What is the most important issue facing Canada in 2011?


Filed under:

What is the most important issue facing Canada in 2011?

  1. Globalization. It affects everything else.

    • which can be part of the global economy. whenever one of these questions is posed remember that the economic health is the difference between having a good home with lots of food and living on the streets.

    • Globalization can be a problem or an opportunity, Emily.

      A skilled tradesman from Canada can go where his skill is in demand, start a business, get a contract in the US or Mexico, and hire some of the locals. Then, when the work is done, he can move on.

      The problem with this scenario is that there are definitely losers and winners. Globalization gives the winnners more places to compete, but not everybody is going to win. We have to do everything we can to prevent the exploitation of workers, child labour, environmental destruction, etc.

      However, like it or not, globalization is here to stay.

  2. I'm 47 years old and I'm having a hard time finding work. I have some possibilities coming up shortly but nothing confirmed. I've been unemployed for 4 months and trust me I'm starting to lose hope.

    • Chances are, you are a skilled tradesman or already have a degree, right? Young people need to realize that having a college or university degree or a journeyman's card is not necessarily any guarantee of future success in finding a job and keeping it until you retire. However, not having a degree or some kind of certification is almost a guarantee that you will face unemployment at some time in your life.

      I would be leery of pulling up stakes and moving to some boomtown like Calgary or Edmonton, particularly during the tail end of a boom, unless you already have something lined up. The longer you wait to move to these places, the more likely it is that the jobs will start to dry up when you arrive.

      Now, if you are able to do side jobs like drywall or house painting, you might be able to find side jobs through wwwcraigslist.com. The best of luck to ya!

    • If you have a trade or profession Roy, then start looking at northern Alberta. It is starting to take off here again. If you don't have either, then consider a trade that is viable here. I have moved around this country. It is a free country to move within.

      • We may have free movement, but moving can be expensive, too.

  3. How telling — less than 6% think poverty is an issue of primary importance.

    • Surely some who selected "the economy" or "the deficit" are also concerned about poverty; and even if they aren't, presumably progress in these areas would have a positive effect on poverty.

      • poverty and the economy go hand in hand. better economy: less poverty. worse economy: more poverty. a child should be able to figure this out.

    • Here here, that says alot obout our proities – in the end it all ends in poverty!!

    • Joan, What is the difference between being poor, and poverty?

    • Your situation might preclude you from everyday strife but mine does not. Charity should begin at home

    • Without a strong economy there is little that can be done on any of the other issues…it is not to suggest that poverty or any other item is unimportant.

    • The problem with poverty, Joan, is that poverty is a relative thing. A millionaire in a room full of billionaires would be poor in comparison, and probably few of the billionaires would want the millionaire dating their daughters.

      Now, there's a huge difference between the poor in most of Canada and the poor in places like Afghanistan and Ivory Coast. Except for maybe some of the Enuit who live in igloos, even Canadians who are in poverty have access to running water, electricity and gas. Most of the people in the Third World don't have access to these things.

      You can give a few loonies to squeegie boys in Toronto and donate boxes of non-perishable items to food pantries, and the federal and provincial governments can support education and provide services like health care, but private charity, public education, and national health care won't remove the source of poverty.

      The poor we will have with us always. Let us not ask government to remove poverty but alleviate it. In the meantime, those of us who are better off should work hard, save our money, and give ten per cent of our income to churches or to our favourite charities.

      • Sorry, that is just not good enough. We need more equitable distribution of income. When CEOs get obscene amounts of pay for their less than stellar performances, we should tax them until they squeal and then tax them more. When people work full time for pay that does not allow them to support their families, they need beter support such as a guaranteed annual income. A country where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is a country which is moving away from democracy, and that is happening in Canada now.

        • The standard answer of a communist who's envious and/or a control freak (Marx's from each according to his ability to each according to his needs). Instead of real charity which is always voluntary, the socialist or communist gets his/her kicks from using force and playing Lady Bountiful with other people's money. Taking the fruit of someone's labor and handing it to someone who has not labored for it used to be called slavery. It's no more acceptable for inserting a government middleman between robbed and taker. Contrary to curing poverty, this approach always ends up encouraging more idleness/dependency, lowering the average standard of living and inevitably crashing the economy. Call off the dated communist class war and instead of pejoratively calling people you know nothing about "the rich", call them "employers", "investors", "savers" and "already highly taxed" to get an idea why communist envy always kills the golden goose because they have no idea how money and jobs are actually made. they only know how to seize and redistribute.

          Finally, the poor don't get poorer in this country. Their lot rises along with the better off. Most definitions of poverty here are relative i.e. the lowest 5% or whatever figure one picks in income regardless of living standard. In that sense, "the poor" will always be with us although people with TV sets and cable would not be considered poor in most of the world. Income inequality means nothing in a country where the lower end is at a level most of the world would envy. It just gives encouragement for people to work harder and better themselves because the sky's the limit while the lower limit is comfortable by world standards (so comfortable that we now have 4th generation Welfare families). Too much learned idleness at the expense of workers of even modest income, and the economy crashes.

  4. Nanny-statism. Nanny employers. Nanny quangos. Nanny businesses.

    • Maybe you don't like the idea of your tax dollars going to support public schools now that your children are no longer in school, or supporting people who are unemployed, but which would you rather have, the "nanny state" like they have in Great Britain or Sweden, or what they have in countries like Afghanistan or Ivory Coast?

      For most of the Third World, the "nanny state" would be a huge improvement. If workers in these countries could draw unemployment cheques when unemployed, or social insurance when retired or disabled, these countries would be better off.

      The people in the "nanny states" of the West are also better-educated, and therefore more prosperous. If we tried to go back to the world of Charles Dickens or Mark Twain, we would be much poorer. I don't Canadians want that.

  5. That's some poll where "Other" ranks third in Canadians' concerns. I wonder how many of that 12% wrote "Getting rid of the Harper Government" as their primary concern?

    • ::raises hand::

    • Throws up at thought of Coalition "tax and Spend"…

      • That would be opposed to the current "borrow & spend"?

        • Forced by the coalition of tax and spenders' constant threats toward a minority government.

    • …the NATIONAL DEBT is the beggest problem for Canadians and most are not even aware of how much it really is!
      All Governments, federal, provincial and municipal and schools all are spendthrifts…spending every penny they can get their greedy little hands on, and then increasing taxes so they will have even more money to spend…and many go beyond what they have in the bank, and borrow more and more and get all of you deeper and deeper into debt.
      ALL BUDGETS in Government, must start with the amount actually collected in the last year–then enter that amount into a very large Adding and Subtracting Machine…then each and every time a Budget Item is approved, the cash value of the amount MUST be subtracted from the Initial Amount in last years tax actually collected. When the Total gets to ZERO then no more items can be approved.
      Of course that last items in any and every Budget must be for the expenses and salaries of the Managers and Politicians.
      No money remaining…tough luck people…no pay for you this year!

  6. Healthcare, Healthcare, Healthcare – yes the rest are important too (except for National Unity…are some people still going on about that? Get over yourself and move on with your life.) But if you're dead or dying none of the others really matter do they?

    • If Canadians thought healthcare was so important they wouldn't leave it up to the government.

    • And healthcare requires money…which can only come from a strong ecenomy.

    • It's time Canadians get over the fetish with socialized health care and leave the company of North Korea and Cuba, the only other two jurisdictions that outlaw private health care. Left wing Canadians suddenly balk at following their shining example of Scandinavia and Europe in general when the latter gave up on purely socialized health care and went over to a mixed public private system with excellent results.

      Presumably food is more important to sustaining life, but no one insists it must be delivered by government with the inevitable shortages as in the Soviet Union. Mediocre government minds cannot centrally plan an economy that actually works and the inherent problems in government delivered health care are starting to grow, gobbling up more and more of government budgets.

  7. I can't believe only 10% of people realize that climate change is the biggest challenge the world is facing right now, and if we lose this battle, you can forget everything else!

    • Can you believe that most people are sick to death of hearing about climate change. If indeed this was caused by our population, then nothing can be done about it. If this is a natural evolution, then nothing can be done about it. So, please, just shut up about it!

      • Stop and think about what you are writing. If we are causing climate change, which we are, then we CAN do things about it, such as changing our behaviour.

    • Maybe the other 90% have moved beyond the hype and started looking at the facts…

    • Unlike all the other problems mentioned, there's a truckload of evidence that climate change (sneakily changed from global warming when the wheels started coming off that bus) is a phantom problem, at least the man made component. The people pushing it in a Chicken Little way have had none of their short term predictions come true yet are convinced they can predict 100 years into the future. What I can't believe is that people like Birgitta still buy into this codswallop. The proposed "solutions" to the non-problem show the real agenda of massive transfers of money from the developed world to the 3rd world. Those who want a World Welfare scheme should be honest about it instead of pretending they are saving the planet from inevitable climate change. So far, their initiatives are inflicting real economic damage on real people based on a weak computer model manufactured case that people a hundred years in the future will suffer. And BTW the first to suffer and most grievously from leftists' socialist schemes are always the real poor as in Africa as every bump up in food prices from making energy more expensive demonstrates. Leftists do real harm to real people to "prevent" hypothetical harm. A classic example is the banning of DDT that resulted in millions and millions of unnecessary malarial deaths in Africa, mostly children, based on Rachel Carson's junk science. She is still revered by the Left instead of condemned as the instigator of a mass die off of blacks. Are Africans feeling lucky?

      • DDT was never banned, it was used less because its overuse made it less effective.

        There is not a "a truckload of evidence that climate change (sneakily changed from global warming when the wheels started coming off that bus) is a phantom problem" There are a couple of lies in that statement. Global warming is occurring and is causing climate change. The scientific evidence shows that climate change is happening now.

        • Dead wrong, as is usual with Holly Stick. The use of DDT was banned. The ban was finally reversed by WHO (World Health Organization) when it could no longer sustain its junk science in the face of actual research that had always shown DDT to be of no harm. The same will happen with the global warming scam, but again only after untold damage, probably including another massive die off of Africans.

          • Here. I picked a lefty site as fanatic lefties reject facts if they don't like the source.
            Should the DDT Ban be Lifted?
            DDT could save millions of Africans from dying of malaria — if only environmentalists would let it. http://www.alternet.org/environment/15599

            It needs to be specified for lefties who try to weasel out of their wrongness on technicalities that one of your beloved organizations WHO (World Health Organization) of your even more beloved world government the UN lifted what you say was a non-existent ban after 30 years in 2006. I'd say eat crow but Rachel Carson would probably disapprove.

          • I don't like your source The use of DDT was restricted in various places when they found that widespread agricultural use produced mosquitos which were immune to DDT; but it was always used in some specific ways such as vector control.

            There was never a total ban; and the widespread use of DDT for agriculture made it LESS effective against malaria, which is why they prefer to limit its use. Sorry to intrude science into a discussion with an anti-science rightwinger.

          • Typical lefty changing the argument and hiding behind technicalities. If one or two countries did not ban DDT then there wasn't a ban because it wasn't "total". Then Prohibition never occurred because it wasn't "total". And handguns haven't been banned in Great Britain because it wasn't "total". When DDT was banned by all the developed countries, that de facto banned its use in Africa because they depended on handouts from the West and the West wasn't allowing DDT anymore. To get funds, African governments had to follow suit. As a result, millions of real and unnecessary deaths occurred of malaria, mostly African children. It would have happened in North America except malaria had been eradicated here by guess what? use of DDT with no harm done.

            This is the biggest crime against blacks since slavery and you dare to prose on in asinine fashion about having to stop what worked because of unproven speculation it might work less well in future. Lefties get real people killed with their groundless fantasies of what might happen based on junk science but you're more shameless than most as the leftist site I provided above proves with your stubborn persistence in obfuscating and denying the undeniable.

            As for "science" in general, you've proven yourself utterly ignorant on the subject. Yes, I'm right wing and have two degrees in science. It's actually more likely that such a person would be right wing because facts are a conservative's friend. We don't have to dodge and weave. There was never any accredited i.e. reproducible science that showed DDT to be harmful to humans. Just junk.

            Instead of dodging again, explain how WHO, an approved organ of lefties' dream world government organization the UN lifted a ban that didn't exist? Otherwise save everyone's valuable time and cease posting on a subject you should be ashamed and embarrassed by as a lefty.

          • Typical lefty changing the argument and hiding behind technicalities. If one or two countries did not ban DDT then there wasn't a ban because it wasn't "total". Then Prohibition never occurred because it wasn't "total". And handguns haven't been banned in Great Britain because it wasn't "total". When DDT was banned by all the developed countries, that de facto banned its use in Africa because they depended on handouts from the West and the West wasn't allowing DDT anymore. To get funds, African governments had to follow suit. As a result, millions of real and unnecessary deaths occurred of malaria, mostly African children. It would have happened in North America except malaria had been eradicated here by guess what? use of DDT with no harm done.

            Someone who keeps quoting Wikipedia is hardly in a position to weigh in on anyone else's science credentials. Yes, I'm a right winger if you in turn accept the designation left winger and I have two science degrees so it would be a little difficult to be "anti-science". In fact, we conservatives are more likely to be in the hard sciences because we like to reason from evidence.

            Stop the distractions and answer why the United Nations World Health Organization lifted a ban in 2006 that you say didn't exist.

    • It is only a challenge for those of you that are continuing to push the BS about us causing it and by giving our wealth to third world countries we will somehow halt it. I notice that since the lie of man made warming is well known the world socialists now call it "climate change". I got a news flash for you if you stop navel gazing long enough: The climate has always changed since the dawn of time, it just refuses to do so in mans time frame.

        • so a link to a environmentalist site that recycles the same arguments that have been used for 15 years?

          • No, that website collects all of the arguments made by AGW deniers and explains what is wrong with each denier argument and what the science actually says. That is what the Skeptical Science website is aimed at, helping intelligent people to counter all of the denier lies, myths and misconceptions.

            The deniers are not bright, mostly and they tend to be very slow learners, if they are capable of learning at all. They often come up with stupid, contradictory argments that have been debunked over and over again for many years. So it is very convenient to have a website that counters all of the arguments.

          • Anyone who uses the loaded term "deniers" instead of the correct scientific term "critics" knows nothing about research and the scientific method and/or is a propagandist.

            As for such a person commenting on anyone else's intelligence…

    • I think climate change ir global warming is a problem far to deep to get resolution here. You don't have to burn fossil fuel to get increased levels of CO2. Anything that rots gives it off too. Therefore while our country is busy burying our garbage to further pollute our ground water, couldn't `t we consider high temp incineration making electricity and heating greenhouses. This natural gas going to burn in generation stations has to stop when we have such an over abundance of garbage that we pay hugely in costs and pollution for transportation.

    • We can adapt to climate change, though we should bear in mind Al Gore's caution in "Earth in the Balance" that we may not be able to adapt to it. Let us reject any environmentalism based on fear for our survival as a species and instead embrace an environmentalism based on an appreciation of the beauty that still surrounds us. We should seek clean air and clean water not just because pollution causes death and poor health but because clean air and clean water are better than polluted air and polluted water of and by themselves. What if Canadians could survive without the polar bear? Does it mean that we should? Let us embrace what some Christians call "creation care" because creation is good, not just because we perceive it to be endangered.

    • Yeh that number is really high given the total farce it has turned out to be!

  8. Everyone who is here now will in the future share the problem of the Aging Population. With the influx of people from other countries bringing their parents to Canada to look after their children and the Canadians who were tax paying members these many years now reaching seniority, if there is anyone out there who does not see this as a very large looming problem they should punch a hole in that paper bag over their heads.

    • I couldn't agree with you more!

    • yes, the current recession will seem like a nostalgic memory compared to the depression that the aging boomers will likely cause.

  9. Life issues: what's more fundamental than the meaning of life and how our decisions about cloning, genetic manipulation, abortion and euthanasia shape our attitudes toward human life?

    • if our economy keeps sinking genetic manipulation might end up a growth industry (hope not)

    • I agree.

  10. Regardless of your pet problem it is always the economy that is most important. All else flows from a vibrant economy where most working people have good paying jobs so they can pay taxes to supply all the social programs some feel we need. This includes looking after the environment as anyone that is starving will log a park if that is the only way to put food on the table.

    • The economy is merely a subsidiary of the environment. Destroy the environment and the economy dies.

    • While there haven't been very many wise Americans throughout history, a very wise American said named Ben Franklin said, "There is nothing inevitible except death and taxes."

      I am less scared of paying taxes than I am by right-wing religious fanatics who believe that Jesus is going to come crashing through the sky and rid the world of death and taxes.

      I live in the real world and try to accept the world for the way it is rather than how I would like it to be.

      • Even if your disgusting picture of "right wing religious fanatics" were true, they are not demanding that you and every other westerner throw billions, trillions down the sinkhole of their belief system unlike the left wing environuts who far exceed them in number and influence. So you're prepared to pay taxes for the fanatic leftist belief system that has no more validity than the one you demean. That hardly demonstrates the reality you say you inhabit.

  11. It's the Democratic Deficit and lack of Accountability that will haunt the Harper "sell" for yet another run at an amorphous, anachronistic arch-regressive BushLeague Agenda.

    Canadians, no matter what their party affiliation (if any) will vote for ABCs this time. Anyone But Conservatives.

    A COALITION is beginning to look like a good thing for a lot of us…

    I still remember the prophetic Liberal ADS of Soldiers marching in the streets if the Reformer-Conservatives were elected. Well, it did happen when Harper's $1.5 Billion Toronto-Trashing occurred.

    We won't forget!

    The answer, my friends, is blowing in Harper's Wig (it won't always stay in place courtesy of former CTV hairdresser's spray at $50,000!!!)

    • You obviously live outside Toronto. There were no soldiers in the streets, what melodramatic nonsense. Based on what those left wing thugs got away with, there were barely any police officers, let alone soldiers. The G20 security had nothing to do with PM Harper. It was contracted out to the RCMP and local forces under the control of a soft left Toronto chief of police, so blame him ad his loony left puppet master, David Miller (our California import..)

      Using sound bite based meaningless terms like "democratic deficit" (no capitals needed here obviously) reveals the paucity of your argument.

      I am also sure that a "coalition" does look good to you as it represents exactly what you claim to dislike, typical of the left, substituting an amalgamation of groups who want power without being elected to utilize that power for the party that was elected. Just as in the old Soviet Union, you could vote for whoever you wanted, because all the candidates belonged to the coalition, so the election was a facade just as your meaningless nattering are a facade for lack of depth and knowledge while acting a a shill of the left.

    • Bullsh!t

  12. Harper inherited $14 Billion SURPLUS from his predecessors. He's put us in the hole for $54 BILLION with no accountability and most of the funds spent in Conservative ridings, $5 million for advertising his shallow agenda and wants to spend half of this, $20Billion + on a bunch of JET FIGHTERS that Canadian Taxpayers need like a hole in the head!

    God forbid this Dubya copy ever gets his anti-Canadian hands on a Majority! Goodbye Canada! Welcome Tea Partyers….

    Haper once called Canada (when he gave a speech to his ideological base in the U.S. where he belongs) a "Scandinavian socialist Welfare state"…
    Guess he enjoys spending half of the GPD Americans are spending on medical expenditures yearly. He sure is a

    Blast from the Past = Harper

    During the Debates he was blown away by Elizabeth May's forceful arguments (media acknowledged she won hands down over the Minority Forever PM) who just couldn't stomach his insufferable self-serving Machiavellian ineptness….so transparent, regardless of his wooly sweater…

    • As someone who is a Liberal, I don't think you can't blame the Prime Minister for things beyond his control, like the economic performance of countries other than Canada. LIke it or not, Canada's economic prosperity is linked with the prosperity of other nations. Every time some country in the European Union seeks a bailout from the rest of the EU, my stocks and bonds take a dive. And when other investors panic, it effects my portfolio even when I don't panic. I know that people imagine a vast conspiracy. People even believe that the Jews have a programme of world dominance as expressed in "The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion." But the fact of the matter is that the G20 have these summits because every nation faces the same problems and they don't always know what to do about it.

    • Nonsense.

    • More Bullsh!t

    • Elizabeth May's forceful arguments! Snort. That Leftist media agreed blew away Harper? Double Snort. She didn't get a single Green party member elected let alone herself. Failed twice. That's how convincing she was.

    • You do realise that if the 2008 colation had worked out for Stephane Dion then he would have spent the surplus anyway. After all it was how the Liberals wanted to respond in the first place.

  13. With job creation on the skids I think any improvement in the economy will help with poverty too. There should be an index of some sort that is used for job creation. For instance if the economy (not politicians they just take credit) creates a part time minimum wage job vs a good paying full time permanent job the rating score should be much lower. Wouldn't you like to see a politician get up and announce "20,000" new jobs with a rating score of only 10%. If we don't ask for measures nothing will be done. Get your provincial and federal gov'ts to put their money where their mouth is.

    • I think Barack Obama could announce the creation of 20,000 new jobs and still have a lower approval raiting, because 1) Americans are racist, and 2) nothing that a Democrat does in the White House would ever satisfy a Republican, if he or she was really a Republican.

      • Let's see now. The same Americans who elected Obama are now racist because they oppose his far left policies? Gee, their opposition couldn't have anything to do with his policies, could it? Is it all right if they oppose his white half? Dems and libs like you thought you had the perfect candidate. No matter how badly he messes up, you just shout down any objection as racist. Too bad YOU can't get past the color of anyone's skin to judge them on their character and policies.

        In fact, Obama announces new jobs every day. Some are a figment of his imagination, but the ones that are not are government jobs, i.e. nil in the private sector which is the economic engine that pays for cushy government jobs. Meanwhile between Pelosi's Democrat Congress in Bush's last two years and Obama's two years they've gone into debt for trillions when Bush's debt of billions was called unconscionable (including by many conservatives). Where are the Dem lib voices about out of control spending now? Hypocrites.

  14. So many anti-Harper comments – must be all from the East. You are wrong Memi, Canadians will not be voting "ABC" – I will defiinitely be voting for Harper and even though I live on the "Left Coast", there are many Harper-loving Conservatives out here!!! He is the only one smart enough to carry us through on a even level of governing.

    • Wow, you are delusional!

      • I am from Alberta, and I have disliked and distrusted Harper's political agenda for many years.

      • Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

    • I'm from the west — Alberta, no less. I'm staunchly anti-Harper, ever since he needlessly gave away a billion dollars of the BC lumber industries money to directly fund their competitors on the eve of our finally finishing and winning their NAFTA challenge.

      To suggest he gives us an "even level of governing" is only demonstrating that you haven't been paying any attention to what he's actually been doing. His performance is all over the map, with neither reason nor his word giving any indication of what it will actually be. That's not "even governing" thats "grab the seat of your pants and hope the stain doesn't show" governing.

      • i think the major tragedy here, is that we have nobody to replace him. his closest competitor is a hollow excuse for an opposition leader.

        • Unfortunately, I've got no argument with you there. While personally I think Ignatieff would probably be better at the actual governance than most people give him credit for, as opposition leader, his performance certainly hasn't helped anything.

  15. While the ageing population will definitely be a challenge, a poor economy now could cause everybody to age prematurely later. Don't think that people worried about their jobs don't have a lot of worries and more grey hairs.

  16. The Bottom Line: Canadian's are concerned about the best quality of life for their immediate families and themselves. This is, and always will be, a fact of life for all humans. You and I want a life that is as easy to live as possible. Thus economy, and our future, always take the lion's share of our concern. When we have leisure, we are concerned about the climate, but threaten our leisure and all other concerns take a back seat. Thank goodness for this basic drive, which will always push the de-populating drive of climate-ism to the back burner, or off it altogether!

    • I tend to agree with your fatalism, but am certainly not thankful for it.

      Try "A Short History of Progress" by Saul to see where ignoring nature gets people.

      As a hint, I'll point you to the civilizations of Ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Mesopotamia, and Easter Island.

      Nature has her own way of "correcting" population imbalances. It's not gentle.

  17. More and more expensive, intrusive government. It would be easy to put the economy first but the more expensive and larger governent gets, the more the economy is damaged. Parasites out-populating and over-paid from the private sector ultimately will lead to a tailspin.

  18. We need to have a national conversation on energy and the environment and to establish more control over our energy resources for the good of Canada, not for the overly subsidized foreign oil companies who poison our environment why they take away our oil at bargain basement prices.

    What needs to be done about the tarsands:

    "…At the end of the day, Alberta's junk crude, a screaming signature of peak oil, remains a strategic resource that should serve as a continental bridge to a low carbon economy. Furthermore, energy transitions take decades not years…"

    And we need to start the transition to a low-carbon economy:

    "…At the end of the day, Alberta's junk crude, a screaming signature of peak oil, remains a strategic resource that should serve as a continental bridge to a low carbon economy. Furthermore, energy transitions take decades not years. This reality alone makes superior environmental performance in the oil sands not a rhetorical luxury or propaganda item, but an issue of critical national importance…"

    • This blithe demonizing of Alberta oil, Canada's prime economic engine for some time with Alberta the last milk cow for Quebec and other takers in misnamed equalization is based on the usual leftist drama and ignorance. To alleviate the ignorance, refer to Ezra Levant's book "Ethical Oil". (Note, calling Levant names is not a refutation of his argument). Where's the objection to oil from the human rights trampling Venezuela and Saudi Arabia? And as for the foolish foolish belief that any alternate source of energy is going to be economically feasible soon, Holly Stick and her like would have us all sitting in the dark and starving while our apparatchnik rulers where she imagines herself to be live like a privileged class above the new peasantry. No thanks.

      • Levant the libeller is not a credible source for anything. If he was an honest man he would be advocating energy conservation and the use of clean alternative energy so that we would need to buy less oil from repressive regimes.

        If he was an honest man he would advocate cleaning up the filthy tarsands instead of lying about them producing "ethical" oil. As an Albertan I want my governments to stop lying about the tarsands and to clean them up.

        • Levant has research and a published book that no one's been able to refute. You have only lying talking points (there's not even any tar in the misnamed tar sands) and name calling.

    • Amid a majority of comments concerned about the Canadian economy and the poor, here's someone who wants to knock out one of the prime engines keeping it going and keeping those misnamed equalization dollars flowing to Quebec and the other have not provinces from Alberta, Canada's remaining milk cow. Ezra Levant's book "Ethical Oil" would be a good antidote to this childish repetition of the dirty oil mantra. (BTW calling Mr. Levant names will not be considered a rebuttal of his arguments).

      And anyone who thinks alternate energy sources requiring no coal or oil are going to be economically viable in the near future is really in Fantasyland. They are sucking up tax dollars in government subsidies that would be better used elsewhere. Every jurisdiction ahead of us on the Green file is backing away from its poisonous effects on their economies. Spain found that every green job cost over two regular jobs. The windmill true believers found that they needed expensive back up energy etc. Why someone wants Canada to reinvent these broken wheels makes no sense unless they are like Holly Stick has declared elsewhere redistributionists who want everyone at an equal and low standard of living (except the party apparatchniks who reward themselves for bringing the masses shared poverty).

      • Why don't you use your real name, Guest? Is it Ezra?

        • Can't refute the bad experience of favorite European lefty jurisdictions that bought into the green scam so you distract in the usual lame way.

          Wish I were Mr. Levant. I'd be smart as a whip with two well written books defending Canada against encroachment by mush brain leftist thinking and young enough to see Marx's poisonous claptrap lose its power. On the other hand, the necessary belt tightening to pay the debts for decades of nanny statism will be hard on younger people.

  19. North America had swamplands and malaria. The latter was cured with DDT. Then Africans were prevented from doing the same on the basis of Rachel Carson's misplaced concern about thinning bird eggshells in North America that ignited the usual leftist Chicken Little hysteria. The Left should be wearing this massive genocide of blacks instead of skipping off to their next wrecking party of junk science over globull warming.

    I have a science background unlike over 90% of the Chicken Littles and have spent literally thousands of hours looking at evidence pro and con. Since the prime movers whether scientists or not (Gore) behind AGW have not followed the scientific method in critical respects (openness and sharing of raw data as even admitted by East Anglia's Jones in his testimony over Climategate, improper peer review etc.) their results are not worth the paper they're written on. The only thing that's been proved so far is that many scientists can be corrupted by large sums of money flowing into their labs from governments looking for a certain result and they've cooked their results to match. This kind of corruption has happened before in individual cases as in the now debunked "vaccines cause autism" study, but never on such a large scale. Luckily, there is still a doughty group of scientists out there, Davids against a Goliath of hype who are still following the evidence instead of manufacturing it. A Canadian economist Ross McKitrick who specializes in environmental economics and policy analysis has played a leading role in exposing scientific malfeasance. His persistent requests for the raw data helped blow up the debunked Mann hockey stick graph and his freedom of information requests to the East Anglia CRU group were rebuffed with "the dog ate my homework excuses" as outlined in Climategate emails.

    Finally, your "if…then" reasoning starting with the little beaver " is just childish. Pretty funny coming from someone who waxes judgmental on truth and assertions.

  20. I'm surprised Harper not integrating French words into Rolling Stones songs didn't make the list….

    Surely a large proportion of the "other" vote reflects this oversight.

  21. Climate change we, insignificant humans, will have to learn to adapt to not fight. Climate has been changing for millions of years and will roll on for millions more.
    I think Harper is doing a good job. If the economy isn't stable there is no way health, education and poverty funds can be addressed.
    I am very glad to hear he is planning more jail space. There are too many lawless people getting away with ridiculously short sentences for crimes committed. There have to be facilities reinstated where the mentally unstable can be protected from themselves and from the public.

  22. We need a Federal election because of the lack of intelligence presently in the Conservative party and their self destructive obsession and addiction in destroying our health care, education et social services by immulating American style polititics of blatant ignorance.

    • This knee jerk anti-Americanism is what passes for argument in leftist circles. Just append "American-style" in front of whatever you dislike and lean back, your work accomplished in the leftist mind. Lazy thinkers all. One thing that is certainly "Canadian style" is unwarranted smugness. All those things you list as being destroyed are being destroyed by unsustainable leftist policies of tax and spend into debt on both sides of the 49th parallel. The economies of the only jurisdictions ahead of us on socialism i.e. Big Government Europe are crashing and burning. Leftist don't look, and even when they're forced to look, can't see what's in front of their eyes.

  23. How will the deficit ever be reduced when politicians – elected & non-elected – abuse their entitlements? Do we really need a Senate? It is a dinosaur both in Canada and Great Britain from where ours originates. The BNA Act is obsolete. It needs to be amended.

  24. The scientists lumped into the category "deniers" are very prominent in their field which is often climatology or a related science unlike Suzuki (bug scientist) or Gore (science illiterate blowhard). Look up their credentials in Lawrence Solomon's book "The Deniers". They know a great deal on the subject yet science illiterates like you call them the loaded term denier as though they were criticizing a historic fact like the Holocaust instead of a mere theory that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. The authorities of Galileo's Day called HIM the equivalent of a denier, an apostate and look who tuned out to be right? Science is neither a fixed historical fact nor a religion to be taken on faith. Anyone like you who doesn't understand that is purely science illiterate.

    • Half the people Solomon stuck into his book turned out not to be deniers. Why are you promoting his dishonest crap?

      AGW deniers are anti-science ignoramuses, not nascent Galileos.

  25. I for one live in Canada for the past 52 Years and I believe Canada is one of the best country in the world,but right now we have far too many freeloaders.
    If you think going to school for 30 years makes you smart ,think again.
    Find a Job you love and you don't have to work a day in your live.
    Jet Fighters we sure do not need.
    What we do need is better road systems,sup ways,railroads.

  26. I wrote a rebuttal to this comment but for some reason it was mysteriously deleted, though it contained nothing reportable.

    • Oh, it's back. Strange.


  28. Canada is AWESOME