I don't see how wearing a headscarf obscures the peripheral vision; the scarf covers the hair and does not extend into the visual field. After all, someone's swinging hair could extend into the visual field.

As for 'individualism is bad for co-operation', of course it is; that's the point. There's a time for both and to refuse to allow them both to exist is ignorant.

It is individual thought and imagination that enables the leadership innovation that moves our knowledge forward. Without that, we'd constantly be rejecting change; we'd still consider that disease is caused by The Evil Eye.

Co-operation is a very different psychological act, acknowledging that the action must be carried out by a group - eg- travelling in traffic, writing a constitution, researching the causes of that disease.

There's an interesting column in The Times comparing the NHS (or is that "NHSes"?) in England and Scotland:

Magnus Linklater, Get sick in Scotland, not England (for now, anyway)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article2726650.ece

All federal parties denounce Quebec immigration bill except Tories (Que-Accommodation-Tor)
Source: The Canadian Press
Oct 23, 2007 17:43

By Alexander Panetta

OTTAWA - The Conservative government remained silent while all other national parties savaged a Parti Quebecois bill that would keep some immigrants from holding public office in Quebec.

The legislation has been pilloried by other parties in the province's national assembly, been panned as anti-immigrant by opinion leaders in the province, and been decried as unconstitutional.

It would create a new Quebec citizenship and would bestow that citizenship only on immigrants who pass a French test. Failure to pass the test would see immigrants forbidden from sitting on school boards, municipal councils, or in the provincial legislature.

It is the latest twist in an increasingly heated debate over immigration in the province.

Canada's governing party did not appear anxious to get involved in the debate. Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn turned aside questions on the issue.

``That's their debate,'' Blackburn said, referring to provincial politicians. Prime Minister Stephan Harper's office declined to comment.
________________

Constitution Act, 1867:

"91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, [...]

25. Naturalization and Aliens.

________________

You know, I understand Harper's desire to dismantle the federal government and weaken the federation, and help erect firewalls and reduce federal spending power. I disagree with it but I understand it.

But the Conservative response here I cannot for the life of me understand. This is a complete abdication of a fundamental federal responsibility for the petty pursuit of Quebec votes.

Disgusting.

CIA MIMICS GHOST BUSTERS LOGO TO COMBAT TERRORISTS

http://tinyurl.com/yuhpmz

::What would you call this image? For any American over the age of 30 the red circle with a slash through it evokes the Ghostbusters logo. But what is that figure in the middle? Ominous and dark, it lacks any identifying characteristics other than what looks like the silhouette of an AK-47 clutched in its hand.

Oh, I know. It's a terrorist! Of course. It must be, because this is the CIA's Terrorist Buster Logo.

I want to meet the CIA agents who wear jumpsuits emblazoned with this logo. Do they tear around the dusty streets of Karachi in a 1957 ambulance and confront wacky terrorists as portrayed by Rick Moranis? I bet they're really funny dudes. And no doubt they're well equipped to countermand any ecto-plasm dirty bombs.""

If Quebec is proposing that immigrants who can't speak either English OR French should be "discriminated against", then I'm all for it.

Those immigrants aren't being discriminated against, they are discriminating against their own participation in the broader culture and choosing to remain ghettoized. What good is an Urdu-only speaker of the school board?

But: if they just want everyone to speak French, and English be damned, then I'm not. We have two official languages blah blah blah... etc.

PET's multiculturalism is dead.
Bury multiculturalism in PET's Cemetery between Tommy Douglas and Kyoto.
...-

Did Herouxville get the last laugh on multiculturalism?

'They don't laugh anymore'

HEROUXVILLE, Que. -- Nine months ago, when this tiny village in central Quebec adopted a code of conduct that banned the stoning of women and informed newcomers "at the end of every year we decorate a tree with balls and tinsel and some lights," there were snickers from some quarters.

"They don't laugh anymore," Herouxville resident Bernard Thompson said yesterday.

With its code, the town of 1,300 prompted the creation of a travelling commission headed by two Quebec intellectuals and triggered a debate that continues to dominate Quebec politics.

Andre Drouin, the Herouxville town councillor who drafted the code of conduct, was basking yesterday in the spotlight the commission once again shone on his town. He told a visitor to meet him in front of the village church. "There's only one church, by the way," he added. "No mosque. No temple." ...-

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=01eb9942-d454-4b76-9432-f77467c9c2b0

Even if it was English and French, Kathy, which it is not, what the hell is the Quebec government doing telling immigrants what they must do to be full citizens? That is a federal responsibility.

But it is much more egregious because it is only French. It would be nice to see our Prime Minister "Stand Up for Canada" on this one or at least stand up for principle, but I'm guessing the poll-driven PM is counting the possible votes for and votes against and will remain silent.

Just love how the lefty twerps project "No Comment" into "Harper's pandering to Quebec" .... idiots.

UN Watch condemns election of Libia to security council.

http://blog.unwatch.org/?p=37

The country that kidnaps foreigners for ransom and abuses them to extort weapons from France cannot be allowed to make decisions of global scale.

"at least stand up for principle, but I'm guessing the poll-driven PM is counting the possible votes for and votes against and will remain silent."

Ted, this is the kind of stuff that makes you ga ga for the Liberals. I'm therfore surprised you don't have a poster of PMSH on your bedroom wall.

Matt: I'm not ga ga for the Liberals or any party.

Like I said, I understand the Conservative view that the federal government should be weak, should not spend any money in provincial jurisdiction, etc.

But the Conservatives saying merely it's "their debate" seems to me an abdication of duty and a constitutional responsibility when it comes to citizenship, which is clearly an exclusive federal responsibility.

why we dont listen to the self declared elite.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071024/women_doctorates_071024/20071024?hub=TopStories

If I may comment of all some of the topics ...

On Cheap shot CTV ... they don't have to be professional because have the private sector CRTC protected monopoly.

On Individualism ... individuals will cooperate when it makes sense and is efficient to do so. The frame of reference is always is this good for me and if so, it will likely be good for others. In the collective, there is no reference to the individual, just what is good for the collective and I can tell you most individuals are not served well by a collective.

On the bus driving babushka & possible negligent kid killer, I cannot add anything to the Fiver's comments. She says it all. ... Well maybe one thing ... for a person who prays five times a day, she sure doesn't seem to be looked out for by her particular big guy in the sky.

It is not the Government of Quebec advocating this proposal.
It is the PQ, a party that is steadily losing support.
What are the odds of them gaining power and instituting this plan?
PMSH does not have to respond to every looney proposal that surfaces.

Well, Lee, one of his cabinet ministers has already gone out of his way to publicly state that citizenship is "their debate" and not the government's issue.

Fortunately, this has little likelihood of passing.

Update: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071023/pq_bill_071023/20071023?hub=Politics

Apparently, while the PMO and the Quebec ministers still remain disturbingly silent or think citizenship is a "Quebec issue", and no one has contracdicted Blackburn's incorrect statement, Peter Van Loan has stepped up to the plate to denounce this racist anti-Canadian citizenship legislation proposed by the Parti Quebecois. In English only, of course. Wouldn't want French TV getting any video clip of the PM saying something negative about the Parti Quebecois.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if there were more Van Loan's in the Conservative Party, you'd have a Conservative majorities until kingdom come. Tiem to start brushing up on your French Peter; your time will come.

Hey ted, why dont u go over to the middle east and try to get a goverment postion and tell us how u make out.

"You know, I understand Harper's desire to dismantle the federal government and weaken the federation, and help erect firewalls and reduce federal spending power. I disagree with it but I understand it."

Ted, get your partisan binders off. You can't possibly be that ignorant of our history and constitution (can you spell B-N-A?).

The Liberals, beginning with Pearson and carried on in earnest by Trudeau, Mulroney (closet Liberal)and Chretien, usurped constitutionally mandated provincial powers in health, education, natural resources and many other areas in a naked cash and power grab. They were the ones who did the "dismantling."

Trudeau by doing so, in essense, hurt our federation, with the endless bickering over resources, equalization and health care. Thanks, Pierre. Harper, and Preston Manning before him, simply sought to restore provincial powers and responsiblities to their mandated areas.

Media reports are that some of the children on the bus say the driver was on a cell phone at the time of the accident! Stay tuned for more on this story.

Media reports are that some of the children on the bus say the driver was on a cell phone at the time of the accident! Stay tuned for more on this story.

Dave Rutherford is on air right now on about the ripoff that is called 'free trade' between the US and Canada over crossborder shopping.

That's where Cdn made products are being sold for thousands of dollars less than they are in Canada.

In fact many good little Cdn consumers are voting with their wallets and feet and heading south to avoid being ripped off by our own Cdn retailers
and manufacturers.

I think that this an excellent time to point out to these same outraged Cdn consumers that now they know what it is like being hogtied by the totalitarian Canadian Wheat Board.

Western grain producers are prevented by idiotic arbitrary Canadian law (enforced by judges who use their brains as cushions instead of for thinking) from selling their grain for higher (sometimes a LOT higher) prices to USA grain markets.

How long would Cdn consumers put up with the Cdn govt rushing to pass legislation to stop them from crossborder shopping.

30 seconds?

And yet that is exactly what happened to western grain farmers under the tinhorn tyrant Ralph Goodale.

This is really good time for western grain producers to remind all politicians and PM Harper why he got seats in western Canada.

Ripoffs, like the CWB, are totally unacceptable.

Shamrock:

I'll get my partisan blinders off as soon as you attend a basic Canadian history course. Deal?

From the days of MacDonald, the federal government and the provinces have fought over jurisdictional lines. There are whole courses in law school on the number of lawsuits filed by one against the other over jurisdictional issues.

We have one of the most decentralized countries in the world. In some areas, the federal government has indeed stronger powers than 60 years ago, but by and large we have become increasingly decentralized: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federalism#History.

Ted, I think that Quebec is right. The bill has nothing to do with immigration but with public activity and employment. And by the way, Quebec has, legally, jurisdiction over its own immigration. They are saying that anyone who wants to hold public office in Quebec must be able to speak the official language of Quebec, which is French.

Possibly, you consider this discriminatory. Sheesh, Ted, you consider it racist!! Wow - some definition of 'racism'!! It isn't racist.

I consider it honest and pragmatic. A well-meaning individual who speaks only German, would pragmatically, be unable to serve the public in Quebec. I think the provinces have exclusive authority over whom they hire in their public offices. Are you seriously suggesting that a province should permit someone who doesn't speak the language of the population, to accept public office?

How would he communicate?? Pragmatics matters, ted. Do you think that you should be allowed to immigrate to Saudi Arabia or China, and run for public office, even though you don't speak a word of the language? Would it be racist to tell you to get lost?

Harper isn't dismantling the federal govt; he is returning it to its original BNA federal role and removing its intrusive meddling in provincial affairs developed by the Liberals as a vote-buying tactic.

That's a STRONG not weak federal govt, Ted, one that doesn't intrude into provincial jurisdications, to buy votes (Vote for me and I'll fix health care for a generation!!!), and knows that local solutions to local problems are the most pragmatic.

Mike Kyoto- ahh, now there's a plausible reason for the accident. The driver was on a cell phone. Nothing to do with her hijab, which as I said, doesn't obscure her peripheral vision.

On CBC television this morning (what was I thinking watching it??) a big deal was made about how Condi Rice had just "admitted" that the Americans made mistakes in their handling of Arar.

Am I the only one who is sick and tired of hearing about Arar, and his whining, and his claimed torture?

More importantly though I think this case illustrates how foolish we have become in the West.

If Arar is to be believed (big if), and the Syrians did in fact torture him, why isn't the Canadian government going after the Syrians for compensation money.

Only in Canada would the government stick taxpayers with a compensation bill for torture carried out by another country, and make no effort to recover those dollars from the country that performed the torture in the first place.

What utter fools we have become.

From what I can see, this has nothing to do with immigration, and everything to do with hiring and or appointments. Well, if Bob Rae can force utility companies to hire fat female linepersons, then the Quebec gov't can put whatever restrictions it wants on public servants. Can't have it both ways moonbat!

AP - Keeping the Goreacle's AGW alarmist agenda alive and well:

"Warming may bring mass extinctions: study"

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071024/warming_extinctions_071024/20071024?hub=World&s_name=

Ted, Wikipedia is not an academic source. You need to study history. I was wrong, you are ignorant of our constitutional history. Where in the BNA Act is health a federal responsibility? Sorry quoting some pop enclyclopedia is not a proper citation or argument.

You're joking, ted, you're using Wikipedia as an authority on the Canadian constitution?

We've been through this argument on SDA with you before, Ted. You define Canada as 'very decentralized' and slither over the Liberal decades of open fiscal and political intrusion into provincial areas of jurisdiction (health, education) that has eroded any original decentralization and turned Canada into a heavily CENTRALIZED system.

I don't think it's worth it to go over this with you again. You'll stick to your vision - and I, and others, will stick to ours.

Again, my view is that the Liberals, as a vote buying tactic, moved more and more into provincial jurisdictions over the past few decades. Remember that our demographics in 1960 were central; based around Ontario-Quebec, with equal populations in each and the rest of Canada demographically insignificant. Trudeau's centralism sealed the structure, and Chretien-Martin used federal funds as vote-buying tactics.

The demographics have changed; the population isn't centralized, and Ottawa has to move out of its main tactic of attaining power by buying votes and into enabling local solutions to local situations - as in the BNA Act.

That means getting out of health and education. The academics and health care and bureaucrats won't like that, because their main interest is in their jobs, and they rely on the tax funds for that. Their interest is in ensuring lots of money coming their way - and also, in reducing accountability - which would rise if fewer govt agencies were involved in that funding.

NEWS FLASH FOR TED THE DYSLEXIC LAWYER ANS OTHER MYOPIC CONSTITUTIONALISTS"

Section 95 of the constitution act (BNAA):

AGRICULTURE AND IMMIGRATION
Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc. (95.

In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada.""

Seems fairly clear provinces can legislate immigration laws pertinent to that province's need and desires in immigration.

Ted you have to dig up the act of parliment which states that being illiterate in both official languages is protected by the immigration act ....putz

Thank you everyone who helped to shut down the Pali terror group web site hosted in Mississauga. Jihad that, sucka! It's down.

The shoddy and uncaring service being given to the western logging and western grain transportation by CN shows why the govt should never order a company to place its head office in any particular city, like Montreal.

Does anybody seriously think that CN would be shafting the grain industry or forestry industry if their head office was in Edmonton or Saskatoon?

PM Harper needs to make some adjustments to CN legislation and order them out West where 75% of their business is.

That'll crisp them up.

Ted: I know you have to follow the party line about P.M. Harper being the handmaiden to the Provinces, but in the immortal words of one of your great leaders - da proof is da proof and when you have da proof - dats da proof! P.M. Harper and the Conservatives said they would,in the recent throne speech "pursue the Federal Government's rightful leadership in strengthening Canada's economic union" - including use of "the Federal trade and commerce power". This action never attempted by your LIberals will strenghthen confederation - free trade between Provinces, free movement of labour and etc.

Just have to ask Ted, awhile back there was a motion put forward to play the National Anthem at the start of Wed. in the house. The Bloc voted against this, saying it was an insult to Quebec. The motion was voted down because the Bloc, and, oh yeah, the Liberal's voted together. This was because the Liberal's did not want to rock the boat in Quebec.

So my question Ted, and by the way, CTV is now properly reporting ALL NATIONAL PARTIES have denounced the immigration bill, please explain the Liberal's stance on the anthem playing. I would expect the same outrage.

Shamrock: I was most certainly not putting up Wikipedia as an academic source. It is information and opinion, just like my comments. I only referred to it as an easily accessible link to a more fulsome articulation of the view held by most that federal-provincial fights over jurisdiction are nothing new and the view held by many (admittedly not most) that we have been more centralized in the past. In fact, in many or even most respects we are more decentralized now than we have been.

Also Shamrock, where in the BNA Act does it say that "health" is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Section 92(7) certainly doesn't. Income taxes and how they get spent is a federal responsibility. Like it or not, equalization is also in the Constitution. Together that makes the Canada Health Act fully intra vires the federal government.

Mike:

I have long been an advocate of stronger use of the Trade and Commerce clause. While our Constitution has stronger trade and commerce language than the US for example, the courts from the 1880s through to today have defined that very narrowly. In fact, it is generally limited to trade and commerce that the provinces can't regulate. Which is why we have the economically harmful inter-provincial trade barriers we do and 10 different securities commissions.

I applaud Flaherty for trying to do something in this area, even more than Martin (I don't think Chretien ever even bothered, ardent federalist he's supposed to be). Harper is certainly not making a big priority out of this, nor has he actually done anything other than let Flaherty speak, but kudos to him if he does.

In fact, the trade and commerce rule is a great example of how, while we tend to focus only on health care and a few other areas, our history shows the provinces have battered the feds in most jurisdictional battles over our history.

As a result, compared to most countries in the entire world, we have a far far more decentralized nation. To claim we are a "centralized" nation is plain silly. Even in health care, we aren't centralized as the federal government doesn't actually make much of the many of the health care decisions.

No, we are obviously a very decentralized nation with more real power in the provinces than in the federal government. Economically and fiscally, we suffer for it.

More bs/crap from the socialists.
Taxpayers' dollars sent to burning/dead money.
Recall this "one-stop site".
...-

Ottawa unveils one-stop site for product recalls
Globe and Mail - 1 hour ago
Be it tainted tuna or toy trains, Canadian recalls of food and children's products can be searched at a one-stop government website unveiled Wednesday.
Feds launches one-stop website on recalls CTV.ca ...-

What Islam did to this former 'peace' activist rock star:

(from LGF)

In the episode, (“A Satanic Scenario”) Cat Stevens/Islam is videoed having this exchange with moderator and Queens Counsel Geoffrey Robertson:

Robertson: You don’t think that this man deserves to die?
Islam: Who, Salman Rushdie?
Robertson: Yes.
Islam: Yes, yes.
Robertson: And do you have a duty to be his executioner?
Islam: Uh, no, not necessarily, unless we were in an Islamic state and I was ordered by a judge or by the authority to carry out such an act - perhaps, yes

Paulstuff: I would support the singing of the national anthem. We don't sing it enough. We ask all of our school kids to sing it every single morning, but our national leaders don't want to?

You want outrage? I'm not a hyper-conservative nor a hyper-liberal. I try to avoid the faux outrage thing the politicians and kool-aid drinkers are so good at, especially over optics. The national anthem is important and should be sung and the Liberals are stupid not to support something like. Aside from the bad optics of being on the same side as the Bloc on a patriotism issue, it is just wrong. But "outrage" over whether or not some bunch of politicians in Ottawa have to stand up for 2 minutes once a week? It lowers my estimation of some politicians even further but it doesn't change anyone's life for the better or worse so no, I'm not "outraged" by it.

By contrast, whether Canadian citizens will be classed into different categories and their democratic rights curtailed because they don't speak French? That I do find to be an outrage. On that I agree with Dion, Layton and Van Loan.

You know partisanship is getting particularly rancorous when conservatives here like ET start arguing that it is OK for the state to encroach on individual liberties and democratic rights, that it is ok for "pragmatics" to trump rights, just because liberals like me oppose the French-only citizenship legislation proposed by the PQ. Am I at small dead animals or rabble.ca, here?

Nice try, Ted. Read BNA Act more carefully. Where a juristiction is clearly identified as federal responsiblity, like Health, then it's a provincial juristiction. Provincial legislatures raise money all the time. My argument stands that Trudeau usurped this jusristiction, and many others. You can argue if we are "too" decentralized, but it's not yours or my call.

And here go you, ted, slithering as usual.

Your arguments that 'the view held by most' that fed-prov fights over jurisdiction are 'nothing new' is a fallacious argument. [argument ad populam, and begging the question]. You are trivializing the point - which is that federal-provincial jurisdictions are NOT the domain of debative fights but of legislative decisions.

You've been provided with Section 95 - and this is a law, not a harangue in Question Period.

Furthermore, your claim that Harper hasn't made a 'big priority' about interprovincial trade rules is more slithering. What the heck was his putting it in the throne speech about? And your attempt to downgrade this focus by 'he hasn't done anything other than let Flaherty speak' -is more false argumentation. Since the House just opened, and the Throne Speech was last week, what do you expect to have happened in five days?

Again, your argument that the Quebec proposal that anyone who seeks public office in Quebec, should be able to speak French - is 'racist' and 'discriminatory' and a 'violation of human rights' is pure vapid nonsense.

There is, ted, such a thing as pragmatics; there is such a thing as common sense. Ever heard of common sense or are you such a utopian Cloud Dweller that you don't what know it means.You haven't answered my question. Would it be a violation of your human rights, of your 'democratic rights' if you went to Saudi Arabia, China, or the Czech Republic, as an immigrant, and were told that if you wanted to apply for public office, you'd have to speak the language of the people?

How about it, ted - answer the question. Do you seriously consider that it is a value of 'individual liberty', of 'democratic rights' - to insist that anyone who seeks public office, must be able to speak the local language???

And by the way, I haven't heard you or your Liberal heroes speak against Bill 101 in Quebec. Now - THAT - I consider a violation of rights. You have nothing to say about this. And that already exists; in Quebec, you can't put up a store sign in any language other than French. No Chinese, no Korean, no English. Store names can't be English. They have 'language police'. In Canada. I'm not making this up. You can't send your child to an English school. How come, Ted, you have nothing to say about these issues?

But insisting that someone seeking public office speak the local language???

Sorry, should have said where NOT stated as federal, then defaults to provincial legislatures.

Shamrock: Help me out here. Where is "health" mentioned in the Constitution at all? Section 92 gives responsibility over property and civil rights, and over hospitals and asylums, but it says nothing about health. We generally accept that this means the provinces have jurisdiction over the implementation of health care, but I see nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government can't decide how it wants to tax and spend or redistribute to the provinces. In fact, the equalization provisions of the Constitution imply that it does.

"Sorry, should have said where NOT stated as federal, then defaults to provincial legislatures."

Actually, in Canada, it is the other way around. The provinces get what the Constitution gives them and anything else is deemed federal.

It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces

and: "And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces"

Compare section 91 to 92.

This Quebecker sure hates Trudeauopia:

----------------

Whether it's allowing women to wear veils while voting or providing kosher meals in public hospitals, "we demand that the practice of Canadian courts of accommodating religion in Canada and Quebec cease immediately,'' Drouin told the commission.

"The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a tool to destroy our country.''

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071024/que_hearings_071024/20071024?hub=Canada&s_name=

ET:

So Harper doesn't mention using the trade and commerce powers to strengthen federalism in any speeches I can find before he entered politics. Harper doesn't mention using the trade and commerce powers to strengthen federalism in the 2004 election. Harper doesn't mention using the trade and commerce powers to strengthen federalism in the 2006 election. Harper doesn't mention using the trade and commerce powers to strengthen federalism in the Blue Book. It is not one of The Five Priorities (TM). He doesn't introduce any legislation or make any speech about it in the almost 2 years of his government.

But he mentions it in a Throne Speech.

And that to you is making a priority out of it?

Like I said, I applaud Flaherty's work so far in trying to foster support for a single securities commission. I applaud Harper for starting to speak about using the Trade and Commerce clause the way it was intended. But he hasn't done anything yet and anything he has ever said before about federal-provincial jurisdiction has been about weakening the federal government so I'll wait until he actually does something, other than throw some words into some speech.

By the way, you can send your kids to English school in Quebec. You live there don't you? Learn to speak from facts instead of invention, especially when it's your own laws.

OK, Ted, I'll give you that one, but here you go:

97(7) BNA Act - The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals.

How's that?

Ted, BTW, you are really nitpicking on this idea of "Health" not being the same as "Hospital." I know of no constitutional expert who agrees with your narrow interpretation. Are you actually arguing that each province running it's own health programs, and collecting healthcare premiums, is usurpation of federal powers?

You sound like you admire Trudeau; fair enough, but he still usurped provincial powers in an array of areas, including health, but also natural resources and many other areas.

If you want to change system where feds control all health spending, including all provision of service, then fine. That's not how it's ever been done, notwithstanding Trudeau's constitutional piracy.

No, ted, you cannot send your children to English schools in Quebec, unless you, yourself, went to one in Quebec. That's a kind of hereditary ethnicity. Facts, ted, not clouds.

No incoming immigrant, even if English speaking, can send their child to English school. No French speaking Quebecer can send their child to English school in Quebec. To use your words: Learn to speak from facts, instead of invention' especially when you want to inform others about those facts.

Oh, and I don't live there anymore, and my kids certainly didn't go to school there. Facts, ted.

Hospitals are an embedded property of the health services of a state. Canada did not, at the time of the constitution, have a public health care system, provincial or federal. When it was set up, since hospitals deal only with health issues (to my knowledge, please correct me if they deal with something other)...then, health becomes a property of provincial responsibility.

Ahh, ted, another argumentative fallacy. A form of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. You are now claiming that Harper can only make something an important issue IF, IF, IF, he has mentioned it before. He cannot make it an important issue unless he's talked about it before. You do realize, I hope, the logical implausibility of your argument...You've set up a situation where nothing can ever be said about anything, unless it's been said before...hmmm.

Your view that it's not important if it hasn't been said before - is logically invalid. Try again.

And I'm so glad that you'll wait until he can move on that throne speech - which was exactly one week ago. I know that to you, informing the public about an issue, is trivial ('throw some words into some speech') but, others don't have such a contemptuous view of Harper. Perhaps you are used to the Clouds blown by your Liberal politicians - which vanish as soon as they've gotten the vote.

That's my point Shamrock. Health institutions clearly are the purview of the provinces. And I'll go one further than that: matters of a local and private nature are provincial. And the courts have interpreted that against the federal government in court cases through the early part of the century. (Again, the federal powers vs. provincial powers fights, even over health care, are nothing new. It wasn't something Trudeau started.)

All I'm saying is that the combination of the taxing powers of the Constitution and the equalization obligations under the Constitution make indirect health care spending by the federal government through the provincial governments constitutionally intra vires.

Recently I got involved with Wikipedia, translating an article on the Battle Of Tours to some foreign language. Several other pieces caught my attention and I happened to add some facts to the highly politicized articles. They immediately got vandalized and I had to restore them several times and got engaged in battles with anonymous partisan vandals. Wikipedia is NOT EVEN FUNNY anymore!!!

ET:

Please go back and read your grade 1 grammar textbook. You are demonstrating your reading comprehension problems yet again. If someone has not done a single thing or said a single thing about something in years of being in politics, he has not made a priority out of it. If he mentions it in once in a speech then all you can say is he has said he will now make it a priority. But he said a lot of things in his throne speech, are all of these "big priorities"? We'll see. Juries out. Given his view of federal-provincial relations, I doubt he'd do anything but I strongly encourage him to do so. Quebec strongly opposes a common securities commission so I expect Flaherty will stop pushing for one soon too. But on this I am more than willing to be impressed by a Harper reversal.

And no, you do not have to be educated in English in Quebec before you can send your kids to an English school in Quebec. If you want to argue about a law, ET, then you should try reading it. Or at least stay within a decade or so of a current reading of it. Bill 101, before the Charter (which was over 2 decades ago), referred to being educated in English in Quebec. The Charter of French Language Rights does not have that Quebec restriction.

Kyoto Who?
This Kyoto Who:

http://multimedia.thestar.com/images/assets/178289_3.JPG

The experts say!

Notice failed in quotes: "failed".
Citoyen Dion's Kyoto has been replaced by Protocol (of the Elders of Zion). Scratch a lefty and what erupts? See NRM Interview.
...-

Time to ditch Kyoto, experts urge

Margaret Munro , CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, October 24, 2007

It is time for a radical rethink on climate change, says a report in the journal Nature this week.

Echoing sentiments long associated with politicians such as Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President George Bush, the report says it is time to ditch the Kyoto Protocol because the United Nations treaty has "failed." ...-
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=c3385bf0-a6d4-469a-8122-282b4904a92c&k=64102

Arbour is silent; the feministas are silent. Citoyen Dion is gagged. Socialism is silent.
...-

'Crimes against humanity' in Iran

Canada denies refugee claimant due to war crimes
Stewart Bell, National Post
Published: Wednesday, October 24, 2007

TORONTO - Canada's refugee agency has ruled that Iran's Revolutionary Guard committed crimes against humanity, citing the militia's use of secret jails, torture and violence against dissidents.

The Immigration and Refugee Board wrote in the recent decision that the Revolutionary Guard, a key component of Tehran's state security apparatus, was responsible for human rights abuses and atrocities.

The board released the decision on its Web site on Oct. 11. It concerns Sayed Amin Hoseyni Bob Anari, a former member of the Guard -- also known by its Persian name Pasdaran -- who had sought refuge in Canada. ...-
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/canada/story.html?id=892f3d19-a817-46c1-9189-3c809375c0df&k=25330

Hey Ted,

Funny but we make immigrants pass a civics test, too. Is this some sort of racist nazi plot against immigrants too stupid to learn anything about their adopted country?

I agree that is should be English or French but you're jumping the shark on this issue.

The feds confered special powers over immigration to quebec long ago. I not sure under who (lib or pc,) not that it matters but it was done.

Cry to them.

Can you take this guy ted out from tips of the day?
too many stupid posts he puts here!

No, ted, you are wrong. You are doing your usual slithering. Don't move into semantic slithering.

If you are an anglophone, living in Quebec, and went to an English school in Quebec, then, you can send your children to the public English school.

If you are a bilingual (Dutch-English) individual, living in Quebec, and did NOT attend an English school, then, your children must attend the local French public school. If you are a francophone, then, you cannot send your children to the local English public school.

Again, your reasoning, ted, is illogical. You insist that a concept can only be defined as 'priority' if and only if, it has been mentioned umpteen times in the past. But, what if the individual decides that a particular concept is, now, important - and begins to focus his attention on it? To you, this concept cannot be important - because he MUST have mentioned it all those years in the past. Totally illogical.

By the way, I suggest that everyone read Andrew Coyne's National Post column on 'A more perfect economic union' of today - on provincial and federal relations. Coyne says that Harper's agenda " is the biggest thing in constitutional politics since the Clarity Act, possibly since patriation".

And the JCPC 1937 decision rejected that intra vires argument, ie, it rejected the federal claim that its taxing powers meant that it could distribute those taxes unfettered by the differences in the federal and provincial distribution of powers. It is false to claim, as does the theory of 'unlimited spending power of the federal state' by virtue of its taxing powers, means that the provision of public services are excluded from the distribution of political powers.

RE TJs comment.

"Am I the only one who is sick and tired of hearing about Arar, and his whining, and his claimed torture?

More importantly though I think this case illustrates how foolish we have become in the West.

If Arar is to be believed (big if), and the Syrians did in fact torture him, why isn't the Canadian government going after the Syrians for compensation money.

Only in Canada would the government stick taxpayers with a compensation bill for torture carried out by another country, and make no effort to recover those dollars from the country that performed the torture in the first place.

What utter fools we have become"

no , your not the only one. CBCpravda and CTV(tass) go on and on about it, but never had said much about "the torture" it could have been the "comfy chair" or "soft pillow" from pythons spanish inquistion . certainly it wasnt being send through a shredder like Udi Hussein used to do but didnt get any serious coverage. or the relative lap of luxury that CBCpravdas favourite terrorist son Omar Khadr sits in.I believe there are S &M types that pay for things worse than these two experienced. check out a daily dose of CSI

CBCpravda "All Khadr, All the Time"
CTV(tass) "All Arab , All the Time"

Kneel (god I hate the yanks but live with them) Mcdonald.

CBCpravda "your global warning station"

You really do have a hard time reading regular English, don't you ET. For shame. I feel sorry for your students.

You said: "You can't send your child to an English school." By your own admission you were completely wrong on that. Read Bill 101. If you or your spouse were educated in English, and that is anywhere in Canada, then you can send your kid to an English school. That applies whether you are francophone or anglophone. In fact, technically, your statement that "You can't send your child to an English school" is further wrong because any parent, if they can afford it, can send their kid to an English private school. And I thought you had to be a good reader to become an ivory tower academic.

As for Harper and priorities, all Harper has done is said he is going to make this a priority. It is a matter of actions vs. words, ET. You are drinking way too much kool-aid to automatically think that if a politician says he's going to do something he will for certain do it. That was Martin's problem: he said a lot of things, but he didn't actually do much so were they all really priorities in hindsight? Obviously not. All I said is we'll see if it is or isn't. Other than a few seconds of a single speech, we don't have any indication this will truly be a priority. He hasn't mentioned it before ever, and in fact has send things that tend to the opposite view, so I have some serious doubts. Especially when Quebec opposes him.

But if he does push for a strong federalism rather than even more decentralization, he has a real chance of winning someone like me over. So I agree wholeheartedly with Coyne on this and go further: if he does make it a priority, then it will indeed be the biggest thing in constitutional politics since the Canada Health Act (since the Clarity Act does not actually propose doing much day-to-day).

The BNA gave the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over Trade and Commerce and I would love to see a PM with some principles and balls enough to say that means no employment or trade barriers within our own country. It is ludicrous and self-defeating for us to have interprovincial trade and employment barriers.

Harper has not spoken of or done anything of any lasting significance since he took office, and this would plant the seeds of a real legacy worth writing about 50 years from now.

Forgot one point, ET.

You said: "And the JCPC 1937 decision rejected that intra vires argument, ie, it rejected the federal claim that its taxing powers meant that it could distribute those taxes unfettered by the differences in the federal and provincial distribution of powers. It is false to claim, as does the theory of 'unlimited spending power of the federal state' by virtue of its taxing powers, means that the provision of public services are excluded from the distribution of political powers."

And I've been very clear: it is the combination of the taxing and spending powers and the equalization provisions of the Constitution. To wit, the Parliament and Government of Canada are committed to: "providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians" and "making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation".

You are reading a 2 decades old version of Bill 101 and a 8 decades old version of the Constitution.

Ted, honestly, the Liberals have never given a fig about sections 91 and 92. The Liberal vision of Canada featuring a strong central government is fundamentally unconstitutional. Un-Canadian, if you will.

The call goes out: Destroy PET's Charter.
Bury it in PET's Cemetery; no marker required.
...-

Councillor Says Rights Charter Could Destroy Canada

A councillor from Herouxville, the small town at the centre of Quebec's debate on integrating immigrants, says the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a tool to destroy the country. Andre Drouin says citizens must wrestle control away from the courts. He says that the only other solution is for Quebec, or any other province, to separate.
Drouin made the declaration today in Trois-Rivieres at the hearings into reasonable accommodation. ...-
http://www.940news.com/local.php?news=17471

Before submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. Thankyou.

remember the CBCpravda week long story and outrage over comments about Paris Stronach or Olivia Chow.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/071024/K102404AU.html

CBCpravda "All Liberal , All the time"

ted, you know perfectly well that I'm not referring to private schools, so don't even bring up the subject. And don't move into personal insults and ad hominem arguments - that tactic, like your other argumentative tactics (ad populam, circular), is fallacious. It's also childish.

What I'm referring to is the hereditary definition of language in Quebec, which states that if you are a citizen of Canada living in Quebec, then you can't send your child to an English school unless you, yourself, had gone to one. Otherwise - it has to be the French school. No francophone and no allophone can send their child to the English school.

You, with your voiced outrage over the PQ's statement that IF you want to be employed in the public service in Quebec, THEN, you have to be able to speak French, have no sense of outrage over this Quebec law. No sense of outrage over their language police and forbidding the use of English on signs. Hmmm.

Bill 101 and the Constitution may be old, in your view, but, they are still law.

Equalization payments (section 36/2) say nothing about the nature of the uses to which those monies are put. That means that this section doesn't alter 'the authority of the federal parliament or of the provincial legislatures'.

So- this has nothing to do with the point some of us are arguing - which is that the federal govt has, since Trudeau, intruded more and more into the areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The fact that you dislike Harper and feel that he has done 'nothing of lasting significance' since he took office - that's your personal view. I don't agree.

Harper is not promoting a 'strong federalism' but a decentralized federation - one where each governance has its own duties; the federal and the provincial. And, getting the federal govt out of the provincial domain...something that the Liberals, as centralists, got us into some years ago.

Find the MSM goof/tipoftheslonge in the snip below. MSM mixfuses G and F. As Freud said: it's revealing.

The cut'n'run Liberals fold/retreat/fade to a grease spot on the floor of the House of Commons.
Electile dysfunction, indeed.
Finish the job. Put the Librano$ away; give them a tenner.
...-

"But Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said the opposition should be focused on the legislation promised in the speech, not the speech itself."

"There has never been a government in this country -- minority or majority -- that's ever been defeated on a throne speech," said Flaherty.

"A throne speech is entirely a symbolic gesture. It carries no legal consequences. What's important is the legislation that flows during the session of Parliament, and we will consider each one of those pieces of legislation on their merits. If they don't pass muster, we'll vote against them."
...-
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071023/throne_speech_071024/20071024?hub=TopStories
Throne speech passes, Liberals abstain from voting

The purpose of official bilingualism is to allow French Canadian Quebecers to live anywhere in English Canada without ever having to learn one word of English.

The original architect of Bill 101 was Pierre Trudeau who wrote about having it as the language law in Quebec 10 years before the PQ passed their Bill 101, which is exactly why he did not challenge it in the courts.
Pierre Trudeau originated Bill 101.

As I am fond of saying, if I had a dollar for every lie told about Official Bilingualism in Canada, I'd be a billionaire.

ahhhh, George, I believe that in "Reader's Tips" there is no topic per se although at times there are some links to interesting possible talking points.

Ted, just when was the constitution written and when was it changed last? It isn't something that is supposed to change as the tide no matter what the Supreme Court wants to believe. I also read bill 101 the same way as ET but then again there always has been a set of rules for Quebec and one for the rest of Canada. viva la difference, eh.

"92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,...

"2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes."

And here's the rub: is the income tax a form of Direct Taxation?

----------

While we're on the subject of inadequate reading comprehension, could someone with that kind of debility please explain to me how this could be interpreted as a law:

"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased: –

"(a) To refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.

"(b) To provide that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to ensure the extinction of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, and of a dignity or title as a peer of the realm, on the death of a person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada at present in enjoyment of an hereditary title of honour, or titular distinction, or dignity or title as a peer of the realm, and that thereafter no such title of honour, titular distinction, or dignity or title as a peer of the realm, shall be accepted, enjoyed or used by any person or be recognized.

"All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration."

I can't quite see Parliament humbly approaching, praying and beseeching Her Majesty to let the Government of Canada to issue security certificates.

Postscript: Last time I checked, an instrument passed by Parliament also has to be later passsed in the Senate - after three readings in each house - and subsequently given royal assent before it becomes a legal instrument (a statute) that's binding upon the conduct of the people of Canada. The only exception that I know of are regulations that are given authoriity by any such statute. After all, it's nonsensical (ultra vires) to slap regulations upon an instrument that does not qualify as a statute in the first place.

1- Is the income tax a form of Direct Taxation ?

Yes - to quote the SCC

> A direct tax [is] one demanded from the very person who it is intended or desired should pay it and an indirect tax [is] one demanded from one person in the expectation and intention that that person indemnify him‑

2- That's the Nickle Resolution of 1919 - it's a resolution and not legally binding. It was also made back when we were still a dominion ( i.e a colony)

If you value your dinners and wish them to stay part of your gastro-intestinal processes, do not watch The Fifth Estate tonight. I was unfortunate to see the first three minutes, and it's such a drive-by smear against the anti-AGW camp that it made me gag.

The CBC. Stifling debate, killing dissent, and promoting anti-Americanism, one tax dollar at a time.

More than 1 million unable to vote: Elections Canada

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071023/federal_voters_071023/20071023?hub=Canada&s_name=

Yukon Gold -

They deserve to be smeared ! How could anyone be anti Art Gallery of Windsor : )

Texas Canuck:

The Constitution has undergone many small changes over its history. If you look at the properly published version you will see many references to repealed and many odd section numbering like in the Constitution Act 1867: section 49, 51, 51A, 52, 53 - 51A having been added in 1915. If you are an information/constitutional/political nerd like me, you might find this link interesting because it gives you the full constitution with links to its history.

The last significant constitutional change was in 1982 with the Constitution Act 1982 which not only brough in the Charter of Rights but also equalization and a constitution amending formula.

In fact, it is this last constitutional change that forced Bill 101 to be changed (expanded the exception ET and I have discussed here to apply to all Canadians, not just Quebecers, despite what ET claims) and the function of the federal Parliament to be expanded (in Part III) as I laid out above. So there is truth to say that Trudeau expanded federal powers but when the constitution says you can do it - i.e. specifies the nature of the uses to which federal tax monies can be put - it is difficult to argue it is unconstitutional.

Communist Duch, or Kaing Guek Eav, was no match for lberia in the genocide business. lberia killed untold millions.
...-

Photographer to testify at tribunal

A former photographer at a Khmer Rouge[communist] prison has been summoned to testify as a witness before a UN-supported Cambodian genocide tribunal.

Nhem En, 47, said the tribunal's co-investigating judges have ordered him to appear before them on November 1.

The judges required his appearance regarding the criminal case against his former boss, Duch, or Kaing Guek Eav, Nhem En said.

Duch headed the former Khmer Rouge S-21 prison and torture centre.

Duch has been detained by the tribunal on charges of crimes against humanity committed when the Khmer Rouge regime held power in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979.

The group's radical policies caused the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people from starvation, overwork, disease and execution. ...-
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paTribunal_tue07_cambodia_tribunal&show_article=1

ET:

Now you are getting completely nonsensical.

"You [...] have no sense of outrage over this Quebec law. No sense of outrage over their language police and forbidding the use of English on signs."

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but the PQ introduced their bill this week, October 2007. It is current news. In fact, this all started because of an item in TODAY'S news. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bill 101 was made into law in, what? 1974!!! It is an outrageous law and it is an offensive law and it is an unconstitutional law and it is an abhorrent law... it is also an OLD law and I happen to be one of those types who don't feel the need to repeat my outrage every day in every post over offensive laws passed three decades ago!! What I don't get is how you can think Bill 101 is offensive but this PQ bill is A-OK with you. Bill 101 says you have to make your French sign bigger than your English sign - and that offends you. The PQ bill says if you don't speak French you can't hold any public office in the entire provice, even if your locality is English like in several wards in Montreal, even if there is enough English support for an English uniligual elected official - and that doesn't offend you in the least.

Frankly, I have a sneaking suspicion that you only side with the separatist PQ party on this because I staked out a position opposing it.

Oh, and then there is this asine comment: "Bill 101 and the Constitution may be old, in your view, but, they are still law."

No, if they have been amended or otherwise altered by subsequent constitutional changes or court interpretations, which is the case here, then they are not "still law". The Charter had a significant impact on Bill 101 and the only parts of it have survived through use of the notwithstanding clause. The equalization clauses - which do indeed refer to the nature of nature of the uses to which federal tax monies can be put - affected, among other things, "public services". And correct me if I'm totally off base here, but I'm pretty sure universal health care might qualify as a "public servic".

If you value your dinners and wish them to stay part of your gastro-intestinal processes, do not watch The Fifth Estate tonight. I was unfortunate to see the first three minutes, and it's such a drive-by smear against the anti-AGW camp that it made me gag.

The CBC. Stifling debate, killing dissent, and promoting anti-Americanism, one tax dollar at a time.

Posted by: Yukon Gold
======================
Blow up your TV and fire up you computer instead. There are sooooo many really, really good talk radio shows now available over the net that TV is dieing - the sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned. Try On Demand Rawlco for a good Canadian one and Townhall.com for an American one.

Don't be egoistic, ted; I'm siding with the PQ position because it is pragmatic. I don't see how, in Quebec, you should feel that you have the right, although unable to speak French, apply for a public office.

There is no such thing in Quebec, in the public service, as an 'English only' environment. You may operate in a ward with majority English speakers, but, as a public servant, you have to deal with the provincial govt and bureaucracy, and the municipal bureaucrats in the rest of Montreal and in Quebec - and THEY SPEAK FRENCH. So, if you can't communicate with anyone other than your loyal constituents - then, you are pragmatically USELESS to your constituents. Now - why do you refuse to accept that basic fact?

The PQ position on speaking French if you want to be in public office in Quebec is most certainly not discriminatory or racist - as you maintain. It's reality.
Do you accept that someone aspiring for public office in Ontario, should be able to speak English? Hmmm?

No, because a law is 'old' doesn't mean that it should be consigned to irrelevance, as you have done. Bill 101 remains discriminatory. You don't seem bothered by the Quebec language police. Why not? Because it's old? Discrimination doesn't bother you unless it's new? No, the law says that you CANNOT have a sign in your own language. No Chinese, Korean, German - or English. None. That doesn't bother you.
The law also says that IF you have a sign with your own language, it MUST have French on it, and the French must be, not merely bigger, but twice the size of that Korean, Chinese, English. Don't trivialize discrimination, ted, just because it's 'old'.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper challenged Liberal leader Stéphane Dion to demonstrate the "courage of his convictions" yesterday and repeat, outside the protection of parliamentary immunity, allegations of election campaign illegality by Conservative staffers.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=d81282b3-4eae-4afa-b0cf-8b9f5f0c0b09

ET says "They are saying that anyone who wants to hold public office in Quebec must be able to speak the official language of Quebec, which is French." -- I admit I have not really been following this issue all that closely, but there is something somewhat unsavoury about the necessity of putting into law a requirement to speak French in order to hold public positions. For one thing, this usually means speaking AND writing -- and we know of cases where fluent speakers have been forced to resign their positions because they did not adequately pass the French writing test. (One a nurse at a Jewish hospital in Montreal where she had no problem speaking French; the other more recent case of a dentist who had to give up his practice in Aylmer with a thousand happy patients because his written test was not adequate.) It unlikely that someone without some level of French would even try to run for public office. So what is being accomplished here? If a job requires French, it's reasonable to formulate this as a mandatory requirement when posting for the position, but to formulate these things into law imposes bureaucratic heavy-handedness that is sure to create unfairness. Who's to say whether I speak French adequately or not? I think this is a sleazy way of sticking it to non-Francophones and I think that the PQ should be embarassed by their thinly disguised bigotry.

Thanks, Nbob (9;06 PM). With respect to point #2, it's nice to read someone pointing out the obvious with respect to the character of the resolution. (I already knew what it was.)

Yukon Gold -- Was this the same one they always show . . . like about once every two months. "Tim Ball's a shill for big oil, etc.??) It is not a stretch to suggest the CBC is engaging in fear mongering -- while my sense is that other more circumspect news agencies are beginning to be a bit more objective about this issue. If they are not careful even their supporters will begin to drift away.

CTV(tass) must want an increase in the GST

http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071024.wgstt1024/business/Business/businessBN/ctv-business

An update from Belgium

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/10/the-man-in-the-.html

yes lberia.- but the article is about how this government means to fix it . not the reverse headline CTV(tass) gives it.

More than 1 million unable to vote: Elections Canada

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071023/federal_voters_071023/20071023?hub=Canada&s_name=

So that history can record this day for the Liberal Party

A record for the sake of posterity, should anyone wonder which Liberals today followed Stephane Dion's lead and abstained when asked if they would challenge the Conservative vision for Canada.

On a page, then into Google, and so into history.
[...]

So to commemorate today's Throne Speech victory, I'd like to make certain that history records (inasmuch as the search engines record history) the full list of Liberal Party members who decided that Canada was well served by the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party.

* Stéphane Dion, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

* Omar Alghabra, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Navdeep Singh Bains, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Susan (Sue) Barnes, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Colleen Beaumier, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Mauril Bélanger, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Don Bell, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
* Carolyn Bennett, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 39th Parliament, abstained when the opportunity came to vote against the vision for Canada as set by the Conservative Party of Canada in a Throne Speech that included a declaration that Canada would not be meeting any of its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. etc.

Complete list here:
http://stevejanke.com/archives/244499.php

Kate,

Tommy Douglas' birthday was the 20 of October, and even though it has already past, I thought maybe you could pay homage to him by posting some of his more famous quotes.
One of my favorites is from the 1937 Hansard in which Tommy argues on behalf of his fellow socialists against building the armed forces, I got it from "Douglas in Saskatchewan" by Robert Tyre:"Against whom are we arming? What potential aggressor is more aggressive today? Oh, I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan."
There are so many more in his M.A. thesis. Perhaps you could remind people that you have the thesis online and we could all go and pick out our favorite quotes. I find his quotes about single mothers being "common prostitutes" interesting, to say the least.
Let's remind people about the man the NDP choose to worship.

Kate,

Tommy Douglas' birthday was the 20 of October, and even though it has already past, I thought maybe you could pay homage to him by posting some of his more famous quotes.
One of my favorites is from the 1937 Hansard in which Tommy argues on behalf of his fellow socialists against building the armed forces, I got it from "Douglas in Saskatchewan" by Robert Tyre:"Against whom are we arming? What potential aggressor is more aggressive today? Oh, I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan."
There are so many more in his M.A. thesis. Perhaps you could remind people that you have the thesis online and we could all go and pick out our favorite quotes. I find his quotes about single mothers being "common prostitutes" interesting, to say the least.
Let's remind people about the man the NDP choose to worship.

You are some entertaining piece of work, ET.

I would love for you to explain to me how "It is an outrageous law and it is an offensive law and it is an unconstitutional law and it is an abhorrent law" is the equivalent of "You don't seem bothered by the Quebec language police".

Like I said, I'm guessing the only reason you support the separatists here is because I've opposed them. Otherwise your support of this discrimination and restraint of democratic rights doesn't make sense.

As House Leader Peter Van Loan said late in the day yesterday about the PQ bill: "Every Canadian has democratic rights. And those rights -- to vote, to run for office -- are fundamental. . . I don't think those rights can be taken away." I agree fully. It is disappointing you don't think so ET.