by parliament sooner.


I don't understand the hang-up with the word "marriage" if the same rights/benefits are afforded to couples of the sam-sex as those given to couples of the opposite sex?? Is the issue here the word or the legal recognition.

Dude, the Conservatives have stated several times that although they are not in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage, they are in favour of giving same-sex couples the status of civil unions, which gives same-sex couples the very same rights as heterosexual couples. Don't feel threatened...they do not intent to take away anyone's civil rights, they just want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, while still giving same-sex couples the very same human rights. I hope you understand this, and I hope other understand this as well.

I am combining these two, since they kind of make the same point. The contention is the word, but also the institution. Basically, it's a separate institution--separate, but equal (my where have we heard such prhases before?). In other words, segregation; marriage for straight people, civil unions for gay people. Gay people are 'different' and can't get the 'traditional' marriage as a legal institution. It's fairly cut-and-dry case of bigotry, and there's nothing strange as to why people are opposed to this.

Just curious, why don't you plan on voting conservative? Do you plan on voting Liberal instead?
Green. Have never voted Conservative nor Liberal. Funny that, since I belonged to both parties at various times in my life.

Overall, there are three main reasons I plan on voting this way:

1. Eylsie Wayne and Hedy Fry - I could never vote for any party that allowed either of these two twats to be nominated (BTW - this isn't a sexist thing, I would still hate these two even if they were men).

2. A managed protest vote. I've always lived in a Federal riding where it was pretty much pre-ordained who would win. Since I believe it should be mandatory to vote, I have always directed my vote instead to a 'fringe' party that had something meaningful to say. Since I've always been an active environmentalist, the Greens are a natural fit for me (plus my conservative fiscal views, liberal social views, belief in consumption taxes, etc)

3. I believe that we are at a very important point in our history. I think that in the right circumstance we will see the emergance of a new way to govern. I think the days of the political idiologies of left and right are gone. Note that the Liberals and Concervatives are really just left or right of centre. Don't know if the Greens are this new wave or not, but they certainly are the first substantial party to marry many fiscal conservative ideas with liberal social ones. That and the fact that unless we do something meanful about the world we live in (air, land, water) we're hooped - and neither the Reds nor the Blues have any real ideas in this area. (please no claptrap on Kyoto here)

What I would really like to see is a number of key players from both the Liberals and the Conservatives jump to the Greens and create a new political force in this country. I'd also like to see beer in water fountains, cars run on good intentions and fat-free ice cream made with real cream. Oh well.

Green. Have never voted Conservative nor Liberal. Funny that, since I belonged to both parties at various times in my life.

Overall, there are three main reasons I plan on voting this way:

1. Eylsie Wayne and Hedy Fry - I could never vote for any party that allowed either of these two twats to be nominated (BTW - this isn't a sexist thing, I would still hate these two even if they were men).

2. A managed protest vote. I've always lived in a Federal riding where it was pretty much pre-ordained who would win. Since I believe it should be mandatory to vote, I have always directed my vote instead to a 'fringe' party that had something meaningful to say. Since I've always been an active environmentalist, the Greens are a natural fit for me (plus my conservative fiscal views, liberal social views, belief in consumption taxes, etc)

3. I believe that we are at a very important point in our history. I think that in the right circumstance we will see the emergance of a new way to govern. I think the days of the political idiologies of left and right are gone. Note that the Liberals and Concervatives are really just left or right of centre. Don't know if the Greens are this new wave or not, but they certainly are the first substantial party to marry many fiscal conservative ideas with liberal social ones. That and the fact that unless we do something meanful about the world we live in (air, land, water) we're hooped - and neither the Reds nor the Blues have any real ideas in this area. (please no claptrap on Kyoto here)

What I would really like to see is a number of key players from both the Liberals and the Conservatives jump to the Greens and create a new political force in this country. I'd also like to see beer in water fountains, cars run on good intentions and fat-free ice cream made with real cream. Oh well.

Cool explanation, and I respect your decision to support the Greens, but please remember that the days of Elsie Wayne are loooooooong gone! She retired from Federal Politics, and used to be a member of the PCs. The Conservatives do not represent either the PC's or the Canadian Alliance, they are a new, fresh party that is dedicated to mainstream Canadians. Their position on social issue is a lot more liberal than you think: In favour of abortions. In favour of giving same-sex couples equal rights. Policies that are in line with the Liberals and the NDP...

Basically, it's a separate institution--separate, but equal (my where have we heard such prhases before?). In other words, segregation; marriage for straight people, civil unions for gay people. Gay people are 'different' and can't get the 'traditional' marriage as a legal institution. It's fairly cut-and-dry case of bigotry, and there's nothing strange as to why people are opposed to this.
Actually that is exactly what I want to see - a separate institution. One that has religous overtones to it - but means nothing within the law of the land, and a non-secular meaning that is the only one that counts. If we don't follow this path, I believe that the we will then see court challenges to the Catholic/Muslim/Jewish/whatever churchs that they must marry same-sex couples in contrevention of the beliefs. Before you say this won't happen because of words in the actual Bill preventing this, remember in 2002 when the Ontario courts forced a Catholic school in Oshawa to allow a student to bring his gay date to the prom. While I don't support this, the truth of the matter is that that church very cleary had it's beliefs overriden by the courts.

Again, chose a new path than is equal to all without any baggage.

Actually that is exactly what I want to see - a separate institution. One that has religous overtones to it - but means nothing within the law of the land, and a non-secular meaning that is the only one that counts. If we don't follow this path, I believe that the we will then see court challenges to the Catholic/Muslim/Jewish/whatever churchs that they must marry same-sex couples in contrevention of the beliefs. Before you say this won't happen because of words in the actual Bill preventing this, remember in 2002 when the Ontario courts forced a Catholic school in Oshawa to allow a student to bring his gay date to the prom. While I don't support this, the truth of the matter is that that church very cleary had it's beliefs overriden by the courts.

Again, chose a new path than is equal to all without any baggage.

I agree, religious institutions shouldn't be forced to do anything.

Cool explanation, and I respect your decision to support the Greens, but please remember that the days of Elsie Wayne are loooooooong gone! She retired from Federal Politics, and used to be a member of the PCs. The Conservatives do not represent either the PC's or the Canadian Alliance, they are a new, fresh party that is dedicated to mainstream Canadians. Their position on social issue is a lot more liberal than you think: In favour of abortions. In favour of giving same-sex couples equal rights. Policies that are in line with the Liberals and the NDP...
While there is a lot of truth in what you, both she and that Fry bitch have left scares on me that will never heal!!

BTW, wrt the Conservatives, I am quite familiar with the new partyas I am a good aquitance of Jim Prentice (he's my MP) and have spent many hours talking with him. I've also met many of the behind the seen people in the Conservative party and have nothing but respect for them (ditto for the Liberals, on the whole).

That said, I'm looking forward and not backward, so I'm leaning Green. BTW, Jim is to be one of my first converts to jump to the Greens - ha ha.

Actually that is exactly what I want to see - a separate institution. One that has religous overtones to it - but means nothing within the law of the land, and a non-secular meaning that is the only one that counts.

Well, the secular meaning would count if Civil Unions were the same thing, which they are not. These unions have a clear purpose to acknowledge the difference between gay and straight. It is a slap in the face to the gay movement. You see, it is true that the gay movement's fight is one of dignity--to not get beaten up on the street, to have the same rights, but it is also one of tolerance, in other words a fight to make people realize that who you go to bed at night doesn't make you who you are. By segregating them into a separate group, the civil unions would clearly acknowledge that it does make a difference, in a very tangible way. The gay groups aren't being stubborn, all they are asking for is equal rights, not separate but equal.


Before you say this won't happen because of words in the actual Bill preventing this, remember in 2002 when the Ontario courts forced a Catholic school in Oshawa to allow a student to bring his gay date to the prom. While I don't support this, the truth of the matter is that that church very cleary had it's beliefs overriden by the courts.

I don't really care about the further challanges to the Charter personally, a potentially legalistic problem doesn't negate the fact that recognizing same-sex marriage as the right thing to do.

And frankly, the Church needs to grow up; a century ago it has been known to refuse marriage between Europeans and 'savages.' Hardly seems right now.

Depending on when and if an election was called, I might or might not get to vote, it will be my first election...

...and I'd throw my vote to the Conservatives. Sorry Green, I might vote for you when you develop a little more...

EDIT: And oh yeah, churches shouldn't have to marry same-sex couples...EVER. If you don't like it, tough.

DOUBLE EDIT: Interesting note I should add in here. My mom's family is United (ex-catholic) and my dad's is Catholic (ex-United). I didn't think that the divisions between the two Churches (over same-sex marriage) was so pronounced until I saw it within my own family. Meh, I've gone non-religious myself.

BTW, forcing churches to marry gay people won't happen... Priests are under no obligation to marry heterosexual couples, so there's no double standard under the law. The Catholic school example is completely different, as the school is still a publically funded institution.

And oh yeah, churches shouldn't have to marry same-sex couples...EVER. If you don't like it, tough.


:applause:

BTW, forcing churches to marry gay people won't happen... Priests are under no obligation to marry heterosexual couples, so there's no double standard under the law. The Catholic school example is completely different, as the school is still a publically funded institution.

^Don't be so naive. One wedding hall owner will have to defend himself in front of a human rights tribunal because he refuses to rent out the place to a same-sex couple, and another Bishop in Calgary will have to do the same for speaking out against same-sex marriage. Now you're preventing freedom of speech. No one is more equal than the other. The Bishop could say whatever he wants to say, and the wedding hall owner can rent his hall out to whoever he wants, or whoever he doesn't want. This country embraces freedom of worship...and should respect everyone's religious belief.

... nevermind... elaborated below.

^Don't be so naive. One wedding hall owner will have to defend himself in front of a human rights tribunal because he refuses to rent out the place to a same-sex couple, and another Bishop in Calgary will have to do the same for speaking out against same-sex marriage. Now you're preventing freedom of speech. No one is more equal than the other. The Bishop could say whatever he wants to say, and the wedding hall owner can rent his hall out to whoever he wants, or whoever he doesn't want. This country embraces freedom of worship...and should respect everyone's religious belief.

Okay, now let me understand... Are you really arguing that priests will have to marry gay people? Your examples prove nothing of the kind. Look at them again and see they bear no relation to priests being obliged to marry same-sex couples. Seriously... If you don't see the difference after further analysis, I'll explain it further.

Poor Bishop Fred Henry, I hate the way he's being assaulted for expressing his views...bloody 'rights' groups... :bash:

Green. Have never voted Conservative nor Liberal. Funny that, since I belonged to both parties at various times in my life.

Overall, there are three main reasons I plan on voting this way:

1. Eylsie Wayne and Hedy Fry - I could never vote for any party that allowed either of these two twats to be nominated (BTW - this isn't a sexist thing, I would still hate these two even if they were men).

2. A managed protest vote. I've always lived in a Federal riding where it was pretty much pre-ordained who would win. Since I believe it should be mandatory to vote, I have always directed my vote instead to a 'fringe' party that had something meaningful to say. Since I've always been an active environmentalist, the Greens are a natural fit for me (plus my conservative fiscal views, liberal social views, belief in consumption taxes, etc)

3. I believe that we are at a very important point in our history. I think that in the right circumstance we will see the emergance of a new way to govern. I think the days of the political idiologies of left and right are gone. Note that the Liberals and Concervatives are really just left or right of centre. Don't know if the Greens are this new wave or not, but they certainly are the first substantial party to marry many fiscal conservative ideas with liberal social ones. That and the fact that unless we do something meanful about the world we live in (air, land, water) we're hooped - and neither the Reds nor the Blues have any real ideas in this area. (please no claptrap on Kyoto here)

What I would really like to see is a number of key players from both the Liberals and the Conservatives jump to the Greens and create a new political force in this country. I'd also like to see beer in water fountains, cars run on good intentions and fat-free ice cream made with real cream. Oh well.

Funny, as these are the same reasons why I joined the green party recently. I've been impressed by their stances on so many issues, and you can even participate in the drawing up of their platform (as it's wiki!). Of course, that will have to eventually go if the party gets to large, but they're encouraging.

As a 23 year old who recently finished school, I must say that I probably have a more niave hope for the future. But if I am niave, then at least I'm fighting for what I believe in, which is not the status quo. The green party will probably hit a brick wall in terms of support from people who think they're just a nutty hippy party. These same people will probably not understand basic economics, or they would better understand how the greens are probably better.

The Liberals are obviously past their prime (congrats for slaying the deficit, recording Canada's largest ever tax cut, and stopping quebec separation), but they've gotten sloppy and ignored their roots for too long (read centrist urban Ontarians and left wing quebecers). They arrogantly bumbled along and when they tripped they had nothing to help them up.

The Conservatives pick my interest economically (no more corporate welfare, but the greens advocate that, too), but they have to much Reform/Alliance past. It was only 6 or 7 years ago that Harper was part of a party that advovated total elimination of universal healthcare (the National Citizens Coalition was founded on this priniciple by insurance companies), making abortion totally illegal, having government promoting christianity etc. Stockwell day is still there, and Harper is only shifting his image because he's desperate to get elected. He's slowly morphing into a pre-scandal liberal in that he doesn't sincerely beleive in what he's preaching. And with regards to gay marriage, wouldn't a true middle ground be having civil unions for both gay and straight couples, and then leaving out the word marriage and letting society define it in everyday life?

The NDP has good intentions, but they are ignorant to reality. The government should provide a safety net, not provide for every single need of the country. They provide a good voice, though.

What's interesting is that everybody is already forgetting the last election. People polled that they would vote a conservative minority, but then had a change of heart. When they get to the ballot, are they going to mark an X beside the conservatives or are they going to say "I can't do it" and vote Liberal or protest (green, comunist, whatever)?

It would be next to impossible for the coservatives to form a majority without Quebec, so I would at least be fascinated by how Harper would handle a minority government. How would he compete with the bloc's demands for the fiscal imbalance (how does this work with regards to quebec when they are a recipient of equalization?) and their demands for gay marriage, no missle defense, among other things. Canadian politics is finally getting interesting.

Actually that is exactly what I want to see - a separate institution. One that has religous overtones to it - but means nothing within the law of the land, and a non-secular meaning that is the only one that counts. If we don't follow this path, I believe that the we will then see court challenges to the Catholic/Muslim/Jewish/whatever churchs that they must marry same-sex couples in contrevention of the beliefs. Before you say this won't happen because of words in the actual Bill preventing this, remember in 2002 when the Ontario courts forced a Catholic school in Oshawa to allow a student to bring his gay date to the prom. While I don't support this, the truth of the matter is that that church very cleary had it's beliefs overriden by the courts.

Again, chose a new path than is equal to all without any baggage.

Catholic schools are publicly funded in Ontario (this is historical and IMO wrong), if it was a private school it would have been another matter.

^ Catholic schools teach the government curriculum. i don't see why not. but maybe, these schools should be funded less than private schools. this is in BC as well.

Okay, now let me understand... Are you really arguing that priests will have to marry gay people? Your examples prove nothing of the kind. Look at them again and see they bear no relation to priests being obliged to marry same-sex couples. Seriously... If you don't see the difference after further analysis, I'll explain it further.

You give a kid a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk. We need to draw the line and take a stand. Today, people are attacking priests for expressing their views...tomorrow...who knows.

Funny, as these are the same reasons why I joined the green party recently. I've been impressed by their stances on so many issues, and you can even participate in the drawing up of their platform (as it's wiki!). Of course, that will have to eventually go if the party gets to large, but they're encouraging.

As a 23 year old who recently finished school, I must say that I probably have a more niave hope for the future. But if I am niave, then at least I'm fighting for what I believe in, which is not the status quo. The green party will probably hit a brick wall in terms of support from people who think they're just a nutty hippy party. These same people will probably not understand basic economics, or they would better understand how the greens are probably better.

You identified two key things there - first of all the Greens are still naive in the way they function - which to me is a breath of freash air. Doubt it will last in its current form, but by starting with this kind of foundation, the future has potential.

Secondly if enough 20 year-olds get interested in the Greens (or whichever new alternative comes on the scene), when you become an old grizzled fart like me you will have the critical mass to institute real change. While I do hope/believe that this will happen, I do know it will take time. Personally, I think it will take 2 more Federal elections before the Greens are seen in the same league as the NDP and another 1 or 2 if/when they could challenge the reds/blues. That said, if they were to get elected provincally (don't laugh but Alberta is the most likely place this could happen) their rise on the Federal ranks will accelerate.

Catholic schools are publicly funded in Ontario (this is historical and IMO wrong), if it was a private school it would have been another matter.
Well technically they are funded with taxes from Catholics! Regardless, all religions receive indirect government funding in that they are tax exempt. Finally, from what I remember, the public funding issue didn't come up at all - rather it was a case of constitutional rights.

Shreddog: I don't think we'd get a provincial Green government for a while, but they will start gobbling up the NDP and Liberals here (thank God), while the Alberta Alliance is starting to move in from the right...so yeah, it's possible.

EDIT: Admittedly, at least for appearances, the Greens DO look like loonies! I remember during the last election, I saw some spokeswoman for the Greens from some group of islands, and I thought she was an absolute nutcase!

I don't really care about the further challanges to the Charter personally, a potentially legalistic problem doesn't negate the fact that recognizing same-sex marriage as the right thing to do.

And frankly, the Church needs to grow up; a century ago it has been known to refuse marriage between Europeans and 'savages.' Hardly seems right now.
Sorry, you can't ignore further challenges (if for the only reason that is why the Liberals said they wanted to wait for the Supreme court ruling before drafting their Bill). This is a case of what's good for the goose (same-sex rights) must also be good for the gander (religous groups). We cannot enact bills/laws that will compromise one group of the population in support of another.

BTW, just to clarify something. Most people associate Church to mean Catholic when talking about the religous concerns. The reality is that most formal religons are very aprehensive about this. Regardless if their beliefs fit with mine or not, I will not support any decision that forces a Sikh, Jew, Sunni, Catholic, whatever to do something that they don't believe in.

And as Borris said, you can bet dollars to donuts that if the current Bill was law, someone would protest a church or whatever not marrying them.

Shreddog: I don't think we'd get a provincial Green government for a while, but they will start gobbling up the NDP and Liberals here (thank God), while the Alberta Alliance is starting to move in from the right...so yeah, it's possible.

EDIT: Admittedly, at least for appearances, the Greens DO look like loonies! I remember during the last election, I saw some spokeswoman for the Greens from some group of islands, and I thought she was an absolute nutcase!
Well, look at Alberta's history. Whenever it has changed governments, it does so with a vengence (well the last 3 times anyway - LOL).

Yes there are lots of loonies in the party, but it's getting better.

BTW, Preston Manning wrote a great essay on political change in Alberta were he suggests that if not the Greens, something akin to them could be in offering.

Looks like I know who bought into the Liberal scare tactics from the last election concerning the Conservatives.

For the record, I'd vote Conservative. Twelve years ago I would have voted Liberal. As far as I'm concerned, no radicals makes me happy. I respect the Greens for being forthright in their agenda but since I see them as too far out there ideologically, I wouldn't vote for them....at least not yet. Since I have no use for the Bloc and despise EVERYTHING about the NDP, they're off the list as well.

I'm not too sure where this disgust for the Conservatives comes from. We're not talking about Republicans here. I might have a problem with them if they actually were opposed to gays getting married but they're not. As well, I'm not gay so it isn't my problem. I like the rest of you, would vote for a party that I believe is the best for the country overall. If that's selfish, then we're all guilty of the same. Anyway, the Conservatives have no problem with gay unions and that's good enough for me. So they won't let it be called marriage....so what? Same difference. But I know for sure that they haven't blown millions on their favorite Quebec companies and they aren't ramming a bad idea like the gun-registry down our throats. And who knows...they might even do something about our 'progressive' justice system that sends murderers to 'their rooms to think about what they did!' *slap on the wrist*.

By the way, Hedy Fry was a Liberal.

You give a kid a cookie, he's gonna want a glass of milk. We need to draw the line and take a stand. Today, people are attacking priests for expressing their views...tomorrow...who knows.

Alright, fine, I'll elaborate since you're off the deep end on this one. First let me say again that priests will never be required to marry same-sex couples since priests are not required to marry heterosexual couples. So, unless someone first wins the SC case in which they argue the priests are required to marry people, this won't happen. Since nobody could win this case in SC, it's a non-issue.

Now let's get to the other examples you've used:


One wedding hall owner will have to defend himself in front of a human rights tribunal because he refuses to rent out the place to a same-sex couple

This case has nothing to do with freedom of speech (which isn't absolute, btw), but with freedom to contract. A contract isn't defined as just 'freedom from;' it was at one point and it disallowed blacks and Jews and many other immigrants/minorities to partake in contracts (since many businesses refused to deal with them). Since then, of course, we have also set a threshold requiring a freedom to contract so that this doesn't happen again. In other words, a business can't say 'sorry, I'm not renting you this wedding hall because you're Jewish.' Now, why you think this freedom to contract shouldn't be extended to homosexuals is beyond me. Homosexuals have a right to partake in the same contracts as anyone else; if a Black person was refused the right to rent out a wedding hall it would be an outrage, but it is exactly the same issue, one of equal rights under the law.


the wedding hall owner can rent his hall out to whoever he wants, or whoever he doesn't want.

No he can't and that's the whole point. If you run a business, you cannot exclude an arbitrary set of people on the basis of freedom from contract; that right is not absolute, just like any other. You're not allowed to withold the sale of your house because you've found out the new owner is Jewish. Exactly the same laws are responsible in both instances.


and another Bishop in Calgary will have to do the same for speaking out against same-sex marriage. Now you're preventing freedom of speech. No one is more equal than the other. The Bishop could say whatever he wants to say,

The Bishop is under investigation under the charge that he was willfully promoting hate against an identifiable group for his call to have gays persecuted. Freedom of speech is not absolute right under law, although I do agree he can think and say what he wants (although I also agree that a call for persecuting gays would generally be regarded as hateful). Whether you agree with the law or not, however, is irrelevant since it has absolutely nothing to do with the right of priests to refuse to wed any two individuals be they homosexual or heterosexual.

So, both your examples are under no circumstances a 'precedent' for priests being required to marry homosexual couples.

I might have a problem with them if they actually were opposed to gays getting married but they're not. As well, I'm not gay so it isn't my problem. I like the rest of you, would vote for a party that I believe is the best for the country overall. If that's selfish, then we're all guilty of the same. Anyway, the Conservatives have no problem with gay unions and that's good enough for me. So they won't let it be called marriage....so what? Same difference.

I have responded to this. Please read it, and if you disagree, tell me why you disagree (I rather don't like saying the same thing many times). Civil unions and marriage are not the same thing.

^Still gotta take a stand.

Any who, we're off-topic here. Let's stick to the topic of the Liberals' plunge in popularity due to the sponsorship scandal.

Civil unions and marriage are not the same thing.

Yes they are.

I have responded to this. Please read it, and if you disagree, tell me why you disagree (I rather don't like saying the same thing many times). Civil unions and marriage are not the same thing.
Sorry, lol, I skipped a few posts when reviewing. I'll get back to you. :)

Yes they are.

Forget it, if you're not willing to read and respond what I wrote previously, but simply say 'yes they are' (when they are not), there's really no point in having a debate.

I have read you're previous posts, and the reason why I say "yes they are" is because they will be receiving the same rights as heterosexual couples, hence the reason why civil unions and heterosexual marriages would be equal.

People don't trust them? Is that why they are #1 in the polls? IMO, if there is any party we cannot trust, it's the Liberals. We know what the Conservatives stand for. The are in favour of abortion, and they are in favour of giving same-sex couples the very same rights as heterosexual couples. They also won't fuck up and mismanage your hard-earned money like the Liberals.


Yes...#1 now...after 12 years. They are often shady on what they believe, and as someone who believes in reinvesting in cities, they have abosolutely no plan. Conservative governments traditionally have not been kind to cities and these Conservatives do not come across as the Red kind...quite the opposite. Not to mention the fact they still seem quite regional. What is it Harper said after losing? 'One day the west will be heard', or something to that effect. That he'd say that as leader of a supposed national party is a little disturbing.

I have read you're previous posts, and the reason why I say "yes they are" is because they will be receiving the same rights as heterosexual couples, hence the reason why civil unions and heterosexual marriages would be equal.

You choose not to understand, then. If there's a separate set of rights that are the same, but aren't nested in the same set of laws, then they are not the same. By very definition, they are different, and in fact, legitimate the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals under law. Homosexual groups, rightly, don't want to be deemed as 'different under the law.'

@Salvius: Okay, I've read your post on it but I don't agree. It's an interesting take on it, and there's some merit to it but the idea of it being state-sanctioned discrimination seems somewhat contrived to me.

For one thing, it IS equal. No rights are lost, nothing is disallowed. Same benefits, same rights. Since it's not a matter that requires public funding there's nothing the state could do to make it 'more' or 'less' equal than marriage. The point that it provides a basis for distinction is valid though IMO. Nevertheless, when was the last time you told someone off because they are a common-law marriage/union only? Nobody will care. For that matter, realistically, gays will probably just consider themselves married and say as much and the population in general won't bat an eye over it. It's the distinction between black and white. It is what it is. If the word marriage doesn't apply because it assumes a religious connotation, then that is the definition of marriage and they have the right to distinguish who is 'married' and who is in a 'union' Look, it's trivial, I'll grant you that, but I fail to see a clear correlation between the distinction of the terms acting as a basis for true segregation of peoples. I don't think anybody is going to be putting gays in prison based on the definition of marriage/union one way or the other.

BTW, for the record, I'm not against the idea of it being called a marriage. But, it isn't my argument. I'm simply pointing out that if indeed it IS a religious term, then it is religious institutions that have the right apply it and only them.

Yes...#1 now...after 12 years. They are often shady on what they believe, and as someone who believes in reinvesting in cities, they have abosolutely no plan. Conservative governments traditionally have not been kind to cities and these Conservatives do not come across as the Red kind...quite the opposite. Not to mention the fact they still seem quite regional. What is it Harper said after losing? 'One day the west will be heard', or something to that effect. That he'd say that as leader of a supposed national party is a little disturbing.

For 12 years, there was no viable alternative. We had 2 Conservative parties. There was vote splitting. In 2003 we say the end of that, and now we can finally clearly see how Canadians feels.

@Salvius: Okay, I've read your post on it but I don't agree. It's an interesting take on it, and there's some merit to it but the idea of it being state-sanctioned discrimination seems somewhat contrived to me.

But it isn't. Think about it, if it wasn't state-sanctioned discrimination, why go for civil unions in the first place?


For one thing, it IS equal. No rights are lost, nothing is disallowed. Same benefits, same rights. Since it's not a matter that requires public funding there's nothing the state could do to make it 'more' or 'less' equal than marriage. The point that it provides a basis for distinction is valid though IMO. Nevertheless, when was the last time you told someone off because they are a common-law marriage/union only?

It's not a fair parallel as persons under common-law relationship can still opt to get married.



Nobody will care. For that matter, realistically, gays will probably just consider themselves married and say as much and the population in general won't bat an eye over it. It's the distinction between black and white.

Ahhh, no. Gay groups have voiced great displeasure at the concept of civil unions, since it singles them out. They want to be treated as same and equal under the law not separate and equal. Imagine if tomorrow we had a special Black Criminal Code, which had the same laws as the current Canadian Criminal Code, but applies only to blacks. These crimes would not be known as 'crimes' as is the case in the regular Criminal Code; in the Black Criminal Code, they would be known as 'black crimes.' Nothing's different, all laws are still the same. Yet, do you not think that would be segregation?


It is what it is. If the word marriage doesn't apply because it assumes a religious connotation, then that is the definition of marriage and they have the right to distinguish who is 'married' and who is in a 'union'

As we live in a secular state, marriage under law has no religious connotation.


Look, it's trivial, I'll grant you that, but I fail to see a clear correlation between the distinction of the terms acting as a basis for true segregation of peoples.

Well, I tried to explain it. I see the distinction rather clearly, actually, as does the Gay movement. They don't see it as a trivial distinction, but a rather crucial one over whether they'll be considered the same human beings as everyone else.

BTW, for the record, I'm not against the idea of it being called a marriage. But, it isn't my argument. I'm simply pointing out that if indeed it IS a religious term, then it is religious institutions that have the right apply it and only them.

OK, which religion? Some gay people have religions, too (even non christian ones). Only established one(s)? To enshrine that "right" you'd need the government to enforce it. Then you'd have government sponsoring a religion. Uh oh.

Back to the point though: We've had twelve years to reflect on Liberal rule and the last Conservative government. I remember still when Mulroney headed for the nearest exit and threw Kim Campbell into the hot seat to take the fall. The guy was universally reviled across the country. Why was he hated? Mostly over two things:
-The GST. Chretien ran on a platform that included the abolishment of the GST. Look at how that turned out. Not that anybody was particularly surprised about it. But thanks to that GST we are actually paying off our national debt.
-Free Trade. Turns out the Big Chin was right. Not only that, it looks like he saw the future and it said "No borders" Like it or not, Mulroney was right about that one as well.

Believe it or not, I'm not holding the Liberals any more accoutable for their misdeeds as I did the Conservatives. But there's a huge difference between how the last Conservative government pissed off every voter in the country and how the Liberals are doing it now. We didn't like where Mulroney was going with his big changes at the time (among other things. He pulled some dirty little tricks on regions across the country to buy votes in other areas as well as his policy initiatives) Well, now that we can look back on it, it appears that Chretien made his legacy one of scandal, corruption, and government waste. Hey, Mulroney gave us things to hate about the world, but Chretien gave us reason to hate the Liberals. And now we have Paul Martin. This guy is practically the living embodiment of Where's Waldo? If you asked this guy whether or not he was having a good day or a bad one, I get the feeling he'd answer "Yes"

Tempting as it is, I'm not gonna argue about the definition of marriage. Frankly, it's not my problem and I don't give a crap about who gets married or who gets a civil union. I'm not gay or religious....they can fight about it if they want.

On thoes points (second post from above), it's more like the Liberals, for the past few terms, have been spitting in the faces of the average voter and just DARING you to kick them out of office. Like them or not, at least the Conservatives didn't go out of their way to piss off voters with scandals.

EDIT: I also agree about Looselog's final point there. It's not my fight either, so I will just leave the argument behind now.

^ well, that's rather lucky since they didn't have a chance. I have no reason to believe that a Conservative government would be better since their last platform was rather odd, especially in fiscal expenditures.

BTW, Conservatives going to the US and apologizing for not sending forces to the Iraq is to me personally a scandal, one that spits on the face of Canadian sovreignity. Where's their pride?

-The GST. Chretien ran on a platform that included the abolishment of the GST. Look at how that turned out. Not that anybody was particularly surprised about it. But thanks to that GST we are actually paying off our national debt.


If Mulroney actually took the initiative & slayed the Canadian debt before it ballooned out of control in the 80s, wouldn't there be less of a need of a GST?

Some may see NAFTA as the best thing that has ever happened to Canada, but increasing our reliance on the American economy for short-term benefit just isn't my cup of tea.

^ well, that's rather lucky since they didn't have a chance. I have no reason to believe that a Conservative government would be better since their last platform was rather odd, especially in fiscal expenditures.

BTW, Conservatives going to the US and apologizing for not sending forces to the Iraq is to me personally a scandal, one that spits on the face of Canadian sovreignity. Where's their pride?
Well, why not? At the time it was a fifty fifty split....are we talking about Liberal sovereignty or the Canadian version?

If Mulroney actually took the initiative & slayed the Canadian debt before it ballooned out of control in the 80s, wouldn't there be less of a need of a GST?
Uh...you can thank Trudeau and his Liberal government for that one.

Well, why not? At the time it was a fifty fifty split....are we talking about Liberal sovereignty or the Canadian version?

??? Which poll had a 50/50 split? But more to the point, a would be PM going to the US to kiss their feet and ask them forgiveness for not going to Iraq--how much more pathetic can it get?

Uh...you can thank Trudeau and his Liberal government for that one.

I do blame him for that too, but that's because he is left of centre, & ideology cost the government billions. But Brian Baloney, as right-of-centre Conservative Prime Minister for 8 years, continued this horrible legacy of tax increases and record deficits. That's baffling & flies right in the face of fiscal responsibility.

??? Which poll had a 50/50 split? But more to the point, a would be PM going to the US to kiss their feet and ask them forgiveness for not going to Iraq--how much more pathetic can it get?
Well, if you recall, at the time the country was pretty evenly split on the issue of whether or not to support the Iraq invasion or not. As far as sending troops down there, I doubt the numbers suggested us being in favour of it no. But while I don't recall this 'feet kissing exercise' you speak of I doubt that it was meant to apologize for us not sending troops. More likely it was to try and patch up relations and the bridge the rift created by Chretien.

I do blame him for that too, but that's because he is left of centre, & ideology cost the government billions. But Brian Baloney, as right-of-centre Conservative Prime Minister for 8 years, continued this horrible legacy of tax increases and record deficits. That's baffling & flies right in the face of fiscal responsibility.
But there you are right there. Who's idea was it to do something about it with the GST?

I wouldn't put my monies on today's polls... in november everyone would have forgot about them especially after the tax cut we'll have before the elections...

people have a short term memories, plus everything is just allegations at this moment with this scandal.

But there you are right there. Who's idea was it to do something about it with the GST?

The problem is that the GST was enacted towards the latter half of his second term (1991?), meaning that he never took a care about the deficit while he was in office for the first 7 years. If the Liberals could slay the deficit in 5 years, why couldn't the Conservatives do it? The Conservatives are supposed to be better at controlling finances!! Mulroney could have been a fiscal hero, but muddled up this opportunity and allowed the debt to balloon.

By the time the GST was brought up as a possible solution, another seven years of record deficits had already stacked on top of Canada's debt.

Well, if you recall, at the time the country was pretty evenly split on the issue of whether or not to support the Iraq invasion or not.

The shortest pre-war split I know of is roughly 60/40; once the war started the 'for' camp gained a boost, which evaporated later on.


As far as sending troops down there, I doubt the numbers suggested us being in favour of it no.

But they were, except in the case of UN authorization, which obviously wouldn't come.


But while I don't recall this 'feet kissing exercise' you speak of I doubt that it was meant to apologize for us not sending troops. More likely it was to try and patch up relations and the bridge the rift created by Chretien.

Well, I'm not sure if I will be able to find a transcript of a rather sad interview given to CNN in which Harper apologized (as I say, rather pathetically) for Canada not sending troops. We have other world responsibilites except the US. Somehow I feel the old era of chumming it up with the US, world community be damned (ALA the Mulroney years), will be back if we manage to draw a Conservative gov't. I'd love to be wrong, though.

The problem is that the GST was enacted towards the latter half of his second term (1991?), meaning that he never took a care about the deficit while he was in office for the first 7 years. If the Liberals could slay the deficit in 5 years, why couldn't the Conservatives do it? The Conservatives are supposed to be better at controlling finances!! Mulroney could have been a fiscal hero, but muddled up this opportunity and allowed the debt to balloon.

By the time the GST was brought up as a possible solution, another seven years of record deficits had already stacked on top of Canada's debt.
Fair enough but then again, I recall the years leading up to the implementation of the GST. It didn't happen overnight. It took years to ram this thing down the Canadian public's collective throat.

Anyway, look, I'm not calling Mulroney an angel. At the time I hated his guts as much as the next person. But look at the current situation. We demanded the Liberals do something about the leniency of the Young Offender's Act. Their response was the YCJA, which was even MORE lenient. They told us they'd start a gun registry for four million buck....a billion and still counting later it has accomplished nothing. Our relations with the US have taken a serious nosedive and despite what the anti-American crowd would like you to believe, the US is and will remain our closest neighbour and trading partner. And now we find out that our money has been sent to ad agencies whose sole purpose was to deposit it into their bank accounts. What more do we need to realize that for the time being, the Liberals need the boot?

The Liberals are very corrupt but the Conservative, lead only 12 years ago by Mulroney are not as fresh as the driven snow.
I will either vote Green or NDP.
I live on an island near Victoria where support for the Greens is the highest in the nation. So much so that it ussually hurts the NDP and thery keep telling everyone not to split the vote.
Wanna hear something REALLY interesting.
There has been a rumour that our ex-enviornment minister, Anderson might switch parties..........to the GREENS!! He was thrown out of cabinet so has no love for Martin and now that the Liberals are in such turmoil this would be his best chance to switch sides.
Not only would help the Greens exposure but more importantly they would have a MP in the house, and that means they would be in the next federal debate!
I really hope he does, I say a pox on all their houses.

^^^^^^^^^^^
Forgot, Anderson is an MP from Victoria where the Green support is high. In the last fed election they guarnered 16% of the vote. He could win with a Green party ticket but as things look now he would be masacred by being a Liberal.

A seat for the Greens in the HOC is long overdue. If it wasn't for out ridiculous first-past-the-post, it would have happened a looong time ago.

What more do we need to realize that for the time being, the Liberals need the boot?

Yes, they need the boot, but Conservatives also need to remember that their past governments didn't carry clean records either, and can't be too cocky when it comes to blasting the liberals on their misgivings.

BTW, I am not voting for the Liberals either, but sometimes, the accusations from the Conservatives does get me somewhat ticked off. The argument from Conservative supporters that the Conservative government won't waste tax dollars is just a giant fib waiting to happen. Unless real accountability controls can be established, all political parties will be corrupt to a certain extent. The only difference is the degree of deceit.

It seems as if the best thing that can happen is for the government to become more open and transparent so that huge amounts of waste will not occur so easily. Such waste becomming public knowledge intime for something to be done about it could do much to inspire confidence in the Government as well as cutting government costs.

Yes, they need the boot, but Conservatives also need to remember that their past governments didn't carry clean records either, and can't be too cocky when it comes to blasting the liberals on their misgivings.

BTW, I am not voting for the Liberals either, but sometimes, the accusations from the Conservatives does get me somewhat ticked off. The argument from Conservative supporters that the Conservative government won't waste tax dollars is just a giant fib waiting to happen. Unless real accountability controls can be established, all political parties will be corrupt to a certain extent. The only difference is the degree of deceit.
I agree %100 percent with that sentiment. I'd like to add though that my pet peeve on the matter is that so many people have bought into the Liberal party's propaganda about how the Conservatives are Nazi's and 'hillbillies'. They aren't angels by any stretch, that's for sure but they are far from backwards yokels who sit around on their front porches saying "you ain't from around here, is ya boy?"

I agree %100 percent with that sentiment. I'd like to add though that my pet peeve on the matter is that so many people have bought into the Liberal party's propaganda about how the Conservatives are Nazi's and 'hillbillies'. They aren't angels by any stretch, that's for sure but they are far from backwards yokels who sit around on their front porches saying "you ain't from around here, is ya boy?"

The only way the Conservatives can dispell this myth is by controlling the extremists factions of the party and by allowing moderates to take over. The best way to achieve this is by adopting the political standings of Quebec Conservatives, and by selling the same formula to Ontario, BC and the Maritimes. This allows a comprimise between Conservative beliefs and progessive politics.

Personally, I would prefer a change of leadership, as I feel Harper's past creates too much baggage for the newly minted Conservative Party to carry on its shoulders.

...Na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye
Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey-ey, goodbye...

that song was sung in the House of Commons by the Conservatives and the NDP today.

for the fun of it, sing along!!!

The Liberals can use a good shakedown. Sit out a term, get their act together, and come back lean and fresh for the next election. And I think it may not be an entirely bad idea to shed themselves of Paul Martin in the off-time. The drama between him and Chretien hurt the party, and as long as Liberal detractors see Paul Martin up front and centre, the phrase "sponsorship scandal" won't be far from their lips. A new face might help to bury the issue. And I should add that this is to say nothing bad about the man himself. I feel he's done a lot of good for Canada and would have made a great Prime Minister under different circumstances, but timing and his party really seem to have worked against him.

Does that mean I support a Conservative government?

While right now I think the time may be right for the Conservatives to have another shot, I'm starting to think that in most of Canada the Conservative party is like a bucket of KFC. Once in a while, we get an inexplicable craving for it... but after a few bites, we realize "oh yeah... I hate this shit." And four years is an awfully big bucket.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. I'm rather resigned to the fact that Harper will have his chance in the PM's chair to prove everyone right or wrong, assuming he's clever enough to know come campaign time that he can't simply repeat "sponsorship scandal" until he's elected. Their policies need some tweaking, and if they want to beat the Liberals by a large margin, they have to appeal to even more of the electorate. As I see it, they're going to do some sliding; whether it's a little more to the left in terms of policy, or down in terms of voter percentage.

Personally, I've given up on both major parties, and am moving on to GREENer pastures.

Also: seeing the Bloc alive and well, the PQ likely to win the next provincial election, a (perhaps?) imminent Conservative government lying in wait, and a Quebec that's bitter at the Liberal party even if they win... will the Canada we've come to know and hate survive another 10 years?

PS: Props to Salvius for pointing out the de facto discrimination in the Conservatives' "gay marriage" policy. It's like telling immigrants "you can never be called a 'Canadian,' but instead will always be referred to as a 'landed immigrant in Canada.' What? This isn't discriminatory... you'll have all the rights of someone who actually is 'Canadian.' I mean, you'll practically be 'Canadian' for all intents and purposes."

^ well said. a great way to put it. btw, welcome to the SSC.

I say forget just sitting out a term. Sit out until you learn some respect for the Canadian electorate.

^ who was that directed towards?

I really hope that in the next election the conservitives get a majority goverment. Its not a good thing to have one party in power for so long, thats a dictatorship. Its time Canadian's tell the Liberals that massive corruption is not tolarated in Canada. I will continue to vote conservitve untill they give me a good reason not to.

Dude, the Conservatives have stated several times that although they are not in favour of legalizing same-sex marriage, they are in favour of giving same-sex couples the status of civil unions, which gives same-sex couples the very same rights as heterosexual couples. Don't feel threatened...they do not intent to take away anyone's civil rights, they just want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, while still giving same-sex couples the very same human rights. I hope you understand this, and I hope other understand this as well.


Clearly the whole equality issue is part of it, but it is the "idea" of getting "married", and having it recognized. There are many gays and Lesbians who want that, and want it to be recognized so shut the hell up!

Clearly the whole equality issue is part of it, but it is the "idea" of getting "married", and having it recognized. There are many gays and Lesbians who want that, and want it to be recognized so shut the hell up!
Hmmm, and there's lots of same-sex couples working for the Federal gov't who would like the same benefits as their opposite-sex counterparts, yet the Liberals are actively fighting this. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Silly me--I thought Canada was the poster-country for equality. Besides, I am not a champion for the Liberals, so your post is irrelevant.

Silly me--I thought Canada was the poster-country for equality. Besides, I am not a champion for the Liberals, so your post is irrelevant.
Well my post wasn't directed specifically at you and the last line was for all the myoptic Liberal zealots out there. Didn't mean to imply you were one - if I did, humblest apologies!!

Hmmm, and there's lots of same-sex couples working for the Federal gov't who would like the same benefits as their opposite-sex counterparts, yet the Liberals are actively fighting this. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Sure you can, just don't vote for the Cs and the Ls.

I will not vote for the conservatives if they have anything to do with the bloc.

The bloc is not just a separatist party. The bloc is the French francophone party.
The bloc believes Canada is not a real country because Canadians are not all French francophone.

The bloc is a racist party. I am sure there are a few French-Canadians that have a pretty way of saying this.

Maybe I will vote for the Green party.

No prob Shred--I was kinda bitchy!

I will not vote for the conservatives if they have anything to do with the bloc.

The bloc is not just a separatist party. The bloc is the French francophone party.
The bloc believes Canada is not a real country because Canadians are not all French francophone.

The bloc is a racist party. I am sure there are a few French-Canadians that have a pretty way of saying this.

Maybe I will vote for the Green party.

I agree, the Bloc is a horrible party, and the Conservatives are aware of that. There has been no indication that the Conservatives, under any circumstance, would join forces with the Bloc. Have no fear, everyone hates the Bloc.

I was kinda bitchy!

No kidding. Don't tell me to shut the hell up. I can say whatever I want to say.

No kidding. Don't tell me to shut the hell up. I can say whatever I want to say.

Indeed, so can he, which means he can tell you to shut the hell up if he wishes. :sleepy:

No kidding. Don't tell me to shut the hell up. I can say whatever I want to say.

Like most children these days, you talk too much...

I agree, the Bloc is a horrible party, and the Conservatives are aware of that. There has been no indication that the Conservatives, under any circumstance, would join forces with the Bloc. Have no fear, everyone hates the Bloc.

horrible horrible party, omg we're all going to hell..... :runaway: :runaway: :runaway:

get real.

I can smell a separatist…or should I say racist.

Anglophone.
Allophone.

They like putting use into categories.

The bloc believes anybody not a French francophone is not a true Quebecer.

Yes, they need the boot, but Conservatives also need to remember that their past governments didn't carry clean records either, and can't be too cocky when it comes to blasting the liberals on their misgivings.

What really gets me is that an election costs approx. $200M a shot, and the conservatives are threatening to force one because all of a sudden they have a chance at winning.

How is it that the conservatives using $200M for personal gain is better than the Liberals using approx. $200M for personal gain?

If there is an election within a year, neither the Liberals or Conservatives will get my vote because neither party will have shown respect for the public purse.

The Liberals need to leave government for a while, it seems as though they have taken it for granted. It's not healthy for any democracy. I do think, however, that this whole sponsorship scandal is exaggerated by the right-wing media, i.e. most media in Canada.

The Conservatives are bigots, nothing more than scum and Albertan hicks who want to have Canada become as hateful a place to live in as the US is. They should just not exist. The will of the urban centres of Canada, shall be the will of the nation, and that will is not Conservative.

The NDP need a lot more credibility, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing how Layton would do in leading a minority government which woulld need Liberal support, and would thus veer slightly to the right. This, of course, is highly unlikely.

The Greens can go hug trees in BC. They have nothing to do at the Hill.

The Bloc is irrelevant hors Quebec. Though it would be important in the eventuality of an NDP minority government.

Sadly, if we were to have elections today, the Conservatives would likely emerge victorious, in which case I would move to Europe. A Conservative victory would be the beginning of the end for Canada; it would mean a shif towards Bushism, bigotry, intolerance and social backwardness, much like the US is experiencing now.

Anglophones? Francophones? Haligonians? wtf?!!!

The Liberals need to leave government for a while, it seems as though they have taken it for granted. It's not healthy for any democracy. I do think, however, that this whole sponsorship scandal is exaggerated by the right-wing media, i.e. most media in Canada.


Media in Canada? Right wing?!?! Mmmphh...BWAHAHAHAHA Where the hell do you live???


The Conservatives are bigots, nothing more than scum and Albertan hicks who want to have Canada become as hateful a place to live in as the US is. They should just not exist. The will of the urban centres of Canada, shall be the will of the nation, and that will is not Conservative.


Now THIS is all exaggerated BS. Simply laughable.

BTW Welcome to the forums. Most of us hate each other here... :)

Yes, they need the boot, but Conservatives also need to remember that their past governments didn't carry clean records either, and can't be too cocky when it comes to blasting the liberals on their misgivings.

What really gets me is that an election costs approx. $200M a shot, and the conservatives are threatening to force one because all of a sudden they have a chance at winning.

How is it that the conservatives using $200M for personal gain is better than the Liberals using approx. $200M for personal gain?

If there is an election within a year, neither the Liberals or Conservatives will get my vote because neither party will have shown respect for the public purse.
Well, actually Harper wants to sit back and let the Liberals hang themselves first. And the Conservatives can't force an election one way or another. Either it's time for one or Martin calls it.

The Liberals need to leave government for a while, it seems as though they have taken it for granted. It's not healthy for any democracy. I do think, however, that this whole sponsorship scandal is exaggerated by the right-wing media, i.e. most media in Canada.

The Conservatives are bigots, nothing more than scum and Albertan hicks who want to have Canada become as hateful a place to live in as the US is. They should just not exist. The will of the urban centres of Canada, shall be the will of the nation, and that will is not Conservative.

Sadly, if we were to have elections today, the Conservatives would likely emerge victorious, in which case I would move to Europe. A Conservative victory would be the beginning of the end for Canada; it would mean a shif towards Bushism, bigotry, intolerance and social backwardness, much like the US is experiencing now.
Canada's right wing media? You must live in that parallel universe where Walt Disney was the anti-Christ and sugar tastes like salt.

The conservatives are all bigots, Alberta hicks,...scum ? lmao ! Wow, you REALLY believe that too I bet. But hey, for a party that isn't going to get voted in by the will of the urban centers of Canada, you seem to think that they will be.

If you hurry, you should be able to clear Swiss immigration before the new Reich is set up here.

If Belinda Stronach was the leader of the Conservatives, I am sure a lot more people would vote for them.
She just doesn’t seem to be as right wing as Harper.

Harper looks and acts like an A-Hole.


Did you know the Swiss were Hitler’s Bankers? Neutral my ass.

If there's a spring election, it could ruin the Queen's rumoured last trip to Canada. her visit here is to celebrate the centennial of Alberta and Saskatchewan coming into Confederation.

To me Belinda Stronach seems like an alternative then the Liberal Party. But I don't see an alternative with Stephen Harper. I won't vote for the Conservatives.

To me Belinda Stronach seems like an alternative then the Liberal Party. But I don't see an alternative with Stephen Harper. I won't vote for the Conservatives.

Same for me. :) (hint to Conserative Party hopefuls ;))

A Cincinnati lab accidentally sent vials of the virus of the 1957-1958 Asian Flu Pandemic that killed 4 million people. On March 25, the BC Centre for Disease Control found out about this and immediately reported back to where the package came from - Cincinnati. The news spurred and it turns out more than 5,000 labs received the vials which includes 20 labs in Canada. All 20 labs in our country have reported back and have said the virus has been destroyed.

Thank you British Columbia for possibly saving my life as well as innocent people.
I hate you British Columbia for potentially letting evil people live.

Well, I guess I will just have to ruin their chances by voting in Mr. Harper personally. (and if it works out like the last election...by a huge landslide victory) :)

I can smell a separatist…or should I say racist.

neither, but you mister, are a bigot.

Thank you British Columbia for possibly saving my life as well as innocent people.
I hate you British Columbia for potentially letting evil people live.

lol

[QUOTE=MisterPing]If Belinda Stronach was the leader of the Conservatives, I am sure a lot more people would vote for them.
She just doesn’t seem to be as right wing as Harper.
[QUOTE]


i'd vote for her *rawr* haha

but seriously, i don't know who i would vote for. i don't like any of them, they all scare the shit out of me.

*walks away*

Wasn't it a lab in Winnipeg, MB?

How am I a bigot? I never voted for the bloc.
Only racist and the truly ignorant would vote for the bloc.

Here is a quote form a true bigot “money and the ethnic vote”.
Jacques Parizeau said this is why he lost the 1995 referendum.

Any anglophone or allophone will soon find themselves
second-class citizens if the bloc ever wins a referendum.

My name is not mister.

I am the truly humble MisterPing.

The Fiberals are going to have to make a big effort to get themselves out of this hole.

I for one only want to see them do this so that we don't get the likes of Stephan Harper in power.

The Conservatives made a big mistake not re-electing McKay as their leader.


Any anglophone or allophone will soon find themselves
second-class citizens if the bloc ever wins a referendum.

Yep, that is assuming that they are not already treated as such. :runaway:

It is the only Level 4 secure lab in Canada.

City lab thwarts flu virus threat
Winnipeg scientists spur worldwide health alert

Wed Apr 13 2005

By Alexandra Paul
WINNIPEG'S National Microbiology Laboratory may have helped avert a flu pandemic by discovering labs around the world were sent unlabelled samples of an influenza virus that could have sparked the next global health catastrophe.

The World Health Organization has ordered at least 3,747 laboratories in 18 countries -- including Winnipeg's Cadham Provincial Laboratory -- to destroy the samples of H2N2.

H2N2 is the flu strain that caused the 1957 Asian flu pandemic, which killed an estimated one million to four million people around the world. The virus hasn't circulated in humans since 1968; no one born after that time would have any immunity to the strain.

"It was the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg that first identified the H2N2 virus," said Dr. Theresa Tam, the associate director of the immunization, respiratory and infection division of the Winnipeg-based Public Health Agency of Canada.

Scientists in Winnipeg alerted the World Health Organization to their findings and yesterday the WHO issued a notice to the public, saying labs around the world had been ordered to destroy all samples of the strain. The Winnipeg lab has destroyed its samples as has the Cadham Provincial Laboratory.

The medical detective work that isolated the strain on March 25 in Winnipeg unleashed an urgent chain of global events.
"We contacted the United States (health) authorities and the WHO and it soon became apparent that a number of labs around the world had gotten this strain," Tam said.

The Winnipeg lab traced all the samples to the College of American Pathologists, which accredits standards for laboratories around the world, but mostly in the U.S. and Canada.

An investigation showed vials of the live virus had been sent to labs in February as an annual "proficiency test" by the Americans. The contents of the vials aren't labelled because labs use them to see how good they are at detecting different strains of viruses.

For reasons that are not yet clear, the company contracted to put together the kits included an H2N2 in this year's proficiency test, instead of the garden variety of influenza A it usually sends out.

"There was some potential for considerable trouble," Dr. Klaus Stohr, head of the World Health Organization's global pandemic program, told The Canadian Press in an interview from Geneva.

"Fortunately, it was found fast by the Canadians after there was initial suspicion."
'Probability is low'

A laboratory accident with the unlabelled virus could have sparked a flu pandemic, Stohr said.

"I think that's fair to say. If many bad-luck things had come together, it could have caused really a global health emergency," he admitted.

"The risk that this is going to be happening is low, however. Many things would have to go wrong that this virus would really go into humans. But even though the probability is low... the risk exists. Therefore, we moved fast to get things under control."

The Winnipeg lab uncovered the error after it tested a flu sample sent from a Vancouver hospital, labelled as belonging to a patient admitted there.

"When the lab came out with this diagnosis, I immediately contacted my counterpart in British Columbia to find out why this patient had this virus," Tam said.

The Vancouver hospital investigated and believes the patient's routine sample was cross-contaminated with the Asian strain by accident. The Winnipeg lab used genetic sequencing to confirm the finding.

"What must have happened is some tiny amount from the test sample must have contaminated the patient's sample," Tam said.

Destroyed samples
Dr. David Butler-Jones, of Winnipeg, Canada's chief public health officer, said all the Canadian labs that received the test have destroyed their samples.

"We're thinking that we may have caught this before there is any issue. But obviously we're following up to make sure we haven't missed anything," he said in an interview.

"We're not expecting to see human cases but you just can't guarantee that. If they (the labs) practise good laboratory technique, the risk of that should be, I will never say zero but as close to zero as possible."

Lab accidents do happen, however. Three of the last six known cases of SARS in the world were the result of lab accidents.

Lab technicians who worked with the samples are being interviewed to see if they suffered any flu-like illnesses in an attempt to ensure the strain did not break out of the confines of laboratories.

"We all know that laboratory technicians are very well trained and take care with what they're doing. But we have seen SARS slipping out in laboratories which belong to national virologic institutions," said Stohr.

-- with files from Canadian Press

yep. Vancouver made a mistake, sent the sample to be tested in Winnipeg. the results came back to Vancouver and Vancouver alarmed the world.

Okay, I can understand if people don't want to vote for the conservatives. I don't buy the reasoning but fair enough. The only thing that would bother me is if you DID vote for the Liberals. That would just be out and out stupidity. There are plenty of other parties to choose from and even if you won't vote Conservative, that's fine. But if you cast your vote for the Liberals then you are part of the problem.

The Conservatives made a big mistake not re-electing McKay as their leader.

Yes they did. Mckay would be quite popular in Ontario, especially with his casual relationship with Belinda. Canadian politics can finally have some flavour in it, instead of being stuck with the regular stock of dry deadpan politicans.

Okay, I can understand if people don't want to vote for the conservatives. I don't buy the reasoning but fair enough. The only thing that would bother me is if you DID vote for the Liberals. That would just be out and out stupidity. There are plenty of other parties to choose from and even if you won't vote Conservative, that's fine. But if you cast your vote for the Liberals then you are part of the problem.

The problem is if you don't vote Liberal, you are supporting the Conservatives, since that move will get them into power. Here were talking about the Liberals throwing away $250 million under an old regime, as Martin has not been fingered as a counterpart in the scandal, with the Conservatives at the helm billions of dollars worth of public infrastructure will be privatized. Not to mention unneccessary military spending in joining "crusades" (Bush's word not mine) such as the Iraq War, which will further waste billions of tax dollars.

The problem is if you don't vote Liberal, you are supporting the Conservatives, since that move will get them into power. Here were talking about the Liberals throwing away $250 million under an old regime, as Martin has not been fingered as a counterpart in the scandal, with the Conservatives at the helm billions of dollars worth of public infrastructure will be privatized. Not to mention unneccessary military spending in joining "crusades" (Bush's word not mine) such as the Iraq War, which will further waste billions of tax dollars.
How would you be supporting the Conservatives if you voted Green or NDP or *shudder* communist ?

EDIT: BTW, what public infrastructure would be privatized? The public infrastructure money that we don't have right now? I don't know if it's different where you live but the rest of Canada is screaming for things like road repairs, sewage repairs, rail upgrades....you name it. I'm not saying I particularly like the idea of privatizing it but then again, it's not like anybody else is paying for this stuff right now.
And would you agree that Canada's military is in a sorry shape? Even the UN thinks it's pathetic right now. We don't need some super army but things like helicopters that fly would be nice for our forces I'm sure. Maybe we could replace the screen doors on the subs while we're at it or get some non-green uniforms for places like Afghanistan. Just a thought.

Lastly, I'm not blaming Martin for the Liberal party's woes right now. I even would be willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt. But it's not Martin who's at fault here. It's the whole damned party.

^My answer is start your own party!

That way you can vote for yourself and get the money from kickbacks instead of paying for them through your taxes.

The problem is if you don't vote Liberal, you are supporting the Conservatives, since that move will get them into power. Here were talking about the Liberals throwing away $250 million under an old regime, as Martin has not been fingered as a counterpart in the scandal, with the Conservatives at the helm billions of dollars worth of public infrastructure will be privatized. Not to mention unneccessary military spending in joining "crusades" (Bush's word not mine) such as the Iraq War, which will further waste billions of tax dollars.


I agree, voting for the Conservatives would be atleast as big a mistake as voting Liberal.


Yes they did. Mckay would be quite popular in Ontario, especially with his casual relationship with Belinda. Canadian politics can finally have some flavour in it, instead of being stuck with the regular stock of dry deadpan politicans.

I get more than a few laughs from our politicians on a regular basis. If you think about it, they are a silly bunch. From Chretien beating up people to Stockwell Day's haircut that resembles my 4 year old nephew's.

I get more than a few laughs from our politicians on a regular basis. If you think about it, they are a silly bunch. From Chretien beating up people to Stockwell Day's haircut that resembles my 4 year old nephew's.

lol, you're right. Gosh I miss that Alliance wacko Doris Day.

^I had forgotten about that!

And these days, Day's hair is a little more styled and a little less "right off the bar room floor".

I personally miss Deb Grey, to this day I am not entirely sure whether old Deb is really a woman.

My number one reason for missing the Reform party, hearing Preston Manning say "Reeeeeeeforrrmmm Party".

How would you be supporting the Conservatives if you voted Green or NDP or *shudder* communist ?

You take away votes from the Liberals, while the Conservative numbers stay the same. Unfortunately the NDP are too far left for EVERYONE whose disgruntled with the Liberals to vote for them, so you're basically splitting the vote between NDP and Liberal, I think that's obvious.


EDIT: BTW, what public infrastructure would be privatized? The public infrastructure money that we don't have right now? I don't know if it's different where you live but the rest of Canada is screaming for things like road repairs, sewage repairs, rail upgrades....you name it. I'm not saying I particularly like the idea of privatizing it but then again, it's not like anybody else is paying for this stuff right now.

Healthcare would probably be the first thing to recieve massive cuts. Yes, you would probably get roads fixed, for all the suburbanites that vote for the Conservatives, but forget about public transportation or urban infrastructure!


And would you agree that Canada's military is in a sorry shape? Even the UN thinks it's pathetic right now. We don't need some super army but things like helicopters that fly would be nice for our forces I'm sure. Maybe we could replace the screen doors on the subs while we're at it or get some non-green uniforms for places like Afghanistan. Just a thought.

But Harper wants to send our troops to non-U.N. sanctioned wars, anywhere the Americans go, no matter if it's popular with Canadians or not. Harper would sell us down the river, making us the 51st state. I got a great slogan for the Conservatives: "Lapdogs to America!"

BTW: The most highly funded army in the world still has several divisions of green-clad soldiers in Iraq, so I doubt the uniforms would be of a high priority, but that's neither here nor there.


Lastly, I'm not blaming Martin for the Liberal party's woes right now. I even would be willing to extend him the benefit of the doubt. But it's not Martin who's at fault here. It's the whole damned party.

Just like it's their fault that we ran numerous surpluses while our friends south of the border were in a recession. It's also their fault that they balanced the books without massive spending cuts.

You take away votes from the Liberals, while the Conservative numbers stay the same. Unfortunately the NDP are too far left for EVERYONE whose disgruntled with the Liberals to vote for them, so you're basically splitting the vote between NDP and Liberal, I think that's obvious.



Healthcare would probably be the first thing to recieve massive cuts. Yes, you would probably get roads fixed, for all the suburbanites that vote for the Conservatives, but forget about public transportation or urban infrastructure!




But Harper wants to send our troops to non-U.N. sanctioned wars, anywhere the Americans go, no matter if it's popular with Canadians or not. Harper would sell us down the river, making us the 51st state. I got a great slogan for the Conservatives: "Lapdogs to America!"

BTW: The most highly funded army in the world still has several divisions of green-clad soldiers in Iraq, so I doubt the uniforms would be of a high priority, but that's neither here nor there.




Just like it's their fault that we ran numerous surpluses while our friends south of the border were in a recession. It's also their fault that they balanced the books without massive spending cuts.

So what you're saying in a nutshell is "I'm going to vote for criminals who don't just throw away my hard earned dollars but give my money to their friends too! But the reason I'm going to do it is to make sure the Conservatives don't get in power" Sound about right? You'd rather vote for a party of fraud artists than see the Conservatives in power?

Okay, whatever, vote Liberal if you want. Even me, with my absolute disgust with the NDP would sooner see Jack Layton in charge of the country than the Liberals at this point. They are wasting and stealing our money but you'd rather they were in power than the Conservatives. Okay, gotcha.

One thing though, do you really believe that the Conservatives are going to privatize health care? They know it would be political suicide and would never do it. What they've always said is basically, if there's a better way, we should explore it because we can't afford things the way they are. If that means that we open up MRI clinics for those that can afford it why not? They still pay for the universal system on top of whatever other costs they incur but this way they get out of our queue, we get served quicker and they get served quicker. The only person who would really argue against a two tier healthcare system would be one who does so for ideological reasons. Sorry, but enough people are dying in the halls for that bullshit ideology. And yes, if you haven't been paying attention, people really are dying in hospital waiting rooms while waiting for treatment.

I have an issue with the 'without massive spending cuts'...sure... one of the reasons Healthcare here declined so rapidly is because one Finance Minister Martin dumped the provinces on their asses... No the Liberals made some spending cuts, and then got the rest by ramping up taxes...

And yes, and there are already hundreds of private clinics out there. It's not like the Conservatives have to privatize anything anyways, since the Liberals let everyone in already. Let those who can pay, pay, and not have them flee south of the border to spend their money. It's rather greedy to just want more people dying in waiting lines just because of personal, self-righteous ideological bullshit.

I must confess, as much as don't care for martin i don't really think he is to blame for the mess the Liberals are in. Chretien HATES Martin and would never take his imput into such matters. Maybe Martin knew but he could have done nothing.
The Liberals being so screwedits a good time for Ontario & Toronto to go hunting for some hardcore federal money.
Idon't live in Ontario but I know that most of the provinces have balanced budgets and with the exception of Alberta its all been thru transfer payments by Ontario yet they are running a 6billion$ deficit this year. They deserve to get atleast the $5bil they want back from the feds. Now they need it, and with the feds estimating budget surpluses of 23billion over the next 3 years they can damn well afford.

So what you're saying in a nutshell is "I'm going to vote for criminals who don't just throw away my hard earned dollars but give my money to their friends too! But the reason I'm going to do it is to make sure the Conservatives don't get in power" Sound about right? You'd rather vote for a party of fraud artists than see the Conservatives in power?

You almost got it. It's not that I would never vote for the Conservatives, I simply would never vote for these Conservatives, the ones that are currently heading the party. They are a dangerous bunch, much more dangerous than Martin, who is not currently involved in this scandal. Plus I already explained from a fiscal perspective why I think the Conservatives are a bad choice.


I have an issue with the 'without massive spending cuts'...sure... one of the reasons Healthcare here declined so rapidly is because one Finance Minister Martin dumped the provinces on their asses...

Here in Ontario, healthcare cuts were a result of the "common sense(cents?)" revolution, brought in by the Tories. No thanks.

You almost got it. It's not that I would never vote for the Conservatives, I simply would never vote for these Conservatives, the ones that are currently heading the party. They are a dangerous bunch, much more dangerous than Martin, who is not currently involved in this scandal. Plus I already explained from a fiscal perspective why I think the Conservatives are a bad choice.
Well, okay, I suppose that makes some sense. I don't see why they are so dangerous and economically I don't really understand why you think they are so bad but at least now it makes SOME sense.
Nevertheless, I just can't understand why you would choose to vote Liberal knowing what we all know. Sure, it may prove that Martin really isn't at fault but his party is and that's who you're voting for.

Part of the reason (a good portion IMO) that our health care system is declining is because of abuse; it does not matter how much money is thrown at health care. The er(s) and medical clinics across the country get congested because of foolish people who visit them because of a little cold, or idiots who get into brawls and end up there. I think that for issues relating to fault (ie smoking, etc) people should pay a fee when visiting clinics, etc. If you smoke, for instance, and need medical care because of that, my taxes should not pay for your care because you are ignorant and selfish and just plain stupid to do so, and as a result, need medical care. If you get into a fight (say at a bar), and you need to go to the ER, you pay a fee for that.

^ abuse is not a big problem for our system. In fact, spending on health care has not declined (although who pays has been largely offloaded to the provinces, indeed), and the supposed 'decline' has more to do with what we expect of our system than any imminent bankrupcy. In fact, the Canada Health Act is a somewhat outdated document, focusing on issues that were important since CHA's predecessors back in 1960s, which may not be so important now; on the other hand, the pharmaceuticals have become very important, and yet there's no coverage for it. Some of the problems, then, are structural, and different funding priorities may be needed, which of course sounds easier to do than it actually is.

User fees should be instituted across the board and should be proportional to need. If the much more left Sweden can have them, I don't see a reason why we can't.

user fees "across the board"...PLUS high taxes? Fuck that!

Great...can't wait to have a bunch of redneck, right-wing, George Bush supporting wackos who are generally racist, homophobic pigs running our open-minded and centrist nation.
Furthermore, a corrupt government? Wow! Never heard of that before! What a revelation. I agree that what the Liberal party did was wrong, however, how much money from Quebec taxpayers have the PQ and BQ stolen in order to further their separatist agenda?

Perhaps the PQ and BQ are smarter because they never get caught. My guess is that they have spent and bribed their way past 100 million dollars.

Great...can't wait to have a bunch of redneck, right-wing, George Bush supporting wackos who are generally racist, homophobic pigs running our open-minded and centrist nation.
Generally racist, homophobic pigs ? Okay, clearly you don't like right-wing politics (lol) but that one comes right out of your ass. Look, I'm right-wing and being so doesn't make you a racist or a homophobe. I am neither and most people who would vote Conservative aren't either. In fact, that vast majority of right-wingers aren't racist or homophobic. That you don't like what we stand for is one thing but don't label us like that unless you have some pretty good proof to back up a statement such as that.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I have a pretty good idea why you'd label us as homophobic (it's not true but I know why you might believe it anyway) but I'd really like to hear you explain how we're generally racist?

User fees should be instituted across the board and should be proportional to need. If the much more left Sweden can have them, I don't see a reason why we can't.

User fees would make sense. However, health care premiums must come down once user fees are enacted.

Ironically, only the HAVE PROVINCES pay healthcare premiums.

^ abuse is not a big problem for our system. In fact, spending on health care has not declined (although who pays has been largely offloaded to the provinces, indeed), and the supposed 'decline' has more to do with what we expect of our system than any imminent bankrupcy. In fact, the Canada Health Act is a somewhat outdated document, focusing on issues that were important since CHA's predecessors back in 1960s, which may not be so important now; on the other hand, the pharmaceuticals have become very important, and yet there's no coverage for it. Some of the problems, then, are structural, and different funding priorities may be needed, which of course sounds easier to do than it actually is.

User fees should be instituted across the board and should be proportional to need. If the much more left Sweden can have them, I don't see a reason why we can't.
You make sense pretty much all the way there except when it comes to user fees. The way I see it, I already pay user fees through taxes whether I use the system or not. To charge me for visiting the hospital is like double-dipping and I don't think the Canadian public would stand for it. I know that I certainly can't agree with the idea. However, as I've said before, I see nothing wrong with opening private clinics to take the strain off of our overburdened healthcare system.

I asked my brother-in-law (who is a doctor and on numerous boards) what he thought was wrong with the system as it is now. His answer in a nutshell was mismanagement and gross inefficiency. There is still plenty of room for a shake-up of the system that would give us the service we pay for without charging more for it. Who's fault is it? Who cares really at this point...but we still don't need to travel down the route of privatization necessarily considering what can be re-worked with the current system.

^^There are parallels between our system and Australia's (ie: inefficiencies, etc). Perhaps the two countries can join efforts...

there will be another spring election. there is no escape, no way to go back.


i heard that Harper is thinking about acting sometime around May pathing the way for a late June election. anybody remember the date of our last election? well, it was June 28, 2004.

Another election may just well lead to another minority government, and we will be back where we started. So what if there is some political indescretion, I think that happens everywhere, and will continue to happen, no matter what party is in power.

I recently learnt that not only do Canadians have Simple Plurality (First Past the Post) in their Federal Parliamentary Elections, but they also have this system in the Provincial Elections, giving provincial governments commanding majorities, but what if proportional representation was introduced? I know currently that the Quebecois Government is not held by the seperatists but this is the exception to the rule, and it has done so for several times in the past, perhaps it would be beneficial for Canadian Federalists to think of introducing this as it is very hard to get an absolute majority in elections with PR, and it'd be unlikely that the Parti Quebecois would get a majority again.

None of my business, but I am just wondering has anyone ever thought about this possibility?

I don't know if it would eliminate seperatism, but it wouldn't hurt. It's a more fair way of doing things.

I think a big problem is that ridings are not based on population. For example, if Toronto had the same MP/constituent ratio as PEI, Toronto would elect four times as many MPs as it does today. In other words, a vote in PEI is worth four times as much as a vote in Toronto. This partially explains why the federal government neglects Toronto. I think ridings should be based on population.

^So if a crack head stole from you you'd give him a job? Same reasoning.

^ the question has to do with provincial legislatures and PR, not with the HoC and PR.

PR won't solve Quebec separatism. PQ's referendums aren't soundly defeated, so it's not like PQ gets majorities purely because of the first-past-the-post system. In any case, PR is not in the cards for Quebec presently. Where it IS in the cards is in BC, where there will be a referendum on this issue during the next provincial election (May 2005, I believe), although I have no idea what the support for it is. It'd be great for BC to adapt it and for other provinces to follow suit since it is obviously fairer.

I miss the Reagan/Mulroney days...our nations should have merged back then ;)

You make sense pretty much all the way there except when it comes to user fees. The way I see it, I already pay user fees through taxes whether I use the system or not. To charge me for visiting the hospital is like double-dipping and I don't think the Canadian public would stand for it. I know that I certainly can't agree with the idea. However, as I've said before, I see nothing wrong with opening private clinics to take the strain off of our overburdened healthcare system.

I asked my brother-in-law (who is a doctor and on numerous boards) what he thought was wrong with the system as it is now. His answer in a nutshell was mismanagement and gross inefficiency. There is still plenty of room for a shake-up of the system that would give us the service we pay for without charging more for it. Who's fault is it? Who cares really at this point...but we still don't need to travel down the route of privatization necessarily considering what can be re-worked with the current system.


Privatization is one route which would just bring more problems (there'a rather long explanation for this, but I am lazy). Privatizing certain hospital services that are still covered under single-payer insurance, however, makes sense in some situations, although never for full-service hospitals.

As for asking for user fees, it need not be a double dip. Nothing wrong with getting a modest reduction in taxes, although not too much as these fees wouldn't be very high. The idea is more to get one used to the fact that health services are under no means free, and that it costs money to maintain this system. We're one of the few odd countries that has no user fees whatsoever. Not sure if this is a terribly good idea, though.

Yes I would like to see that in Alberta in the near future. However I would like a mixed system with some first round the post and some proportional with teh party giving the seats to members who recieved the most votes from the people.

no, it would not eliminate seperation.

I miss the Reagan/Mulroney days...our nations should have merged back then ;)

You can kiss my red and white ass.

During the war of 1812 many brave souls
allowed me to stay Canadian.
American aggression turned into cowardice.

i'm just mad at the Americans for stealing present day Oregon and Washington State from us. They sent armies of prospectors to these present day states. Before all this, everybody knew that this British colony would be huge and having its borders end at the Columbia River and because of this, it went way up north to the 49th parallel. it would've been part of BC.

I'm beginning to think it may be a better system... but I think only separation can "eliminate seperatism." No matter what we do, as long as there is Canada, there will be separatists. The most we can hope for is to keep them in the minority in every region.

Privatization is one route which would just bring more problems (there'a rather long explanation for this, but I am lazy). Privatizing certain hospital services that are still covered under single-payer insurance, however, makes sense in some situations, although never for full-service hospitals.

As for asking for user fees, it need not be a double dip. Nothing wrong with getting a modest reduction in taxes, although not too much as these fees wouldn't be very high. The idea is more to get one used to the fact that health services are under no means free, and that it costs money to maintain this system. We're one of the few odd countries that has no user fees whatsoever. Not sure if this is a terribly good idea, though.
We're still in agreement on this. I don't advocate fully private hospitals either. Among other things, most studies say that universal healthcare is the cheapest route to go. Just like you say too though, I'm all for certain components of our system being opened up to privatization. For that matter, I think that if we had more 24 hour walk-in clinics we could save some costs as well. My problem with user fees isn't that I don't see the logic behind them but that I already pay for this to begin with. We both know that we aren't going to get any cut in our taxes if user fees were implemented. That may be the case in other countries but in Canada I just can't see it happening. Especially without a major reform of the healthcare system to begin with.

You can kiss my red and white ass.

During the war of 1812 many brave souls
allowed me to stay Canadian.
American aggression turned into cowardice.
Actually, they allowed you stay a British colonist. Not to mention that it was more or less us who actually got the road to war paved in that instance...although the Yankees did their part too.

I don't really think it will do anything to quell the calls for seperation in Quebec. It might help in the west but then again, that's not a serious problem right now.
One thing about the current system is that, while it's true that (for example) PEI's votes may be worth four times that of Toronto, there's something to be said for a system that keeps the majority from ignoring the minority as much as possible. In a PR system, PEI and most provinces would be at the whim of population-dense areas like Ontario and Quebec. PEI wouldn't likely get their own issues addressed as they needed under PR. I could be wrong since this is all theory anyway and I'm not really against the idea, I'm just pointing out some possible drawbacks.

i'm just mad at the Americans for stealing present day Oregon and Washington State from us. They sent armies of prospectors to these present day states. Before all this, everybody knew that this British colony would be huge and having its borders end at the Columbia River and because of this, it went way up north to the 49th parallel. it would've been part of BC.

Don't forget the Alaskan panhandle! :)

Actually, they allowed you stay a British colonist.

Yep...for seventeen more decades :)

Yeah, both sides have positives and negatives.

The strangeness that can happen with the "first past the post" system can best be seen with the results in Manitoba during the 1926 federal election. The Conservatives landed more than 40% of the popular vote in Manitoba, but for some reason couldn't win a single seat. The next closest party in terms of percentage was at under 20%.

Both systems have their ups and downs, and I'm not really passionate about going one way or the other.

Plurality has many more downs... An outdated system that punishes parties for what exactly? For getting broad support across different constituencies? There's only a few advantages to f-p-p; in any case, under f-p-p, every vote is by no means equal.

Don't forget the Alaskan panhandle! :)


didn't the Americans buy Alaska for $5 million in the 1800s? that price is now equal to billions today.

The Americans would never let go the panhandle. Why else would they put the capital of the state there. it would make a lot of geographic sense if they gave it to us and i think it would deeply benefit the Alaskan economy as well as we could finally build a coastal highway to Alaska.

Plurality has many more downs... An outdated system that punishes parties for what exactly? For getting broad support across different constituencies? There's only a few advantages to f-p-p; in any case, under f-p-p, every vote is by no means equal.
No kidding, if in your riding you voted for one of the losers, your vote didn't count, period. This is an absurd system.

We're still in agreement on this. I don't advocate fully private hospitals either. Among other things, most studies say that universal healthcare is the cheapest route to go. Just like you say too though, I'm all for certain components of our system being opened up to privatization. For that matter, I think that if we had more 24 hour walk-in clinics we could save some costs as well. My problem with user fees isn't that I don't see the logic behind them but that I already pay for this to begin with. We both know that we aren't going to get any cut in our taxes if user fees were implemented. That may be the case in other countries but in Canada I just can't see it happening. Especially without a major reform of the healthcare system to begin with.

Personally, private delivery of healthcare doesn't bother me. It's the actual act of privatization (as in privatizing publicly owned infrastructure) that makes me worry. People go around strutting like Canada is the only country in the world with universal heathcare, where many other countries have better systems with universality. Many countries opt for various Public-Private partnerships, where they have fully public hostpitals and therefor a way for citizens to obtain access to free healthcare, but also private hospitals where the end user pays a percentage of the costs, and the government pays the rest. This encourages the user to shop around for good rates, while letting the market dictate availability. Also, the public system can contract on an as-needed basis for surguries. Employers could cover the user fees as benefits, further reducing the strain on the public system. It will take the right politicians to do this. Nobody would every trust Stephen Harper on something like this, and I would have to wait for somebody less wealthy than Belinda Stronach or Paul Martin as well.

In places like the UK, most doctors do the bulk of their work in the public system, but work extra time for decent money in private industry. This keeps their salaries high (and keeps them in the country) while maintaining the universality of the system. Most doctors enjoy working in the public sector, as they know this is where they make a real difference.

In the end, Universal healthcare is not cheap, but the costs of an unhealthy society probably cost the country's GDP a lot more.

Canada's right wing media? You must live in that parallel universe where Walt Disney was the anti-Christ and sugar tastes like salt.

Overall, I would label most of Canada's papers as to the right, though they may shine as an example that the media doesn't affect politics as much as many people claim.

The National Post (obviously, as it was founded by Conrad Black for no other reason) is right wing, but also most other papers that were bought up by CanWest/Global like the Ottawa Citizen (used to be quite a balanced paper, IMO). Most of the Sun chain is conservative-populist, and other metropolitan dailies like the Calgary Herald, etc. The one major exception for newspapers would probably be the Toronto Star, which actually has a fascinating history behind it (read up on the Atkinson principles here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Star)). As for the Globe and Mail, while most people label them as right wing, I consider them quite centrist and probably one of the best newspapers in the world. What other paper will you find an editorial by Preston Manning right beside another editorial by Bob Rae?

In TV-land Global and CTV are both to the right, but the CBC usually shows a left wing bent. The CBC's National gets the highest ratings for nightly news (as it should, it's very good), but most canadians turn to the private broadcasters for the 6 o'clock evening local newscasts. So despite my feeling that overall the media is rightist, I think Canadians are currently being served well in overall discourse.

^So if a crack head stole from you you'd give him a job? Same reasoning.
Good point, but it shouldn't be the point. It's more like this; if the Conservatives were in power for the last few years, lots of Canadians might have died in Iraq. Think about it before you vote.

Quotes by Stephen Harper, & others:
http://www.intheirownwords.ca/harper.php

Hmmm, any source to these numbers, because according to both McGuinty and Sorbara, Ontario's contributions to federalism were only 2 Billion in 1995 and then grew to a high of 23 Billion. No mention of 28. And as per my link to the TD report, that 23 Billion was for all of Ontario.
"

No, the record was 27.5 billion in 2000. See today's article. (I didn't bother responding in the past since I'm too lazy finding stuff already posted many months past).


Canada's engine is `struggling'
Ontario hurt by funding shortfall with Ottawa, study finds CIBC report says federal cash would help the economy


ROBERT BENZIE AND ROB FERGUSON
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU

The federal government risks "killing the golden goose" by ignoring the $23 billion gap between what Ontario sends Ottawa and what is returned to the province, warns a new CIBC World Markets report.

"Ontario — a key engine of Canada's economy and a cornerstone of the nation's fiscal framework — is struggling," says the study prepared by senior economist Warren Lovely.

"The province is shouldering an increasingly heavy load when it comes to supporting other regions and filling Ottawa's coffers," it continues.

"With Ontario stretched to its financial limits, and the federal government still comfortably in the black, some are asking whether Ottawa is killing its golden goose."

The report comes as Premier Dalton McGuinty continues to be rebuffed in his attempts to secure a meeting with Prime Minister Paul Martin to address the fiscal imbalance.

"We are willing to work with the province of Ontario, department by department, minister by minister, on issues of substance," Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan told the Commons yesterday.

Sources close to the Prime Minister say they do not consider McGuinty's demand for $5 billion, or the $23 billion gap, to be "issues of substance" and the premier will not be granted an audience with Martin unless he agrees not to broach the topic.

But CIBC's Lovely — whose report is entitled "Killing The Golden Goose?" — said in an interview that Ottawa should pay heed to the premier.

"The gap isn't at necessarily record levels," the economist said, noting it was $27.5 billion in 2000.

"What's different about the gap today versus then is that you have in Ontario an economy that is struggling, that is not really in top form at the current moment," he said.

"Moreover, you've got now in Ontario a provincial government that is coming off of a very sizable deficit in 2003 likely to have registered a very significant fiscal shortfall in 2004-05 at the same time that the federal government was recording very healthy surpluses."

While Lovely said he was "hesitant to say that this is an unsustainable position," he noted an infusion of federal money would help the province's economy.

"That's money that would go a long way to addressing the current fiscal pressures faced by the government."

McGuinty said he was pleased to see the CIBC report.

"They say it's not an invention. It is real," the premier said on a campaign style swing through Brighton, about 170 km east of Toronto. "More Ontarians are coming to understand there is something wrong."

McGuinty said he did not believe the Prime Minister was snubbing him. "A specific time has not been set aside, but the Prime Minister has said we can meet and I look forward to having that meeting. I'm convinced we can make common cause on this issue."

But in the Commons, it did not sound as if the federal government was having a change of heart on McGuinty's demand.

"When will the Prime Minister meet with the Premier of Ontario to address the Ontario gap?" demanded Conservative MP Belinda Stronach (Newmarket-Aurora).

Liberal MP John McKay (Scarborough-Guildwood) shot back that Ontario is wealthy and therefore can afford to bankroll the rest of the country.

"I do not understand the argument," said McKay, referring to McGuinty's complaints about fiscal imbalance.

That attitude, prevalent among Ontario's 74 Liberal MPs, is a source of frustration to provincial Finance Minister Greg Sorbara, who faces a $6 billion deficit as he prepares his May budget.

"John McKay is right. He does not understand the issue. If you read the CIBC report, it points out some things that are really important. This extra burden puts a significant drag on the Ontario economy," said Sorbara.

"The federal government now has the financial capacity to redress the imbalance with new investments in the Ontario economy. It's not as if this is a problem without a solution."

Overall, I would label most of Canada's papers as to the right, though they may shine as an example that the media doesn't affect politics as much as many people claim.

The National Post (obviously, as it was founded by Conrad Black for no other reason) is right wing, but also most other papers that were bought up by CanWest/Global like the Ottawa Citizen (used to be quite a balanced paper, IMO). Most of the Sun chain is conservative-populist, and other metropolitan dailies like the Calgary Herald, etc. The one major exception for newspapers would probably be the Toronto Star, which actually has a fascinating history behind it (read up on the Atkinson principles here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Star)). As for the Globe and Mail, while most people label them as right wing, I consider them quite centrist and probably one of the best newspapers in the world. What other paper will you find an editorial by Preston Manning right beside another editorial by Bob Rae?

In TV-land Global and CTV are both to the right, but the CBC usually shows a left wing bent. The CBC's National gets the highest ratings for nightly news (as it should, it's very good), but most canadians turn to the private broadcasters for the 6 o'clock evening local newscasts. So despite my feeling that overall the media is rightist, I think Canadians are currently being served well in overall discourse.

The Sun chain of papers is definitely right wing, no doubt about that IMO. The others....from my perspective they go from center to left. That's fine because at least there is an equal voice for both sides. The Winnipeg Free Press for instance is center left while the Sun is clearly right. But, truth be told about the only you can really tell with newspapers is through editorials and opinion columns. I wouldn't fault any newspaper that I've come across in Canada for being too biased one way or the other.

Television is another kettle of fish though. CTV is center-left IMO. The CBC is definitely and unabashedly left. Global? Truth is (and I've been looking for it with them) is that I can't discern just where they stand really. Don't forget that they are owned by the Apsers who are decidedly in the left end of the political spectrum. I really haven't seen them favour one side or the other yet but frankly, that's how it should be so they get two thumbs up for that. There are local stations across the country of course. Here we have A-Channel (a western franchise of sorts, I know for certain they are in Edmonton as well) They haven't given me reason to believe there is much bias in their reporting either. But then again, they are truly local stations and aren't really too interested in politics at a federal level. I guess it's part of their marketing scheme.

Overall I'd say that we are center-left when it comes to media. With some arm-twisting I might say even middle of the road. But one thing the Canadian media isn't is right-wing.

Good point, but it shouldn't be the point. It's more like this; if the Conservatives were in power for the last few years, lots of Canadians might have died in Iraq. Think about it before you vote.

Quotes by Stephen Harper, & others:
http://www.intheirownwords.ca/harper.php
Okay, I read through that link. I happen to agree with just about everything he said save the war on Iraq. Even then, I only disagree with his opinion on the matter considering the time the comments were made. Had you asked me when the US initially invaded Iraq I would have said absolutely they should. This was a supposedly 'illegal war' (as though there is a law that permits war written somewhere; i.e. all wars are illegal) but 'illegal' wars happen all the time and for far less credible reasons. Hey, I'm not white-washing what's happened in Iraq, in hindsight, I'm still not sure that I wouldn't support it again even knowing what I know now. But that's just my personal opinion and this thread isn't about the war in Iraq otherwise.

Here's the thing though : What do the Liberals need to do to convince some people that their present incarnation is corrupt and amoral? They are ripping us off blind. Throwing away our money. Stealing it. They aren't actually doing anything for gay rights (which I know so many people here have an interest in) since they left it up to the courts to decide. They haven't reinvested our money in infrastructure at the rate needed to maintain it. We are at odds with our biggest trading partner in a game of tit-for-tat that Canada can only ultimately lose (and don't kid yourself, the US is and will remain our biggest customer and supplier until Canada picks up and moves to the south Pacific or something) and Paul Martin is rapidly becoming the most over-hyped politician this country has ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I would have voted for him in the last election (and if he was head of another party I probably still would today depending on how this adscam thing turns out) but his party is in some pit where there are no ethics and respect for taxpayers and the voting public.

Like I said before, if you don't want to vote Conservative, that's just ducky. I don't really believe Stephen Harper is the devil incarnate but whatever. I will vote for him unless somebody else surprises me in some way with their platform. All I'm saying is that if you vote for the Liberals you are like that wife that just won't report her abusive boyfriend to the police. Just keeps on taking him back and believing his promises. But he never changes. He is the Liberals right now.