He’s not talking about religious freedoms in Canada; he’s talking about religious freedoms around the world, which actually is a big deal in any foreign affairs programme - do you want to try and deal with a country like Iran without addressing religious freedoms? It really is about basic human freedoms in that scenario.
With due respect, your description was not for effect, it was misleading (if iunintentionally so) and factually wrong. “Creating a Ministry” is a huge, huge step that would cost billions, and is extremely different from what they actually said. Assigning a few guys in an office to a project at a cost that would barely be noticed in any federal ministry is a move of no significance at all.
Yeah, because Ontario doesn’t fund religious schools.
Oh, no, wait, we do. They’re called separate schools. We’ve been funding them for generations. What Tory was proposing was that all Ontarians be treated equally, and that rather than just having state-supported schools for Roman Catholics, we have them for all. Dalton McGuinty opposed equality in this regard, using a little Islamophobia to help win the argument, I might add. McGuinty, I cannot help but notice, is Catholic, and his wife is employed by a separate school board, but I assume that had absolutely nothing to do with his opposition to equal treatment for all Ontarians and his stance that only Catholics should get taxpayer money for their religious indoctrination of children.
Of course, my preference would be secular state schools and nothing else, but fair is fair and what we have is not fair, while what Tory proposed is fair (even if ill-advised in other respects.) Are the “quarters of influence” the quarters that think everyone should be treated equally under the law?
You deliberately misconstrued it without providing a direct cite to it.
I wonder if the televised debate will be bumped for the Habs game?
Either that, or hold it between periods, and include Grapes: “I’m wearing pink for all the pinkos out there that ride bicycles and everything . . . . I’ve been ripped to shreds by the left-wing pinko newspapers out there . . . . Put that in your pipe, you left-wing kooks."
Lol. I had the Canucks game on in the background, and I seem to recall hearing SOMETHING about the debates preempted by the debates. Is there a CBC2 where we can watch the hockey game? 
Cite?
Interesting when you think about it - the Green party polls about 6-7% Canada-wide, but can’t get their leader in the debates because they officially have no seats. The debate is scheduled to coincide with the start of the playoffs? Sure, we can change the date, not a problem!
What an interesting world we live in!
Go Habs, go!
From your link to the CBC report:
Hey, that’s a coalition between the Bloc, NDP and Liberals, led by the Bloc, and not opposed by the Conservatives!
laughs I said Duceppe because the article did focus on him, and it’s funnier to think of the Bloc being the ones fussing over the French debate. He’d probablyjust shrug if the playoff game was on the English debate day.
“Officially” have no seats? The Green Party has no seats. Period.
They should have the debates after a hockey game - that might actually induce some people (the ones who have misplaced their remotes) to watch it.
Well, yeah. But there was that one time, with the independent guy who became Green or something. I don’t know what I was writing, really! It’s still a little funny.
Ah. He never actually sat. The independent Blair Wilson (who left the Liberals in 2007 before he got kicked out) joined the Green Party on August 31, 2008, and lost his seat on October 14th. Yeah, his story is mildly amusing.
Personally, I’d think it was funny if some Green Party candidate won a seat, resigned in favor of May, and she lost the by-election because nobody liked her.
Maybe that’s just me. 
I think it would be absolutely hilarious if there had been a proper investigation into the criminal phone fraud that occurred in Gary Lunn’s riding last election.
Also perhaps a proper investigation into Gary Lunn’s campaign breaking spending limits by improperly using third parties to buy signs and election ads.
Funny as hell that would be. Too bad nobody is particularly interested in looking into election fraud.
Tories misled Parliament on G8 spending: Auditor-General
In a nutshell, the government tabled supplementary spending estimates that requested $83-million for a Border Infrastructure Fund aimed at reducing congestion at border crossings.
However, it was always the intention of the government to devote $50-million of that money to a G8 legacy fund in Huntsville, which is nowhere near the Canada-U.S. border.
The conservatives misled Parliament on a budget matter.
Question: Does this sort of thing even matter anymore? Or is the election simply to be decided on how many scary pictures and insults to Ignatieff the Conservatives can come up with?
Seems fair that if you’re going to pick and choose which quotes to include, then I should too.
Forgive me if I don’t believe a word John Baird says. ETA: (or maybe he’s right - the report does not say “misinformed”. Maybe it says “lied” or “misled” or “misdirected” or “spewed a bunch of crap”.)
I have not trusted him since he broke international law by defying the Kyoto protocol (of which Canada is a signatory). The protocol legally requires signatory countries to set up compatible carbon trading markets.
In direct defiance of this international legal obligation, in March 2007, Baird indicated that he wanted Canadian companies to be banned, or at least severely restricted, from participating in the international carbon market.
But hey - he’s a Climate Change denier, so if he wants to break international commitments - who can blame him?
[Nitpick mode]
I noticed that the Globe says (in the article linked above) that Baird made statements regarding the final draft of the report, while the CBC reports that Baird said that he hasn’t seen the final draft. The Globe article has an earlier timestamp, too.
In this twelve-minute clip of Baird talking to reporters, he’s very careful to not claim that he’s seen the final draft. He referes to a later draft, not the final draft. Around 6:00 in he says he’s seen “a more final report” but that he hasn’t seen the final draft.
[/Nitpick mode]
How plausible is it that the Auditor General completely changed all the facts and conclusions she wrote up from one draft to another?