Jerry J. Fortin

The traditional political views of left and right will eventually lose their distinction as society wakes up and begins its inevitable evolution into sustained and enhanced democratic reforms. To date the only country working toward the improvement of the human condition in political terms is Switzerland. Direct Democracy is their chosen means of political evolutionary progress and it serves them well. The Swiss are affiliated with nobody, and remain at or near the top of the list of the best places in the world to live. Their standard of living is higher than ours by far. Each nation must find its own way of course and what works for them may not work for others, but the point is that efforts need to be made to improve the human condition. Society needs to clean up its act, within their own nation first and then in voluntary international assistance. While some may suggest that the function of the UN is to provide the political vehicle to achieve just that. I however do not believe that at all. The Security Council and its veto powers are by definition anti-democratic and therefore decidedly contrary to the evolving interests of society. Religous and economic considerations form political bastions from which entire nations become enslaved, and the means to improve the human condition becomes null and void at that point because the enslaved citizens have no effective voice. The Unitied Nations are not by any means united at all, in fact the UN is merely a political forum for theatrics. Humanity needs to realize that since the creation of the corporation politics has devolved to a certain degree and that citizens are in fact becoming wage slaves subject to the economic will of their employment masters. Even Marx, the idealistic fool that he was, could see the impact on society of unchecked capitalism. Communism was a failed concept because it failed to take into account the human factor of ambition and effort. Capitalism is based on just that, ambition and effort. Unfortunately this superior economic model has also wormed its way into politics which has caused an entirely unexpected result of corporate governance. The transnational corporations now have immense political influence not subject to the will of the citizens, and this little fact has implications to our society that have yet to be addressed. The so called laws of supply and demand have now dictated a political and economic direction that will eventually provide the means for the most populous nations to format the international economy through manipulation of market forces. As it stands now, China is well placed to become the next economic empire. Both the EU and the United States together have less market potential then China. This will take time, but rest assured that it will happen. Without a change in the current political direction it will take less than a generation and at that point massive confrontation becomes inevitable. I doubt that many people view the situation as I do, I willingly admit to being out on a limb, off the beaten path and so forth. Be that as it may that is how I see this playing out, unless of course we seek to make changes beneficial to citizens. The citizens can save themselves but the politicians and entrepeneurs can't. Its all about the little political boxes will find ourselves in, when cardboard becomes concrete our thoughts become walls. We need to start thinking outside of the box.

I like your analogy August! I don't wholeheartedly agree with you, but you do turn a nice phrase.

This week it has become known that some of the leading contenders for the vacant Premiers position are actually talking about resource royalty reforms. This is a very large problem for Alberta politicians. For decades the Alberta government has created concessions to provide incentives for oil companies to invest in the tar sands. The government has finally figured out that they have cornered themselves. With conventional reserves down and the huge increase in tar sands investment the province actually faces a cash crunch. Unless the province acts to change the tax regime it put in place Alberta citizens will very soon be facing an actual decline in resource revenue in spite of increased production and the massive investment in the tar sands. The next Premier will face a sharp increase in demand for services by the thousands of citizens moving into the province while its revenues decline. Hardly an enviable position to find themselves in. Strangely enough oil rich Alberta faces a cash crunch just down the road.

I must disagree. I believe the only reason Alberta elected a solid wall of Conservatives was because of Harper, who was one of the authors of the "Alberta Firewall" letter. Albertans want change in federal politics and that meant deposing the Liberal government, so enmass we did that. Having done that we fully expect to see some changes, if they are not forthcoming I would expect my fellow citizens to vote against Harper and the Conservatives next time around. To a certain extent Albertans are conservative by nature, however our desire to seek meaningful change in politics outweighs partisan affiliation. Any political faction that supports Senate Reform will get Alberta attention. A political faction that opposes the financial rape of Albertans by means of the equalization formula would get more attention yet. Finally, a political faction that supports tax reforms will find a huge following in Alberta. To some degree, these are policies of the Conservative Party, which therefore earns the support of Albertans, at least as long as they keep their word.

In theory. But the reality is that even when Canada wins it loses! How many rulings went against the Americans since the advent of the so-called free trade agreement? Now what was the result of those diplomatic victories? The problem here is that the Americans a extremely protectionist in reality, but they advocate free trade for their goods. The Americans have been free traders since their revolution, in fact that was one of the main points to their battle! Only British ships could sail into London and sell their goods, which meant that everybody who wanted access to that market had to ship their goods on British vessels. While taxation had some bearing on the issues of the day the reality was trade. The Americans have always been very astute in this regard. They are no different today than they were then, and we need to look very carefully into how they conduct business before we jump on board. Damn the British for the creation of the corporation! That single legislative effort has altered the course of history in a way that was not possible before the advent of limited liability. The Americans have gone to school on this angle and created the greatest capitalistic society the world has ever seen. Having said that, its all about them.....Don't ever believe that there is any benefit to any individual outside of the United States because there just isn't. With that in mind, they make fine neighbors! They will go to bat for you and cover your behinds just as long as there is something in it for them. They are forgiving and kind, yet absolutely ruthless in business. They are a bright bunch of hardworking risk taking people who have earned their place through individual efforts. Much can be learned from them.

A significant amout of the current international problems we face are due to the Yalta Conferance, where the world was for all intents and purposes cut up under spheres of influence by F.D.R., Churchill and Stalin.

The fact remains that there have been more deaths since the war began than there was before it started. Under Sadam life was tough in Iraq, but the loss of life to civilians was far less than life under the allied occupation. The war was started by means of a lie, and tens of thousands of innocent people have died because of that lie. That is a fact that is overlooked by far too many people.

The softwood lumber deal is bad news for Canadians. It has set a dangerous precedent, which will have a multitude of applications that are as of this moment unseen by the public.

Zealots and fools would resort to scriptual referances to advance a cause. Politics and religion should not be mixed. Look at Irish history for a moment, and that is a rift within the same basic religion! Now look at the middleast, with Muslim and Jews at each others throats. Religion serves a moralistic purpose, politics serves an administrative purpose. These are apples and oranges, not to ever be mistaken for one another. When governments seek to enforce moral behavior it is always unsuccessful. Granted that our society is based upon a Christian belief system, but that is because it was founded under such a social structure. Times have changed in the last thousand years, and society is no longer governed by priests and popes. Kings and Queens have gone out the same door. We now accept the morality of the majority and the ruling class is elected not appointed. There is now freedom of choice to such and extent that we could not be recognized as a Christian society according to the rules of the day a few short centuries ago. Religion is based on ritual and tradition and politics is based upon need. To see the problems with incorporating the two systems you need only look to the Muslim world. I think I prefer our current flawed system to that.

Not many Cabinet Members from that government survived! The beatings were very public and very well deserved. Bush faces many foes both inside and outside of the USA. Canada should not be a foe or even a problem for him. This nanny state nation needs to rethink its attitude toward the US. We are more than just close, we are literally related. Canada needs to step up to the plate and help the USA. US influence in international politics is becoming detrimental to their best interests. We need to sit down and come up with some serious plans in order to preserve the place of freedom and democracy. Between the Muslim extremists and the Chinese industrialists there is more danger to the US then ever before in history. Canada is the one country that can save them from themselves as well as any threat from outside their borders. But Canada simple can't go there uninvited, and the Americans can't go there in public.

People need to realize that there are ramifications of legislation. Make something illegal and you get to spend money policing it. Then you get to spend money prosecuting it. And finally you get to spend money penalizing the individuals found guilty of transgressing the legislation. I think the real question here should be is this cost an effecient use of tax payers money? Is there enough perceived value in the realization of the effort to warrant the expediture of public funds. Lets put this into perspective for the purpose of debate shall we. The government spends millions of dollars a year in the war on pot heads. That money could go toward funding something else but instead it is used to stop Fred from catching a buzz. Now Fred the Pothead isn't exactly a big security risk. The Pothead family is related to the Couchpotato family. This species of humanity is a little different than other drug users, they are prone to fits of laughter, long naps and memory problems. Their condition requires special treatment of dietary supplements such as "junk food". Having said that, from my perspective their condition and impact on society simply doesn't justify the use of my tax dollars. I have five children between 8and 19 with no drug users. They see them as losers and I doubt they would go there by choice or accident. Theres my two cents on the subject.........

Where I live, rural northern Alberta, there a few people happy with the Tory government. There is also a lot of Alberta nationalistic types. The day will soon come when the demographics will shift in favour of a free Alberta, NEP II would do the trick I'm sure. We need a change in the land of black gold.

Here in Alberta we elect governments for extensive periods. We are truely conservative by nature. We are independent by nature as well. This isn't Italy, we don't just toss the baby out with the bath water. It takes some doing to get elected and it takes some doing to get thrown out. Klein has outlived his usefullness, so it was time to go. The next leader of this province will get to deal with a big lump under the rug in the living room. There have been lots of things sweep under the carpet, so many so that you can see that there is something there, but you can tell what it is without actually going through the process of lifting up the carpet. That is what elections are all about, and the selection of a leader is only the prelude to the next election. The next Premier will have to address the booming economy. Infrastructure is the name of the game and how to provide services for the people living in an expanding economy. The standard problems of healthcare and education funding will be dwarfed by the problematic immigration problems associated with the economic boom. The problem that faces Albertans isn't the Conservative or Liberal Party. It isn't the NDP or the Alberta Alliance, and it certainly isn't the Social Credit or Green Party either. The problem is not related to political parties at all. The real problem is the parlimentary political system itself. The amount of power and authority of government is the root of the problem. It begins with the foundation of federalism and the nanny state. Albertans kick up almost 90% of the sum total of dollars donated to confederation in the form of equalization. This is an absolute rip off of Albertans, not the government of Alberta you understand, but the people who live here. Federal regulations limit the opportunities that Albertans can avail themselves of. The Dominion of Canada literally dominates Alberta at every turn. The problem starts with our continued membership in Canadian Confederation, but it does not end there. The same rot exists at the provincial level as well. There is legal graft and legalized corruption at every level of politics. Unless the citizens that seek political office desire to become true public servants and provide actual representation of their constituents the situation will not improve and the problems that exist will not be resolved. It is the entire political system which needs to be changed before the potential of this province can be realized. Until we throw off the yoke of federalism we cannot even hope to reap the rewards of our efforts. Canadian politics supports corporations and big governments at the expense of the public. What I and many other Albertans desire is the political freedom to gain independence at both the personal and political level. We want to stand up for ourselves, seek our own destiny and work toward improving the human condition as defined by individual freedom and enhanced standards of living. The next Premier of Alberta will be a Progressive Conservative Party member, that is a fact. However over the next few years such things as resource royalties and government spending will come to a head and at that point the Alberta Progressive Conservative Party will go the way of the Alberta Social Credit Party and end up where the Passenger Pigeon went. In much the same manner I might add, in as much as they will be politically slaughtered in great numbers to dissappear and never to be seen again.

I have a few Muslim friends and there are moderates, very religious but definitely not radicals. They don't claim to know any radicals and I believe them.

Never the less, if McCain doesn't run for the Republicans then Hillary Clinton will become the next president of the United States. Further to this, I think that the Democrats will dominate both houses come November.

I am not a Bush fan either, but you are right in that when the Canadian Government owned and operated CBC starts trashing international leaders it becomes problematic. On the one hand there is sometimes cause for this sort of thing, like speaking out against terrorism or naked aggression but that certainly doesn't apply to the USA. On the other hand as an arms length corporation they should have the autonomy to do as they please. The problem that I see is that our relationship with the United States is far more important than our relationship with the CBC. We can certainly do without the CBC but to do without the USA would prove to be a hardship for Canadians because of the economic and cultural integration that has been going on for a number of years.

Well I guess Tsi that you choose to dishonour me at the cost of what little credibility that you have on this forum. So be it, I will bring it on for you at your request. Tsi, the comments were and still are yours to defend, I have made no claims it is you that have. You need to understand that it is you who seek to accomplish something here. According to you it is I and my fellow Canadians that have something that you want. It is not we who want what you have, it is the other way around my simple friend. I have made no assumptions at all Tsi, I have based my commentary on the wording and terminology of your statements and available records from both native and government resources available to anyone with a computer and internet access. Further to that your contention that these things have been dispelled is only your opinion based on your own false conclusions reached through baised viewpoints not related to factual records and actual historic events. It is your challenged comprehension which prevents your understanding the simple truth and your misguided judgement that clouds your reasoning. You forget to qualify this commentary with the prefix of the standard opening "In my opinion". You can only speak for yourself Tsi. Unles you are delusional enough to contend that you are speaking for others, and if you have any supporters I pity them for their poor judgement in the selection of a representative. I do not search for the sorrows and regrets of mankind on the internet Tsi, I search for the quest for truth and righteousness of the individual. I do not dwell on the mistakes of the past and lament the state my affairs, instead I work to achieve my own peace and tranquility through understanding and acceptance. A seriously misguided approach to debate in my opinion. An interesting statement! Lets just take that apart in a little exercise shall we. A myth is something that is widely believed but false. Canada exists and its origin and history are a matter of record so the first four words of your statement are serve as the prelude to a false pretext. You then go on to suggest that as a citizen it is my duty to overthrow the government for a reason in which you believe that has no relation to what I believe is simply absurd. You then end this little rant by deciding what I deserve. Funny thing about that is that you would go over the deep end if I would dare to suggest what you deserve, whats good for the goose is good for the gander Tsi. It is not I who have made "ignorant assumptions which have been dispelled time and time again" Tsi, in fact you write your own epitaph. Suggest all you want, pigs still can't fly. Unless of course that is a native pig that has transformed themselves into some mystical flying creature from your sun worshiping religion. Or is it only natives that can shape shift Tsi? Let us return to the truth for a second here, how much land do you "own" Tsi? Or is it just your tribal mothers whop own the land? By the way Tsi, human rights were not created by natives. I think native culture excepted slavery did it not? Trust me Tsi, I am not jealous of you, that is the wrong word entirely. Pity could be used in my view ut not jealous...no not at all. Once again Tsi, that is only your unsubstantiated opinion. It is incorrect, but then again what else could be expected from you? That little comment will be both reported and remembered Tsi. It is musings like that that do little to further the causes for which you believe. It does however support my contention that you are incapable of acting in a civilized fashion and it reminds me why whites described natives as savages in the first place.

Well okay then, natives are shape shifters who are absolute warriors that can and have defeated the white man using their mystical skills. All of this has been proven time and again throughout history no doubt. Perhaps in my ignorance I have failed to understand the nature of my verbal opponent within this debate. It is apparent that I have engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed person, for this I apologize. I truely meant no offense. It is painfully obvious that natives are not in the least bit capable of governing themselves within any modern society. Perhaps when mankind had to survive as hunter gatherers their culture was up to the task of survival, but those times have long since past. Currently the real world has no place for people who have false beliefs and are proponents of nonsense. It seems that Canada will be burdened with supporting these natives for some time into the future. When their level of comprehension has risen to the point where the debate as to whether or not the world is flat can be summed up with a mere word, they will be capable of looking after themselves. Until that time we will have the responsibility of looking after them as we would with any child living with fantasy and being unable to discern reality. I actually pity the group of natives who would accept the drivel that is being spewed upon this website by their own erroneous and ignorant individuals. I feel sorry for the direction they have chosen and the hardship it will bring these once proud and honourable people. It is becoming clear that all of this nations efforts have been in vain in some instances. When members of the first nations allow some of their own people to represent them them in such a poor manner it gives them all a bad reputation for being ignorant and abusive at the same time as they exercise their arrogant racist nature. Don't worry Tsi, the government will look you and your kind since the represntations you are making provide a whole new meaning to that ancient phrase ignorant savage.

It is time to give the natives what they want. Give them their land. That land is defined as the land they are living on. No more payments of any form or kind should be given to native groups. All native lands should be self governed and free to conduct their affairs in the manner of their choosing. Natives want sovereignty, lets give it to them.

I see the beat goes on in this debate. I fail to see the logic of denying Canadian sovereignty and reject the authority of Canadian Parliment while utilizing that same system as a means of acquiring title to something not recognized in law. I would truely love to see the claimed agreement in principle that seems to be the main source of grief within this verbal contest. I do not believe that it exists actually, I am willing to be enlightened though, so perhaps the natives can support their arguement by proving their words.

I am always willing to debate the issues, I am a reasonable man. I ask the author of this thread to explain to me how it is that land that was surrendered to the crown by representatives of the natives with complete and verifiable documentation can now become subject of a disputed claim. The peoples that are making this claim against the government migrated here to Canada after the American Revolution and were granted the use of the land for hunting purposes by Royal Proclaimation. Nowhere in that proclaimation is there any evidence of sovereignty granted to the natives, and it was specifically written to prevent non-native citizens from entering into land transactions because of past abuses. Land titles could only be transfered from the tribal owners to the government, and this was done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Proclaimation in public meetings. I find this dispute before our court system an affront to logic and it is without doubt an outrageous position for the natives to be demanding a trillion dollars in compensation for claimed loses. Please convince me that the natives have a valid case because all evidence is to the contrary and would lead any reasonable person to believe that this case has no legal or moral foundation at all.

Interesting point. However the simple truth is that the land was taken by sword point and colonized by brute force. The thinking at the time was to the victor go the spoils. One part of the Proclaimation does interest me; "We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that, if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie: and in case they shall lie within the limits of any Proprietary Government, they shall be purchased only for the Use and in the name of such Proprietaries, conformable to such Directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose: And we do, by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever, provided that every Person who may incline to Trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade from the Governor or Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such Person shall reside, and also give Security to observe such Regulations as We shall at any Time think fit, by ourselves or by our Commissaries to be appointed for this Purpose, to direct and appoint for the Benefit of the said Trade: And we do hereby authorize, enjoin, and require the Governors and Commanders in Chief of all our Colonies respectively, as well those under Our immediate Government as those under the Government and Direction of Proprietaries, to grant such Licences without Fee or Reward, taking especial Care to insert therein a Condition, that such Licence shall be void, and the Security forfeited in case the Person to whom the same is granted shall refuse or neglect to observe such Regulations as We shall think proper to prescribe as aforesaid." According to this portion of the proclaimation, the land could be sold to the crown or its appointees by the "Indians", is that how you read and understand it?

Hello US Citizen! Welcome to our little forum, your input is valued here. To answer you original question from my perspective North American Union is a no brainer. I advocate a superstate to preserve and protect what we already have. Actually I would prefer just Canada and the United States but can see the value of including Mexico into the deal. My greatest concern is that the milkitary industrial complex and corporate governance are effectively destroying our freedom and liberty. In my country we have become a nanny state where an over the top welfare society has run amok which has caused our national debt . In yours the defense industry is a huge employer and is the cause of your national debt. I am sure the citizens of both countries can see the reality if merely pointed in the right direction, which is why I would like to see some sort of grounded grass roots movement toward a direct democracy which could truely empower the people and actually set a precendent in human history that makes the Swiss example look like a mere political exercise.

Your response indicates an abandonment of territory by your own words. You neglect to mention that the entire arguement you have formed on this thread is clearly attached to a land claim stemming from natives moving to that location from the United States as documented in the Proclaimation which you are stating is the definitive entitlement to the land in the first place. Now what is it Tsi? You can't have your cake and eat it too, things just don't work that way in the reality of the world. Either your group of people were granted this land as a result of a settlement between the new United States Government and the Crown or not. Please define you position clearly here.

Iraq is merely a festuring wound, not fatal yet requiring attention. Involvement in escalation could well prove to be a fatal blow to international peace. If Israel continues to the point were the government of Lebanon is destabilized and replaced the situation could take a turn for the worst. Syria may well decide to intercede in that case and render "assistance" to the people of Lebanon through supporting an unelected Hezbollah government. This could compell the United States to react. There is no doubt in my mind that at that point the Israelies would extend their operations to include Syria, with the blessing of America I must add. The Americans would then look to interdicting arms supplies through northern Iraq and Iran, which could result in open confrontation with Iran. That would result in ultimate defeat for Iran, but would also likely cause the loss of port facilities and cause the Strait of Hormoz to be adversely affected. This is the most serious of all possible ramifications. China gets a lot of oil from Iran and would not look kindly on an interuption of the flow of oil.