Apr 18, 2014 at 09:33:02
“27% of Canadians never heard of the Bill, and 69% were not familiar with it. Well, we got the Government that we deserved.”
Liban CZ on Apr 20, 2014 at 08:37:46
“One of of ten people is really interested in politics, that is quite sad.”
Steve Cherry on Apr 20, 2014 at 07:36:47
“I tend to agree that 39% of voters got the gov't they wanted.”
Trev14 on Apr 18, 2014 at 09:54:39
“No we didn't! I don't deserve a gov't that won't listen to me. I pay my taxes, I vote, I attend public meetings and vote for change in my community. This is clearly a ROGUE gov't that has no interest in the people. I think Harper is using his misguided religious ideology to guide a nation, and he's terrible at it!
Forcing >30 million people to conform to your own view is not democracy; it's dictatorship. Not only does this current gov't need to be shut out, but they need to be charged with crimes against nature and the destruction of our vital resources like water and soil.
Harper hides from the people and pushes his ideals through with ZERO consideration for the people.”
Apr 17, 2014 at 22:17:33
“Good luck in getting a consensus on that. Your proposal has virtually no chance of being realized.”
Brian Marlatt on Apr 17, 2014 at 23:16:57
“I think you missed the point. All of the referenced proposals are made by the Harper government and all are unconstitutional. All should be opposed.
A government of the day acting unilaterally would not meet seven provinces comprising 50% of the population amending formula requirement; Senators retire at age 75, they do not have terms which would fundamentally change the relationship between the Commons and Senate and parties in each by introducing partisan party discipline in ways not existing today in theory or practice; accountability to the provinces would pit the provinces against one another and collectively create a House of the Provinces explicitly rejected by the Fathers of Confederation, although it is a key objective of the Harper government's Reform Party provincialism; and abolition, set as a "strawman" alternative by Harper and preferred by the NDP is an anachronism that would remove the Senate as a revising chamber, ending bicameral government and is therefore would require rewriting the Canadian constitution.
The proper role of the Supreme Court of Canada would be fulfilled, in my view, by finding the unilateral means to these ends proposed by the CPC and NDP as unconstitutional. In so doing, they would preserve Canada's constitutional and federal framework.”
Apr 17, 2014 at 22:08:02
“Since I and most tax-paying Canadians will be paying for the F-35 for the rest of our lives ($44 billion over 40 years) without my explicit agreement, we are owed some explanations:
-What are Canada's defence needs, and how is this fighter the best to meet those needs?
-What impact will this purchase have on Canada's ability to have a balanced budget?
-The Conservative Government just spent $2.6 billion over the last decade to upgrade and refurbish our 138 F-18s. Why can't we continue to use those fighters over their remaining lifetime (30 years)?
-What is the plan to secure the Canadian arctic? These planes only have a 2,200-mile range, and that only if they are not carrying any weapons and with heavy extra fuel pods. So if they are not useful for protecting Canadian sovereignty in the arctic, what is the plan?
-Will the Government answer these questions, and make a decision before the next election so that I can decide whether to vote for them or not?”
Liban CZ on Apr 18, 2014 at 10:37:13
“Technical part goes over my head, but yes, we need the answer.”
Apr 15, 2014 at 10:59:57
“The price of gasoline is a function of supply and demand. If oil companies were mandated to refine more oil into gasoline, there would be a glut of gasoline in the world. If the oil companies restrict the amount of refined product, the price of gasoline goes up (and profits go up).
So what do you think the oil companies are doing?”
casandra80 on Apr 16, 2014 at 14:42:28
“The same reasoning of supply and demand is applicable to every industry. Our cars are expensive because they are not making enough?”
Apr 10, 2014 at 14:01:14
“Part of Elect ions Canada's mandate is to "...to conduct voter education and information programs". For Linda Frum to assert that its job is not to motivate people to vote demonstrates how ignorant she is on this subject.”
Apr 7, 2014 at 10:21:20
“On the other hand it is difficult to put through unpopular but necessary policies if you have a minority government. A minority government becomes focused on the short-term and forgets long-term implications.”
Will Webster on Apr 7, 2014 at 13:06:40
“Oh, so because its "difficult" we should abandon it!
Its not easy to produce public policy. It would be easier to just have a dictatorship. But that's not what democracy is about. The whole reason we elect people is to deal with difficult issues. Its not supposed to be easy.
The only reason minorities get caught up in short term problems is because they are busy trying to figure out how to gain absolute control instead of working on the issues.
This country started with a Minority govt, Conservative-Liberal. They managed to build a country and to unite the east with the west. What the F is our problem?”
Apr 2, 2014 at 20:54:52
“This is not an issue about the local environment in Alberta; it is an issue about global warming of the planet and the greatest contributor of greenhouse gases in Canada. The greenhouse gases from the oil sands are greater than from all the cars in Canada! They produce a whopping 7% of the entire carbon dioxide from Canada.
Before I would support the NDP's policy on the oil sands, I would want to know what their proposed regulations would be. No oil sands production should be allowed until the greenhouse gases produced by the extraction and upgrading is equal to or less than that from normal oil production and refining.”
casandra80 on Apr 3, 2014 at 08:02:50
“7% of 1.84% of global emissions - not such a great number. No car driving or airplane flying should be allowed until they reduce their emissions by half.”
“I wonder if the objection by many conservatives to the claim of global warming, an objection by the way founded on virtually no scientific evidence, does not arise from the overwhelming sense by conservatives that people are accountable for their own fate, and that any individual can succeed by hard work, honesty and striving for a goal.
Global warming's message is that it doesn't matter how hard you work, how honest you are and what personal goal you have; you are going to suffer if global warming gets worse. And no individual can stop global warming, only governments can do that.
But conservatives, at least extreme conservatives, argue for minimalist government, and believe that the competition among individuals is the healthy answer all of society's problems. But global warming is one problem that individualism cannot solve, and conservatives deny that such problems exist.”
omobob on Mar 31, 2014 at 13:58:45
“Good question. Slow moving animals with tiny brains? Wait. They’re extinct. well noted. faved. cheers”
Mar 20, 2014 at 16:03:41
“There is also nothing to suggest that Québec would accept a share of Canada's federal debt. Without inheriting their share of the debt, they would start out in a better economic situation than the rest of Canada. Add to that that there is nothing that would compel Québec, short of war, to compel them to pay for all the federal assets in Québec that they would inherit.”
LilPuppy on Mar 21, 2014 at 00:32:10
“great idea , I'm going to run up a huge rogers bill then switch to bell...problem solved”
LittleBird89 on Mar 20, 2014 at 16:43:58
“It would be hilarious if, upon Quebec's refusal to pay for federal assets in the province, Canada then just removed them. Imagine all the rivers without bridges!”
CanuckistanCommie on Mar 20, 2014 at 16:28:24
“Oh yes there would. Economic sanctions. You see when you do not pay your bills not one will ever trust you economically which would mean things like loans with higher interest rates. Quebec would find doing business much more difficult and would have to give up much more to get little in return.”
“"Democracy" means the people determine the government and its policies.
The Supreme Council of Crimea was taken over by armed men with their faces covered, and, under cover of secrecy, expelled the Chairman and Prime Minister of Crimea and appointed a new one, contrary to the Ukrainian constitution.
They conducted an illegal referendum with no option of remaining in the Ukraine, with Russian armed guards overseeing the process, with Ukrainian press information suppressed, with public discussion suppressed, with transparent voting boxes that revealed how people had voted.
Now you say democracy prevailed?
No, Tim, "people voting isn't a democratic act" in and of itself. Not when people who disagree feel their safety is endangered if they vote against joining Russia. It has to be a true and fair sounding of public opinion, and this certainly wan't close to that.”
Beebopaloula on Mar 18, 2014 at 14:18:05
“""Democracy" means the people determine the government and its policies.
The Supreme Council of Crimea was taken over by armed men with their faces covered, and, under cover of secrecy, expelled the Chairman and Prime Minister of Crimea and appointed a new one"
I'd like to see proof of that. Citation please.
An illegal referendum, huh. How is getting people to vote for something illegal? Oh, you mean Crimea was under a dictatorship to begin with and voting was illegal? No. . no, that's not right. Hmm.
Voting isn't a democratic act, huh. That's funny because you can't have a Democracy without voting. That statement is probably one of the worst things I've heard fly from anyone's fingertips.
That said, I'm SURE you meant something else, but what you said is that you don't need voting for Democracy and that's just not true.
Yes, I agree that the options were ridiculous and I would've argued with the vote had they chosen the second option (because that would mean they didn't really want to become part of Russia), but since they chose the first. . . . that means they did want to.”
Mar 14, 2014 at 09:28:05
“It all originates in our collective attitude towards our fellow citizens. Take the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. All children are told this tale. But in the US, the moral taught is that if you don't plan ahead and take responsibility for your future you will suffer and possibly die early. In collectivist societies, it is emphasized that the ant has the means to save the grasshopper and chooses not to. In such societies it is the obligation of those with wealth to help those without wealth.
Christianity in principle chooses the latter, with its own parable of the prodigal son: Forgive those who did not work hard and failed to plan for the future. The US in general is of another point of view, and the poor are blamed for their laziness, and because they caused their own hard times, they should be penalized.
Celebration of the independence, self-reliance and responsibility of the individual is a meme that permeates the US, a point of view seen as morally bankrupt by much of the Rest Of the World. The Rest Of the World believes that people are not very accountable for the environment that nurtured them.”
Mar 11, 2014 at 21:05:14
“At the time of the last referendum, the Québec government said that they would only accept their share of the national debt if the rest of Canada agreed to their terms of separation. That is hardly going to be likely, so the rest of Canada better be prepared for a gigantic increase in our debt. Québec would also inherit most Canadian government assets in Quebec such as the Canadian Museum of History, all the government building it has in Gatineau, etc. It will cost English Canadians a lot of money to replace those assets.
So don't think all English Canadians have to do is wave goodbye. It will hit all of us hard in the pocket book. If you think taxes are too much now, wait until the Canadian government has to replace everything it lost at separation and at the same time start paying off a debt that is 25% larger per capita.”
rockysullivan on Mar 11, 2014 at 21:39:09
“I agree-separation would be devastating to the rest of Canada as we now know it--and my point is that because of that, the rest of Canada should not make it easy for separatists to make that happen-- I don;t believe Quebec would even honestly pay anything towards our debt once separation occurs, no matter what is said --however I also think the decrease in transfer payments into Quebec will offset some of that pain
As well I also think that the aboriginal bands in Quebec be allowed to secede back to Canada with their lands if they so vote to do so--why should they be forced to stay in Quebec if Quebec is not similarly forced to stay in Canada?”
“Alex, the fact that you know some people who turned out fine although they had single parents, proves what? And what is the evidence to support your statement that it "has more to do with the parent's involvement than anything"?
The point of this article is that too many people have opinions about black children's success at school, even though there is very little evidence. And you are making the same error.
About all we can say with some certainty is that there is a dire need for in depth research on this issue. Also we need some schooling about evidence-based research. If you find even one case that something falls up under gravity, you have proved something. But if you say you know someone who doesn't fit the mold, well that is irrelevant.”
“The world is changing and nations are now interdependent. At the time of World War II, England and the US were not that dependent on trade with Germany. But today Russia needs the money from that pipeline and the Ukraine and Germany need the natural gas. Trade makes nations today mutually dependent, and that mitigates against war.
So I think a lesson to be drawn from this is how international trade has become a stabilizing force, and discourages war.”
“Todd, the last thing we need is someone putting out false information, and that's what you are doing. There is no treaty obligating the United States to defend the Ukraine. The only treaty, the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994, states:
"4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to
seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to
Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an
act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear
weapons are used;
5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of
Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-
weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent
territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association
or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State;"”
Mar 3, 2014 at 09:24:50
“Well, it does matter. Unlike the past, military force today is no longer the only weapon in the arsenal. Economic pressure can be as effective as military force. The forces behind Putin are the oligarchs, and they won't be happy if the Russian economy tanks.
It will certainly tank if the West can find a way to cut off Russian exports. Exports of fuels represent almost half the entire Russian government's revenue. Add to that grain and mineral exports, and you can see where Russia's weakness lies.
The short-term problem is that the West is just as dependent on those exports as Russia is. For example, 30% of Europe's natural gas come from Russia, and most of it comes through the Ukrainian pipelines. It would take several years for the West to obtain these resources from other countries.
In the meantime, even if oil and gas are not immediately terminated, the mere future possibility of it will drive up oil and gas futures, and you will be paying for it at the pump.”
ochaye on Mar 3, 2014 at 10:04:49
“Leo, the Russian stock market does not matter. Shall I repeat?”
“Crimea used to belong to Russia but Khrushchev (who was born in a Russian village next to the Ukraine) gave it to the Ukraine. Most of the long-term residents there are Russian in culture and language. 58% of the 2,000,000 population of the Crimea are Russian. In the Ukraine, Crimea is an "autonomous republic" (unlike other provinces within the Ukraine) with its own Parliament, subject to the constitution of the Ukraine. Russian was a second official language. It has its own Prime Minister and President. In 1998 Russia started giving out Russian passports to the Russians living in Crimea. In February of this year, the new Parliament abolished Russian as an official language, which heightened the fears of the Russians in Crimea. Further, Russia is worried the new rapproachment with the EU and NATO could cause it to lose its lease with the Ukraine for its military port in Crimea. Finally, Russia is upset that the duly elected Parliament and President of the Ukraine were overthrown by unelected people, and they view the current Parliament and new President as illegal and undemocratic.”
snowmom7 on Mar 2, 2014 at 16:33:14
“Thank you for the lesson, Leo and Kabir.
One cannot be up on everything, so thanks for helping me start to understand this.”