gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : I know what you're saying. You're saying, "There just hasn't been enough about the election in Macle

Fri, 6 May 2011 22:32:46 +0000

I concur. That line had me chuckling for the better part of five minutes :)

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 15:24:59 +0000

You're right, Jack and Rick - poor form on my part. My own argumentative streak is a little wider than I'd like it to be.

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 07:12:56 +0000

Indeed, the Federal Government could use whatever name it wanted, but it was accepted practice to use "Dominion of Canada" as an official title for decades, given its historic associations and it connections to monarchism, and the Constitution allows this. That's all I was ever arguing - that Mr Anderson's reference to Canada as a Dominion is correct if he is using the term "dominion" in relation to the country's official title. And even if Mr Forsey is a dead monarchist, his opinion on Canada's official title is obviously accepted by the editors of the Encyclopaedia, and therefore validates my usage of the Encyclopaedia article as a source.

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 07:01:48 +0000

This country can still be called the "Dominion of Canada"- nothing in the Constitution states otherwise, and the Federal Government has used the term in recent years. It's not incorrect to use "Dominion" as part of Canada's official name - that's all I was ever stating. Oh, and even if the Canadian Encyclopaedia is not sacred, I'm confident the authors and editors of said work are much more intelligent than you, so I'll stick with their interpretation of this country's name and official title.

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 06:45:53 +0000

Well, the Federal Government used the name "Dominion of Canada" as recently as 2008, so it's obviously not wrong to use this name. And, the editors of the Canadian Encyclopaedia seem to think that there is something in the multiple documents of the Constitution which keeps "Dominion" as this country's official title. They're the experts, and (like I said) that's good enough for me.

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 06:40:43 +0000

Yes, the NAME was already covered, IN MY FIRST POST. You're the one who went on some bizarre escapade involving the political status of this nation. Your close-reading skills are in need of some serious improvement. The Canadian Encyclopaedia (which I hold in much higher esteem than you - sorry) states that the Constitution Act of 1982 keeps "Dominion" as Canada's official title. That's good enough for me :)

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 06:24:01 +0000

Yes I am a monarchist, and I am proud of it. For the last time, I'm not referring to this kingdom's political status. I am referring to its NAME - its official title. The NAME "Dominion of Canada" was used a recently as 2008 by the federal government to register a tartan (the Wikipedia entry I provided above has sources stating as much), and the Canadian Encyclopaedia entry excerpt I posted above states the following: "...and under the CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982, "Dominion" remains Canada's official title." So yes, our country can still be called the "Dominion of Canada", even if this name is not as common as it used to be.

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 06:07:22 +0000

Ugh, you're a lost cause. I'm referring to the NAME, not the British Empire unit of government. I'm starting to think you're being deliberately obtuse in order to obscure the fact that you lost an argument (guess what - it's not working). Since I'm not sure you'll understand the nuance of that last statement, here is the short version: I'm right, and you're wrong.

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 05:58:05 +0000

I already stated that Canada is no longer a dominion in the self-governing territory of the British Empire sense of the term in my first post. Try reading my posts fully next time - you could save yourself a lot of embarrassment. All I was arguing is that "Dominion" remains an official title of Canada, as the following Canadian Encylcopaedia article entry states (last sentence): Dominion refers primarily to Dominion of Canada (CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867, preamble and s3). The FATHERS OF CONFEDERATION wanted to call "the new nation" the Kingdom of Canada. The British Government feared this would offend the Americans, whom, after the stresses of the American Civil War, it was most anxious not to antagonize. It insisted on a different title. Sir Leonard TILLEY suggested "dominion": "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth" (Psalm 72:8). The Fathers said it was intended to give dignity to the federation, and as a tribute to the monarchical principle. The word came to be applied to the federal government and Parliament, and under the CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982, "Dominion" remains Canada's official title. Author EUGENE A. FORSEY Link: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?...

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 05:45:00 +0000

See above. Your argument is based on the self-governing dominion idea of the British Empire. I'm referring to the name of Canada, which could just as easily have been styled the "Kingdom of Canada" if certain factors had not intervened. Nothing is preventing the federal government from using this name, and indeed it did in 2008, as I noted above. Dominion can also be used as a synonym for kingdom, as the second definition present in my Oxford dictionary states. Sorry Emily, but the federal government's recent usage (2008) trumps whatever ill feelings you harbour towards the term.

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 05:38:45 +0000

See Wikipedia article above, which includes sources. Canada can still be referred to as the Dominion of Canada, and this name was actually used by the federal government to register a tartan in 2008: Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Canada#Use_o... For instance, in 2008 the Canadian government registered the Maple Leaf Tartan with the Scottish Tartan Authority under the name Dominion of Canada.[42]

Macleans.ca : Mulcair

Thu, 5 May 2011 05:28:28 +0000

Regarding point "a", it should be noted that although Canada is no longer considered a dominion in terms of being a self-governing territory of the British Empire, it's official name as the "Dominion of Canada" was used up until the early 1980s, and is correct in the sense that the word "dominion" functions as a synonym for kingdom, which Canada most certainly is, despite not often being referred to as such. Nothing is preventing the federal government from using the "Dominion of Canada" as the country's official name, as no legislation was passed barring the usage of said name. It was a more a matter of style and preference than anything else that saw more recent governments deprecate the usage of the term. EDIT: Interesting Wikipedia article on the subject, which includes citations of sources: ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Canada#Use_of_Canada_and_Dominion_of_Canada

Macleans.ca : The case for proportional representation

Thu, 5 May 2011 04:53:49 +0000

Exactly. It seems the Federal Government is now involved in everything from garbage collection to national defence. I think a lot of people in this country should be enrolled in a remedial civics class - provincially-administered of course : )

Macleans.ca : On the impertinence of the NDP: a (vote-)splitting headache

Wed, 4 May 2011 17:33:34 +0000

Who is Scooby-Doo?

Macleans.ca : Next up: rush for perimeter security, regulatory harmonization

Wed, 4 May 2011 14:52:38 +0000

That's a definite concern, which is why I would only be comfortable with the idea if there were arms-length agencies for the governance of the zone, like a political council, and something like Frontex and Europol. If the Americans aren't willing to do this, I would not be in favour of it. Having said that, I think the people of the United States are slowly coming to the realization that they are no longer the invincible powerhouse (both economically and militarily) that they thought they were. If they are mature about this fact, they would realize that their security could benefit by having a continental passport and customs union with Canada, followed by Mexico and some Caribbean countries at a later date, even if it means their are arms-length agencies protecting the interests of the less populous countries. I'm under no illusion that my comments contain a lot of "what-ifs", some of which seem unlikely, but I do not think this proposal is at all impossible. If all the countries involved are willing to cede a small amount of control for a great increase in their collective security and well-being, we could all benefit.

Macleans.ca : Next up: rush for perimeter security, regulatory harmonization

Wed, 4 May 2011 14:42:12 +0000

You can if you register an account with IntenseDebate: http://www.intensedebate.com/

Macleans.ca : Next up: rush for perimeter security, regulatory harmonization

Tue, 3 May 2011 22:04:32 +0000

Fair points. Part of my notion of the removal of fixed border controls is reliant on increased passive surveillance utilising cameras and a shared crime and immigration database (which I articulated above), but also the US would have to seriously step-up its gun control and possession laws (which I did not articulate earlier) to at least the Canadian standard. Perhaps it's folly to hope the Americans would go for increased gun control, but I can dream. For a crossing like Windsor-Detroit, I envision numerous licence plate-reading cameras and speed reduction devices (i.e. reduced speed limits and/or chicanes) along with police patrol cars at both sides of the border. Anyone who looks suspicious would be stopped and searched, as happens in the Schengen Area.

Macleans.ca : Who will be king of Canada?

Tue, 3 May 2011 21:05:03 +0000

I think the Conservative's new majority will ensure that respect for the monarchy will be a fundamental policy of the federal government. Given Her Majesty's incredibly successful visit last summer, I am confident the Prime Minister will continue to uphold and strengthen the monarchy's role in Canada. Maybe it's my own wishful thinking, but I'm hoping the federal government will invite Prince Charles, Prince William or Prince Harry to take a turn as Governor-General sometime in the near future.

Macleans.ca : Next up: rush for perimeter security, regulatory harmonization

Tue, 3 May 2011 20:27:55 +0000

Although I was against it for a number of years, I have come to the belief that a passport and customs union, like the Schengen Area in Europe, could be implemented in North America for the benefit of all countries involved. The Perimeter Agreement being negotiated Canada and the US is far less ambitious than Schengen, so I will outline my idea for a North American passport and customs union which goes beyond what is currently being negotiated between Canada and the US. As the Schengen Area has proven, the removal of fixed border control stations does not erase your country's identity. And, despite the removal of fixed control booths, various police agencies in Europe still passively monitor their land borders with CCTV/licence plate recognition cameras and mobile patrol units. Based on what I've read, it seems to that Germany's Bundespolizei regularly has patrol cars stationed at the border with Poland to monitor who is entering and leaving the country (I believe many of the motorway borders require you to slow down so police can more easily read licence plates). More vigourous ID check systems are also common at hotels, car rental agencies, and on the railways. The Schengen Area's shared police and immigration database is also useful in capturing criminals who cross national borders. In times of national emergency, fixed controls can be re-implemented for a limited period of time. If a customs and passport union were to be developed in North America, it would require the establishment of arms-length agencies (like Europe's Frontex and Europol), and a permanent political working group/council, to ensure that no single country could dominate immigration and customs requirements (If this were not in place, I would be much less inclined to support such a project). National border police agencies would still exist, but they would agree to follow a common set of "best practices" for enforcement of the North American customs and passport union. Common entry visas and exit controls could also be implemented (again, like the Schengen Area). The gradual removal of fixed border controls between Canada and the US would be a positive development for trade and travel on this Continent, and I would also welcome the inclusion of Mexico and some Caribbean nations at a later date, provided they meet strict police, justice and immigration control standards first (which would likely be 15-20 years down the road at least). A customs and passport union does not mean political integration, and I am of the opinion that the European Union has gone a little too far in terms of political union (and their currency union was also poorly conceived). Despite this, I think the countries of North America can benefit greatly from a more enlightened approach to protecting our mutual interests via a travel and trade area similar to the Schengen Zone, whilst still maintaining their own separate identities and political independence. Before someone suggests otherwise, I am a proud Canadian who loves this country, and I cherish our political independence. But I am also a pragmatic Canadian, and I can see the immense value in cooperating with other countries in North America to guarantee the mutual security and well-being of everyone living on this Continent. I welcome any and all respectful comments, and constructive criticism.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: The last night

Tue, 3 May 2011 14:55:03 +0000

Thank goodness!