Jerry J. Fortin

I see this as a case of a nation not withdrawing from lands seized in armed conflict. One point worth mentioning is that the land was captured in response to an unprovoked military assault and held as a security measure. Those conflicts were resolved without an agreement to return the captured lands, this of itself provides all the legal means by international law. Of course laws can be changed but there is a reality to be considered here. It is not mere dates and facts to be brought into question.....all these events have transpired to bring us to now. What nation on this earth can be expected to have its internal affairs mandated by the UN? What nation on earth would bow to the will of the UN? This entire argument is absurd, it is not rational. At best the world needs to consider that any conflict in Israel would be an internal one and be declared as a civil war. Until once again a nation attacks Israel and a war will again follow, Chances are that once again Israel will capture more territory, and the cycle will continue. The only "fix" is to settle the Palestinians as citizens of Israel within the occupied territories and avoid military use altogether. That done democracy rules................

Harper and Watergate in the same sentence.....hmmmm. I think Steve is getting screwed by low level people not doing what they should be doing. I think Steve is getting buggered by mid level people not riding herd on low level subordinates. I think Steve is about to have sex with the cabinet.

The pot business could represent a new multi-billion dollar industry for this nation. If the government had any brains at all it would see the legislative shift as a tax grab like it does with everything else. These new sources of revenue could be targeted as debt reduction funds, eventually sin taxes should be used as part of a comprehensive debt relief economic action plan of enlightened reformation. The 800 pound gorilla is national debt. Everything relates to it it in the worst way.

Harper is merely doing some political wrangling. The shuffle is a response to inquiries about running in the next election, Steve is filing the holes. In my view at this point public support is trending away from the entire Conservative Party, I think Harper will define his government with this shuffle, not to bolster his own power base but instead to attack political opposition. I am not convinced that the PM is confident in his own party....

What the former PM was saying was that in his view, Trudeau is in fact formidable.

They are scared. They should be.

I am going to be a Liberal voter in the next election. My decision has already been made. It was based on my dislike of the current government. Harper sold his political soul to get power. From his opinions while involved in the NCC and in addition, the Alberta Firewall Letter and his connection to that, and every scandal since he has taken power, Harper has no support from me. The point I was making was that in fact the government of Steven Harper has chosen to spend Conservative Party funds, which are in reality subsidized with government funds, in an attempt to prevent positive or favorable public opinion for Trudeau.

In truth the Conservatives are scared. The next election is too far away and therefore its outcome cannot be accurately predicted. Conservative numbers are trending down along with the NDP while the Liberals are trending upward. This attack ad recognizes the direct political threat that Trudeau represents. There is concern within the ranks that leader approval ratings will have high impact on voter turnout. That spells distinct trouble for Harper. Trudeau needs to energize the apathetic voter in order to actually defeat the Harper government. There is a great deal of speculation as to the demographic with most folks suggesting an anti government sentiment is prevalent. If that is the case I would suggest that Trudeau needs to have the patience to rise above the temptations of petty politics. A leader that marginalizes partisan rhetoric could garnish much support over a short period of time. Since he is neither the government nor the opposition, so he can pick and choose which battles he fights with great care and slowly formulate policy based on popular not partisan support. Should he proceed carefully by the time the next policy convention takes place he will have established the level of popular support for each of his chosen policies. At that point, on the convention floor the party will have the opportunity to solidify policy that reflects a majority of Canadians views.

Somebody on here must know how long after those rockets were fueled will they have to be drained and serviced? The answers I find vary, but anywhere from as little as 24 to as many as 72 hours is enough time for the fuel to corrode the tanks rendering them unsafe to say the least. Given that there are reports that a medium ranged rocket is vertical and ready to launch we can expect one of two outcomes. It gets taken down and serviced or it gets launched. Soon....

This is beginning to get interesting! Harper and an olive branch,,,,,! This is indeed precedent turf! An alternative caucus, just because we can't let you go...... This is a new approach!

I don't know, but it seems you do! Can you share what you think with me, because I really don't have a clue what they think! In the past the precedent seems to be ejection from caucus for the back bench folks, and at least demotion to the backbench if not ejection from a cabinet position. Following that reasoning there are 24 no longer Conservative MP's that are no longer counted support votes for the government. As to what a majority of MP's think all I can figure is that there was no recorded support of Warwa to be found.

The real question to be asked is whether or not elected representatives speak for their constituents or not. The real answer is painful to accept. That is reality. While the political and media issues spin and twist in the wind the public begins to demand the answer to the real question. The Conservatives are in trouble, and the latest spin is about Trudeau not being ready to govern, an attack ad planned for release before the Liberal Leadership vote. Distracting the public, yet fooling nobody. The real question is whether or not Parliament or the Prime Minister is supreme.

The problem of politicians salaries at public expense is indeed difficult. In truth it doesn't matter how much they are paid, its never enough for them and always too much for the tax payer. In my opinion, the wages of MP's should be immediately frozen pending a public inquiry. If it was up to me I would not pay them a dime until they balanced the books, not a red cent! The very idea that a government can predict that they will spend more money than they will receive a year into the future is a slap in the face to the public. To add insult to injury the government is constantly involved in cost overruns and additional expenses on a daily basis. Not that any of this matters at all in reality given that the nature of the beast is such that a politician is drawn to money like a moth is drawn to a light. They write the laws, it goes down the way they want it to.

Politicians voting themselves raises is not even newsworthy! I expect nothing less from them. As for the rest of us, reality sets in and whatever the market will bear sets our wages.

The Bank of Canada was created as a private bank, that is a matter of public record. The shareholders of that bank are not a matter of any public record I can find and I have looked very hard. The bank was made into public business in 1938, by an act of parliament to create a special kind of crown corporation. The Bank of Canada changed its name and became the Canadian Bank of Commerce and is now known as the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. The new central bank was formed, and the terms and conditions of the transfer of ownership are nowhere to be found. I believe it is safe to say that the owners of the Bank of Canada were compensated in some manner that was never disclosed to the public. I do not believe for a minute that the owners of that bank suffered any loss. The Bank of England was in private hands for two hundred years, and there are no accessible records regarding that transaction either. There is a large difference between share and bond holders in legal terms. Those terms were defined by the financial world, private not government banks. Bonds can be very interesting investments, the same cannot be said for shares that are subject to swings in market values. Bonds require different record keeping and come under different regulations. In addition, some bonds can be converted to shares...................... Governments print money, that is true. What is also true is that banks create credit, governments don't. Banks make money, governments don't. By the way more than 90% of the worlds money supply is not in bank notes and hard currency but instead it is interest bearing debt, issued as credit by a bank.

From my point of view the issue in question, a motion to ban sex screening abortions, now has less relevance than the reaction which stemmed from it. The fact is that ALL partisan factions believe they have to use this partisan parliamentary tool of whips to achieve desired ends. The MP's have always been talking heads doing the bidding of their masters, it should be expected that a rogue representative will be encountered, that is a given. This system we use in fact regularly deals with this issue of rogue MP's. However this is no longer about either the original motion, or now even about the muzzle effect reaction by partisan leadership, because the situation is morphing into an internal partisan strife based on a following of sympathetic backbench Conservative MP's. The situation is simply this, there are sufficient numbers of rogue MP's that Harper is now unable to follow his own precedent and have the rogues be ejected from caucus. To do so would effectively eliminate his majority in the House of Commons by not being able to whip a vote to his advantage. Without the support of a majority of members, Harper will surely face a non-confidence motion at the first opportunity by opposition members. That being the case, the ABC's of logistics rule, Anybody But Conservative versus everybody who is Conservative. . He only has one decision to make, to eject or not to eject............ that is the question.

Dirty Alberta oil, that is funny! Clean coal, another funny one. Safe nuclear power. The list is very nearly endless. Oil is a product bought and sold. The cost of production is reflected in the retail price, or it doesn't get sold. Its pretty simple really, buy it or do not its not too complicated. When the wing nuts and moon bats are out, you can hear them sing. The song I would like to hear is the one about the CLEAN MONEY is making the world a better place, but the one song I hear all day is the holier than thou righteous outrage of one group of citizens telling another how to live. This should not be just about the money. It should not be just about the environment. It should not be just about the politics. It should be about how society can work together for mutual benefit, at mutual expense.

I think there is more here than meets the eye. I don't think the real issue is as simple as Harper controlling the message about the motion in question as much as it is about the fact that Harper is controlling the message in the first place. Harper is not doing anything different than any other Prime Minister or partisan leader. If I am not mistaken the NDP had some issues with rogue MP's when gun control came to the floor. What is different here at this point is that Harper actually faces consequences that are not completely predictable. Harper cannot afford to lose the voting power of that many MP's. A block of that size can actually facilitate a non-confidence motion on an opposition day. Those 24 MP's being either unwilling or unable to support the Prime Minister being the difference running the government or sitting in opposition. One simple motion, within which the mathematical possibility exists, could have the entire House of Commons decide whether or not Harper can keep his job. Without an election the government could change hands. Opposition leaders could actually walk into the Governor Generals office and seek the approval of the Crown to allow a coalition government to be formed that would replace Harper by majority consent of Parliament. This reality should give everyone something to think about. Harper may lose his government over this.

I predict this will get very messy. There is no wiggle room for anybody, there are lines drawn in the sand everywhere. The gray world of politics has created a contrasting world of polarized positions. This is rapidly becoming a matter of face. Anywhere else in Canada Harper would be charged and treated as a bully. In fact the anti-bully legislative efforts of recent governments bring a particularly cruel hypocritical lime-light to focus on himself. Yet it is not just Harper, but in fact our very system that supports his efforts. We have two sets of rules, one applied to those in power and one applied to everyone else. That is the truth, like it or not. There are now at least 24 MP's, duly elected representatives of the people that are being compelled to choose between supporting either their leader or their constituents. The leaders demand loyalty from their followers on the threat of pain in political consequence, and it has always been that way. The show is about to start.

Who would not vote themselves a raise? The real question should be why do we let them do it and then complain about it?

I think that the original stated purpose of the bank was at odds with its creation. I disagree with the premise, banks were never warehouses of money, they always were and always will be place where money changes hands and becomes the personal property of the bank. Once it becomes the banks money it immediately gets circulated after being inflated to the tune of many hundreds of percent that is either paying or earning interests at rates neither truly regulated nor actually enforced. The banks never actually lend out depositors money. That deposited money is not actual paper currency, it is only the monetary equivalent of gold, nothing more. Cash money is a fiat currency that is not even supported by gold. It has no true value or any real worth. The gold does have value, but when it goes into the bank it doesn't come out. Gold is different than money, it does not earn interest, but it does have value. That is why there is no longer a gold standard, money is no longer support by gold. Anyone can print as many bank notes as they want. Go ahead and print some money. It grows on trees. I believe that there are actually two problems with the financial system. The first problem being the so-called central banks, and the second being the fractional reserve system. Central banks were created to provide industry standards that would enable the free movement of capital to facilitate modern business ventures, and these central banks from the day they were created were privately owned. These institutions have acquired the authority to create monetary policies, and set currency values. Nations no longer control their own money supply, the bankers do. The second problem as I see it is the source of the money supply itself, a fiat currency brought into being as interest bearing debt, not cash money but simply the monetary equivalent thereof. The way I see it, there is little more than fraud going on a worldwide scale. More money is created by bankers than actually exists in their depositories. This money created from nothing earns interest from nothing creating even more money in an apparently never ending cycle. The simple act of lending out more than you have has a very logical result that surprises nobody but the bankers. The pyramid schemed of the modern financial world is coming unglued at the seems.

Certainly it is indeed all in the question. A question that elected MP's need permission to answer if current events and media reports are a correct depiction of reality. Abortion is not the issue here at all. It is the focus of the debate but it is not the issue. The issue is whether or not an elected representative to the House of Commons in Canada can be prevented from speaking in the House when their opinion is in contradiction to the whim of partisan authority. Should Canadian citizens allow their democracy to be sacrificed in the interests of partisan support?

There are lots of ways to make program spending cuts. The salaries of teachers should not be put forth first in as much as there simply isn't a biggest bang for the buck to be had with the effort. Real savings can only be realized through reduction of the triplicated efforts of three levels of government to administer one form of service. Bureaucracy accounts for far to great a portion of program expense. Service delivery is the prime consideration with public programs and the administrative replicated efforts detract from the efficiency of the program. Education expenses paid for by the tax payer are the property of school boards, not cities, provinces and federal governments. We need to rethink program delivery at a different level if we desire to reduce expenses.

Perhaps, but then again 2015 is a long ways off for Steve....and just around the corner for Justin. Harper has everything to lose, Trudeau nothing. The way things are right now, Harper has tied hands and Trudeau has a free ride. That aside, this is no mean feat for Trudeau, it isn't considered a walk in the park. The Liberal Party has no space set aside for it in the free media of political coverage. Trudeau does.... Every time Harper wants to open his mouth its going to cost a lot of money and the end result will be giving Trudeau a free media ride. That will have consequences, none of them good for Harper. It has already started and Trudeau is only a backbench of no consequence third party wanna be. How much is Harper going to spend on discrediting Trudeau over the next couple of years? Its a good thing for Harper that his Conservative Party has deep pockets. Hey Steve! Guess what ? Justin has gathered up a little cash too! Lets go spend some public tax dollars and have a media war....one that Trudeau will not have to fund at all. Between the next election and now, many things will likely transpire. The EU and the Euro, China and Russia trade deals externally, the F35 issues, First Nations, rising national debt, crippling interest projections, CPP benefit crunch as millions of baby boomers come online. All that for sure with who knows what else, the government spending more than it has and planning even greater debt. Meanwhile Justin Trudeau having no political weight in government will put forth a current Liberal Party policy that increases revenues and reduces current projected expenses. Trudeau and the Liberals will be attempting to rebrand themselves at both government and opposition expense, and I predict that the public will support Trudeau, not Harper because of it.

Wow. Education or Healthcare....take your pick but debatable as to which has greater relevance in society. We don't need to debate which is what between the two but we do need to simply agree that teacher salaries have little impact on education in this nation. Education is an expense, period. The teachers have a union, period. The union and the province have contracts, period. What passes for good faith negotiations are entrenched within labour laws already established, period. They get what they negotiate,period. I am sorry but in the case of public servants, the tax payers are the employers not masters, and employers are subject to the laws of the land, period. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I would tend to think that there are few individuals who would desire that their personal salary be up to the whim of individuals who had absolutely nothing to do with them. Try and tell a friend that you think they get paid too much for what they do and you get the idea quick enough. Its a non-starter but a great political football for idiots looking to make points on the backs of others. The teachers are worth a hell of a lot more than they are getting paid to be parents to thirty kids at a time. You want to cut their salaries then go do their work first, then come back and tell me what a sweet gig it was..