And just to add to my last rant. NHL strike? WHO CARES!!! I spend my evenings enjoying the presidential debates and surrounding controversies south of the border, not to mention the ALCS series between the Red Sox and the Yankees. If your looking for a local angle, try on the BC Lions for size; one of the most exciting teams to play in the city of Vancouver, all sports included. Finally, the hockey strike means I spend more time with, and thinking about, my children as opposed to Terrible Todd Bertuzzi or JovoCop. Now if only I could get an invite to one of those Main/12th "house" parties for my now-freed-up Saturday nights.

Half the American public believe the war is a good thing. Kerry taking an anti-war stance would have allows the Bush camp to paint him as a coward and he would have lost any potential growth. By saying he'll continue the war but that it was a mistake he's playing both sides of the fence and that's election-winning strategy. Give your base the right signs while staying out of the beaten zone of your opponent.

Hey, Burgess. Speaking of leaders who are hard to understand, you seem to have survived the Chretien decade quite well--as did those who had to try to decipher his French. And, how about a piece on Paul Martin's very, very important priorities? Writing about Bush is like shooting fish in a barrel--and a form of escapism for Canadians.

One thing Mr. Spector *is* right about is the inordinate amount of press the "alternate" Canadian media are giving Bush. I was hoping that Lewis Lapham's and Harper's et al's monthly broadsides against the evil doer would suffice.

Re Bush, 'tis the season

But I agree with you Steve about Quidditch, I don't see the point of any player being out there except the Seeker. It'd be like in hockey if at the end of regulation they had a shootout and goals were worth 15 times what they were in regulation. JK says she dreamed the game up while sitting in a hotel room after an argument with her boyfriend :)

Puhleeze. The game is only won by the seeker catching the snitch in a very close match. It's only worth 125 points yo.

Woe be on us, Canadians, Mr. Spector - we had to live through the Chretien years under a liberal gov't that had the audacity NOT to go to war and invade Iraq. On top of that, these fools also increased funding to post-secondary education and health research - in fact, they thought it was a good idea to develop French skills to go with our freedom fries. To even compare the little guy from Shawinigan with an accent, but some sense, to a little guy from Texas with an accent but nonsense would be amusing if the nonsense dude didn't enjoy blowing nations up and spewing friendly fire when things didn't go his way. I don't know about you, I rather play quidditch with my man Jean - even in full french - rather than play with the little trigger-happy, pretzel choking, "who'd thought a 'C-' student could be president" pinocchio from an oil rig in Texas anyday. But then again, it is beyond me how anyone can be "undecided" as to who they support south of the 49th parallel. Maybe they see things as you do.... reality is only a state of mind.

Hey Norman, nice to see you, in a manner of speaking. The final debate is over and I think it really did turn out to be a Quidditch fest. This was the wonkiest of the three debates with facts and figures a-plenty. But if Bush lost gain--and polls say he did--it was because of that uncertain, embattled demeanour he has displayed throughout the debates. He just doesn't look sure of himself. The Republicans, though, are proven masters of nasty campaigning. And there are three weeks left for them to press that tactical advantage.

Hairy you son of a witch! Catching the snitch is worth 150 points which you'd know if you really did attend Hogwarts. And considering that quaffle scores are only 10 points each and that that part of the game is back and forth, the snitch is always going to be the decisive factor. And don't get me started on bludgers which should be outlawed :)

After the debate, I had "accidently" found myself perusing an opinion poll by Americans and their position on each candidate after the final "shoot off" at the mouth. Even though we are closer to legalizing it - I swear most users must be south of the border that is the only sense I could make of blatant contradictions on what has been done by this administration over the last 4 years - some think that Bush is doing a bang-on job of controlling terrorism around the world! Huh? I thought he initiated the terror explosion - the world is bleeding at its seems thanks to his trigger-happy "my way or the highway" approach in international policy. I thought they needed another perspective so I guided them on a more objective "ominpresent" view on the subject of their candidates by guiding whoever would follow to views presented in this fine online paper. I actually got some supporters for this cold dose of liberal slander - and a fine chap gave this url that gives the results of the U.S. election if the world could vote: www.us-election.org Hmmm. If democracy really did exist - we'd be closer to equilibrium.

I conclude from this thread that it's okay for a political leader to be an inarticulate idiot--in two languages--as long as he/she pursues the right--oops, left--policies. I also have the sense that Rick Mercer would not have become famous had he harped on our leader's intellectual deficiencies.

Norman, Canadians love the American politics spectacle because in the two candidates we see an ideal, statesmanlike PM in the likes of John Kerry, who talks a good game on economics, health care, foreign policy AND domestic issues. Sadly, he makes Martin and Harper look bush league (honestly no pun intended) in terms of style and substance. And in Bush, we see a guy who we would absolutely abhor as PM -- he's not only bull-headed and unwise, he plays fast and loose with numbers handed down to him from his spin-doctoring handlers. Did you see Kerry deconstruct Bush's assertions on the student grants last night? Hah! As for Chretien, he gave us a decade of scandal, weakening provincial/federal relations, and all-in-all unsatisfactory domestic and international leadership. But you know what? His lasting legacy will be saying "thanks but no thanks" to the most inane, ugly, sinister war -- yes, the Iraq Adventure -- of this century or last. That includes the Boer War and the Fenian Raids. And for that decision alone, Chretien's legacy vis-a-vis the rest of the PMs-of-history pack goes from second worst (after Mulroney) to middle-of-the-pack. As for last night's debate, Kerry again looked positively presidential, but as Mr. Burgess has alluded to, the mudslinging has yet to begin. Why doesn't Kerry stand up to the Bush gang and tell them enough is enough with character assassinations and defamation? Last night's attack against Kerry, that he made Ted Kennedy look like a right-winger, was clearly wrong and straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. What's next?

This supports the proposal that the US system should have something like question period. The POTUS should have to regularly stand in front of a hostile audience and defend his policies off the cuff, no script, no alleged wires under his suit.

Bush isn't quite a Granville Street schizophrenic. In a meritocratic world, he'd be middle management at a WalMart somewhere. Instead of nuclear weapons, he should be in charge of socks and hosiery.

Ah, Mr. Spector, for all what you refer to as Chretien's "intellectual deficiencies", he was smart enough to stay out of Iraq. He was smart when it really counted.

I have to admit, I love those French PMs - they are eliquent (eg - when Chretien called the present day "Alliance" - CRAP - if that ain't honesty in politics, I don't know what is), and Trudeau is the best thing since soy burgers and fair trade coffee. The fact is no Einstein or even Suzuki would be daft enough to run as a contender for nation leader - so we are left with those with delusions of gradeur. The fact is, Mr. Spector, an idiot right wing individual in charge (such as his Bushiness) does irrepairable damage to the world about (take a look at the world post Bush I and II or take Hitler as another example of right gone wacko) - kind of like a cancer cell gone astray, if you will. It is somewhat impossible to be an idiot and a left-wing individual because it requires some perspective taking skills, empathy, and awareness to realize that core values of society should not be dictated to by the markets or dominance of the Brutish one of all. That is what you should come away with, Norm - your deducement of the boards take on politics, life, and global terror stands a little bit more on the left - and corrected.

Lynn, Canadian participation in Iraq would have been token, as it was in the first Gulf War. Far more Canadians have been affected by his fiscal policies, his dictatorial style of governing and the democratic deficit, corruption in the sponsorship program, his antagonism toward Quebec, etc. Focusing on Bush/Iraq is a form of escapism for Canadians, since there's little we can do about either. It's an artefact of our branch plant mentality--soothing to the soul, perhaps, but an intellectual dodge.

Yes Lynn, that's why we link to the NY Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Charles Krauthamme et al. Its because it soothes our soul to read what they say about Bush and Iraq :)

Mr. Spector, I didn't vote for Chretien nor do I have any intentions of defending him but I like his grit and I admire the courage of his stance on Iraq, a very unpopular decision at the time, that was especially derided by the likes of Stephen Harper and his shadow, John Reynolds. Oh Canada...just imagine if we had followed the " gee whiz, luv ya dubya " judgment of those two lapdogs.

You are, of course, completely wrong about Canada'a participation in the war being a token one, if Bush wins you can be sure there will be a draft, (their military is already seriously overextended) and the Bush allies will be called upon "to up the fighting men ante" as well. You're also wrong that "there is little we can do about Bush/Iraq" - We can say no, we can refuse to serve the deadly rush to war. We can refuse to embrace the Bush policy of manufacturing fear through the idea of endless war and we can realize that there are no token gestures when it comes to the revengeful politics of terrorism. Canada is highly regarded in the international community as a peacekeeper, let us have the courage to remain so.

Like Frank, I'm guess I'm just an intellectual dodger, as you say. Nothing more soothing than to reflect on Bush and Iraq - kind of like a day at the races. Every night before I go to sleep I count body bags, instead of sheep...ah, the tranquil humanity of it all...and then (in hushed tones so no one will hear, of course) I say...Merci and may the gods be with ye, Jean.

Ms Smith. You may like one policy or another. However, Canadians--who elected Chretien three times--calling Bush an idiot is like the pot calling the kettle black. True, it takes more guts to criticize one's own leaders, but that's the difference between escapism and reality.

Mr. Spector... but I didn't vote for Chretien, not even once. However, give credit where it is due, his decision on Iraq was courageous and commendable. I don't remember calling anyone an idiot but I do recall you referring to the "intellectual deficiencies" of Jean Chretien. Also, I don't have any problem criticizing our own leaders - like I said our american lapdogs Harper and Reynolds would have had Canadian soldiers entrapped in Iraq as well, in that same muddy and bloody horror of what is turning out to be a never-ending story of war. Now that's a "reality" from which we hear, lately, that both American soldiers and Iraqis citizens alike would like to "escape" from.

Right-wing twaddle. It was Spector himself that called a leader an idiot, followed by Shirin.

Chretien at least balanced the budget and kept us at peace. Bush couldn't do either for our American friends.

Lynn, most right-wingers not blinded by ideology would agree with the statement that running consistent surpluses, paying down the debt, balancing the budget and not getting our people killed in Iraq are good things. Left-wingers have a host of things to criticise Chretien for which I won't go into. What really frosts the right-wing behind is that their guy Mulroney failed and a Liberal succeeded at things they themselves support. Which is why they resort to name-calling.

Now they have to run themselves through a contortion machine to explain how they can support Bush and his economically disastrous policies. (At least those that are capable of following political life in two or more countries without their intellect having a holiday). Its actually entertaining if you just put your feet up and have a glass of brandy as they perform for you :) That is when you're not soothing your soul by reading the columns and forum posts of the half of America that is actually concerned about the direction of their country.

Well said, Frank. Pass the brandy...

Here's the Burgess passage that got me going. "One of the difficulties for a Canadian watching these debates is the language difficulty—George W. Bush is obviously speaking some language we don’t understand. The vast majority of people who live outside the U.S. see in Bush an obnoxious simpleton. But to roughly one half of the American public, he’s a peach. Thus when you watch the debates and see the President looking like an obnoxious simpleton, you can’t draw any conclusions from it. He may in fact be doing very well." My question: how many Canadian columnists wrote this about Chretien when he was in power? And how many of those embedded in the parliamentary press gallery in Ottawa are going after Paul Martin when he makes no sense, as is often the case. Answer: very few. As I said, the pot calling the kettle black. And the pot--be they of the left or right--engage in escapism, rather than facing up to their own responsibilities.

Frank - stop right there - I never did nor ever would call our beloved little guy from Shawinigan an idiot - in fact I said he had quite a bit of sense and cannot be compared by him who has had one too many "failures of U.S. intelligence" - I had been sarcastic in my first post. Other than Trudeau, Chretien has been the best thing in Canada over the last half century - perhaps longer.

Frank, the Mulroney stuff is ad hominem, as he was not a right-winger. I make the case here (http://www.mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=1759) Shirin's comment proves the adage: he may have been a sonofabitch (and an idiot) but he was our sonofabitch. If Canadians spent less time in American escapism, we'd have more time to address our own problems. Here's today's contribution on that point: The Toronto Star fronts fall colours and drugs—one of which we have here in Victoria. From Shanghai, Martin Regg-Cohn reports on Canadian architects. From Tel Aviv, Mitch Potter reports on the 1982 pullout of settlers from Gaza. From Toronto, Jennifer Wells looks at the presidential campaign. Haroon Siddiqui says George Bush is pandering to Christians. Reporter Tim Harper is all for Kerry. Graham Fraser is in Montréal and his mind is on Canadian problems, of which there are a few; today, he writes about the Bombardier decision facing the Martin government. Problems? Time for a Royal Commission, the editorial board intones. Meanwhile, another editorialist is not amused by the Québec/France mission to Mexico: “Enough. Canadians want a prime minister who champions national interests. Martin needs to prove he is up to this important job.” Ouch. Rick Anderson says it’s time to re-think defence. (Here’s my take in Friday’s Vancouver Sun.) Linda McQuaig badly needs a course in remedial arithmetic: today, she writes that debt reduction will happen on its own, as long as the government does not run deficits. (Memo to Linda: Start by checking out the wonders of compound interest on the existing stock of debt.) Richard Gwyn, on the other hand, reads an unreadable book about Canadian/American differences and understands it.

Mr. Spector writes: "If Canadians spent less time in American escapism, we'd have more time to address our own problems." - it seems to escape him that America is our biggest problem - which is why we are so finely tuned into that nation's political balance (or lack of it, as the case may be). America is also the World's biggest problem - and most astute people are already up on that news feature of the day. Iraq and the world over - whether you are from Cuba or China - knows where the weakest link in the world's fragile equilibrium lies. Even Americans know that (hence the latest satire: "Team America: World Police")- and the fact that Americans continue to support a leader with a conscience of a parasite and the IQ of a worm is worrisome to say the least. We need a leader with enough backbone to stand up without being knocked down to Golliath - because sooner rather than later - we will be watching the Brute either explode or implode (preferably the latter). Goofs like Mulroney will have has tied to the sinking ship.

Jean Chretien did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda; Canadian soldiers stood by and watched. Now, another genocide is taking place in Darfur and Paul Martin is claiming a great victory last week for having persuaded progressive leaders meeting in Hungary of the need for humanitarian interventions. No action, mind you, just words. And the words of criticism in the Canadian media, including on this site, flow so much more easily in George Bush's direction--where we have no power to change things--than toward the leaders we elect.

There is much difference between not being ready, willing and able to go to the rescue of yet another world tragedy (there are, afterall, so many to choose for one country such as Canada with a debatable heart of gold but pockets lined with copper)- and actually being the cause of the tragedy - as the U.S. is unarguably is, Mr. Spector. It is frustrating to listen to the delusions of grandeur from that inflated nation (in every sense of the word) and not be critical or cynical about that land of "freedom and epitome of democracy" because the hypocricy is simply sickeningly unbearable. It is saddly laughable if not disturbingly ironic that the U.S. claims to have the anecdote for their own virulence.

Ok Norman, I understand your point but I think you're taking the Canadian political junkie focus on Bush during this election season and running with that. I would say most of the time we are focused on national and provincial issues. But how can any political junkie not get all goose pimply from the debates and talking heads with their talking points ad nauseum on basic cable or internet? Elections are interesting, and although many of us wouldn't cross the street to watch the election in the Netherlands its different when its our next door neighbour who also happens to be the biggest guy on the block.

I don't think its escapism, I think the reverse is. Too many people avoid politics to their cost. They do not understand the issues and are too easily swayed by popular culture and advertising. Look at your own website, you're not trying to appeal to those trying to find a Brittney Spears chat group, you're providing that site for other political junkies who hate the CBC :)

Mulroney is right-wing. You must have a different litmus test than I do. He joined the Conservative party, he thought of himself as a right-winger, most of his policy choices were what I'd call right-wing. Does that make him as right-wing as David Frum or Richard Perle? No, but then who is.

As for Chretien, as I said before, the left had lots of problems with Chretien. Any of us who had read his Straight From the Heart would have to question whether it was written by the same guy. APEC was not exactly a progressive at work. In the last year of his government he scored a few political points with us as a group but no, I don't forget all the other years. And I'm not one of those happy with the cuts to health in order to run a surplus alleviated in BC only by the presence of an NDP government Still, I'm glad he kept us out of Iraq.

As for Paul Martin, I never expected anything progressive from the guy anyway. He won't even agree to 3rd world debt removal if it means Canadian gold mining companies take a hit. On the other hand, I find it humourous that most of the criticism of our right-wing PM actually comes from the right. I'm sure its not the left who thinks devolving more federal power to the provinces is a good thing, yet I've heard many on the right call for a similar process. But after 20+ years of arguing and being shut-out of the media I find it illuminating that suddenly its the left who should be seizing the torch to fight P.Martin? The Vancouver Sun prints articles from you, Mike Campbell and Barbara Yaffe. None of you have ever said a good word about the left so I think we can safely assume where your loyalties lie. At least the three of you have a voice. Use it against the PM if you want to. But I don't think the left will be manning the barricades for an internecine squabble between different shades of right-wingers because in the end you all want to take the country in pretty much the same direction anyway.

This is where Trudeau was sheer genius and why I said I liked Chretien's grit. These men despite their flaws weren't "american wannabes". That, in the end, is how they won elections. People respect the strength of that kind of individualism in people and in politicians even though there may be points of disagreement.

That quality, sadly, is rare in Canadian leaders these days - certainly absent from Mulroney, Harper and his grey shadow Reynolds, Campbell et al. In the end, they are weak leaders because of it. They are too easily impressed by the US, too willing to sell our Canadian soul to them, just too dangerously "easy". They don't understand that Canada is the girl that's got it all - and they too easily give it all away, our resources, water, assets, ultimately all our strength and power. Most of our neo-con politicians are not only cheap dates but needy as well and they have, in their pathetic way, intertwined us with the United States, which is why we vigilantly observe the twitches of that american elephant careening ever closer to us.

We have a media, that as Jon Stewart says has become "part of the strategy" rather than separate from it. The media now aids and abets these wimpy politicians in their endless quest for american acceptance. Never was Global more happy to report yesterday on Gordon Campbell's express CNN train to that BCliberal mecca Chicago. They don't, of course, mention how this "all" could have been ours, if we had just kept it, instead of selling it for BCliberal Olympic pewter. Wow! Gordo thinks he's hit the big time when underneath it all he's got nothing left but an an empty, sold-out to america soul.

As Jon Stewart says the media has become "partisan hacks". There is no longer journalism, just pure theater and absurdist theater at that. Nothing more fun to them than to film Gordo selling our province out once again, complete with a media-rented applause sign.

So, Norman, we have to keep an eye to the south... that's where our "all too easy", "all too brylcreem and no grit" politicians are panhandling our country away to...Harper, Reynolds, Klein, Campbell, Harris and company ...all wimpily waiting, and drooling, to dance with the US of A.

Now Trudeau, despite his flaws knew the true north value of our country, he knew how to play hard-to-get...

While you all are keeping an eye to the south, Paul Martin did a deal with the premiers that spells the end of single-tier health care in Canada. Jack Layton said nothing about it, because he's trolling for votes in Quebec. Stephen Harper said nothing about the side deal with that province, because he understands that it's open to all provinces, including BC and Alberta. I hope you all feel psychically gratified by your leaders distinguishing us from the Americans; just don't get sick.

You have the column, you write about it. We heard about the deal but alas, were unable to do anything about it. That's the way it is. You on the other hand could have raised a voice but decided not to because single tier health care is not that important to you. You instead preferred to trash the CBC's reporting of it and Roy Romanow.

Lynn, it may take another couple of weeks before the right revises their support of Bush and declares that he was never a right-winger after all and his deficits prove he was actually a Democrat. In the meantime, its Napoleon brandy, hope that agrees with you :)

Oh, for all of you who don't follow international news. Its the stuff just before either the 6/49 numbers or the stories on what Markus Naslund did in Sweden this summer, depending on which Can-West affilliate you're watching.

A few years ago some jet airliners crashed into an American skyscraper and the Pentagon killing over 3000 people. So America declared war on Afghanistan and invaded it to catch the guy responsible. They didn't but we'll skip that, you may want to google it, his name was Osama Bin Laden or something like that. Local spellings may be different.

Then America invaded Iraq (pronounced "eye"-rack) because they thought he had nuclear weapons. Well, funny story, he didn't. And the clincher is that it turns out they knew that the whole time. Isn't that hilarious? It gets better... After a couple of years the United Nations realized Iraq was a sovereign country and so the invasion is actually illegal. Yet the war in Iraq continues everywhere except at the oil ministry. I've heard that lots of people are getting killed but I've been too busy with local transit issues to hear how many.

I think most of us who post on The Tyee are fairly well-versed in national politics. In fact most of the discussions on this site revolve around provincial and national issues. We've heard about the deal but Paul Martin hasn't phoned lately asking me for my two cents worth - and I don't think many of us are surprised by his backroom overtures to Quebec - we know he's not a real liberal, just as most conservatives are no longer real conservatives - federally and provincially they're all travelling in disguise. Not much "real" in politics any more and the public is getting less and less charmed by the masquerade.

Most Canadian citizens greatly value our single-tier health care system. Problem is, too many of our politicians are enamored with the American privatized version ( sorry to mention the US again) ironically, just when Americans are looking towards Canada for answers to their failing health system.

Napoleon's fine, Frank, in brandy, that is.

Frank, that's a cop-out--you can do more about preserving our health care system than affecting George Bush's Iraq policy. BTW, I've written several columns on the issue, as you can easily verify As for my trashing of Romanow's CBC commentary, you can also verify that he's come around to the view that the deal is very dangerous.

lynn- you and I seem to share similar perspectives - from trudeau (whom I just put my vote in for CBC's "Greatest Canadian" contest) to Jon Stewart (arguably the only valid source of news in the U.S.). It is kind of hard to preserve our health care when we are selling all our drugs to the ailing citizens south of the border. Now we are selling our flu vaccine - good thing we Canadians are a hardy bunch with a good sense of humour - at least the "liberals" (in the true sense of the word) are. Aisde from Napoleon and his fine brandy - my question is why conservatives are such a depressed lot that they are often led to find reprieve from their desolution through intoxication of some sort: Gordo and his alcohol, Bush and his alcohol, Limbaugh and his prozac, Klein and his alcohol - does anyone else see the pattern here? Lefties may be tolerant of people's weaknesses, but they are less likely to have so themselves. Ironic, ain't it?

Very ironic, shirin. I don't know if you saw Jon Stewart on Crossfire the other day but it was one of the great moments on TV. He surprised Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala by criticizing the "pure theater" that news reporting has become and took aim right at their show saying he just couldn't take it anymore - that they "were hurting america". He was very serious and Tucker kept telling him "to be funny". To which Stewart replied "I'm not going to be your monkey." Anyway, if you missed it you can watch it at:

homepage.mac.com/duffyb/nobush/iMovieTheater231.html

There's also some Bill Maher, BBC interviews etc. Cheers!

Mucho gracias - lynn. I can't stand that sucker Tucker - so I had missed Stewart "crossing the fire" while he attempted to write a message for the wind which cannot read. I passed your link on to others who could use the twisted humour. I'm beginning to think you are either born "getting it" - or born "lacking it" - the "it" being an intangible sense that should be common but is surprisingly rare in our in-bred corporate society. That Jon Stewart is the best thing since soy latte made with fair trade organic coffee beans.

Trudeau Greatest Canadian? While Stompin Tom still walks the earth? I voted for Tom. Oh well :)

Norman, not a cop-out, I can't do anything about either beyond voting. We all know protesting is ignored.

And yes I know about your columns because I read them. Apparently even an ex-premier like Roy Romanow can't get get the health care system he wants. But as far as your columns go, you're not actually defending single-tier health care, your writing is on the process itself and the political results such as asymmetrical federalism.

Exactly, Frank, we're overloaded with political analysts but definitely short on investigative reporters. So our single-tier health care has been spun to death and now Romanow's royal commission report just hangs among the cobwebs.

Frank - believe me it was a close one - Tommy was head to head with Trudeau - but selfishness one out in the end, and I went with Trudeau because it was largely due to him my parents had successfully landed in Canada - which essentially sealed the fate of my being born a Canadian. Strange that so few "right wingers" make the Greatest Canadian list, eh? The one misfit - out dubious candidate - is our comic relief by the name of Cherry. Like Lynn pointed out - we have many political "analysts" - kind of like movie reviewers - but too few good directors, writers, or producers.

Frank, You should re-read the columns, which are all easily available. As to Roy, he's now expressing serious misgivings about the agreement.

I actually think the whole health agreement has been bungled. It has been more about throwing money the provinces way and less about what will bring real effective change and accountability on the part of both federal and provincial governments. Despite my respect for Romanow he should have had misgivings long before now because "asymmetrical federalism" is not only going to water down the implementation of his report's conclusions but it is going to domino one province after another into wanting the same special privileges as Quebec...end of confederation. Harper and Campbell are happy, no doubt, as more and more of our social programs are falling into the greedy manipulative hands of the provinces. And that is the probem, Martin, Harper, Campbell et al despite their various labels really believe in the same thing - a two-tier health system under provincial jurisdiction. What little they say in defense of a single-tier system is all subterfuge and deception - they don't, in reality, value it at all. Trudeau would never have made a special deal with Quebec - it betrays his firm belief in One Canada as the vital heart of confederation. But as I said before, we now have a lot of politicians of all stripes travelling in disguise to facilitate their own personal agendas and real integrity has become a rare thing and as citizens, our great loss.

You can add Jack Layton to the leaders who did not object to the health deal.

You're right, Norman, and he should have objected. This is a failure of all politicians today, including Layton - "the deal" becomes more important than the vision of the kind of country we want to live in. The unity of our country is subsequently further jeopardized in that the defense of that vision is often weakened by their own self-interest until ultimately that vision is no more. A political visionary with integrity and courage is a rare thing indeed.

lynn, in martin's case it was the importance of the deal and votes in Quebec; for Harper and Layton it was the latter. The result is as you portray it.

Both Trudeau and Tommy Douglas would have vehemently objected to this deal and both for their own reasons must be shaking their heads and their fists at the men who made it.