http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060929/kennedy_issues_060929/20060929/

Must say that I like Kennedy, the more I hear and see of him. Below, is a cutout from an article on the link.

"We have the know-how and means to be the cleanest country on the planet but in order for Canada to emerge as a clean energy superpower, we must adopt policies that bring industry, consumers and government together, said Kennedy.

Strategies outlined in Kennedy's plan include:

A GST exemption of up to $5000, for hybrid, hydrogen and fuel cell and ultra clean bio-diesel vehicles;
A progressive gas-guzzler tax on all vehicles that have worse than average fuel consumption;
50 per cent of government fleet purchases to be hybrids or alternative fuelled vehicles by 2010 and 100 per cent by 2015;
One per cent improvement in energy consumption per capita in five years and three per cent over the next 10 years;
Drive innovation by using the tax code to encourage investment in environmental technologies;
Provide incentives for ground-source heat pumps;
Create programs and greater incentives for conservation including home retrofit programs and pilot programs to monitor energy consumption and energy cost by the minute;
Introduce a mandatory market-based system that allows companies to register and trade emission credits.

And Kennedy is a king maker, perhaps the best candidate of them all. But as for Kennedy being a kingmaker, so can Dion... and to a lesser extent, Ken Dryden and the rest.

What will be interesting to watch is where Ken Dryden and Scott Brison offer their support. My guess is that both candidates will lean towards Kennedy's social vision. They could also support Dion, but not likely as a first choice. And if Brison and Dryden support Kennedy what will Dion do? Likely support Kennedy and this means a three way tie between Mike, Bob and Gerard. From there, its anyone's to win and lose, depending on how well they speak.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061117/liberal_poll_061117?s_name=&no_ads=

Kennedy's support in Ontario is also strong. I like young Trudeau's words best in describing my own take on the up and coming Liberal leadership convention.

http://www.gerardkennedy.ca/news_e.aspx?id=123

Chantal Hebert is also known for her common sense.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1163717411597&call_pageid=970599119419

I dunno the Brain, why just 50% of Government vehicles go Hybrid. Here in BC, Premier:

Why is Kennedy being so cautious? If he can't keep up to the premier of this blighted Province in the area of vehicles purchases, I can't see his green commitment as being all that significant.

Do you suppose it has something to do with all the big - 3 car plants in Ontario and Quebec?

Well, G, we'll have to watch this carefully ... will the Campbell government really, actually purchase/lease only hybrid vehicles?

Or was that "I will not sell B.C. Rail" re-stated?

All smoke and mirrors I fear Mary, smoke and mirrors. Our dear leader may well have some close personal friends who own Toyota and Honda dealerships. Hadn't thought of that.

AFAIK, the new car dealers association of B.C. is one of the provincial Liberals largest donors.

Thanks Stump - I'll follow up on who pulls the strings at that little enterprise.

Here's the Board of Directors

Brian Jessel, Chair
Brian Jessel BMW, Vancouver

Manse Binkley, Past Chair
Harmony Honda, Kelowna

Glen Ringdal, President & CEO
The New Car Dealers of BC

Cliff Alderson
Northern Toyota, Prince George

Dennis Skulsky
Pacific Newspaper Group, Vancouver

Bob Buckner
Bank of Montreal, Vancouver

Christian Chia
OpenRoad Auto Group, Richmond

Bob Costain
Terrace Chrysler, Terrace

George Evans
River City Nissan Ltd., Kamloops

Mike Finneron
Mike Finneron Pontiac Buick Ltd., Courtenay

Fahim Gadallah
Dennison Chevrolet Oldsmobile, Richmond

John Chesman
MCL Motocars, Vancouver

Jim Inkster
Inland Chrysler Jeep, Dawson Creek

Harry Mertin
Mertin Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd., Chilliwack

Michael Stevulak
Pacific Mazda, Victoria

Bill Sie
Gold Key Pontiac Buick GMC, Surrey

Moray Keith
Dueck GM, Vancouver

Craig Kalawsky
Castlegar Toyota, Castlegar

Re: Kennedy;

From many reports he seems to be a very decent person. Also extended family members in Alberta know him personally and some are actually going as delegates to the Liberal leadership convention.

Conclusion:

He's toast...

...unless he acknowledges and adapts to the classic Federal Liberal underbelly and all the teats attached to it. Many of these Federal Liberal leadership candidates strike me as rather idealistic and naive, or perhaps they are simply masking an inner Trudeau and thus back to the same -old same- old.

There's no way to know where a Liberal stands because they'll say anything to get elected. The record shows pretty clearly that policy-wise they're no different than the Conservatives and they're corrupt as hell to boot.

People join the Liberals because they like the power and perks that comes from being an elected member of Canada's natural governing party.

Translation, we Liberals can't stand to see 4 billion discretionary dollars leaving the country when there's lots of Liberal-friendly companies we could be giving contracts to in return for a fraction of it back in the form of political donations and board memberships when we leave politics.

Translation: I spend every waking moment entertaining offers from the other camps. As the big day approaches the bidding will only move upwards. Vision? I have no idea what Canada needs and I could care even less.

Oh, c'mon, Frank, its got to be better than the Republican vision our current government has for us now... :-)

History shows any Republican vision the Conservatives have for us the Liberals will be happy to sign onto after first using the issue as a club to beat the Conservatives with and return the Liberals to power under the pretense they wouldn't have done the same.

Once in power those Republican visions won't look so bad to the Liberals, nothing will ever get rescinded.

Federal Liberals have been "the governing party" by and large objectively speaking...but " natural" governing party is via their own subjective arrogant cult -like self de-ification Liberal political thesaurus.

CBC had a special on ex P.M.Joe Clark on the other day...both his failures and victories. His surprise win at the 1976 Tory leadership convention was infamous..so was his TORY Gov'ts downfall in the non confidence vote. Mulroney saw (and subsequently strategized and took advantage of ) the fact that the Old TORY party had a lot of disenfranchised old guard TORY's that either Clark ignored in his vision for the party and forming Gov't or the Tory old guard who were simply not happy with Clark.

I see the same parallels with the Federal Liberal leadership. Nice guys finish last..the rest will often achieve their objective if they " play the game ".

Finally, the Federal Liberals rarely have good ideas, mostly bad ones....when in Opposition they tend to damn the Gov'ts ideas if it garners them support to get them elected, then rip-off these same ideas and use them if and when they return to power as Gov't... that's what political whores do..its all about power at ANY cost...the rest is basically irrelevant.

Once in power those Republican visions won't look so bad to the Liberals, nothing will ever get rescinded. - Frank

Quite right, Frank, but the issue for me is what kind of theives I should support. If I'm forced to support theives and crooked criminals, I would like to at least support the "Canadian" money grubbing kind. This Republican led Con party is just a little too "american" for the kind of crooks I have to support.

And I don't have to support theives and ideologically corrupt and bankrupt individuals? If I vote NDP, I do... Layton will prop up either government when politically advantaged to do so. The greens will do it too, when their time comes... support theives... it doesn't matter what I do outside of not voting at all, Frank, and no, not voting doesn't cut it for me, as then, I won't be supporting the ideal of democracy that needs support, darn it! Quite frustrating on my principles, come to think about it. Ah, well, when in Rome...

No, on election day, I'll be supporting crooks but at least they'll be Canadian crooks. I will not support the Republican traitorous kind of sellouts we have now.

brain, sure Layton will prop up the Republican-Cons or the Republican-Libs. But at least he'll get them to agree to doing something useful with our tax dollars for doing so.

The Libs get a free ride in this country because although they're as conservative as the Conservatives they make better speeches and we think they're somehow a kinder, gentler party. They aren't. The Libs cut health care and no one called them on it because somehow they've managed to get everyone to believe they're the defenders of medicare. What a crock.

Now if you're a guy easily corrupted, which party are you going to run for? The one that's in power all the time or the one that never is? In my opinion, that's why the NDP doesn't attract the same power-hungry types the Libs do (because that would be self-inflicted torture) and yet even with the corruption of the Gomery findings the Libs still get more votes than the NDP does. Not a lot more, but seat distribution being what it is they get a lot more seats.

Take Bob Rae (please), the guy writes a book about why he's not an NDPer anymore yet polls show he would attract a lot of NDP support. Why?!? People inclined to vote NDP should do so. Because Libs are not more pragmatic NDPers. Nor are we close political cousins. The only reason I can see is that almost 40 years ago the Libs implemented some NDP ideas in order to cut off at the knees the threat that the growing Left posed. That's all it was, political strategy. The implementation didn't go as far as what social democrats implemented in western Europe and yet the Libs have joined with the Cons at eroding even that over the years.

Voters get what they deserve. If they vote Liberal they shouldn't be surprised when we get the same Conservative policies mixed with more appealing rhetoric. If when the rubber hits the road even NDP and Green voters vote Liberal just to get rid of the Conservativesr there will never be any chance of real social and economic reforms in this country.

I will vote for the person, not the party. I still claim Paul Martin was better in office then Harper will ever be.

That's damning with faint praise pure.

I'm with you, pure. Martin might not have been a saint, but he signed off on Kyoto and budgeted for surplus's which most soft governments would not do,(with the help of high commodity valuations in oil and metals and overall inflation, of course). Tis' easier to spend our way out of problems, you know.

And Frank, while Martin was responsible for soldiers initially in Afganistan (and to a lesser degree, Chretien), it wasn't until the Republican Harper got in, that the nature of the mission had changed from peacekeeping to offensive operations.

In fact, when Harper was going after international recognition for being the empire's Joe boy in taking over Nato from U.S. command of Nato forces in Afganistan in the spring, especially in the south of Afganistan, Canadian casualties became certain thanks to our turncoat Republican Harper's ramrod politics.

I don't have love for Martin after his boosted military spending that Chretien ignored in his tenure as chief thief. I'm not big on what the Liberals have done for the environment, either, or for more Canadian ownership of our markets and resources.

But Martin isn't the one wanting to sign off on missile defence, or increased spending for offensive military operations without debate, or the scrapping of Kyoto and the needed gun registry, or billion dollar spending to arm border guards, or 1.1 billion dollar softwood giveaways, or opening up fish plants where there are no fish, or the loss of "habeas corpus" within our judicial system as proposed by Vic Toews.

And its not Paul Martin who just deregulated the telecom internet phone sector by overriding recent CRTC decisions, and it wasn't Martin beating his chest like some drunken dummy who will challenge with military force if need be, any nation who dares challenge the Canada's sovereign claims to the North... and it wasn't Martin who Justified Israel's actions towards Lebanon and Palestine, or play the empires referee with North Korean trade inspections like the good little Republican that he is.

And it wasn't Martin that appointed non elected party officials into cabinet positions, or putting a muzzle on his entire party, including cabinet ministers. And did Martin make perhaps the biggest visable crook of all, David Emerson, a cabinet minister? Was it Martin that got rid of his best Liberal as was done with the Conservatives Garth Turner? Was it Martin that broke promises to use 10% ethanol in gas? Or income trusts?

My point is, Frank, that there is a difference between the Cons and Libs. There is such a thing as a lesser of two evils, and for that matter, how effective has the NDP been in balancing power this time 'round? The NDP quite simply, doesn't have the balance of power... and it is about power. What would the NDP do with it, if they had the chance? Do you really feel comfortable with the idea of Layton as PM? Have you compared all four platforms sector by sector?

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I vote for the MP hopeful first, and the party second to last. But if its an "anybody but the Con's scenerio", then I vote for power or against it, in this case, the likeliest MP possibility to defeat the Conservative in my riding and that's how it is for me. The Cons are biggest threat to this nation as a whole, I'm convinced of it, and will voice and vote accordingly. If it happens to be a Liberal (and it isn't) then so be it. Lesser of two evils.

Tyee....How about asking candidates on their views and plans on the NAU and the elimination of the Canadian dollar?

It is also interesting that while big business is screaming for deregulation, they're pushing and are directly involved in all negotiations on forcing "rules based globalized free trade" on the Earth.

Where do these candidates stand on this obvious contradiction and the killing of the democratic decison making powers of all societies by these "rules"? Are they not regulations?

Ed Deak.

the brain
I don't know what to think of Martin. His financial disclosure form, when he ran for the leadership, indicated that he had a personal net worth - at that time - of at least $700 million.

I'll wager it's well over 1 billion now.

Does that mean he can't be bought - as Harper surely can and has been - or that he's bought everyone else?

I'll go along with the 'anybody but' scenario but I hope ELizabeth May does very well next monday in London. I understand that Garth Turnee is stumping for her from door to door.

But as for Paul Martin, on that score I ain't so certain.

And, I'd be just fine with Jack Layton as PM. Could he possibly do any worse?

QUOTE]The Libs cut health care and no one called them on it because somehow they've managed to get everyone to believe they're the defenders of medicare. What a crock. - Frank

The national debt timeline has alot to do with those cuts, Frank and you know it. If I was Martin at the time, I would have done the exact same thing... cut spending to healthcare. Keep in mind that the GST was introduced in 92', where our currency was weak, our national deficit was in the 40 + billion mark before GST revenues started kicking in... interest rates were high, currency was low, national debt was ballooning, Canada was a true economical mess.

In all honesty, if the Liberal government didn't slash spending on a dramatic level straight across the board, deficits would have continued, currency would have free falled, and interest rates would have continued to plow us into a recession.

We have so far, paid off over 60 billion in federal debt since then, freeing up over 3 billion more to spend in healthcare annually when one considers the interest on 60 Billion alone!

So we slash spending in lean times till some debt is paid off, currencies are re-stablized, inflation and rising commodities rise with their cycles diluting debt to revenue ratios and then, lo and behold, with surplus's, we can spend. And within the last 3 years, the Liberals began to do just that with healthcare. Spend! This isn't a hard strategy for me or any other average Joe to grasp, looking back at the historical records we've had to look back on as hindsight.

But questions do go unanswered. Why are oil and gas companies being subsidized still, especially today? Why are oil and gas royalties practically non-existent now concerning federal revenue? Why were there harsh cuts to medicare spending, while there were grants to oil and gas companies that were staggering in comparison? Why has U.S. ownership of Canadian markets and resources continued to tip towards the empires favor with the Libs in power?

I don't want another Martin, to be sure, to follow the one we just had... but the Republican replacement, the "shrub", sure aint the one who's going to cut the mustard in this new economical and environmental climate.

And to that end, whoever wins the next Liberal leadership will likely be the next PM and that matters! It matters because another Conservative win by default could seriously damage this country even moreso than it has been and if the Lib's are no better this time round, the Cons will likely get another chance and maybe even succeed in selling out Canada's ability to be a nation. All politicians are crooked, they are all the same, all hypocrites, whores, sellouts, yadda yadda yadda... Trust me, this leadership convention still matters!

Oh, I think you know that those who sit on big bucks didn't get it without having an appetite for it. Sometimes an "unsatiable" one.

What I liked about Martin was his ability to balance Canada's federal books. A lot of people complained, as well, they should have. When the first Chretien majority came into power in '92 (I think it was), we needed a slash and cut finance minister who knew the bottom line and we had one. But we also had a corporate raider, a former CEO who had all that goes with the position... a full belief in globalization.

What CEO isn't going to promote globalization, the ability to access economic markets and trade around the world? And so, Martin, a promoter of globalization, wouldn't have been the one to pick to be more protectionist, more regulatory, more environmental, more social, more anything, but to know the "bottom line" and that time has temporarily come and gone.

So my take on Martin was that he was a good finance minister for what Canada's needs were at a time where Canada needed deep cuts in spending. But as far as being PM, Martin lacked what it truly takes to lead a nation, and thats a PM who can see beyond the "bottom line".

We need a PM who see's the major correlations between the economy and the environment, between commodity values, population growth and tax base... knowing the difference between immigrant integration and assimilation, between energy efficiency, consumer savings, and lower energy demands that have market effects on commodity valuations for energy producers... between manufacturing auto's that have the inefficient polluting milage they have now, compared to standards that actually allow the big three domestic manufacturers to "compete" outside of North America, lending a long overdue boost to our manufacturers.

We don't need another Martin, or Republican whats his name. We need someone else. And for what its worth, in alluding to what Ed Deak says about the rules and regs of globaliztion... if Kennedy is saying what I'm thinking...

Me, I'm certain about Paul Martin's place in Canadian history. That guy was blind ambition, clawing his way to power, using every trick in the book, sailing way too close to the wind, attacking his leader at every turn, disregarding the consequences, fixated on taking the Prime Minister's chair. Good grief, we had to watch Bono working the crowd for him. The measure of the man was in the people (200 of them) he kept on his dubious payroll, to promote his (ha ha) democratic ambitions.

Ask Sheila Copps; ask Herb Dhaliwal; ask David Anderson. The conniving, the dumping, the block voting, the disrespect for the electoral process ... sufferin' Pete, he didn't care about us or about Canada.

Then after dithering and dawdling as Prime Minister, he had that brilliant idea ... he called that stupid Gomery Inquiry to show how well he had covered his own tracks while hoping everyone else would get their foot caught in the bear traps he had set out ...

Now, like Gary Collins, Judith Reid, Geoff Plant, Christy Clark on the provincial scene, Paul Martin on the federal scene has faded into the sunset, to spend more (er, um, cough) time with his (choke) family.

Sorry, G., we wouldn't be having this agonizing Leadership exercise if it weren't for the unholy chaos left in the federal Liberal party by Small Paul.

And you're right, The brain, this leadership convention still matters ... desperately ... as people poke and prod and study each specimen candidate for signs of honesty, integrity, intelligence, and for caring about this country.

What Martin did is classic "Liberal". He said Kyoto was a great idea, signed it, but didn't do a thing about Canada's emissions.

It wasn't peacekeeping when Martin was in power either. Again, classic Liberal technique, claim you're opposed to something except when you're in power.

Actually, I don't see any reason for our border guards not to have guns. Seems pretty much de rigeur to me if we're going to call them guards. Either that or change their name and call them "border observers".
As for Kyoto, I already said Martin was happy to do nothing to cut emissions.
On missile defence etc, if the Cons sign on the Libs won't rescind.
Nor did the Libs ever "fix" softwood lumber, they're bigger free traders than the Cons are.
And their record on fish is nothing to wave a flag about.
The argument about "Habeus corpus" I'll grant you.

But the Libs are big fans of deregulation. Either doing it themselves or not rescinding Conservative legislation even after beating them over the head for it.

He should. I prefer a leader who says the North is ours over one who says we'll talk about it with other interested parties.

Sure, the Cons are more friendly towards Israel. This is not an issue that would sway my vote anyway.

The Libs have used the Senate as their home for party hacks for over a century. Nor have they been shy about using the unelected house for their own purposes. Nor have the Libs any great record when it comes to democratic ethics.

No, its not about power. At least for NDPers. For Liberals, sure, its all about power, nothing else.

Compared to Bill Blaikie? No. Compared to anyone currently running for the Liberals? Yes.

Trudeau's nobodies? Who cares what the name of the MP is?

Let's not be in a hurry to make Garth Turner a martyr. If he's anybody's best cabinet minister I'm Paris Hilton. The guy was scum when he served Mulroney and hasn't changed since.
As for Emerson being a crook etc, the Libs are masters at this kind of thing. The corruption demonstrated by Gomery dwarfs the Emerson issue.
As for broken promises, was it the Cons who said they wouldn't agree to NAFTA? Was it the Cons who said the GST had to go?

There's also such a thing as the lesser of two corruptions and the Liberals aren't in 2nd place.

I wouldn't have. Nor would I vote for a guy who decided the best way to fix the deficit problem was cuts to health and social spending. In my opinion, those are the last places you make cuts to. I totally support Glen Clark's running a deficit here in BC to make up for those Liberal cuts to fix a deficit they were 50% responsible for in the first place.

I can't answer this in a sound bite but there were other economists who suggested alternative paths. Your argument echoes the New Zealand neocons who slashed everything there under the banner "There is no alternative".

That 60 billion was money that could have been spent on growing our economy and helping those who need it. We're making Canada safe for big business by balancing our books on the backs of the less fortunate. That's also classic Liberal.

The Liberals were in office when those surpluses came online. The money didn't go far towards making up for the cuts. The Liberals didn't even make the provinces spend it on what the Liberals said the money was for.

No they aren't, just the ones we elect, especially those running under the Liberal banner.

You misapprehend me Mary, I'm no hagiographer for St Paul either. Is he better than Harper?
Maybe.

But, as I said earlier to pure - that's damning with faint praise.

We should ask Bill Clinton to be our Prime Minister. Other then his sex life he is one fantastic leader. I think he would be the best bet for Canada.

Personally, I have lived under Hitler, Stalin, Attlee, Churchill and all the "leaders" of Canada sonce 1955, and am agetting a bit sick and bloody tired of "leaders".

Having tasted and learned the philosophy of democracy I hope to live long enough to see some of it here in Canada, and to hell with all leaders.

Ed Deak.

Well put Ed.

We live in hope.

This day and age it would not matter what party or person got in to office because the entire system is failing and civilization is not the same as it was in the 40,50s,and 60s. I could elaborate alot more on this subject and solve nothing by todays standards.
1) leaky condos- 1-3 billion
2) PCBs - land, water and air
3) IPPs - BC HYDRO awarding 30 year contracts.
4) children - car theft
5) deaths - hit and runs
6) Gov,t - scandals
7) You name it?

democracy?...please keep me informed...I'd like to learn when we the people of Canada achieve that?....

Yah, I've got a hour for rebuttals, Frank. :-)

By the way, BC Mary, in agreement with everything you said. Martin's lust for power was hard to watch.

My heads nodding, yes, typical liberal... but he still signed it.

Two words for you, and we'll both be smarter. Prove it.

I can think of a Billion reasons. Its costing us a billion over ten years!!! And did border guards need guns over the last 4 decades? Nope. And people knew when they saw our guards at the border part of the real reason why this nation is so great. WERE PEACEFUL. And this notion that guns are needed at the border? Name border "incidents" that we can list on more than one hand, that's happened in the last 4 decades. In all honesty, its a non story. But thats all changed, Frank. When guards pack guns, it not only means they are prepared to use them, it means the rest of the traffic coming into this country knows the same thing. At some point, those guns will beget violence that would otherwise have not occured. I'll give it 5 years or less before we see it come home.

Martin? Try Chretien. What did he do? And for that matter, what can any PM do in a year and a half, facing what was likely the worst party scandal in Canadian history?

Again, classic NDP technique, claim you're opposed to something except when you're in power... is that where this edited quote of yours fits? Not this time, but I know it fits somewhere...

They didn't have time, Frank. And when a customer doesn't pay, its the provider's fault? And since when did contract signatures on Free trade agreements become null and void becuase it wasn't signed by the leader of the liberal party? C'mon, Frank, goin' nowhere with that one.

Yes, global warming and world overfishing is the Liberal's fault.

You'd better, or I'd roast you over it! :-) (Friggin Republicans)

Which government? Trudeau? Surely you jest. Chretien? Martin? I would think Martin for sure, but not the other two. Chretien and Trudeau had 4 majorities (or is it 5?) to privatize every crown in the land. They had more than enough time to get rid of the wheat board, open up the CRTC to full blown deregulation, deregulate insurance, healthcare, banking, the works. Surprise, Surprise, Frank, we've still got them. For now...

I prefer a leader does the same... but not some blowhard who talks like a drunken bully around backup in a bar that he'll protect what is his, "or else". The usual scenario that follows under such circumstances is that his backup goes to the can and he gets shit kicked. And could you imagine what Harper would do if a nation laid dispute over Canada's artic claims? What would Harper do? Really? Where I come from, when you talk tough, you'd better BE tough. Harper's nuts haven't even remotely begun to drop, easy to tell. Its the quiet ones you have to watch out for, Frank, you know that. Talk is all it is. PR.

Perhaps it should. Our "friends" in the middle east aren't exactly being portrayed as humanitarian by Louise Arbour, these days. The Repugnant Republican Harper was a shame to watch this year in how he handled Israels bombing of Lebanon. And Palestine. My view? The current Israeli government is full of war criminals and evil men. Hardly people I would call "friends". Enough said.

Quite right. And wrong. While the Senate has been a home for Liberal party hacks, they have also been in power far longer than any other party. It goes with the territory.

But the alternative, Frank, is an elected senate. And in case you don't know the full implications of what this means, let me tell you what I believe. It means that an elected senate creates a political climate that is exactly like the U.S. and if you think their system is superior to ours, think again. The congress runs for election every two years, so they are campaigning more than they are anything else. The senate, while elected ever 6 years, has only 100 senators, meaning there are "far fewer politicians to buy off". If thats what you want, Frank, far fewer politicians to buy off, then have the senate run for election and we can be just like the U.S.! And when Harpers succeeded, his arguement for Canada to become the next emperical state will hold water. "Canada, U.S., whats the difference"? Sure can't tell at the border, these days.

Again, classic "NDP" technique, claim you're opposed to something except when you're in power... is that where this edited quote of yours fits best? Yup!

Compared to Bill Blaikie? No. Compared to anyone currently running for the Liberals? Yes. - frank

Please, list off some reasons. I'm curious. Not the list of "well, Jack isn't this, that and the other." Tell me what Jack has "got" that makes him fit to lead this nation. I'm curious, cause I haven't really seen it. I know what he's missing. Surprise me by telling me what it is that Jack's "got".

You only see colors... flags... brands... no human faces... sad...

And served Mulroney... he was a cabinet minister under Kim Campbell, hardly a mark on Canadian history. Aside from this, I have a 180 view of him compared to your own, Frank. If you followed his blog at all, you would know why.

http://www.garth.ca/weblog/

As for Emerson being a crook etc, the Libs are masters at this kind of thing. The corruption demonstrated by Gomery dwarfs the Emerson issue.
As for broken promises, was it the Cons who said they wouldn't agree to NAFTA? Was it the Cons who said the GST had to go?

Actually, Gomery only dwarfs Emerson due to media awareness to Gomery and no awareness on Emerson. Emerson's 7 directorships of which one came from the sale of BC gas to Terasen, is nothing to sneeze at. What do you think cost the taxpayers more... Gomery? Or the privatization of BC gas. Tell me, is it appropriate for a provincial deputy treasurer to take "for your eyes only" intelligence relating specifically with banks and the health of their management and balance sheets and systematically exploit it for pure greed? Is it appropriate for someone like Emerson to take government intelligence and use it to Canfors advantage "as a CEO"? The fact that no one has remotely begun to question or challenge David Emerson on his obvious exploitation of public office, is one of the largest ongoing scandals there is. the largest ongoing scandal at the moment that dwarfs Gomery? Try Canada having a Republican NCC groomed PM in government.

Agreed, other than to say that they are more like tied for first with the Cons. If you want to get historical, I would offer that Mulroney's 24 directorships and airbus paybacks rivalled anything the Libs have ever done from what I'm aware of.

I wouldn't have. Nor would I vote for a guy who decided the best way to fix the deficit problem was cuts to health and social spending. In my opinion, those are the last places you make cuts to. I totally support Glen Clark's running a deficit here in BC to make up for those Liberal cuts to fix a deficit they were 50% responsible for in the first place.

Ok, so where do you cut? Federal spending consists of administration costs, (public servants) healthcare, transfer payments to the provinces and interest rates. Where do you cut? In '92, they had to cut everything. It wasn't just healthcare. It was education, public servant wages, transfer payments, well everything!

And its not like a provincial scenerio, I might add, where currencies and prime interest rates remain unaffected. The provincial example offers more flexibility than the federal one in a time of piling debt and runaway spending.

But Frank. In some cases, there truly "is no alternative". This was one of them. Same goes for the GST. It was needed. And sure, someone will read this and say that it was not, it was all preventable by not spending money we didn't have. And in this context, they would be right.

And where did it go? Ask Trudeau. He ran up close to 280 billion in debt. Ask Mulroney. He tacked on another 200 billion. He spent 11.7 on Bush seniors war in 91'. Was that spending justified? Tell me, what did Canadians get in the 70's and 80's for all that money, all that spending.

The only thing that is saving our asses is inflation of GDP and tax revenue due to growing populations, high commodity valuations for oil, gas, and metals, and control of deficit spending. And the NDP would do it better? You should see what their platform adds up to in terms of spending and tell me whether or not you see the possibility of history repeating itself.

Frank, without 60 billion going down on Canada's national debt (this number could be higher, come to think of it), our currency would be a full dime lower or more than it is now and our interest rates would be a full 2 to 3 points higher at the minimum, not to mention we would still have higher interest payments and rates on this debt. Do you really think that spending is still the way to go? Time and place, Frank. Time and place. You know the old adage, "don't spend what you haven't got". And when there's a recession and people are depressed and hungry? "Get out the credit card". Its not complicated.

Yes, the corrupt, guilty and distracted liberals were in office for the 3 years of surplus's worth noting. This isn't a major timeline to work with here, Frank. And equalization payments... I was pissed that Martin treated each province differently. The feds hosed Saskatchewans tranfer payments under Martin for example, and it had me pissed... not just because Sask got short changed, but because Sask votes Con now. If Harper was just another crooked Conservative, it wouldn't matter so much to me, but a Republican Conservative? All the backroom deals Martin made... talking the equality talk, we should all be treated the same but when push comes to shove...

No they aren't, just the ones we elect, especially those running under the Liberal banner. - Frank

Not only did you quote me out of context, as what I was trying to say was the opposite (in a sense) to whit that there actually is a difference between parties, they aren't all the same... not only did you quote me out of context, but you continue on with the promotion of a mis-truth. A fallacy. Possibly, even, a lie. And the erroneous extrapolation is this...

"There is no difference between the Libs and the Cons, except the Libs are more corrupt. Therefore, the only honest politician is the ones who are either not elected, or have no power. So vote NDP. - they are different"

And to this extrapolation that I feel to be the accurate jest of your pontifications, I have this to say:

The party is made up of individuals. Their leaders are individuals. The voters who vote for them are individuals. If an individual or group of individuals, entrusted to serve the public by voting (to whit, it is a shame to the voter to not realize that this is a public service, not merely serving ones self like a pig at the trough) or running for office to serve public office, ends up serving and contining to serve solely themselves, who is to blame? Voters as a whole? The political parties these individuals belong to? Biased media that misrepresents the truth with propaganda? Who's to blame? The voter? The politician? The party? The system? Every system devised is only as good as the individuals that serve them.

Some do serve.

And some don't.

And some serve on both sides of the fence.

Makes it pretty hard to broad paint brush the whole works as bad, punnishing the innocent, because self serving assholes exist along side them.

And who is perfect? Who continually and without waiver, serves the greater good? Perhaps there's a bit of politician in us all, more than we would like to admit. But in the meantime, could we find the time to replace that self serving, self-projecting, hypocritical, oil and church bought, NCC groomed U.S. puppet plant control freak Republican embarrassment for a PM we've got now? Lil' help?

Anyways, peace Frank, til next time, buddy. :-)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061019/liberal_convention_061019/20061120/

Interesting link on the up and comin' leadership convention. It could go four, possibly five ballots and thats unheard of. Should be exciting.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061120/anders_nomination_061120/20061120?hub=Politics

Anders was known to be working for the Republican party in the U.S. as a "heckler" in a senate race when Anders was young. This article holds no real surprises as to why Conservative "management" love Anders so, but its worth the read.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060606/rob_anders_060606?s_name=&no_ads=

We might be hearing a whole lot more on Anders.

brain,

2.5 hours in a dentist chair this morning, but I'm back.

So? Meaningless.

The "Liberals", whether it be Martin or Chretien had plenty of time to at least get a start on things. Kyoto was signed in 1997 wasn't it?

The objective in Afghanistan was no different in 2002 than it is now. What peacekeeping was there? What two parties were fighting that Cdn troops were standing between? There wasn't any peacekepping mission.

Are there countries that don't arm their border guards? Our only border is the one running next door to a society with one of the highest rates of violent crime, gun ownership and incarceration in the world. Why wouldn't we want to let them know we have armed guards when they come here?

They had 3 majoriuty governments and one minority. if they had wanted to fix softwood they could have.

.
That's still better than what the Libs would do which is don't build anything to patrol the arctic and instead just hope someone doesn't claim it.

Overfishing certainly is.

The Liberals are almost as friendly towards Israel as the Conservatives are. if you want a gov't that is even-handed I believe only the NDP should be given a chance.

So you support the status quo? An elected Senate or an abolished Senate would both be preferable to what we have now.

Garth Turner is a great man? No i don't read his blog. What great thing did he do?

.
That's Liberal Party propaganda if I ever heard it. The party kickback scheme being run in Quebec was far worse than what Emerson did. Emerson was a Liberal too by the way. And he wasn't the first Liberal with directorships.

Worse, I don't even know the name or even the sex of my MP. Because who it is doesn't matter under our system. All I know is I didn't vote for him or her and that my vote doesn't matter in this riding since the same party always wins.

I wouldn't have made the cuts. I would have partially frozen the budget and let the debt to GDP ratio fall on its own as the economy continued to grow. And it would have grown faster with 60 billion more dollars in the pockets of Canadians and without the cuts. A healthier health care system is good for the economy, too often the Right wants to paint it simply as a sinkhole. If you make cuts to the system you have to accept that economic activity will decline.

According to StatsCan years ago only 6% of Canada's total debt could be blamed on social programs so that's not the place I would have cut.

So paying down debt is better than putting money into the pockets of the poor through transfers or programs? I disagree. This is exactly why I see the Liberals and the Conservatives as two sides of the same coin. Canada's low interest rates are a sign of how bad the cuts hurt us. The Bank of Canada had to keep lowering rates to get some activity going. And since the US was forced to lower theirs too it provided room for Dodge to do so. Canada didn't have to exceed every other country in the G8 in terms of debt paydown. All we had to do was bring the deficit under control, we didn't need to cut the system to the bone to make it happen. As the alternative budgets produced by the CCPA shows.

Martin had more than 3 years of surplus. And regardless of the claim it was only 3 "real surplus" years he still did nothing to fix what he wrought.

.
The Liberals do not get elected because they're wonderful individuals. They get elected because of the name of their party, the brand. If they don't like the association they shouldn't run under that banner. But they do because they want power and they know that that Liberal banner will deliver it.

To sum up brain, you're apologizing for the Liberals. You're not pointing to any great things they've done you're simply saying Harper is scarey and the Libs have had reasons for not doing anything good and that their corruption isn't worse than the Conservatives.

In my opinion, the differences between the Libs and Cons are small to negligible and to put it clearly, the Libs have not done anything to show they would be any different this time around.

Even for those interested in electoral reform, the Libs are the last party to vote for. They don't want to change the system that gives them a great majority government with only 40% of the vote while the NDP get a paltry few seats on the basis of 20% of the vote.

Therefore, NDPers and Greens should think twice before switching their vote to a party that can't claim anything except that its probably no worse, outside of the corruption issue, than what we already have.

When is Truman coming back?

Mary
Should be soon now. I check the dates and see when his furlough started.

Best guess, he should arrive back around Dec 6 Mary, but I'm not in charge of his itinerary,

Nice NDP pitch, Frank. ;-) For what its worth, I'll vote NDP or Green (not due to anything you've said on this thread, I might add), went Green last time but haven't decided, I'm not sure who's running yet in my riding, and that counts to me, but the vote will likely belong to one of these two parties. I can't say I wouldn't vote liberal, but I doubt that the liberal party could put out a good enough candidate for me to vote for the Libs in my riding, and I am voting strategic. "Anyone but the Cons, to a point." They still have to represent whats best for Canada, after all.

As Garth Turner recently said on the tele, (someone you don't know much about but don't mind running down regardless), "you don't vote for a party. You vote for a person. And the MP isn't there solely to represent his party. The MP is there to represent the people that put him there, first and foremost." To whit, after hearing the same words spoken by Chuck Cadman, I would have to agree.

If you want to take a chance on voting in a crook or worse because you only vote for a color, believing that every politician is a "yes" man or woman anyways, then good luck with the gamble. But if you don't mind, I'd like to take a closer look.

And what I see with that look Frank, is that the NDP and/or Greens will not be providing the next PM for us. It is, quite simply, unrealistic.

Leadership counts, especially the leader of a nation or nation of nations, as we have here in Canada. For as much as those old vets who have had to weather the storms of bad leaders, such as Ed Deak alludes to to the point that such vets are "full" of so called leaders, it does not detract from this spoken truth. "leadership counts".

So, while you broad paint brush the works, including the NDP party itself to your own styled liking and stereo typical "once a dirty Liberal party always a dirty Liberal party to the end of time", keep in mind that things do change. And it changes with leaders, most definitely.

As for apologies, I have apologized for the behavior of others, when I believed it was necessary. And with this or any other sincere apology, it does not come without its own degree of "shame". To that end, I am apologizing for the Liberal party...

And why? Because I know something that you don't, or refuse to except. Our Lib leaders and followers, however crooked and inept, "overall" (and I must stress the word "overall" for some didn't earn or honor the distinction forthcoming such as the crooked Liberal MP's from Quebec) cared and still do, about this nations future as any Canadian should. But Harper? The Straussian that he is cares for the future of Canada? A western separatist Republican?

Leadership counts. There's a difference between the Cons and Libs and whether that inconvenient truth sinks in or not with you Frank, the readers of this thread know that there's a difference. And leadership counts.

2.5 hours in a dentist chair... getting all shot up with coke... hell of a way to start the day! I should have been, perhaps, more cordial? Have a good one, buddy. :-)

brain, yes, 2.5 hours was a little long but then I did get to watch a tv above my head and for some reason hockey highlights does make the 2.5 hours go by pretty quick :-)

Good

I saw lots of Garth Turner on the telly. He was nothing but a constant cheerleader for investing in the stock market and lower gov't spending. Now if I was to label him I would find that he fit to a "T" being a Conservative.

Voting for the best candidate is a nice idea but ignores the facts about our system. You might as well vote for the candidate with the nicest hair because it makes the same bit of difference. They all have to be trained seals or they can look for new work. If anyone really wants a better parliament they should vote for the party that supports real electoral reform that will make who your MP is important.

I don't believe voting for anyone but the Libs and Cons is unrealistic. Its simply a perpetuation of the idea Libs have been floating for years, that a vote for anyone but them is a vote for the Conservatives. That idea is so widely accepted that a segment of the population actually believes it even when Lib numbers fall to a point where they're not much higher than the NDP's. The only way to get the system to change is not to vote for the same party over and over.

So why not keep the Libs out of power for 50 years, like the NDP, and see if they really do change? I don't think a party changes in 18 months.

The Conservatives care about this country as much as the Liberals or NDP do. They just want it to move in a different direction than the NDP. I wouldn't say, however, that the Liberals and Conservatives want the country to go in different directions. They pretty much agree on most things as I've pointed out.

Actually anyone reading the Tyee will see that Liberal commentors tend to have the same opinions as Conservative commentors on most issues.

Your beginning to sound like Garth Turner! (Seriously, you should check his blog)

Not these days. These days, he's predicting a real estate burst of the bubble and deflation wherever there's beeen inflation. And income splitting was his idea with pensioners and possibly married couples, but that's far too speculative at this point in becoming a reality.

Nor do I. But if you were voting solely for a leader with PM power, it would be unrealistic.

In Ontario and Quebec (until the bloc came), thats the scenario and I shouldn't have to tell you which parts of the country decide the large jest of our government.

Same party... or same faces. Parties do change over time. (Where's a Bill Blakie when you need one, er, might wanna spell check Bills last name)

There's been a the least, a ten point spread for as long as I can remember.

It can and does with new faces running and and a major change in leadership. The Libs are going through just that, but I would need to look at who's running this time around to be definitive. Does this new Con party have any similarities to the old? Different party, different agenda. It could well be for the Libs as well, but its too soon to tell. Would I trust either of them with a majority? No. Do I trust the Cons with a small minority? No.

All but one, Frank. All, but one. :-)

More jails, less jails, more guns, less guns, more war, less war, more U.S. integration, less U.S. integration, more regulation, less regulation and on and on. There's a difference, Frank.

Like who? Me? :-)

How about "working man"? He's a long-time federal Lib and provincial Lib voter. Are his opinions any different than NoLeftNutters or Neocons?

No there isn't if you look past the rhetoric they heap on each other. Because, for the most part, and especially as it concerns "integration", once one takes over from the other they don't roll back the previous government's legislation.

Leftys have been voting Liberal for the last 30 years. What's it got them? Free trade? Cuts to health care? What exactly has the all the Left-wing votes that have gone Liberal got back in return that they wouldn't have got from voting for Mulroney or other Conservatives?

The only time the NDP ever gets anything from the Liberals (or the Conmen during their occasional whiffs of power) is when it holds the balance of power.

I'd say that's a good reason to ask more people to vote NDP.

At best the party might one day form the government; at worst, it means there's a better chance of a minority which can be finessed and leveraged into some real progress. If you can't run the farm, at least work to get some input on which fields get seeded each spring. Swinging from cons to libs at the next election will NOT help.

I'm with Frank on this one brain.

Do you need a lesson in history, Frank? Was it really the Libs who brought in Free Trade and the need for social cuts? It could be argued and quite easily so, that the Libs ran up major debt due to social spending in the 70's and early 80's and the Cons ran up debt due to bad economical climates (low commodity values). At some point, the bill has to be paid for this spending. Did Chretien have a choice? I think not concerning the scenario he inherited.

And personally, your notion to spend on social programs to spread the wealth as a form of "wealth creation" doesn't cut it when commodity valuations are getting shit kicked. All it does is run up more debt. Do I need to remind you of history's numbers concerning the correlation between rising national debt, rising interest rates, and shrinking government spending as a result of rising loan payments unless you want to run up more debt that runs these numbers off the charts?

When commodity valuations are high, royalties should rise with them and its not happening past, or present. On this note, both Libs and Cons are failing to address these issues and it isn't just Federal. Its provincial as well! Where else do the Libs and Cons blow it? When commodity valuations are up and exports are strong in demand for both commodities and manufacturing, CORPORATE TAXES NEED TO RISE. This hasn't happened and when commodity values tank, and they will, along with real estate valuations and a coming recession, what do you think will follow? Try debt.

Spending across the provinces and Feds have risen dramatically along with the rise in tax revenues, but these tax revenues will fall, in some commodity sensitive areas, like a rock. What follows with such ideology that "we've got the money, spend it now to create even more weath" leads to? RED INK!

And in a climate where commodities tank, manufacturing is slow and real estate values decline, the time for lowering corporate tax rates and royalties is needed. But this isn't what our governments do no matter who's in power federally or provincially, including the NDP. They do the opposite of what is needed because nothings saved, the tax base shrinks so they don't lower corporate taxes and royalties because this shrinks the tax base even further...

And what is the NDP philosophy? the same as the Libs and Cons. Again, what should the NDP be doing and promoting as well as the other two? Increase taxation and rolalties in good times, save money for the bad times, and decrease taxation and royalties in the bad times, spending money that has been put aside for such future realities to come.

Trust me when I say this, you need a plan for a healthy economy over long timelines, say 30 to 50 years, to pay for social spending. If that didn't exist in Canada, the credit wouldn't be there for the bad times. And since we export commodities is lion share of our exports, Canadians are dependent on the value's of those commodities far more than they would like to admit.
Cont.

All this talk about social spending and the environment... where is our money coming from? Oil and Gas. Deforestation. Mining. To a much lesser degree outside of Ontario, manufacturing. You wonder why the Libs procrastinate over environmental legislation and the Cons dont' want any regulation at all? Try the money factor. And guess what, Frank. It is a democracy. For the numbers who want a clean environment, there are just as many numbers who want the money at a major sacrifice to the environment if necessary... for the money. And then, there is a percentage of voters who want both and thats where the line becomes fine. There's the center of it. We want money and a clean environment, but lets make the money now. Lets procrastinate on environmental issues, enter Mr. Dithers. Frank, its what the majority of the people want (so I believe), regardless of whether the consequences are devestating for our future or not. And in a global climate with global warming becoming the global issue, its becoming less and less, our decision to make.

In summary, how do you think social spending got to where it is today? Pushing and nudging from the likes of Tommy Douglas and the NDP orginated and helped it, obviously, but by no means did legislation pass for social spending in a federal Lib majority without Liberal votes. To claim that lefty votes for Libs in central Canada has been a wasted vote... that's over reaching, Frank, at best.

I'd say that's a good reason to ask more people to vote NDP.

It is a good reason, but lets face it. There is no guarantee that the NDP will be that balance of power. They campaigned on this during the last election, and truth be known, they don't hold the balance of power. Good reasoning, but not necessarily a lock.

Can't say that it is a best case scenario myself. Have you looked at the spending proposals of the NDP feds? Unrealistic, especially with an economy that is about to spiral. Their economical platform has to change. I'd rather see the Greens hold power than the NDP at a federal level.

Your worst case scenario is the best case scenario in my view. But far worse, is another Con minority and to that end, the best case scenario is the one laid out by Buzz Hargrove. Vote NDP where they have a good chance to win, and vote Liberal where they don't. I shouldn't have to get into the detailed reasons why.

?
History Lesson? The Libs campaigned against the FTA, they lost. Then they changed their minds nbext time around and said they would renegotiate the FTA. They won, they didn't renegotiate. Then they signed NAFTA.

As for the "need" for social cuts. There was no such "need". As I said, StatsCan said social programs were the cause of only 6% of our debt. The CCPA came out with alternative budgets to Paul Martin's that didn't make cuts to social programs. There were alternatives, there was no "need".

Even if I lived in the world which says Canada can only afford social programs when commodity prices are high (and I don't) you've just stated that the Libs and Cons see the problem the same way and address it the same way.

And again, how is this showing any difference between the Libs and Cons. Your point is that the Cons don't do anything good because they don't want to and the Libs don't do anything good because they just can't but we should all know they would like to.

Not overreaching at all. Much earlier I already stated that the Liberals back in the 60s and 70s took ideas from the Left simply because it appeared the Left was on the rise. It was political strategy, nothing more. It was also over 30 years ago.

Since then the Libs have allowed those programs to be weakened, eroded etc. Those were Liberals that voted to weaken and erode those programs. Those programs would not have been weakened without Liberal votes. You say you agree with the Liberal-Conservative view of the world, that social programs are too expensive and cuts had to be made. Fine. I'm not asking Liberals or Conservatives to move their vote to the NDP, I'm simply saying NDPers should not move theirs to the Libs or Cons.

Last post I said :

And as your post illustrates, the Left got nothing. The best you could do was offer excuses as to why the Libs didn't do anything. Well, that shouldn't be enough to please left-wing voters.

Frank, The brain: What can either of you tell me about Charles River Associates?

Considering that social spending accounts for more than 40% of our federal budget spending with further social spending in EI, pensions, Social assistance etc. with administration and interest on national debt taking care of the rest... I fail to see how social spending which takes up nearly half of the governments spending accounts for only 6% of the existing national debt to begin with, if not for some seriously creative accounting proceedures, or the reality that this country didn't spend money on social programs to any degree until the late 60's, before this country had any signifigant debt.

FTA couldn't be negotiated without American's wanting to reopen already signed contracts. Voters should have known this, but even if they detected what you believe to be the great 15 year old lie for what you say it is, the point is, it was the Cons that introduced the FTA. Why is it the Libs fault for FTA existence? I fail to understand why you continue to blame the FTA on the Liberals. Its a stretch. As far as the NAFTA goes, my own memory of NAFTA's existence is a blank so there's not much I can say about the agreement itself or what the differences are between FTA and NAFTA.

I don't live in such a world either. Not sure where you think I did live in such a world. I believe I did mention living on a credit card when income doesn't come in, but whats better is living off of savings created through increases in taxation and royalties through good times. And further, is it the position of the NDP to raise taxes and royalties in good times? Haven't seen it on a provincial level, don't expect it on a federal level, and so I fail to see how the NDP is so different from the Libs and Cons on this one. All I see is failure from them all to do the right thing.

No, point is the Cons will do nothing about the environment, the Libs will procrastinate on the environment until they have to do something about it, mainly from international pressures to do so, and the NDP? Their platform pales in comparison to the platform of the Greens.

What about Charles River Associates?

Considering a national debt peaking at 540 billion with high single and double digit interest rates chewing up nearly a third of the tax base plus, before spending begins of which social spending comprises over half of federal spending, and considering that if deficits continue, the currency crisis continues, (remember when?) interest rates skyrocket to prop up the falling like a rock dollar (of which those rates must someday be honored, by the way) and it gets harder and harder to even have a chance to balance budgets... without the GST combined with social cuts to spending of which again is lion share of fed spending, where else do you cut?

Or do you want more tax increases? Did you know, Frank, that our corporate taxation has been within the top five most taxed nations in the world for a reason? And when did you think taxes increased? With Chretien in 92'.

No, Frank, increased corporate and personal taxes, a GST, cuts in social spending, cuts in spending across the board, cuts to federal/provincial transfer payments, there wasn't an area that was left untouched when Chretien took over in 92' and the choice was either a crumbling currency and all that follows, or what went down. Balanced budgets with major tax increases (GST, corporate, private, all went up substantially) and gradually increasing surplus's rising with consumption driven inflation over a 14 year timeline.

And businesses and private tax payers hated these cuts in spending on social programs, education, and increases in corporate and private tax rates all along, hating the taste of their medicine. And now that the surplus's are growing, everyone is crying to spend without looking at what the effects are on our currency or interest rates, or the ability to not run deficits with over spending in the future that take us right back to the hole were just starting to climb out of.

And while people complain about paying the debt down as opposed to more money for social programs, is this how we raise our own children? "When you borrow money, don't bother to pay it back... just keep borrowing and at the most, pay off some interest until you die and then its your childrens responsibility to clean up the mess if self induced inflation doesn't save your ass first"... is this what we teach them still? Some kids are growing up.

Where do we go from here. Its not increased military spending and guns at our borders, or jails full of more natives. And its not hockey kid subsidies or perks for all the minorities, namely the rich. And its not shitting on the environment, or continuing the Canadian sellout to the U.S., anad its not globalization.

Its increasing the standard of living at home by substantially reducing poverty levels and that does require spending on education, healthcare and social programs. But it also requires a healthy economy to pay for this spending and to that end, the government can either create and/or spin off crown corps, cut spending in other areas (military/penal/justice/security), regulate manufacturing standards in food, drugs and transporation for the environment... education in disease prevention... there's so much to do that isn't on the minds of any of the parties including the NDP...

Your right.

We could have had Ed Broadvent. :-)

Instead, we got Paul Martin's surplus's, a higher Canadian dollar, and a stable currency with interest rates that can ease off without dramatically pushing the Canadian dollar down. The states has lost this luxury with their deficit spending and its precisely why we need to keep putting out surplus's. But its also why we need to invest in education and the poor, instead of perks, giveaways, guns, jails, and more corruption. (Ah... those corrupt Liberals :-) Those dirty crooked french MP's. We shoulda' just hung 'em high right there and then to set a precident towards their nations best interest... but we didn't, another missed opportunity... again. :-)

Never heard of them, G. Whats up? Is it a BC hydro private contractor? Real estate? Let me check with sedar for a sec.

cra.com
crai.com

They aren't public.

One of these two help?

You keep asking this question, I assume because you don't like my answer? Why not? I simply said you thought social programs were too expensive and had to be cut. Fine. Lots of people, especially those who vote Conservative, agree with you. I would not have cut social programs and I have already said I would not have inflicted so much pain on Canadians. But don't worry, I'm not asking you to vote NDP.

Yes, I suppose I do want higher taxation. However, I'm not a "tax the corpoarations" guy. I'm for fair taxes. Every dollar earned should be taxed at the same rate. I don't mean a flat tax, I believe in progressive taxation. What I mean is no matter how you or a company or a stockholder or a real estate developer earn their money it should be taxed the same.

And all I said was that was the same prescription that the Reform Party wanted. The fact that Liberals, Reformers and Conservatives tend to agree on both the problems and the solutions to those problems is why I tend to see them in the same way.

Clearly we're far apart both economically and politically. I believe deficits are often necessary to avoid inflicting pain on people who probably already have all they can handle in their life. That makes me out of step with 21st century Canadians who think surpluses mean Canada is winning some kind of race and child poverty and homelessness are just the price of victory. Liberals and Conservatives can't wait to turn surpluses into tax-cuts and forget that a surplus represents money that could have helped people but didn't.

Paraphrasing Preston Manning of the 1990's who often used that same metaphor in his speeches? That social programs are luxuries that society "gives" when times are good but should withhold when its belt-tightening time.

But, under the Liberals, military spending did increase. Natives did continue to fill our prisons. Martin loudly and proudly gave huge tax cuts (and campaigned on them too). Pollution increased. Foreign takeovers increased. Corruption increased. And "globalization" was at the top of the Liberal agenda as they changed their stance on the FTA, signed NAFTA and vigorously looked for more free trade deals.

Yay Liberals. Hard to believe anyone would vote NDP at all with that stellar record. Meanwhile Canadians are working longer, child poverty and homelessness increased and quality health care and education declined.

And Martin reduced them.

Jim Stanford column from the Globe and Mail :

"The Geneva-based World Economic Forum recently issued its annual ranking of countries according to economic competitiveness. And Canada fell again (yawn), this year to 16th place from 13th.

But before the WEF's report gets thrown out with all the other international denunciations of Canada's lacklustre economic performance, it's worth a read. It offers surprising insight into exactly why Canada is failing to meet the challenges of globalization. Equally insightful was the reaction of learned business opinion to our declining status -- a reaction that sheds still more light on why we're doing so badly.

In business lexicon, "competitiveness" is typically understood as synonymous with "low taxes." And, for years, tax-cutting governments have cited the need to make our economy more competitive. The WEF rankings, however, suggest quite the opposite: Ironically, the lower our taxes get, the less competitive we have become.

Nine of the 15 countries ahead of us on the WEF list collect higher taxes than Canada. Indeed, the Scandinavian welfare states cleaned up this year: Finland was second in competitiveness, Sweden was third, Denmark fourth, and Norway and Iceland also placed ahead of Canada.

Governments in these countries rake in 50 per cent or more of their respective GDP. Even Switzerland, this year's winner, collects taxes that are only slightly lower than Canada's.

Back in 1999, when we ranked fifth on the WEF scorecard, Canada's taxes were slightly higher than the OECD average. Today they are substantially lower. Indeed, Canada's taxes have fallen faster since 1999 than any of the 15 countries ahead of us: by 3.3 percentage points of GDP, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, worth $50-billion per year. Yet the faster we cut taxes, the farther we fall in the competitiveness rankings.

How can that be? It turns out that the WEF places primary emphasis on a country's ability to innovate: business creativity and efficiency, education and training, and technology. The WEF summed it up as follows: "Countries that, like the Nordics, are investing heavily in education are likely to see rising levels of income per capita, growing success in reducing poverty and an increasing ability to establish a presence in the global economy."

Incidentally, education budgets in Canada are lower today as a share of GDP than in 1999 (and more than 20 per cent below 1993 levels).

Now, how do we pay for education? Oh, yeah: taxes.

Meanwhile, Canadian business invests a paltry 1 per cent of GDP in research and development. This also badly hurt our WEF ranking.

You'd never know from this weak effort that Canada's corporations received bigger tax breaks since 1999 than any other stakeholder: The average effective corporate income tax rate fell to 25 per cent from 35 in that time (eating up $20-billion of the total tax cuts our governments delivered)."

continued...

"This utter lack of correlation between taxes and competitiveness, however, did not stop Canadian business commentators from ascribing our weak performance to (what else?) high taxes, and demanding still more cuts. The National Post's coverage was prototypical: The headline decried high taxes, and the article carried on the good fight -- never even mentioning that Finland, Sweden, and Denmark took three of the four top spots. In my wildest dreams I could never expect the Post to run a sensational headline announcing that "Canada Lags Even Further Behind Socialist Hordes." But simply closing our eyes won't fix our increasingly apparent failure to develop a sustainable, high-value, economic role for ourselves.

The failure of Canadian competitiveness is primarily due to the failures of our businesses, not our governments. Canada's corporations are quite content to pocket record profits doing innovative things like pumping oil out of the ground and collecting interest from borrowers (incredibly, the petroleum, mining, and banking sectors account for almost half of corporate Canada's current record profits). Never mind developing new products or technologies; just make money while the sun is shining.

As for our fearless leaders in Ottawa, they are pressing ahead with another $10-billion in tax cuts. That will eat up last year's $13-billion federal surplus (which is already shrinking under the weight of an emerging economic slowdown). And given past trends, that should be just enough to knock us right out of the top 20 by the time the WEF releases its 2007 report."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/parliament39/net-national-debt.html

These numbers only go back to 96-97, but they give the jest of what I'm saying. And if you splash a chart of the Canadian dollar over the last 50 years, you'll see it too.

Canadians aren't out of trouble with our national debt, either. This real estate bubble could deflate as much as 40 - 50% and that hasn't happened in some time. Anyways, sorry I haven't gotten around to a reply sooner, Frank, catch you on th next one.

It's not so hard to comprehend if you come from outside the cities, where politics is a question of mass, of sheer numbers. In small communities it operates on the personal level, where you know people, see them every day, where the unique needs of local survival (economic, psychological, personal, cultural) are clearly set in location and who's around you. These areas, First Nations and those who live alongside them, have little say in the dominant matters of their local lives, as these are all run from and for the sake of the cities. They have no real democratic representation, as their numbers are subsumed within the mass of ridings a few orders in magnitude greater than the size of their respective communities. It's not, as I just alluded to, First Nations but also the general rural population, and also the smaller towns. Our process and structure does not serve them well.

Decentralization of government to the community level has come up before; I recall more than one submission at the Spicer Commission that was of this kind, with Parliament transformed into a house of representatives of self-governing communities, self-governing on the mold of the Swiss cantons. Decentralization of income and business tax revenues to the municipal and regional district level was also postulated by no less than Jane Jacobs as a means for economies to become "self-regulating" as she puts it (although she also theorized decentralized currencies to go with that); in one version of this model, only land and excise taxes and such would go to the provincial and federal powers, which as we all know are expert at wasting it - because of their very mass there is waste/inefficiency implied.

The ideas of both taxation restructuring as well as local self-government on the First Nations model, and similar to the Spicer submissions and their ilk, were brought up at a UBCM Convention (that's the Union of BC Municipalities for those of you out-of-province) and passed some sort of motion studying the notion. in BC's outback, so-called, the province is operated for the dominant electoral populations in Victoria and Vancouver and the larger lesser cities. Yet it's them who provide the most immediate contact with the public and with the infrastructure; spending decisions made in Victoria or boardrooms or cabinet offices in Vancouver often don't do good things for these places. They want local control, local politicians, lots of them.

And another factor in the reasoning why, and where the idea came from, as I recall, was that mayors and chiefs/councils wanted to be able to talk directly to each other; this exists on an informal basis in many areas, and on suffrance elsewhere; but local control with equal relationships in governing structure and decision making is the only way to go; even though the First Nations would not regard different towns as equals, since their equal is the Crown, the embodiment of the otherness of us as a nation, but one nation; mayors aren't equal to national governments, in the most extreme view.

Still, it's an interesting platform for further thinking: local face-to-face treaty and reconciliation and the formation of new regional governments, incorporating the First Nations as components like municipalities (the Sechelt model, I think, but without the surrender of sovereignty), might be the path to final settlement of treaties and the Confederation-old thing with unresolved Land Claims in BC. As with everything else, the current process is going nowhere.

So the idea's out there, even in Canada, although like other ideas for political reform in Canada it's ignored in the big press and main political arena. As far as the First Nations go, 600 Nations is the way it has to go; it's what they are, whether people in the urban mass-media, mass-politics world can comprehend it. Asking them to unite as if one nation is like asking a hundred Europes to form one body; can't happen. They share common experiences because of us, but they are definitely distinct nations, all 600 of them; in practice maybe 50 would work, if limited to Tribal Council-scale groups and only unique cases of single bands, e.g. remote, tiny ones like the Tahltan.

But all that's not why I dropped by; I haven't even scanned the forum but saw the quoted bit and remarked on it, not because of "all of the above", but because such a model is exactly what's emerging in Oaxaca, and now throughout Mexico - community-by-community democracy, an alliance of communities. The Oaxaca thing has been portrayed by our media as "strikers", but APPO is advancing and embodies a collectively-developed government between peasant villages, indigenous communities, students, teachers, as well as a healthy chunk of the urban population of Oaxaca City. And their model has come to be followed in Michoacan and Guerrero and now a Mexico-wide alliance of APPO-like organizations is erecting a parallel government, irrespective of the nutso show in the Mexican Congress over the presidential succession. This is beyond Lopez Obrador even (the PRD shadow Presidente); it's reorganization of the whole concept of government from centralized power to community power. And the community power is winning, though suffering horrendous brutalities for it (totally misrepresented in our national media...). What else is going on down there these last few days I'll avoid discussing here for reasons of further length.

Violence in Mexico aside (for now), APPO's organization as achieved (surviving despite brutal repression, also) is a model of government, perhaps, that all Canadians should have a better look at, and know more about. Not the spread of insurrection or provisional governments, I mean, but the idea that community-by-community self-government and national/provincial representation, and structurally a community-to-community organization (Mexico has a far larger rural population, and thousands of villages of all sizes and kinds), might be expanded from the idea of the 600 Nations and the UBCM's endorsement of that concept of government. Whether the Jacobs formula for economic decentralization should go with that would be a far, far bigger step.