cannuck

That is of course a valid question. Ever sit beside one of the national rail lines and watch the endless parade of Chinese containers coming into Canada - and across the West to waiting ON markets? Go to any store and see how much of what we buy is from Canada vs. imported mostly from China, but other low cost Asian suppliers. Then check out the expensive cars on the road - German and Japanese for the most part. The list goes on. Before we can compete globally, we have to have the infrastructure to at least meet our OWN needs, never mind having export capacity and being able to go toe-to-toe with the big guys. We don't do that. We either mine some resources and sell them off without adding any value, or get a government job giving away as much money as we possibly can to terrorists who will likely vote Liberal. We miss the simple stuff: Alberta/SK has the largest known reserves of petroleum hydrocarbons (Athabasca sands) on the planet. People (with some good reason) do not want it dilluted with very light fractions and shipped down pipelines where a spill can be a real bitch. As a result, producers get about 1/2 the actual value of their resources if they can find a market at all. By simply restricting export of bitumen and especially dilbit, it forces the industry into producing synthetic crude - as did GCOS/Suncor to start with, and later Exxon and Shell. Those are fabulous feedstocks for refineries and MUCH safer to ship than what goes down the incredibly dangerous rail links now - but most of all the value is added within Canada. We will NEVER be able to compete with the newest of emerging economies, but we shouldn't need to. There are things we do or can do that we do very well. We also have most of the infrastructure to do so - and what we don't have we can access the US component quite easily. Trump can figure this shit out, and he is not the brightest bulb on the string, so why can't the left and red Torries here grasp such simple concepts??

Hong Kong got there by being manufacturing to begin with, and simply earned so much money by creating wealth that they are now in a position to redistribute with financial games (Casino Capitalists - just like Wall Street). Hong Kong (and Taiwan) businesses are the source of what became the manufacturing giant(s) of the Pearl Delta, so they are still in manufacturing, they just use cheaper labour and access to the massive pool of public capital (of the CHICO gov't). Same true of Taipei. We can thank HKSAR for being the window on the world for China (as an extension of Shenzhen, really). It saved 1/4 of the world's population from a life of sheer misery. Hell of an accomplishment for a tiny fishing village. And it was all done without a penny of government subsidy (until their invasion of the mainland, that is).

we are very much a "have" state when it comes to resources. What we don't seem to appreciate is when they run out, we very little infrastructure outside of Ontario's auto trade to continue to create any wealth. Nobody needs a visa to buy resources, just a bank account. We need to be selling everyone the products MADE from our resources, not giving them our legacy in exchange for a few beads.

1. I am a big fan of direct democracy, to the extent that I believe partisan political parties should not even exist. 2. Oh, we're out there and in significant numbers. What used to cost a fortune worth of hundred dollar a call telephone links and thousands of hard-to-come-by dollars of international flights and hotels can be done today with almost free digital links and the occasional cheap flight to do face-to-face stuff. On top of that, borders are more open now than they have ever been - thanks to interdependence of economies due to trade.

taxation is the number 2 motivation of human financial behaviour right behind greed. to exempt an exporter from royalties would of course be silly, and the government(s) ALREADY tax damn near 1/3 of profits! To exempt an exporter would be to do great disservice to the country - as it once more puts us in the resource depletion model, not adding value to resource. Think of it this way: a farmer gets a few pennies for the grain in a box of cereal, but has to buy it back for $4!!!!! The same is true for minerals, fiber, petroleum - but not all in such an extreme.

1. The aggregate public has zero sense of future. they will vote for any idiot who promises them anything 2. I have very little control over my taxation levels with government as we have it in Canada. I control much of my tax burden by doing business in other countries where to be in business does not make you an enemy of the state (or statists, as it were).

I am concerned about my grandchildren's wallet - and yours. I am only going to pay for something if I have direct control. "My" control at the moment is that of taxation and spending through our very broken system of governance. I suspect in spite of our polar opposite political philosophies, you and I would arrive at very similar solutions to moving forward.

We have the luxury of debating this stuff because Canada has a staggering reserve of natural resources. Hong Kong is wealthy because they have virtually NO resources, so it only leaves adding value to imported resources for economic activity. In other words, outside of the speculative (real estate and stock market) side, Hong Kong has an economy founded on creating wealth. What we CAN learn from them is that wealth is created by adding value to resources. Merely extracting resources and selling them off does NOT create wealth, it simply redistributes it from our finite reserves to our cash account - where we thoughtless just give the money to someone else who DOES add the majority of value. Our model is sustainable only until the resources run out.

and the main "fed" is a wee bit short on kahunas

foreign policy as well as spending and direction given to the armed forces in peacetime.

those are assumptions we can never prove. We already have a country, so we don't need to subsidize transportation any longer. The Trans Mountain pipeline could have been built very easily - but simply giving approval to the private owners who were trying to build it.

What I HOPE Mr. Ford can learn that a bureaucrat's argument is that he/she can do more or less of what they do with more or less money. Reality is - as Eric Nelsen found to his ultimate political demise - the correct question is why are we paying you or anyone else to do what you are dong? A great number of things governments do are nothing but meddling in business or social engineering. Let someone who wants that done do it with their own money. I still think the great equalizer is not allowing ANY long term debt without referendum or plebiscite. In that manner, politicians plans to pass their electioneering costs on to my/our grandchildren are scotched and they become accountable during their term for their actions (or inaction).

There is simply no justification for governments of any kind anywhere or anytime to subsidize ANY "industry". At least that is what I feel. The problem is when government sticks its nose into ANYTHING bureaucracy building, stupid costs, corruption and partisanship kick in and they put themselves in the place of choosing winners and losers. The business of government should be to govern and should be constitutionally limited to regulating and enforcing. The sad part is: no other government in the world (except for a brief time New Zealand) followed such a policy. We have to compete in a world of governments who see it as their right and duty to dispense privilege (and attendant benefits) to their "friends". And the biggest player is the economy that owns/dominates most of Canadian business, our biggest customer, our largest trading partner and our biggest competitor. Thus, why I am so upset with having a government led by a PM and cabinet who are generally clueless except for being well aware that they are beholden to their masters in the party of all interfering policy and execution.

First of all, I would like to thank Michael for such a thoughtful post a few above related to how politcos, our government and its agencies are so disconnected from the citizens. It is a huge problem and very much part of this specific problem. We have to stop and ask ourselves why we have armed forces in the first place. One thing - defense of the nation - is fairly obvious. Now, the ONLY country to openly violate our sovereign (colonial) borders is the one directly South of us, and what they seldom recognize is that they were sent packing - by the Brits. Since then, we can consider the Yanks our closest and most trusted ally. Even so: when you realize that being a country with any credible status within the world community means having various treaties and organizations that can and will use military force to defend what the greater community at large decides is in the best interest of the world. When Eyeball (and a lot of other Canadians) see Canadians going "where they don't belong" or some such, it is ALWAYS with the endorsement and request of our allies and the UN. No country as small as Canada (in population) could ever hope to defend itself from a superpower military onslaught - we MUST be able to rely on the rest of the world and in particular our treaty allies to participate in our defense. With that comes our obligation in return to defend others. The other thing our armed forces (both regs and reserves) do is "aid to civil power" (yeah, I am so old I still use that term). Floods, fires and civil insurrection (from Riel Rebellion to Quebec crisis) are times that civil governments are in distress and call upon our military to put themselves in harms way for the nation. I am more than a bit biased, having grown up within the military world, having a son-in-law who is a regimental DCO (will be CO soon) who is also a decorated Afgan vet and having a HS classmate/friend who rose to similar rank within the procurement side and being very well acquainted with one MND . I was a reserve in my youth (artillery), and we have many family members who serve in that capacity today. While we don't need to worry about the 49th these days, what few realize is that we have some very unsettled Northern boundary issues - with one particular country that is even more resource dependent than we are - and who has no hesitation to claim or occupy territory with full political, diplomatic and military support. What we largely ignore is that we really need to establish and maintain our presence in many of those remote areas, and it is the job we assign to our military to do so. Reality is: the Liberal and other left side of our political spectrum has relentlessly attacked the military - who are by their very sworn service to stand in support of the country's government are not able to defend themselves. It began with the ultimate best example of all Liberals - Paul Hellyer (who today is a UFOlogist - how's that for an elevator that doesn't go to the top floor?). Canada it is often said was "borne" on Vimy Ridge as a "real country" on its own account. Our military really showed its stuff in WWII - putting Canada in a situation postwar in which the military had an extremely high profile and respectable reputation both at home and abroad. The Liberals felt this a threat to their desire to absolutely dominate Canada, so Hellyer did as he was told and tried his level best to destroy that reputation and the institutions in which it was vested. When Trudeau #1 came to power, Hellyer found a perfect home as Minister to carry out such treachery, and Trudeau found the avenue to use his power to turn the military from a military force into an element of his socially engineered "just society" (which pretty much meant that if they had their way, all Canada would have left is "just" society - run by the LPC). And that brings us right back to another Liberal government - led by none other than the son of he who first made such a profound effort to destroy our military - that once more wants to dictate their airheaded version of absolute control over the country. Takes us right back to Michael's post above. The only reason Liberals (and Red Torries) have ANY use for our military is to continue to use procurement as a tax-funded sot to Quebec - where military and civil spending is directed without any other reason except to pacify and subsidize (with no doubt a considerable amount of "bleed back" to partisan contribution$$). We NEED an effectively trained and equipped military to meet our needs for sovereign defense, disaster support of civil governments and our obligations to the rest of the world. And, we are demanding that they do so with virtually NO support from the government, its bureaucracies and even the people for those who serve and those who have given of themselves and their families in service.

I have spent years and mega bux funding or executing legal proceedings that the Canadian legal profession did not have the integrity or balls to pursue or actually do within either the law or any sense of common decency or within ethical limits. Are there some good guys/gals in the legal profession? Yeah, but few of those will stay around due to the huge conflict when they realize the realities of what actually goes on. BTW: we are involved in another such case of significant importance in the US now, so the 49th is no limiting factor. If, as the OP and others have claimed that we owe some great debt of gratitude to those who are SWORN to uphold the law, my position is you will get that recognition when you clean up the filth and shit in your own cage first. Before you think I am going off on the legal profession alone: my own opinion is that maybe 5% of ANY profession is populated by those who are genuinely competent and maybe 1% who are selflessly dedicated.

And NOW you see why I am happy to see Quebec as a part of Canada. Merci, mes amis! Merci beaucoup.

"take on" would require a lot of classification as to what you mean. Can we take them on militarily? Not a hope in hell - nor would there be any reason to do so. Can we overpower their cultural influence? We have tried and failed miserably to do that. Can we take them on economically? We may have resources up the ying yang, but our economy adds very little value to those resources, whereas the US creates a fair bit of wealth by doing so - thus we haven't got a shot there. About the only things we have in greater proportion to the Yanks are resources, liberalism/socialism, rainbow parades and wildly over-entitled aboriginals.

Machjo: Probably one of not THE most thought provoking posts I have encountered here. I agree with the ideals of this concept, but where it falls apart is it would depend on having a judge with the skills to do so truly without prejudice and with great ability - things not normally associated with people who chose to make money out of or by creating the missfortune of others. Of course, this problem already exists within our relatively dissfunctional courts (thinking now of the pre-DNA convictions for murder that an inquisition MIGHT have righted up front - WITH a highly skilled and truly impartial judiciary - but that SHOULD have been the case even as it was, and it was not). Maybe the answer is for the regular petitfoggers and ambulance chasers to get appointed to a primary judicary, but the extremely rare impartial and highly skilled few could remain in an appelate court, where once convicted, they could apply to appeal under inquisitory terms.

I tried to find either an article or book I read by James Blanchard telling one of the behind-the-scenes stories about the Yes/No vote in '95. He was former Governor of Michigan, and IIRC married to a Canadian (at one point). VERY close communications between Clinton and Chretien through Blanchard (at that time US Ambassador to Canada) steered the extremely dangerous and stupid Canadian bureaucrats from screwing up the delicate balance. The Yanks had their bureaucrats under control, but it took a masterful effort by Chretien to minimize the damage done by our idiots. The end result was a very thin majority for the "No" - in part due to the extremely good co-operation between Ottawa and Washington - that later grew into a close and working friendship between Clinton and Chretien. All thanks to an Ambassador who actually knew and understood Canada very well. Sorry I could not find the text - I think you would find it very interesting. Also scary: we cam THAT close to breaking up Canada (and now the little Tur...I mean TRUdeau is taking us right back there).

Quebec is a very expensive luxury to Canada, but since it contains 8 million Canadians, one we pretty much have to pay to play with. Personally, I am properly pissed that French in my school years was barely taught, and I barely learned any. If we are going to be bi-lingual, IMHO we should BE bi-lingual and literally EVERYTHING should be done in both languages. Our children did French immersion, and speak fluent Parisian French. I was on board from day one for them to do so, but my wife (teacher) pointed out that one of best reasons to do so is that those who speak second (or more) languages and are advanced in music do extremely well with math and science. What has been mentioned is that unless they go out of their way, they simply don't get enough opportunity to speak French, and it hurts their proficiency. Little kid is fluent in 4 and conversant in 4 more, and is the "expert" in trying to maintain proficiency - that she supplements with a lot of international travel and work. That would be far easier if there was a lot more French in English Canada. Language has been a very useful developmental tool in our children's academic and professional life, and one they are passing on to our grandchildren. So for that, I say: "Vive la Quebec!"

Fascinating to see how this discussion is playing out. Questioning what IS "conservatism" and what is our true form of government is valid and worthwhile to pursue. My own humble opinion on the matters are that: Canada is a declared structural constitutional monarchy, but in reality functions as a democracy - for the most part. The Charter was drafted by some extremely radical leftists, and I believe the notwithstanding clause was the hand of Alan Blakeney seen in his prodigy Roy Romanow. Jean Chretien could not be said to be from anywhere near the right side (but will grant him some middle ground) of the spectrum, and the bloody lot of them were lawyers - a potential conflict of interest when it comes to who has precedent in final decisions - but even this wonky co-alition of the left was able to clearly see the threat of the judiciary running out of control vis-a-vis public interest. Queen Mandy: While I can agree for the most part with much of what you write, you have stepped a mile over the line when it comes to the judiciary and its "impartial" status of being non-partisan. I can tell you from having sat in the "back rooms" that almost EVERY appointment contains a considerable element of the partisan contribution to be left behind by each appointment. It was so bad that even Romanow (who was master of flagrantly abusing power and privilege) saw fit to protect us from it.

Right. All kids lie. Everything they say is not true. (BTW: that "kid" is a surgical resident - yeah can't trust them, can we?) She was there, you were not, but YOU know exactly what happened. Yeah, sub-Saharan African governments alway report the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You feeble efforts to deflect are pathetic.

My black friends (all American, and totally isolated from RSA today except for what they get in the media) claim that such claims of white rape and slaughter are being posted by white supremacist groups. My buddy's brother - a retired policeman living in Empangeni - points out to me that while there seem to be a fair number of white farmers being attacked and murdered, the official government record shows that it is simply not happening - and it is. Well, now that I was confused, I decided to ask a South African friend who recently emigrated to the UK. I had never discussed this with her before, but when I asked, her tone of voice changed dramatically and she told me of the three violent invasions of their family farm (by blacks) that in the last murdered her Mother's boyfriend and attempted to attack and kidnap her (other family members intervened). The police did nothing, crimes didn't happen. They decided it was time to go (two years ago) and to this time, 6 of her family and 7 more of her close friends are dead from many of these farm attacks that didn't happen. Now, 19 a year, and she alone can personally account for 14 of them? You REALLY think 19 is in any way representative and accurate>??????

Don't eliminate bilingualism, eliminate government employment.

Absolutely ANYTHING is possible with these people.