cougar

I agree with this one of your statements. With the rest I maintain you are way off course. The problem with further discussion is, we've been there before. We know what comes next. People denying obvious facts, events from the past, well established and science supported opinions till the point one loses their cool and all ends in a pissing match. No need for that. And , no, I do not believe in the framework of environmental laws and that it will save the environment. Not a chance.

You immediately provided good examples of what I wanted to demonstrate to you. You even read the Bible wrong and misinterpreted what it is trying to tell you. "God gave man dominion over all things on the earth " does not equate to "God gave man the right to destroy all things on the earth" You support the destruction of our environment which means you support the destruction of the creative power that made you be. You are fighting against God. Why would he grant you eternal life? To you? So you can bicker with others on the internet for all eternity? The system failed you and you can't see that.

So it was high school PLUS the Bible ? And you did not interpret the Bible correctly either. Oh Lord! I would recommend you are less assertive in what you believe because the chances are you are very wrong.

You go round and round in circles like a broken record. What was your highest level of education, if I may ask?

You create a country of prosperity exactly by thinking and manufacturing products the rest of the world can't. If you can't think, you are left cutting trees.

Does the Government subsidize the oil and gas industry? Yes. (even on its way out) All manufacturing jobs are built on private enterprise as well. You have no leg to stand on. (hint: time to fly away)

Was it you who came up with all of this, or you copied / pasted something from the net? Any idea how many of the "capitalists" (those of us living in a capitalist country) achieve (and what meaning do you give this word?) compared to the rest who are spinning on a low orbit (remaining in a second world country despite supposedly living in a first world one) ? Second world , or a developing country, used to mean a country of low technologic development; one that cannot manufacture high end goods; one that typically has a high population density of impoverished citizens. Such a country relies on its natural resources to get the goods and services it needs from the developed world. A second aspect would be the education level of citizens, intellectual development, core values, humanity (ability to empathise with, support and be part of a wider group). A third aspect would be a balanced lifestyle - how much time you are left with for yourself and what you can do with it. Unfortunately a house and a truck would not make one a first world person living in a first world country.

And this is where the big problem is. The court goes by rights given to the F.N.'s at a time fish and trees were considered endless. What was the population of Canada at that time? What is it now and how do the fish stocks and trees left compare now to back then? Something needs to change.

I disagree with all of this. It is up to the government to give industries a boost by using the necessary economic tools and this is what Trump is doing - bring jobs back to USA. If we follow your logic and advice, the country will remain a timber warehouse with oil sand dunes in the middle. You will never have the power to stand up to anyone, because you are dependent on them. In fact they will not even need you once they buy your land.

So you are an Albertan currently in exile in BC? Would be interesting to read your plea letter to Trump; "Please Mr.Trump, please, pretty please make me the billionaire I deserve to be. I am voluntarily giving my province away; just please liberate me from all these Canadian liberals!"

He may not be that stupid. He has a valid point, just did not express it correctly. Those nets the FN's used in the past have nothing to do with the modern nets they are using now. Why not let them weave their traditional nets, instead of getting them strong and very long nets most likely made in some Chinese factory with taxpayer money? Why not let them fish traditionally with their canoes instead of those modern boats fitted with outboard powerful motors paid by taxpayer money? Why not let them go to the river on their horses, instead of the Ford F150 pickups paid with taxpayer money? When rights were given in the past to FN's the presumption was of endless fish resources. Turns out trees and fish are not endless. Due to long lasting damage to ecosystems done, fish stocks cannot rebound. Time to rethink and re-negotiate all FN priority laws and agreements.

Don't know how this relates to what I am trying to tell you. You can have any number of new jobs in any manufacturing industry. They can pay no less than the resource based jobs.

The answer would be obvious - manufacturing jobs and services.

It is also possible that the exact opposite is true. Maybe it is the conservatives who are too stupid to learn that jobs do not equate with oil and gas, mining and logging jobs only. Their anti-environment position has become widely known to the Canadian public and with that they have become the dinosaurs of the past. It may be time to just scrap the party, change its name, send its supporters to another planet and such.

I wouldn't. Don't have the competence in this field. The FN's can do their arguing. My feeling is our government through their subsidies have been and is still paying the FNs the equivalent of pad rent, so they (our Government) can continue to operate their businesses on FN land.

No.o.o This land (not the country) needs me to rid it of nefarious pr-i-ks.

If the law says land is theirs, then they may decide to kick us all out. Unless we want to rewrite the laws, bring back the residential schools and restart the genocide till no FN's are left.

Have you traveled at all? Start traveling and you might come to realize that you yourself are in a shithole, not the other way round.

No we don't want pipelines. You sound more like an Albertan living in BC. We had that scuffle with Alberta already when Notley was giving us ultimatums. Remember?

You can separate. Then we in BC and Eastern Canada can deny you access to ports, right of way for pipelines and your only export routs will be through the Arctic or the friendly USA. Wait, you can't make it to the Arctic either - the NWT will be in the way.

You can direct your question to Trump. Isn't this what he has been trying to achieve with his tariffs? A big mistake was made in the past allowing manufacturing to be outsourced to Asia. Now they have the facilities and can keep us in check. Raw materials they can get from anywhere - Russia, other parts of Asia, Africa, South America etc. But we can only get our goods from them. When you lost your independence, all that is left is to sell your resources and land and call it quits.

They must care about their own kids at least. Strange. 😕

How is Western Europe doing it? We can do it the same way, except we have the advantages of our own resources and space.

So typical of a conservative mind - the only way to prosperity has to be resource stripping and selling; nothing else! Look at Western Europe - how many countries with a higher standard of living - more people per square kilometer, little in the way of natural resources - timber, minerals, oil and gas. They import what they need, but are able to produce high end goods and services. The fact we are in the position we are now is pathetic and is mostly due to the conservative way of thinking. Continue down this path and you are digging yourself even deeper.

If you are correct, then it must be only conservatives who have kids.