What exactly is Canada's place in the world?

[SirJosephPorter]

Didn't he just deduct it from the bill the world court told the Yanks they owed us from the illegal softwood lumber tariff?

Could be, I am fuzzy as to the details. But even so, didn't it ultimately come from the Canadian taxpayer? That money was supposed to go to Canada.

 

[pgs]

Could be, I am fuzzy as to the details. But even so, didn't it ultimately come from the Canadian taxpayer? That money was supposed to go to Canada.

Canadian lumber producers.

 

[pgs]

Pgs, renegotiating NAFTA (or reneging on it) would have been cutting our nose to spite Americans. I think we should try to forge policies (especially foreign policy) independent of Americans, but Americans still are our friends. You don’t go back on promises or treaties made to your friends.

When Chrétien made the promise to renegotiate NAFTA, I knew at once that he was not going to keep the promise, and rightly too. I said we should try to formulate policies independent of Americans, I did not say we should oppose them at every turn, just for the sake of opposition.

And you don’t take kindly to piecrust promises? How about Harper’s promise to repeal gay marriage or reform the Senate? Those were piecrust promises, it was clear from the beginning that Harper had no intention of keeping them (the first would get Ontario and Quebec mad at him, it would be tantamount to committing political suicide, the second would need a constitutional amendment). Are you OK with Harper making (and breaking) piecrust promises? Every politician makes a few promises like that, it is nothing to get worked up about.

And if not the taxpayer, where did Harper get the 1 billion $ he paid to Bush to propitiate him?

I don't recall Harper campaigning on a policy of repealing gay marriage.
You answered yourself reguarding senate reform,he needs a constatutional ammendment

 

[Kreskin]

Canada's position in the world is pretty modest, but we tend to excel in certain things. For example, on a per capita basis, Canada is the world leader in computer usage.

 

[Cliffy]

The softwood lumber tariff was in direct violation of NAFTA and therefore the US broke the treaty as far as I'm concerned and therefore NAFTA should be renegotiated.

 

[Cliffy]

Canada's position in the world is pretty modest, but we tend to excel in certain things. For example, on a per capita basis, Canada is the world leader in computer usage.

And one of the leaders in beer drinking, yes/no?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't recall Harper campaigning on a policy of repealing gay marriage.
You answered yourself reguarding senate reform,he needs a constatutional ammendment

Well yes, he did implicitly. He promised that he will revisit the issue of gay marriage. By then Parliament had already voted on the issue. Why revisit it if he didn’t want a different outcome, namely, a repeal?

So implicitly he did promise to at least try for a repeal. Then when he came to office, he made the most half hearted attempt to dig the issue up (he didn’t try to repeal gay marriage, but simply tried to dig the issue up) and gave up after one vote.

At least to me, it was clear that he did not have the slightest intention of trying to repeal the gay marriage, it was simply a promise to keep the rubes happy, to keep his base in line.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You answered yourself reguarding senate reform,he needs a constatutional ammendment

And you think Harper didn’t know that when he promised to reform the senate? Of course he knew, he knew it would be next to impossible to reform the Senate.

But the rubes didn’t know that, so he knew he will keep the rubes happy and satisfied by making that promise. So it was a piecrust promise, he had no intention of keeping it. But a politician has to make a few promises like that to keep his base happy, whether it is Chrétien or Harper.

 

[damngrumpy]

First of all many Canadians don't know yet that Harper behind his knew smile is still a
social conservative who would like to take us back to Victorian times. The constitution once opened would be subjected to every ailment in the Canadian
handbook of complaints. No politician in their right mind would seriously open the
Constitution folder. its a mine field of discontent that will satisfy no one.
As for where are we in the world. Actually we are looked up to by most of the globe.
We have a of influencing the agenda but only when we are progressive and with the
conservatives in power we are not progressive, therefore we do not have any moral
authority, which is our stock and trade on the world stage.

 

[pgs]

Well yes, he did implicitly. He promised that he will revisit the issue of gay marriage. By then Parliament had already voted on the issue. Why revisit it if he didn’t want a different outcome, namely, a repeal?

So implicitly he did promise to at least try for a repeal. Then when he came to office, he made the most half hearted attempt to dig the issue up (he didn’t try to repeal gay marriage, but simply tried to dig the issue up) and gave up after one vote.

At least to me, it was clear that he did not have the slightest intention of trying to repeal the gay marriage, it was simply a promise to keep the rubes happy, to keep his base in line.

Was he actually going out and campaigning or was that an answer to a gothca question?
Most likely the later .And now as then nobody but you cares about gay marraige.

 

[pgs]

And you think Harper didn’t know that when he promised to reform the senate? Of course he knew, he knew it would be next to impossible to reform the Senate.

But the rubes didn’t know that, so he knew he will keep the rubes happy and satisfied by making that promise. So it was a piecrust promise, he had no intention of keeping it. But a politician has to make a few promises like that to keep his base happy, whether it is Chrétien or Harper.

I am sure that if the country gives him a majority he will try to reform the senate.
But I may be wrong ,if that is the case I will hold him in the same distain I hold Cretin.

 

[china]

And not only China, the last I read, Ireland and Iceland are trying to reorganize their banking system along the lines of Canadian banking system.

From what I have bin shown is that Canadian banks are good for the Canadian banks( with the help of the federal gov.) not the Canadian people .

 

[FiveParadox]

pgs, whether or not The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister of Canada ever receives a majority, the fact remains that his proposed reforms to the Honourable the Senate of Canada would change the fundamental characteristics and role of the Upper House and, therefore, would require a constitutional amendment with the consent of the provinces. (I would also bring up the fact that the prime minister has attempted, on multiple occasions, to circumvent the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982, and his continued Senate ‘reform’ debacle simply furthers this fact.)

The prime minister made a clearly undesireable promise to the base of the Conservative Party of Canada, and he knows very well that the only way to achieve this promise is to do so through unequivocally unconstitutional means. The prime minister should continue to recommend the appointments of honourable senators as he has been, but he needs to stop this nonsense of having them sign commitments to support Her Majesty’s Government for Canada forever, and trying to needlessly [and unconstitutionally] reform this integral part of the Canadian legislative process in a way that would irrevocably turn away some tremendous advantages that Canadians benefit from under the current incarnation of the Senate.

 

[Cliffy]

I see nothing honourable about the man and the only right is the political right, otherwise he is wrong on many issues. I think he is selling out Canada and destroying what credibility we had on the world stage.

 

[FiveParadox]

I see nothing honourable about the man and the only right is the political right, otherwise he is wrong on many issues. I think he is selling out Canada and destroying what credibility we had on the world stage.

Then we agree.

 

[ironsides]

Ironsides - you are absolutely right. I'm not sure why we continue to "give away" our resources and then blame somebody else for it. It appears to me that our "negotiation style" is a bit weak from time to time. As the most powerful nation on earth, there is one thing the U.S. understands when it comes to negotiating...power. We just don't use it wisely most of the time.

I'm not sure that nationalizing our resources is the best way to go (if I'm interpreting that meaning accurately)...it might be simpler/cheaper/more effective to lay down a simple set of rules (simple, not a foot-thick book of paper) that would encompass what can and can't be sold by private companies under a clear policy of natural resources.

The word nationalizing may have been a little to strong, but unless there is something like a political revolution whereby you get the right to renegotiate contracts for your resources things will just go on as they are now. In the U.S. as in Canada most of our major companies are owned by foreign interest groups or (as in the U.S. under Obama) being run by the goverment, neither of which have the peoples interests as a top priority. Fannie Mae for example the company that started all this economic collapse in the first place was just given the green light to start lending again with a goverment guarantee: "Speculators poured into shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on Monday, the first day of trading after the Obama administration in effect gave the companies blank checks of federal support."
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares soar -- latimes.com

See nothing has changed except that we are in debt for the next 2-3 generations. I expect Fannie Mae stocks to be worthless by the end of 2010 2011 latest.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Was he actually going out and campaigning or was that an answer to a gothca question?
Most likely the later .And now as then nobody but you cares about gay marraige.

Really? Then why do you keep discussing it? You could just ignore it when I mention it.

And it was not just in answer to a question. Remember this is the same Harper who talked about putting up the firewall around Alberta to keep the gay marriage out. So he was promising his followers that he will revisit the issue.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am sure that if the country gives him a majority he will try to reform the senate.
But I may be wrong ,if that is the case I will hold him in the same distain I hold Cretin.

How? He will still need a constitutional amendment for any meaningful Senate Reform. It is not up to Harper to reform the senate, ultimately it is up to provinces (who have to approve any constitutional amendment).

I am sure Harper knows it, I am not sure that his followers do.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

pgs, whether or not The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister of Canada ever receives a majority, the fact remains that his proposed reforms to the Honourable the Senate of Canada would change the fundamental characteristics and role of the Upper House and, therefore, would require a constitutional amendment with the consent of the provinces. (I would also bring up the fact that the prime minister has attempted, on multiple occasions, to circumvent the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982, and his continued Senate ‘reform’ debacle simply furthers this fact.)

That is just what I have been trying to tell pgs, FP. And I am sure Harper knows that, he is no fool. At the same time, he keeps promising to rubes that he will reform the Senate. It doesn’t cost him anything, it keeps his followers happy and he is free to woo the moderates in Ontario and Quebec.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am sure that if the country gives him a majority he will try to reform the senate.
But I may be wrong ,if that is the case I will hold him in the same distain I hold Cretin.

And why should he wait until he gets a majority, pgs? I am sure NDP and Bloc would be happy to support some kind of Senate reform. Currently they have absolutely no representation in the senate, and any reform that will give them representation (by having elected senate etc.) will probably receive their support.

So I don’t see what getting a majority have to do with Senate reform. A majority will be relevant only if Harper is planning such a reform that it will guarantee a perpetual Conservative majority in the senate. To carry out such a reform, he will need a majority.

But he can count on NDP and Bloc to support senate reform. I don’t think even liberals have ruled out Senate reform completely.

So your claim that Harper needs a majority to pass senate reform, is just a political ploy, to get your party a majority, nothing more.