fixer1

Iknow this is a little upsetting to many but think about what you just said for the times. 10 years for the first, 25 for the second and life for the third. If you think about this if a person who is twenty does a violent crime he will get 10 for the first offence. So if he has never been granted national parole ( only once in a lifetime) he will be out in 3.4 years, but on parole for the next 6.6 years. If he reoffends again he will get the 6.6 plus the 25 for second offence ( assuming minimums) and wust serve 66% of time for provincial parole. So again after 21.4 years he will again get parole. He will now be 45 approx. If he again offends, but not of a violent crime, he will lose his parole of 11 years and now be 56. So at this point, what would you think is this guys chances of ever going straight? Hell even educated people have trouble finding new jobs at 56, what chance does this guy have. Any sentence this guy would get next is going to be a life sentence no matter what.

I find all this talk of there being no real value in more punishment, quite laughable. Only people who never have to worry about this kind of thing say such stupid statements that no one really rethinks their crimes because of mandatory minimums. I have in the past stepped on the line of the law and even some times may have crossed it. I can assure you that knowing that I would have to serve time for sure does enter many minds, of those who have not gone so far as to be a total criminal. This is the vast majority of people by the way. If you only look at the hardened criminals, yes they will not change anything. But then again they are not going to be getting the first level sentence any way are they. They will get the 10 year plus terms and that will make them be gone for most of that time. In terms of what I do not like about this is they have made this so wide that it encompasses things where I have made my errors in judgements. I have been charged with theft of telecommunications, and have already had a deal made etc. I have been fined heavily and have 18 months probabtion for my act, and no criminal prosecution. The trouble now would be that they are even considering computer crimes as one of the ones with mandatory minimums. That to me is really way out of order, but yes I can see that one day it being a much bigger problem. Where do we draw the line. If I had of known that I risked 5 years for doing what I did, I would have definitely have not done it. But then again I never used a gun for my crime and there was no violence. I have seen the ugly under belly of the justice system, and I can tell you that there are more criminal on the justice side, then many would like to think. I am all for saying that gun crimes, violence, and Cild porn and sex offenders, should have mandatory minimums. But when you try to add other things it just gets to crazy. Under the new guide lines, to get to be a 3 time offender you will have spent 22 years minimum in jail, so that would preety much mean that any fourth time offenders would be of the geriactric kind. Also I would probably see that minimums not again be given afyter the first offence, so 4time offenders will nit be likely. I can and will support the kind of bill that would do that. I would like to think though that there must be some way to address the few that this should not apply to, so that there is a method in place to correct the oddities it will create.

Not a whole lot of stuff in this budget for me, but I do believe that young families and and the low and mid incomes earn ers will be far better off now then they were before. That to me is more important then my own personal position. I do get a bit of a tax break as mose of my income is from investments, and non-taxable disability pension. I see this as a good step forward and the first of what will become known as the return to our senses budgets. The Liberals will not be ready to even try and challenge this government or any other for at least a decade, as any move now will only drop them to below NDP status. There is not one person run ning for their party leader that will instll any kind of support from the voters, and as long as the CPC can run and make budgets like this, they will have np problem making the minority work. The only thing that may make a change and that is id the CPC see it it ripe for an election to be held to gain a majority government. That could be a wild card for now. But as for any party being able to bring down this minority on their own goes, that is not even an option.

I would like to see the GST be included on everything including food and health services. It should be raised to 18 % and we should scrap the income taxes completely. That way the provinces could add their sales tax at even a higher rate then now and scrap their income taxes as well. It would mean that every Canadian person no matter if they worked or not would pay proably in the area of 30% in taxes. There would be no cheaters and it would make our cost of living a much better place.

Canada is at war in Afghanistan, and in war we do not lower our flag for individual deaths but we do honour all thise who gave collectively on Rememberence Day. This has long been the accepted course in these matters and I do not see any reason to change such at this time. I am all for showing honour and gratitude in these type of things, but just as the fighting of a war is a things where we have our integrated fighting forces, out there as a team, and no one man is going to be the linch pin to stop our resolve. They fight as a unit and yes some will die in the effort. We owe them a lot. But not on an individual basis. That is why we have a day of Rememberance for those who have died in the cause of keeping Canada a free nation and the ability to seek out our dreams and achieve them accordingly. On that day we do remember and we do lower the flag. It is our way and has been for nearly 9 decades. No one mans death is reason to chnage that now.

When it comes to government planning it is very hard for the governments to plan around the fact that many couples are having only one child. You then need to take up that slack with immigration etc. If there were a program that made it possible and even easy for couples to have lets say 3 or more children, then we could plan better and our social programs would be easily costed out and paid for. I will not qualify for any of the money offered as my time raising children is done and over, but I am fully supportive of any government program that allows for, or makes it easier for couples to have children. Canada has many natureal resources but we do seem to lack one resource in the form of children. Back when I was being raised you pretty much saw 3-4 children in every family, now I would believe 1-2 children families are the norm. That just is not good enough. Maybe we need soem defective birth control pills Just kidding of course.

The poor Press Gallery just can not live without the Liberals scandle a month type government. They are not used to good government where there are no scandles because it simply does what it said it was going to do. Where is the story in that. Or how about reporting on the good side of things instead of the bad. Again I guess no story in that. I would like to think that Harper and the CPC are going to continue moving forward with the same crdeible bills and ledgislature, in a way that does not rile the people. But I am sure sooner or later they will have to pass something that will have controversy, and then these poor reporters will again have anothe helping served to them.

Blubberymiley You say you have used it everyday for 20 years. That it helps you feel happy and jovial. Well I hate to inform you, but that is a problem. You feel you need some drug to get ypou through the day, and to make you feel in ways you would not other wise. That to me sounds like addiction, even though you say you can quit cold turkey when travelling. You do admit to affected dreams and mood when without it. Now I assume you do frive sometime and being that you use everyday, I will also assume that you do drive while high. So while you do not see yourself as a problem, those around you probably will. Do not get me wrong, when I was younger I did drugs for a bit but was then drawn into the selling drugs by a group where no seller was ever a user. I left tjhat life behind at age 20. I have many things I regret and that time is one that I really have to question myself on. You seem on the other hand to fondly remember those days and carry them to adulthood. Take it from one who has seen all sides of the drugs. It is not pretty and it ruins at least 90% of all people who use for a short time (6 months to a year). That is why even the Mob were slow getting into this business but now it is their main money maker.

I am really sick of this Alcohol is the same argument as it is not the same and only those who take it to the excess really believe it is the same. Alcohol is used by the vast majority of people in limits that do not cause the ills of society. So why do we always make arguements for the tiny number who abuse it. Coffe can and will cause the same if it is abused, but we all know that it is hard to get to that level of abuse. Most of those who abuse alcohol would find some other method to medicate themslves, and only the worst of these take it to the level where death is the result. Drugs on the other hand are mostly about getting you ridiculously stoned and not caring what is happening around them. This is dangerous just as it is when alcohol is used to get the same level. So yes, why not make this illegal and since therev is no way to control the drugs, you then have to control the deallers. Me, I go with the death penalty for all 3rd time offenders for dealing drugs. To me, these guys are as bad as murders and rapists on society. I also believe that all 3rd time drunks that have been jailed over night, should be put into a 60 day dry out period, no matter their social status. the same for drunk driving, but 1st offense 30 days, second offense 1 year, 3rd offence 3years and lifetime ban on driving, where everytime he is caught behind the wheel drunk or not he serves 3 years. Yes that is harsh and sobering but that is what is needed. Any child caught with pot will have to turn in his suppliers or spent 9 months in training school at parents expense. Any person caught selling drugs within one mile of a school, will get the maximum prison sentence, even on the first offence. I guess you get my drift by now. This is what will get the attention and will reduce the abuse of all products. The trouble now is that everything is just so easily brushed off, so there is no deterent to the use.

I laugh at the whole idea of "The War on Drugs". If it was really a war, they could win it, but it would have severe consequences. For example if they were serious about this, they could simply bring in a war measures act that made it mandatory for everyone to take weekly drug tests. Anyone caught 3 times for using will be considered a prisoner of war and detained. Yes that is way over the top, but so is a real war. The push to reduce drug use would be a more appropriate description of what they are doing. In a real war anyone caught suppling the enemy was put to death. But we do not put drug pushers to death, but rather incarcerate them at publics expense. So yes as far as the War on drugs goes it always was and still is a flop. Not that it can not be won. It is just that it never was a true war in the first place.

Nocrap You just do not make any sense in your posting at all. It has one thing though that is glaringly present in all of this, and that is you hate Harper and the CPC. Your reasons are not even understanable, and you logic is that of a programmed zombie. I sure am glad that you are a Liberal supporter, as as long as they have people like you, the rest around you will see this and vote for CPC just because they would never want anything to be like you. The idea of being able to debate is to have open minds. Do you actually believe you have an open mind. I do not mean vacant but open. This just makes me wonder just how anybody can get to this point and not even know the facts.

Nocrap it is so obvious that you dislike Harper, it would not matter what he wore or did, you would not like it. I believe that his attempt to bring in an accountability act is very good and it is just one thing that the Canadian people have voted for. It is probably the one of the 5 five priorities that everyone should be able to agree on. I do think that the other parties may even make suggestions that will make it even more accountable, as this is one time that they all can show that they have turned a new leaf so to speak. Anyone going againt this initiative is not going to be held high in the next elections. I do think this was watered down some, so other parties can and will make input and there by have a chance to make it an all party bill. I think that is the smart way. But I am sure your feelings for Harper will make you see this differently.

I live outside of Ottawa but have in the past gone to the Monfort Hospital and I do not speak French. I was received and treated promptly and was ok with the fact that yes they spoke French first but did revert to english when informed I could not speak French. That was back in the days whenthe Montfort had a rating so low that it was a wonder why the government allowed it to run . Since then my mother who aslo can not speak french had been taken there by ambulance and she had no problem at all. I think the poster who started this thread is grand standing as there probably is not even 1% straight Francophones on staff there and I will also say that no you do not see a lot of license plates from Quebec in the employees parking lot. I do believe that Ont was railroaded into keeping the Montfort open when it had such a terrible reputation for malpractice and was always at the bottom of the ratings, when other better hospitals were closed. But since that time they have upgraded and new personal have been better educated to make it a hospital that is on par with the average. There is no problem with language to anyone who does not have a chip on their shoulder, and other then many of the maintenance staff, all are bilingual. Some times when a crisis comes people are very quick to judge and probably be harsher then normal, but In all of the city of Ottawa it would be hard to find many totally Francophone people. I rather doubt most of the posts about it being French only. I do know that it has passed its Accreditation and is raed as bilingual and no complaints are on file with CCHSA (Canadian Council of Health Accreditaion Services) about it.

It just amazes me that people just do not see what is right in front of them. The CPC will go through the roof if they simply do the one thing that the liberals never did. That is do exactly what they promised to do during the election and do it as fast as possible. Those simple acts will garantee a majority government for them next time around. The biggest thing you heard during last election was people saying they are all corupt and they never do what they say they will do. So it only goes that when you can show the people that you mean what you say, that in and of itself will garner more votes then anything else. It does not even have to be things that the people will like, as long as you live up to your word. It is sad but true that in all of the electoral process we still want to find just one honest party that means what it says.

I maybe wrong but is Brisson not an admitted gay person. If this is true I think that while canada may tolerate may gay ideas and rights, I just do not think that we would support a gay Prime Minister. We may lean left of center in some things, but that ...well lets just say we are not going to go that way any time soon.

I believe Canada has an obligation to help out any where in the world, that it can do so, as long as it has a goal to bringing the lands that they are in, to a better understanding and position for emerging nations. We have been blessed with having a country that is peaceful and non aggressive. Our own borders have beenneglected for many years and today our military can not enforce our sovereign rights to much our our nothern lands. We need a larger military and one that is artic capable and patrolling these lands. We can not just let the north go its own way, as that will be the saving growth areas in the coming years. If we can not enforce our own borders, how will we be able to make claims of lands that we never get to visit. Our military needs to be at least double the size it is presently and it should also have a contingent that is only for domestic disasters, like flood and fire etc.. We need a policing force for mostly foreign service and we need a protecting force for our own sovereignty. Yes that means larger forces, and better equipment. I would like to see the military manufacture its own equipment and become more self sufficient, but that would be a long way off. We need ships capable of transversing the artic, yet we have let our countries shipyards go to other nations. We need helicopters, yet we are destined to buy for foreign nations, when we have the talent and materials all at hand here in Canada. I would like to see the military be a force we can be proud of. Yes it will take money, but if we invest the money in Canada, we will all benefit

I sorrybut the people who use public transit are already subsidized more then enough. Not only do my taxes go towards reducing the fares they pay. They also have special lanes and transit ways that I can never use as a car driver. The rebates on hybrids does make a lot of sense to me and it would go a long way to helping reduce the emmissions. You would need many dozens of hybrid auto to emit just what one Transit bus emits in a day. The batteries from these cars are fully recycleable, so they will not be a problem when their usefulness is gone. The whole idea behind the hybrids are that it will also lend itself to fuelcell technology at a reasonable cost when that system is in place. It would seem to me that you may have only looked at this from one side. I personally will never use the public transit, as I do not do well in crowds and when push comes to shove I will definitely shove right back. So I make sure never to put myself into those type of situations. I only go to the city for its entertainment value. I like the country and I am not against the green idea. Hell I have 13,000 trees on my tree farm, and they probably produce more oxygen and consume more carbon dioxide then I ever will produce. If cities were to simply amke it a rule that every new home in the city has to have 4 trees growing on its lots, then they would do wonderes for the environment. The answer to the green idea is not and should not all be about reduced emmissions. The city needs more green areas where plant life can thrive and people can go and enjoy it. The trees on my property are all over 40 ft tall now and if I took the number of trees by the number of tons of carbon dioxide each tree takes out of the environment, then I should be given huge tax breaks, because I am making up for several thousand others who do nothing. I am going to assume you live in the city. If you have a yard, have you planted any trees in that yard? If you live in a highrise with only a balcony, you can have flowers or shrubs growing and making a contribution to the environment. All to often we blame what we see ass easy targets, in this whole green issue, when really the problems can be seen in the mirros of most of those who complain about those others who drive their cars. I bet you that a very large portion of those people in their cars are from the suburbs. They probably have yards with grass and trees and lots of flowers around their homes. They take lots of time and effort to do this and it does go towards cleaning up the environment. Yes, they could take mass transit to work. But since they already have actually given to cleanign the air, why should they now punish themselves by not having the privacy and convenience of their auotmobiles. If all the people who live in the city took the time, troble and the costs to plant trees, shrubs and flowers around their own homes and work places, I bet you that things would be a whole lot better for the air quality. But of course then we will have those that suffer allergies saying that we now have too much pollen, and it will go on and on.

The afghanistan conflict is no longer a war, in only that it has alreadt unseated the old Taliban and replaced it with a new government chosen by the people. So while yes there is a part of this that has aggressive tactics and is very dangerous just by nature. It is exactly the type of action Canada is known for. Canadians are so well known that you only have to be wearing the maple leaf flag while in the Netherlands, and people will come and shake your hand thanking you for all those things Canadians did in the WWII. We were a freeing force back then and we had a reputation of being well trained and a trustworthy army. That is what we are once again doing all over the world. Our troops are trained in peace keeping, but you all must think that we never fire a shot in any of this, and that is completely wrong. Our troops have probably the best reputation of any troops when it comes to being an force for rebuilding. We also have a very prized group of elite soldiers and special ops forces that are well trained and equipped. These when deployed will by there very nature be in hostile areas, and yes they will kill and seek out the enemy. That is why we have these men and women. The forces in Afghanistan are mostly peacekeeping and infastructure rebuilding. About 25% are really battle trained and field ready units, and yes they do their job as well as anybody else. Unfortunately, back here in Canada we have those who just prey on the fact that some of these soldiers pay from their own money to get some things that make them more comfortable and there fore more alert, and may save their or someone else's life. These people will make political hay of any and everything because they can not understand why they did so lousey in the last elections and for them, there is nothing better then this type of garbage to bring up. They could not care anything for those in the field, but they will say different. If there were a large body count, they would be almost euphoric in attacking the present administration. By watch them deny this, almost with enough passion to make it seem that maybe they are not gloating. I watched Layton today yap about having an emergency debate on this and there is no emergency at hand. He says that the agreement to hand prisoners to the Afghan authorities, could have been misrepresented, and yet he admits he has no evidence or anything even pointing to this direction. He was easily portrayed as an idiot by the newscaster, and he just was not even prepared when he was asked questions about his position. His only plan is to may a public display about how the NDP will force the PC's to make a change in anything good or bad, so he can claim next election that his party has some value. It is so easily seen that it shames me to watch. I must admit I do not watch much anymore when he is on as I have a limit on how much garbage I ingest at one time. The Liberals have been shaking the bushes as well, trying to paint Harper with the Bush brush. While yes there are many commonalities, there also are just as many differences. The scoop of the day is that Bush will present a prize to Canada this week, when Harper meets him and Fox in Cancun Mx. Of course it must have nothing to do with maybe having a more open releationship, or could it have been for some work that may well have been done to get what ever this Prize as the news calls it. The Block will not be for the troops in Afghanistan, as they will take money away that could be given to Quebec. It seems that even before the throne speech is done and a speaker appointed. The scrums will have all been started and the battling well in to it. There is no need to discuss what is happening in Afghanistan and there is no need to ask the public's permission to be there.

I just am plain fed up with jerks who think that our soldiers buying their own equipment is a funny thing. It is not that they want a soft faberic or stylist boots, it is because they may have to put their life on the line and boots that are not designed for desert and clothing may mean the difference between coming home alive and coming home dead. So they see it as when it is their own life what position would you take. That to me is a shame on each and every Canadian taxpayer. We ask these maen and women to put their lives on the line, and we increase the odds that they could die by suppling less then the best equipment. So some accountant can balance his budget. I would welcome the Canadian armed forces to become selfsufficient, but since they are not a for profit agency they can not just manufacture their own equipment. But That would be a good thing to see though. Maybe that is what we need, is a military that manufactures their own clothing and equipment. Boy, would that just be a great thing. Build our own weapons and planes and ships. Then watch all the Boeing's and others scream foul. Hell Macdonald Douglas would, just disappear. But maybe that is what we need to have happen, since it seems to be more of a comedy routine to most.

Torture is wrong to be used by both sides in this matter. Also these are prisoners of war not detainees, as the USA likes to call them, so they can circumvent what few rights they have. It is wrong for Canada to turn over these prisoners to the USA and all these prisoners should be kept in prisons within Afghanistan, not half way around the world in Cuba. I am all for Canada taking part in Afghanistan, but we should also not be used by the USA to further their goals etc. All prisoners should have rights and it should be shown that we believe in those rights and show that simply by the fact we honour them, when we atke prisoners. I believe what the USA is doing is wrong and should be stopped, but we all know that they will not heed anything we have to say about it. So every prisoner captured by Canadian troops should be held by us and not turned over to the USA>

Also since you think that nurses make so much why is it that many have gone to the USA and made the numbers I said they should make when exchange is figured in. You may know some nurse who make what you say but very few. A registered nurse must complete her college diploma and train before she is licensed to practice. Yes They have changed the name for RNA but the position is the same. RNA's and lesser in the field make more outside in private healthcare jobs outside the hospitals. If nurse in Alberta can make that kind of money I can easily send them a few hundred willing people.

Yes I do know what nurse's make and it is 35-40 thousand per year. They have as long a training period as getting a BA degree and many have a BA. in nursing. They work extended shifts and are expected to do all the dirtiest of work. I would figure a good nurse should be making around $55,000 to $60,000 per year, with some nursing specialists it would be $75+ per year. Nurse's aids are presently paid below $30K per year. If a nurse instead spent the same education to become a pharmacist they would make 3-4 times what they do now, and have better shifts. AND...nurses do NOT require a degree. A degree is only required if they want to assume a supervisory position (charge nurse, unit manager, resource nurse, etc...). RN's DO NOT do the "dirtiest of work", that is what LPN's are for (and it's Licensed Practical Nurse, not Nurses Aid anymore). Now, if an RN was a first year new-grad, and accepted a casual position (because she didn't WANT a 0.6, 0.8 or full time) and worked in a small community hospital where they only worked eight hour shifts (instead of the normal 12's) she could CONCEIVABLY make under $50k per year...but not likely. Hydraboss you need to find real Canadian statistics because CCHSA hires nurses who have given up hope and pays them $50k per year asz health consultants. They could hire every Registered nurse there is as they are being paid 35-40K per year. Surgical nurses will get 50-60 k per year. I have made many a joke that a Mechanic working for the Hydro or government gets a higher wage thena nurse. Also nurses need 3 yera college diploma and 2 year training. or 4 year university degree and 1 year training. There are nurses who have masters degrees that make in the area you said but that is it.

I'll say this, though: when Harper is using lines ripped straight out of the Gee Dubya phrasebook, he opens himself up to such comparisons. And you can't tell me that choices of phrase like "cut and run" and "support our troops" are not calculated. Harper's handlers can't be so obtuse as to be unaware of just who those terms conjure up. Care to elaborate? It seesm to me that this Afghan mission doesn't do much for ordinary working Canadians: certainly no one in favour of the deployment has stressed what benefits we get out of this other than warm fuzzies at the sight of little Afghan girls going to school and the hope that maybe the cool kids (U.S., U.K) will let us sit next to them in the cafeteria. Given Canadians' apparent unease over the mission (if not outright confusion), it doesn't seem like they are getting any answers. And for Harper's use of the old "support the troops" line shows the government isn't interested in selling this mission to Canadians; they just want Canadians to shut up and go along with it. After all, the government knows best (and here I thought the CPC was all about change....) I am really now wanting to stop laughing at your "what is in it for us" type rant, but I guess the warm and fuzzies just tickle in to do so. The average Canadian does care what happens in Afghangistan, for many reasons, some have to do with bringing a more freedom based approach to the way woman are looked at in that country, but also to maybe bring some sense to rebuild in a way that will allow the people to further their own interests without having to grow poppies for the drug lords. Maybe it is just the fact that as Canadians we have a habit of making the placesw where we have served in, better places for our having been there. Where else do we train our troops, that have the real life factors. We will be increasing our military so just where and how do you train them to be efficient in the field. Yes there will be casualties and that is the sad part, but it is also part and parcel of just what we need to do in this world to help it grow and not just degrade into little fiefdoms where life and death have no value at all. When these troops come home and they have experienced all that they will have, do you think they will better be able to protect Canada? Do you think Canada is seen as being higher in peoples minds or lower for the role they play here? O r are you like the rat in the disney movie Charlottes web that says "what is in it for me Charlotte"?

Yes I do know what nurse's make and it is 35-40 thousand per year. They have as long a training period as getting a BA degree and many have a BA. in nursing. They work extended shifts and are expected to do all the dirtiest of work. I would figure a good nurse should be making around $55,000 to $60,000 per year, with some nursing specialists it would be $75+ per year. Nurse's aids are presently paid below $30K per year. If a nurse instead spent the same education to become a pharmacist they would make 3-4 times what they do now, and have better shifts.

I see that all the whining is out in full force and all the unhappy people are again findingtheir right to voice opinions even though it has little affect. People need to get over the fact that Harper as the Prime Minister has the full right to make decisions without parliaments debating each ancd everyone of them. It is the law and it has been around since Canada has been. Layton says "that sooner or later a debate will happen", of course it will but you have no say in this and so you need to understand that what you feel you must say is of little or no importantance, on the military actions in Afghanistan. He is just trying to find a crack some where, so he can say next election "see I made a difference ". It is just so pathetic. The Block is not for any of this, as it has nothing to do with Quebec and the money spent there, will never help quebec at all. But we all know this, because he said this same thing over and over during his last election attempt, that he will only vote in favour of things that are in Quebec's best interests. The liberals were the ones who put these troops ther in the first place, so I doo not see there to be any need for debate, or even discussion, as it will not change anything, other then showing just how much opposition we have her at home to this action. I personally hope that it is like I expect, and that it is only the whiners and those who can not think of anything beyond themselves. I do know that they are in the minority though, and it is just a waste of time to give them much of a stage to vent their themes. One one the things promised in the last election was a increased size of trained Cannadian military. Also more funding to equip them with the necessary tools to use incase of a conflict. The fact that Canada does not have much in the way of troop deployment in the far north to protect our soverignty, is still some thing that amazes me. The natural resources of our northern territories are far greater then what we have in the now populated areas of our country. These we are pretty much putting in a position to be up for grabs, everyday we think it better to spend money else where. So yes we must show support for our northn and we must protect it or lose it. Having a larger and better equipped army is just one of those things. The trouble is that once you have built and trained these personal, they need experience in war zones and even in peace keeping duties. You get that by sending them to areas like Afghangistan, and that is where all our training will be tested. When they come back they will be better trained then they were when they left . Yes we will lose some and the fact that they are fighting what I would call the good fight, then these lost mmen and women will have died for a cause that was worthy of their effort. I am asamed of those who can only cry foul and scream for debate on this, as you are the enemies of a true democracy. You only know the word "ME" when it comes to things to have attention paid to them. The laws and the rules as they now sit allow for the Prime Minister to go ahead with the actions in Afghanistan, without any further debate, as time for debate was back when the Liberals made the decision to send the troops, not now. The time has come for all to put aside all the pety bickering and say that we will support our troops. If any of you want to have a debate on this, then when the terms of the engagement are chnged by any large degree, is the time to debate it. Not now!