PrimeNumber

We may not have a declaration of Independence but we don't need one, yet. We have a Constitution, A Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't know what you're trying to prove here?

hahaha Harper loves to think Canada is a militarized society like America.. Canada was forged around a conference table in Charlottetown by people of intelligence and good will.

Yeah because America did so much to help the situation... Everywhere your country goes it leaves a swath of death and destruction. I'll admit Rwanda was a failure but we will learn from our mistakes. America has never learned from theirs and will probably continue to make mistakes at the cost of thousands of lives. The conservatives will never provide us with strong leadership, resolve and resources to win the day with humanitarian aid. So as long as Harper is in power I will have to agree with you. That will all change soon though. We can provide only what our failed leader allows us too.

Pitching in is pitching in, the problem with conservatives is that unless were directly spilling enemy blood they don't think it qualifies as pitching in. If we take the money we would use on fighters and troops on the ground and funnel it into humanitarian aid we can be very large contributors to this conflict without firing a single shot. Sure America won't like it, but who gives a rats ass what America likes? Lets do what we are good at, lets take a moral high ground. Pulling triggers is not noble, the glory and romanticism of war died when WWII ended. Only in America does this glory and romanticism of bloodshed continue. The intelligent road would be the one helping people displaced by this conflict. The Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium can do what they want. Let's try and be leaders here on the world stage and attempt to actually be at the forefront of humanitarian efforts instead of at the back end of military strength.

It just drives me crazy how conservative supporters are on board for something that's happening in a certain part of the world because their leaders tell them to support it. But have no idea whats happening in another because their leaders don't care. It's bat shittery.

Supply me with sufficient data that you have settled more Iraqi refugees before your failed Iraq invasions of 2003 and I will agree. Sure you've settled more after the fact, and rightly so. Your country caused this mess in the first place you should be settling ALL of them. It's our Honour and Canada's conscious, something America lacks, that humbles us in settling refugees from a FAILED war you started.

Conservatives are all on board to start a military campaign against a terrorist faction in Iraq because of atrocities they have committed but all over the world atrocities have been happening, for example in the DRC where massive atrocities against African people have been happening to the tune of over 5 million dead since 1998. You can google the atrocities yourself, which make ISIL look like schoolyard hooligans. You don't see a single conservative supporter, why you may ask? Good question, hundreds of thousands of african CHRISTIAN children have been mutilated and murdered, not so much a peep from the conservative government, in fact the last time the conservatives mentioned it was well over 3 years ago. It seems the only times conservatives are in to fight a war against an enemy is when the enemy isn't supplying the world with their resources. Nay America, with their resources. It's like their trained to salivate at the sound of a bell. You want real military actions lets go into the Congo and rid the world of one of the most militant, murderous factions we have had in decades, while the Americans invite them over for dinner. Or we can focus on Iraq because they are ruining the flow of oil to the west by selling it to Russia, or China or whats worse Kurdish businessmen. The world, and mostly Canadian conservatives and republican backwards thinking Americans, act in mysterious ways.

Our Canadian foreign policy cliches kept us out of Iraq the first time. Your country caused this mess so you clean it up, we will provide aid for the thousands of displaced civilians your country has made. Your cause is not worthy of our guns. We have already settled over 18,200 refugees as a direct cause of Americas failed Iraq invasion. So we will continue to do our part which is helping the world's people displaced from your countries poor excuses for military intervention.

Saskatchewan is Conservative through and through these days. The Northwest and the Southeast will without a doubt vote conservative. Wherever the oil and gas sector is, conservative supporters are sure to follow. Prince Albert and anywhere north of it will most likely vote con as well. Moose Jaw, Regina and Saskatoon are a toss up, Harper is pretty unpopular around here, except with the 50+ population. I have a feeling the Liberals could win out. People love the Sask party but when it comes down to it they have no concrete ties with the Federal cons who are becoming increasingly unpopular. Sask party will stay in power for a long time, but the vote can go either way for the federal elections. I'm going to say there will be a majority of Liberals with 10 seats and the cons with 4.

Sounds a lot like fascism to me. A government that isn't accountable to it's people or elected officials in any way. Let's call it the Fourth Reich.

I'm glad you agree with me then, it really isnt confusing is it?

If Relevance can be enforced in a court it can be enforced in Parliament. Doesn't matter if the sisters opinions led to her being raped if the lawyer doesn't tie it into the matter at hand, it becomes irrelevant. That's where the difference is, if he talks about the sisters opinions but doesn't make it relevant to the rape like you just said he has no case. Pretty cut and dry guys.

What your talking about is still relevant to the topic though. Some might say what a rape victim was wearing might be relevant to the case but if the defense lawyer starts talking about what the rape victims sisters opinion is on the Israel-Palestine conflict he no longer becomes relevant and the judge will use their power to enforce that the defense lawyer stays on topic. Its pretty simple I don't see what is so confusing here.

Relevance is universal, enforcing it is common sense. If I'm having a conversation with a group of people about the price of tea in China and you chime in and start talking about what your dog did last night, you're not being Relevant. The same should apply to QP. If the opposition asks the Cabinet what they are going to do about the situation in Iraq and they start talking about The oppositions position on Israel, that is not relevant. The questions will always be Relevant so the answers should be to. They may be repeated 25 times but every time the answer should be relevant even if it changes every time as long as its relevant.

Scratch that last post, it would probably be some purposeless response about a friend of a friend of a friends of mines thoughts on Israel.

I could try but I'd probably just get some purposeless response about my thoughts on Israel.

You are correct! Although the only thing I see from other conservative MP's lately in QP is chest thumping about the Franklin expedition or some other thing that they think the PM has done well. Most likely questions handed to them by the PMO. I doubt any of them, save for independent conservatives would dare pressure the PM or his cabinet on something they are doing wrong.

It doesn't have to be the truth, they can keep lying, like they do. The lie just has to be on the same topic as the question. That's what Relevancy means; Relevance noun 1. the condition of being relevant, or connected with the matter at hand.

They're regulating relevancy, its directly related to accountability. Synonyms of accountability; Responsibility, Liability, Answerability. If someone asks you why you killed someone and you start talking about what you had for dinner, that is not relevant, unless of course you had the person you killed for dinner. If anything people should be applauding the NDP's efforts to make the governing party be relevant when asked a simple question. I'd expect the exact opposite from the Chinese government. I don't know what world you're living in but in this one the Chinese government has never had to be relevant to the questions of its citizens.

You beat me too it!

The latest Angus Ried Polling from 2014, not 2012, shows that 59% of Canadians are okay with no abortion laws. Also 60% of women and 58% of men are okay with no abortion laws in Canada. Which are both up from last year and the year before. The Provinces also unanimously agree which wasn't always the case in past polling as well. I may not agree with Trudeau but he only doing what progressives do... being progressive.

Truth rings clear. China cares not for our people nor our environment or even their own for that matter and when it comes down to it would probably rather see you die than see a barrel of oil be wasted. I would much rather see investment from a nation with a weaker economy that holds our values then a stronger economy that doesn't even care for their own peoples values no matter how long that takes.

That would be the best option but as stated FIPA will not change that fact, it will just make taxpayers pay for the loss of these projects. If the treehuggers are going to have their way anyways why pay the investor for the lose from your own wallet? It just stupid.

What I'm saying is the security is already here through current legislation, FIPA just makes us, the taxpayers, accountable. The energy board already said China will get its oil by 2019, including ideas of re-export through the US. I'm confident a pipeline will happen to the coast, regardless of NG dying, where there is oil there is a way. And who cares if its not to china? Someone else will need it eventually, whats the rush?

I'm simply stating it would be better to extract and refine it here. I guess it just depends on who your more comfortable with as a controlling interest in Canadian resources. The point still stands that without a FIPA with China, there would still be interest from China in Canadian resources as well as from numerous countries we don't have a FIPA with. An absence of a FIPA would without a doubt have no effect on the current situation. Whereas a FIPA makes public opinion liable to a company which is just wrong. Business is business, protected business is favoritism. No better than the government bailing out corporations which im sure all you conservative supercapitalists are all for.