You may read archived posts from this topic by following this link to the old forum site. The most recent messages in this topic are included below for your convenience.

Posted by: Virgil K. Saari
Date posted: Sat Nov 25 22:00:40 EST 2000
Subject: Canada Votes
Message:
It would seem that the US is not alone in having a content-free electoral campaign with voters staying home, holding their noses or voting against some politician.

Is this NAFTA at work? You send the US chipboard and we send you campaigns from Carville and Co.
It would seem that Mexico is the only NA nation that had an election about its future. The mud slinging there might just be adobe enough to build upon. It seems that the US and CA are just getting dirty linen.

Posted by: Vince Lamb '59
Date posted: Tue Nov 28 1:30:35 EST 2000
Subject: Canadian Election
Message:
My girlfriend was right. Canada gave the Liberals a clear majority of seats in the lower house of Parliament. Cretien continues as Prime Minister.

How I beat Matthew to posting this, I don't know! :smile:

Posted by: Virgil K. Saari
Date posted: Tue Nov 28 14:44:27 EST 2000
Subject: Help!
Message:
Is there a web site with a parti-coloured map by riding of the last and previous elections in Canada.


One might be able to see that the "East is Red" as the old Liberal in a Hurry song went...and the West is not.

Posted by: Matthew Elmslie (Matthew Elmslie )

Date posted: Wed Nov 29 14:30:00 EST 2000
Subject: Election
Message:
Mr. Saari: I haven't looked for one, but you might want to try globeandmail.com or canoe.ca.

The thing that struck me the most about the election was that the (separatist) Bloc Quebecois lost about nine seats in Quebec to the Liberals. I find this encouraging.

Posted by: Vince Lamb '59
Date posted: Fri Dec 1 15:07:38 EST 2000
Subject: A message from the Canadian Action Party
Message:
I got this in my email:

We don't like invading your privacy, but we're scared! Afraid that Canada is becoming the 51st U.S. state, while the politicians and media say nothing!

Here's why we're worried:

- Every day, about five Canadian companies, from high-tech to health-care, are sold to foreign, mainly U.S. corporations at 65 cents on the dollar. More than 13,000 businesses lost since the Free Trade Agreement was signed. Last year was a record year -- double the record set in 1998!

- Under NAFTA, American corporations have greater rights than Canadian companies even though they are run from the U.S., have more money and power, and their profits go south instead of remaining here to help our economy. Not a level playing field!

- Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows any U.S. business to sue our federal, provincial or municipal governments if the company thinks a law will hurt its profits or future profits. This could bankrupt us! And it's undemocratic because our governments are afraid to pass laws that protect us.

- Our health-care and education systems are being privatized because NAFTA -- and soon the World Trade Organization -- says they are "open season"! Do we really want our health care run by U.S. conglomerates? Think about it.

The Canadian Action Party (CAP) was formed because Canada is headed for trouble! Our country and our democracy are in danger.

On November 27, we need your vote to keep the True North strong and free! Please forward this to your family and friends -- because every vote counts.

Click below to find out more about the critical issues at stake in this election -- and how the Canadian Action Party is fighting to protect

Canada for future generations!

http://ca.internations.net/cyber/votecanada/

CLICK HERE

Please note: In ridings where we don't have a candidate, vote anything but Liberal or Alliance because both will continue to sell-out the country.

O Canada or No Canada? The Choice Is Yours! Thank you for your time,

The Hon. Paul Hellyer, Leader, Canadian Action Party Authorized by the Official Agent for the Canadian Action Party

Posted by: Tim Walker '56 (Tim Walker '56 )

Date posted: Sun Jul 1 12:22:20 2001
Subject: Back To The Map Of 1812?
Message:
It has been speculated that a Quebec that secedes will
develop closer ties to France. I dug up an old Nine Nations article-"The Future Of North America"-by Victor Ferkiss, the August '80 Futurist. "...Quebec would be viewed as a foreign presence and a bridgehead not only of continental European culture but possibly of European political influence as well, to be watched with suspicion...the rise of another De Gaulle...seeking influence in Quebec could only exacerbate the problem, especially if...Mexico should move toward a combination of anti-Americanism and economic ties with France and/or other European powers...Quebec is the linchpin of the current North American system...a new actor would be added to the scene, making North American politics a radically different game, truly international for perhaps the first time in over a century." ~

Posted by:Chris Loyd '82 (Chris Loyd '82 )

Date posted: Sun Jul 1 15:25:39 2001
Subject: M
Message:
Mexico and France? Please.

Mexico and France? I doubt it. However, to quote Samuel Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations... "Conceivably Mexican elites could have continued to pursue the anti-US Third World nationalist and protectionist path that their predecessors had followed for most of the century...alternatively, as some Mexicans urged, they could have attempted to develop with Spain, Portugal, and South American countries an Iberian association of nations...to what extent will modernization and democratization stimulate de-Westernization, producing its withdrawal from or the drastic weaking of NAFTA...?" So while Quebec gravitates towards France, Mexico might possibly return to its past unfriendly stance, perhaps in alliance with other (Spanish speaking?) countries. Should this occur the Anglo-sphere or Anglo-Celtic ideas might be viewed as alternatives. ~*~ ~*~ ~*~

Some evidence for both the Nine Nations hypothesis of cultural and economic geography and also of regional trade blocks developing and strengthening during the transition from 3T into 4T. Reproduced for educational purposes only.

A Michigan-Ontario summit

http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/english...gler030602.htm

ONTARIO-MICHIGAN ECONOMIC SUMMIT PART OF GOVERNMENT'S PLAN FOR JOB CREATION: HARRIS
WINDSOR -- Mike Harris, Ontario's Premier, today said the province will host an economic summit with Michigan, its largest American trading partner, as part of its plan to protect jobs and strengthen the economy.

"Ontario and Michigan are tied not only by billions of dollars of trade each year, but also by land and water," said Harris. "Considering our ties, and the effects of September 11 on border security and the global economy, this summit is more important now than ever."

Harris spoke after meeting with Michigan Governor John Engler. The dates of the summit are June 13 and 14, 2002.

"This summit is a forum for discussing ways to increase trade, to keep goods moving efficiently and to protect jobs on both sides of the border," Harris said.

"Given Michigan and Ontario's close proximity, strong trade relationship and shared water resources, there is a tremendous potential to be gained from working together to best serve our respective regions," Engler said. "This summit will allow us to focus on shared issues of concern with the end result of developing new and innovative partnership ideas."

Two-way trade between Ontario and Michigan was more than $97 billion in 2000. Ontario exports to Michigan increased for the fourth consecutive year in 2000, reaching almost $67.5 billion. Exports of that amount support almost 500,000 jobs in Ontario, most of them in the automotive industry.

"This summit will help us protect existing jobs and create new ones," said Harris. "New jobs will help strengthen our economy and provide the resources we need to invest in priority areas like health care and education."

Doing my best Robert Reed impression. :smile:

For non-profit, educational, discussion purposes only:

Travel

Backpacking boomers
With little interest in the controlled itineraries of package tours, some
midlifers are following in the footsteps of their twentysomething children
-- hefting rucksacks across Europe and Southeast Asia, staying in youth
hostels and teahouses, and discovering that after a lifetime of accumulating
wealth and possessions, sometimes the best plan is no plan at all.

JOHN FITZGERALD
SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL
09/28/2002
The Globe and Mail
Metro
T1



If you always reckoned that backpacking overseas for months at a stretch was
a Gen-X luxury, think again.
Fifty-four-year-old Marion Blake, who runs a bed and breakfast in Kelowna,
B.C., and her husband, Wayne, a 56-year-old teacher, embarked upon a
five-month trip to Europe this month with a knapsack apiece as their only
luggage.

Depending on the couple's inclinations, their plan is to travel to at least
one Greek island and through Turkey, Hungary, several Italian hill towns and
Switzerland before ending up in London in January.

"For so many years, our lives have been structured and ordered and revolved
around the needs of our children," Ms. Blake says. "Now that the kids are
grown, we feel it's time to go where the spirit moves us. We'll stay in
hostels or with locals along the way. And we're not going to worry about the
money or whether we have enough RRSPs saved or what we'll do if we live to
be 90."

Last year, she recalls, two of her twentysomething children (the couple have
five kids from two marriages) travelled to Europe and she was struck by the
simplicity of their approach when it came to packing. "If it didn't fit into
a backpack, they didn't want it," she says. "I realized that part of the
'boomeritis' thing my husband and I have been part of is collecting
belongings. At this point in our lives, we want to simplify. We'd rather be
having experiences than collecting and protecting 'stuff.' "

The Blakes aren't alone. Extended overseas trips are finding favour with
baby boomers and those in their 60s heading toward senior status. Having
little interest in standard cruises or the tailor-made itineraries and
spoon-fed highlights offered by many package tours, they're choosing to
travel independently while they're still young and fit enough to do so.

Given the burgeoning boomer demographic, it could turn out to be a hefty
segment of the travelling public. Based on 2001 census figures, the number
of Canadians aged 45 to 64 has increased nearly 36 per cent since 1991. By
2011, nearly one-third of Canada's population will fall into that age
category.

According to the book Rocking the Ages: The Yankelovich Report on
Generational Marketing by J. Walker Smith, "A prominent characteristic of
baby boomers is their quest for self. Since this generation has been
economically privileged and well educated, they have time, interest and
means to seek personal fulfilment. Vacations that allow them to seek that
self-fulfilment while having fun are likely to be in demand."

With their children grown and the monetary and time demands associated with
parenting diminished, some in their 50s and 60s see extended travel as a
chance to rediscover the freedom they felt when, in their late teens and
early 20s, they ambled wide-eyed through Europe or South Asia. Lugging
backpacks as they boarded third-class train cars and local buses, they
hitchhiked along country roads in the heat of the day, sleeping in
bare-bones hostels and even in the open air come nightfall. "My husband had
backpacked through Europe in the Sixties," Ms. Blake says. "It was he who
whetted my appetite."

For now, the inclination to travel for long periods seems especially
prevalent among those who work in the education sector where, after a number
of years of service, semesters off can sometimes be arranged and salaries
deferred to help finance time abroad.

Vancouver residents Katherine and John Lawrence are planning their second
extended trip after Christmas, a six-month backpacking journey that will
take them to New Zealand, Tasmania, Vietnam, Laos and, Ms. Lawrence says,
"perhaps to Armenia on our way back to London, but we haven't decided yet."

Ms. Lawrence, a 57-year-old consultant with the Vancouver School Board, and
her husband, a school administrator, took their first major trip, a
nine-month adventure, six years ago after they had put the last of their
children through school. To finance it, the couple rented out their home and
took deferred salaries.

They travelled to Fiji and New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, Indonesia,
Singapore, Nepal, Egypt, Turkey and a number of countries in Europe. As much
as possible, they avoided hotels, choosing instead inexpensive accommodation
such as a youth hostel in Vienna and teahouses in Nepal.

"In the Far East and South Asia, we changed our diets as well," Ms. Lawrence
says. "We stopped eating meat and only occasionally ate chicken. Instead, we
replaced those foods with beans and lentils and fish. And we learned not to
organize anything because that way we weren't tied to dates.

"When we first went to Nepal, we loved it so much, we ended up staying much
longer than we originally thought. We trekked through the Kathmandu Valley
and did the Annapurna Himalayan Circuit. We just went with the flow."

That's a sentiment shared by Saul and Barbara Laufer of Montreal, who, with
three children aged 17 to 27 still at home, began travelling in earnest 10
years ago. The Laufers will set off on their fifth extended trip in January.
Now 66 and retired, Saul and his 55-year-old wife, who works as an early
childhood educator and recently returned from doing a teaching assignment in
China, have visited most of the countries in Southeast Asia, including Laos
and Cambodia. Their trips last for four and five months at a time. "We take
one 30-pound backpack each," Mr. Laufer says. "By the end of the trip, we've
usually added 20 pounds. I do of a lot of research on the Internet and we
usually end up using Bangkok as a hub."

Mr. Laufer was 56 when he and his wife organized their first extended trip,
one that, in its initial stage, turned out differently than expected. "We
arrived at Manila airport and switched from the international terminal to
the domestic one," Ms. Laufer recalls. "We decided to fly to the city of
Cebu because we heard there was a nice beach. I remember seeing a cardboard
box in the Manila terminal with a sign that read: 'Please leave your
firearms here before boarding the flight.' When we finally got to Cebu, it
was night time and raining and we didn't have a place to stay. It was so
crowded and everyone was speaking a language we didn't understand. It was
our first night in Asia. I was totally overwhelmed."

Fortunately, the couple found a decent, inexpensive hotel and things looked
differently the following day. Since that trip, the Laufers have travelled
in India as far south as Goa, slept on the deck of a boat in Indonesia and
crossed the Mekong River in Laos in a dugout canoe. "Every day is something
new," Mr. Laufer enthuses. "Some at home think we're probably living in
squalor and the truth is, we're surrounded by lush vegetation in beautiful
surroundings. And we live among the people. We're seeing different customs
and listening to different music and sampling different foods and finding
that those we meet are generous and curious."

By and large, the Laufers and others say they face few difficulties on their
prolonged travels. "Sometimes, we'll take the overnight buses to get around
or the trains. We chat, play cards and we'll eat just about anything."

And, aside from trying to make sure that they arrive at a new destination
during the day to make navigating easier, most travellers agree that the
best plan is few plans at all. "We never pre-book anything," says Dennis
Meakin, who, with his wife, Gillian, began their extended travels with a
three-month trip to India when he was 52. "We don't really have any hard and
fast rules about where we go. It's nice if [the locals aren't] fighting and
if they've devalued their currency."

Now 64 and living on Bowen Island, B.C., Mr. Meakin, a retired registrar,
and his wife, an administrative assistant at a public school, have three
grown children. The couple have travelled throughout Asia, spent several
months in Central America and driven an old Volkswagen van around Mexico.
This winter, they plan to journey to China.

"I'm British-born and have always had a sense of adventure," Mr. Meakin
says. "Luckily, my wife and I have had the freedom to be able to explore.
Sometimes there are surprises. We were in East Timor in 1991 a week after
the troubles in Dili and that was a bit hairy." (More than 250 people were
killed when Indonesian troops opened fire on a group of East Timorese at the
Santa Cruz Cemetery.) "But most of the time, the experiences have been so
rewarding."

Ultimately, these gallivanting midlifers say, it's the desire for enrichment
that spurs them on. "Our friends ask if it's difficult to leave the family
behind for so long," Ms. Lawrence says. "It is. But every day we're away
brings a new experience. It's a chance to explore different cultures.
Different climates. Different everything."

Canada is biting the dust as well. Will there be a country left on earth where one can remain unviolated and thus free?


http://www.canada.com/vancouver/vancouversun/editorials/story.asp?id={516FAEC4-4876-4201-A507-6A9C80C0AFE8}

(Usual disclaimers)


Ottawa opens the door to an era of Big Brother
Expanded anti-terrorism measures far too vulnerable to abuse

Vancouver Sun

Saturday, February 01, 2003


All our travels outside the country are recorded, tracked and analyzed. A Big Brother dossier of information is kept on every person and made available to every federal department and agency.

Police and security agencies are able to access any e-mail we send, any cellphone call we make, and any Web site we visit.

We all carry compulsory national ID cards that contain our fingerprints and retina scans, and police use video surveillance cameras to track our every move through the streets.

Oceania in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four ? No, Canada in the 21st century.

That's the nightmare vision George Radwanski, Canada's privacy commissioner, outlined in his annual report to Parliament.

Mr. Radwanski highlighted a number of privacy concerns, largely related to anti-terrorism measures. While the importance of preventing terrorist attacks can't be overestimated, it appears that the government won't commit to ensuring that the measures are used exclusively for that purpose.

The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency is planning to develop a "Big Brother" database that will record more than 30 separate pieces of information on every Canadian who travels abroad, including destinations and dietary preferences.

Revenue Minister Elinor Caplan explicitly refused Mr. Radwanski's request to ensure that the database is used solely to prevent terrorism. As it stands, the information could assist anyone from police to income tax investigators.

Moreover, Ms. Caplan reneged on an undertaking to ensure that all flight travel information is destroyed within 24 hours of its collection. The government now plans to keep the info on file for six years -- longer even than the U.S. keeps such information.

When it comes to the database, the feds seem to have little time for privacy concerns. They were largely indifferent to the fact that three distinguished legal experts concluded that the database is unconstitutional.

The law under which the database would be established -- Bill C-17 (the Public Safety Bill) -- was introduced shortly after Sept. 11, 2002, and has been amended several times. Nevertheless, it's still enormously problematic, particularly because it doesn't necessarily restrict the feds to collecting flight travel information.

The bill can be effectively amended by simply adding new regulations -- a procedure that doesn't attract parliamentary scrutiny the way new legislation does. And through new regulations, the government could enter into arrangements with the private-sector and begin collecting all manner of data, from credit card reports to library borrowing activities.

Another of Mr. Radwanski's concerns strikes close to home. Police use of video surveillance cameras isn't just part of the commissioner's nightmare scenario -- it's happening right now.

For more than a year, Mr. Radwan-ski has tried unsuccessfully to stop the RCMP from filming citizens on a public street in Kelowna. And despite retired Supreme Court of Canada justice Gerard La Forest's opinion that such activity contravenes the Charter, there appears to be no end in sight.

Mr. Radwanski has brought an action against the government to stop the activity, but the feds are trying to prevent it by arguing that he has no standing -- that, as privacy commissioner, he doesn't have the right to initiate the action.

That attitude on the part of the feds is most disturbing of all. While the government usually pays heed to the concerns of the privacy commissioner, Mr. Radwanski said that this year, his concerns were "brushed aside or ignored."

The feds therefore seem to be using anti-terrorism measures much like an omnibus bill: implement an uncontroversial high-profile initiative, and quietly usher in a lot of controversial measures and hope no one notices. Mr. Radwanski has called for a public outcry to stop the intrusions into our privacy before it's too late.

The bottom line, according to Mr Radwanski, is this: "If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyse it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free."

Indeed. And we are not truly living, either.

? Copyright 2003 Vancouver Sun

Stonewall posts:

Ottawa opens the door to an era of Big Brother
Expanded anti-terrorism measures far too vulnerable to abuse

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Canada is biting the dust as well.

Funny, back in November of last year, you posted the following story:

Friday, November 22, 2002; 5:35 PM
TORONTO ?? A private comment that became very public was the talk of Canada on Friday, with newspaper and broadcast reports detailing how an aide to Prime Minister Jean Chretien called President Bush a moron.

Hmmm, and what was your reaction then? "Hehehehe!" Stonewall Patton laughed at the time. And he gleefully announced, "Seeing as, with passage of the Bush administration's Heimland Security Act, it is over in this country for those who remain loyal to the US Constitution and for those others who merely oppose corporatism, maybe we should consider moving to Canada."

Gosh, who is the "moron," now, Mr Patton? Or, as usual, are you unable to add up 2 + 2? Yes, the ultra leftists running the show in Canada think Bush is a moron, of which you heartily agree, yet it is they that are actually creating "an era of Big Brother."

Sometimes, some folks can't see the forrest for the trees. And in this case, I think this fellow, who calls himself "Stonewall," just hugged a Gleditsia triacanthos. :wink:

But just how "ultra-leftist" are the people who are running the show in Canada these days?

Ran across this story while searching for something totally unrelated:

On August 11, 2001, Kimberly Rogers, a 40-year-old, pregnant single mother, was found dead in her apartment in Sudbury, Ontario, after having been cut off welfare for not declaring a government-provided student loan she had been receiving while attending college, which would have reduced her welfare benefits. One take on the story can be viewed at this site (standard disclaimers apply).

At least the Delaware senate had the sense to table this.

SPONSOR:

Rep. Roy & Sen. Adams;

Reps. Spence, Smith, Lee, Gilligan, Van Sant

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

142nd GENERAL ASSEMBLY

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7

PROHIBITING STATE EMPLOYEES, STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS, MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, AND PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES FROM USING STATE MONEY FOR TRAVEL TO CANADA FOR THE DURATION OF OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

WHEREAS, recently several members of Canada's majority party have made anti-American comments concerning the United States; Operation Iraqi Freedom; and

WHEREAS, Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, and senior members of the Chretien government, have also made a string of anti-American comments and criticisms of President Bush over his handling of the Persian Gulf crisis; and

WHEREAS, Prime Minister Chretien refused to rebuke Herb Dhaliwal, the Natural Resources Minister, for saying that President Bush's decision to go to war proves he is "not a statesmen" [sic]; and

WHEREAS, Liberal Members of Parliament debated on censuring and even expelling U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci for a speech in which he expressed America's disappointment to Canada's decision to not support the United States in its Operation Iraqi Freedom; and

WHEREAS, the lack of respect high ranking Canadian officials have recently shown to the United States, which has damaged the relations between the two neighboring countries, should not be without consequence; and

WHEREAS, the First State should take a first step in showing the Canadian government its disapproval with their failure at being a good neighbor and their lack of diplomacy by prohibiting travel to Canada by State officials and employees; and

WHEREAS, we commend the leadership and members of Canada's opposition party for indicating their support of the United States of America's Operation Iraqi Freedom and opposition of the stance taken by the Prime Minister and the majority party.

NOW, THEREFORE:

BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 142nd General Assembly of the State of Delaware, with the approval of the Governor, that all State-funded travel to Canada by all State employees, State Elected Officials, members of the Judicial branch, and public school employees is hereby prohibited until Operation Iraqi Freedom has concluded.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that suitably prepared copies of this Resolution be sent to the National Conference of State Legislators, American Legislators Exchange Council and the Council of State Governments.

SYNOPSIS

As a direct result of insulting and undiplomatic rhetoric expressed by certain Canadian leaders and inappropriate responses to such comments by Canadian leaders, this Resolution prohibits the use of state funds for travel to Canada for the duration of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

We really aren't all like this here, trust me. I'm just glad my one coworker who came here from Quebec got her license plate changed before the war started.

Don't you understand. Canada is the new "North America."

Part of the partnership of the future "Third Way" that will all lead us to peace. It's aboat time.

I think Canada these days are cocky with Americans. They refused to

help us overthrow Saddam Hussein. They are closer with Britain than with

us. Most Canadians are jealous of America because we dominate

N.America. I wonder if they would last if the British monarchy is

overthrown and Quebec is one step closer to independence. Are they not

Xers and Millennials who could reform Canada into liking Americans?

They get a lot of money of the USA anyway.

Hey ALOS, they are a more direct offshoot of Britain than we are!!! I think the Queen is still their "official" head of state.

Hello to the land of duh!

So John, you want to be a chemist. Can you some up from Canada to

Australia? Australia is another British colony. Imagine the Xers and

Millennials there decide to not be an offshot and overthrow the British

Monarchy to create an Australian Republic? Also if you are interested

check out the columns on the next saeculum. The tricentennial saeculum,

Genz and New BOOM, New X and New Mill and reply to me on what you

think will happen in 2076.

A.los 79.

Here's something I found in the political forum on realiiity.com. I should cruise through there more often!

Standard Fair Use disclaimers apply.

http://marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=670

Canada's pending drug law irks U.S.
Decriminalization of marijuana likely to strain relations, White House says
By Janice Tibbetts
CanWest News Service
http://www.canada.com

April 19, 2003
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says he has not consulted his American counterparts on his plans to relax Canada's marijuana laws -- prompting a warning from a White House official that sidelining the U.S. could become another irritant in relations between the federal government and Washington.

Failure to talk to the Americans about pending marijuana laws is akin to Canada unilaterally setting up "open-air toxic waste sites"along the border, said Tom Riley, public affairs director for the White House office of drug control policy.

"I think there is a bit of an analog here," said Mr. Riley, repeating U.S. drug czar John Walters' assertion that eased drug laws will trigger tighter security checks for Canadians who cross the border.

Mr. Cauchon intends to introduce legislation late this spring to decriminalize possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, the equivalent of about 25 cigarettes. People caught with small amounts would be punished with a fine rather than a criminal record.

Decriminalization will be yet another sore point in already fragile Canada-U.S. relations, predicted Chris Sands, a Canadian expert with the Center for International and Strategic Studies in Washington.

"I know that Canadian politicians think this shouldn't be turned into such a big deal, but there is no room for persuasion down here and I think it's going to be very damaging if Canada chooses to go ahead.

"My guess is they'll decriminalize, start paying the price and then consult, which is the worst way to do things. It is better to consult before than after a tragedy."

Mr. Cauchon said that he has not talked to the Americans about his plans, nor would he confirm whether they would be among the stakeholders who will be asked for input after he tables his bill.

"We haven't talked to the Americans so far," he said. "We may be talking to the Americans after we have made up our mind as regard to the policy. My primary goal here -- I'm minister of justice for Canada -- is to make sure we are going to have a good policy here in Canada, for Canadians."

But he said he wants to send a message to the U.S. that marijuana will still be illegal in Canada and that police will be instructed to be vigilant in enforcing the law.

Mike Murphy, a spokesman for Mr. Cauchon, said there have been lower-level consultations among bureaucrats in the U.S. and Canada, but he would give no further details. He added that Canada should be free to make its own laws and does not intend to back down to satisfy the U.S.

While Mr. Sands agreed that the U.S. should not be able to dictate Canadian law, he said that high-level consultations would be useful so that Canadian politicians could get a better picture of how "uptight" the U.S. is about softening drug laws.

"I know most Canadians think of it as a happy, happy, hippie, free-love issue, but it's really an indictment against Canadian law enforcement that is going to be hard to shake if you go forward with it," Mr. Sands said.

"Any consultation that helps drill that in with Canadian government officials is helpful."

The U.S. is particularly concerned because of the growing presence of potent B.C. bud, which landed Canada for the first time this year on a list of drug countries that U.S. President George W. Bush sent to Congress in January.


"I think a lot of eyebrows were raised about Canada being on a list with Columbia and Guatemala and Mexico and Haiti and countries like that," said Mr. Riley.

Mr. Sands had grim predictions for how U.S. law enforcement officials will treat Canadians after Canada softens its drug laws.

"What I think will probably start happening is they'll demand a list of everybody who is not arrested for marijuana possession but is found in possession of marijuana by the cops and they'll want to have that as part of the record when your passport is scanned," he said.

"There will be another whole category of Canadians who have diminished access to the United States."

I wonder how long it will be before someone accuses our closing of the Canadian border to beef imports of being retaliation for recent Canadian actions, rather than a response to an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease in Alberta?

Right. It has been more than 24 hours. They took quite a hit on their SARS outbreak.

Maybee zay vill respect zoes morons now, eh?

Here is an observation of English-speaking Canadians. I really think they are not much different culturally to Northern Tier of the United States, it is best to compare the English speaking Canadians to Americans in Upstate New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota, Montana and Washington State. Interesting enough these states are heavily influenced by the New England sub-culture and lesser degree the Mid-Atlantic subculture.

Canada is interesting politically, less confusing than the U.S.

In the U.S., the Northeast (plus D.C. and Hawaii) are very liberal. The Pacific states and the Mid-Atlantic and the Upper Mississippi and Maine are moderately liberal.

The Ohio and Tennessee Valley states and Florida and the lower Mississippi are moderate. The West and South, plus Indiana and Arizona and Alaska, are conervative.

Canada is simple: Everything in the North, and everything east of Manitoba, is liberal. Everything west of Manitoba is conservative. Manitoba is moderate.

What makes this very interesting is the continuing issue of secession of Quebec. If Quebec ever secedes, the country that remains skews very conservative. (Note that "conservative" by Canadian standards = "moderate" by U.S. standards.)

There is even a fair amount of consideration to the issue of joining the U.S. in western Canada, a concept that would be primed if Quebec ever successfully seceded.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Here is an observation of English-speaking Canadians. I really think they are not much different culturally to Northern Tier of the United States, it is best to compare the English speaking Canadians to Americans in Upstate New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota, Montana and Washington State. Interesting enough these states are heavily influenced by the New England sub-culture and lesser degree the Mid-Atlantic subculture.

Perhaps. I dated a gal about 10 years ago from Western Minnesota who pronounced the word about "a-BOOT", just like a Canadian would.