Jerry J. Fortin

At the risk of being beaten for it, I would prefer that Canada be nuetral. This fight has nothing to do with Canada. Choosing one side or another will not benefit Canada. We have citizens from both sides of the conflict living in this nation. Individual citizens can take a political position in favour of one side or another but the government should not. We don't have the ability to stop the fighting. We don't have the ability to prevent the fighting. We don't have the ability to create or enforce a peaceful solution. There is nothing that we can do for the citizens of the conflicting nations. All that Canada can do is benefit one side or the other in political terms at the expense of the opinions of our own citizens in this nation. That must be avoided. This is not about burying our heads in the sand, but about not poking our nose where it doesn't belong. The gross reality of the situation is that it can only be described as a regional civil war. The lands in question have be in question for thousands of years and been occupied by one side and then the other from the begining of time til now. The borders of four or five nation states are at stake and always have been. The ony position that Canada should take is one that condemns both terrorism and aggression. In other words both sides are wrong to fight in the first place, which will cause more harm than good. This one is a lose and then lose again situation people.

According to CNN this morning the terrorists just successfully landed a missile in Syria. Nice shot fellas! Keep it up guys, practice make perfect. Morons! With a little luck the UN will get a cease fire up and running in a few weeks. I can only hope that the people who started this will not live to see it resolved and that maybe enough people will have learned that this nonsense causes death and destruction and will never bring peace to them. I fear that the only workable solution is the complete loss of one of the groups of people now in conflict. These two proud peoples may cause the the destruction of their own kind.

No matter how much the white brother offers or gives it will not be enough. The sad reality is that for all of the smoke and mirrors the natives screwed up and signed bad deals, got jerked around by shady politicians and are now very unhappy. That is the long and the short of it. Now they want to hold a knife to our throats for the errors of everyone that came before us. Enough is enough. The governments needs the balls to deal with the issues, and they don't have them. Give the natives self government, and remove their federal funding. Let them stand on their own and deal with issues as they decide to. With all due respect to the land claims issues, the government ought to simply turn the entire matter over to the court system. Back away from the situation in legal terms and then utilize the system to fight a delayed confrontation some years from now. Tie the whole thing up with a bow and wait it out. Should take a few decades to resolve. In the meantime, the taxpaying citizens can save a few billion a year by not subsidizing the lives of people who have no desire to be Canadian. They have a choice to make in my opinion, they can be Canadian and enjoy the rights, freedoms, privileges and benefits of the rest of the citizens or they can damned well fund and create their own system. This business of being entitled to rights that no other citizens can lay claim to is objectionable. It is racist and inflamatory to every other citizen and it is a transgression against non-native rights.

Your information is out of date. There was a revision in 1983 that altered that clause it now reads ( any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. There is a difference in my opinon. It appears that the revision provides an escape clause in legal terms, rights being acquired idicates that the government may elect to incorporate another solution in place of land claims settlements.

Charles there is no nation on this earth that currently exists without taxation in one form or another. It is simply a political fact of life, nations have governments and governments have expenses. I agree the withholding income taxes are the bane of our existance, but I believe that that particular form of taxation can be eliminated without adverse effect to society. To revert to your commentary on society in general, groups of humanity have been gathering from the begining of our evolution. There is safety is numbers. It is to our advantage to interact with other humans and we have done so. The complete freedom to opt out of taxes already exists in this nation. You don't have to pay them if you do not want to. You can take a vow of poverty, move to the boondocks and live off of crown land as a prospector never owning the land but yet still live on it. There are ways around things if you choose to be independent. The vast majority of citizens prefer not to live that way, and because of that a system of taxation levys is applied to provide the various services that the public has allowed the government to create and maintain. Taxation need not be as complicated and painful as it is, and government programs need not be cut to reduce the expense to citizens with a little out of the box thinking. In fact public programs can be expanded and citizens could receive even greater benefits than they currently do if only they set aside their preconcieved notions our current socio-political situation. It is possible to change, in fact change is the only sure thing we can reasonably expect in life.

Where a group of individuals gather for mutual benefit their association can be described as a society. Within that group they make a mutual commitment to define and abide by an agreed set of rules. Those rules determine the types of acceptable actions and reactions that serve as limits and forms of behaviors that the group chooses to design as a framework of the members interactions. The group as a whole determines how it should conduct itself. In a modern large society that original political system has evolved into government as we know it. As a society, we have collectively determined how our government should conduct itself. The definitions of right and wrong have no application in this regard because the politics of human interaction will determine whether or not either ethics or morals play into the needs and desires of the majority of members within that specific society. The question of whether or not taxes are either right or wrong becomes a moot point that no individual can lay claim to being able to make that determination for any other. This is a group decision to be made. Granted that the group in question, the taxpayers, may in fact believe that they are overtaxed and underserviced this specific group requires the democratic capital to exploit the question. A sufficient demographic can alter the political reality and determine the moral or ethical fiber of legislation, if that is the direction chosen by the group. The sad reality is that only those individuals of substantial financial means are able to provide themselves with the level of services that they desire without the assistance of society as a whole. Most people are content with the concept of taxation for services and therefore accumulation of sufficient demographics is the determining formula.

I think that there are some basic facts being overlooked here. First of all anything that the government of Canada did in the past is history, and nothing can change that. No amount of money will change a damned thing. All that can reasonably be done is to mitigate the damages to the degree we can come to terms with. With that in mind it requires that both parties be realistic in their desires. If one party is being unreasonable it can be expected that a resolution will not be forthcoming. Secondly the what needs to be remembered is that fair compensation is the only viable means of legal recourse. The definition of fair may not be what First Nations want, but it is what they can reasonably expect. What I think would be a fair package would be this. Assume the claims to be valid for starters and then simply calculate the value of the land at the time of the original loss of treaty right. That is the point at which the loss occured and that is the sum total of the monetary value lost. In addition there is an outstanding and ongoing loss due to that unpaid debt so the sum total should be enhanced with the known historical fees for interest from the time of loss until its repayment. The relatively small sum of money orginally lost would be greatly enhanced through this means. Of course I would put a cap on payments, and the entire sum would be subject to taxation due to the fact that the entire mess has now been converted into a contractual legal contest. In the end I would estimate that the average First Nations person would not recieve a dime anyway because of the entirely foolish system of government that they currently have means that all money would go to the tribal councils and not individuals. So the way it will work is that Canada will see a few hundred millionair chiefs leaving the reserves to move to somewhere else having screwed theri people out of damned near everything they got in the first place and the average tribal member will be worst off than they were in the first place. I wish luck to all you people who think that the citizens of Canada owe the first nations people a damned thing. I hope you all enjoy the results of this stupid arguement because there will be no winners, all will lose. Nothing will be accomplished that will benefit most Canadians. The members of the bands will get screwed as well. The only real answer is to give them self government and let them choose how to live themselves. Money has no place in this arguement, but since it seems that some people think that it does I wish them all the luck in the world. I am now convinced that the best way fir the gvernment to deal with this problems is to create legislation that would serve to avoid resolving the problem for at least a generation. Just blow them off because they don't want to be reasonable. Which is probably what will happen. If the government loses the case they will simply appeal the solution. Have no fear people, the fat lady has not yet begun to sing.

Fed standards are just one of the little bonuses of confederation. I am decidedly not a federalist for just that reason.

Okay Charles start the tread and let us know what you think.

Why is it not possible to say that a province that receives equalization is not governed badly? Are you suggesting that the federal standards create the need for equalization?

It is not possible to make an arrangement that will make both Alberta and Quebec happy because they are at opposite sides of the equation. One is receiving equalization and the other is paying equalization. There is no middle ground or common cause to work with. Harper is on record for changing the political power structure and devolving the federal perogatives by transfers of political power to the provinces. Taxation is already available to the provinces and equalization is a form of taxation. My money will be on the feds suggesting that the provinces retain a higher portion of the take from federal taxation by means of a per capita formula. This fits with the Ontario concerns and address the Quebec issues. It would soften the blow to Alberta as well. But there will be a price associated with this kind of action. The provinces will have to gain access and control to numerous federal programs in their own jurisdiction because the funding for those programs will be slashed to accomodate the reduced tax grab from the feds. In short the only viable method of increasing provincial cuts from the federal taxation pie is to hand over specific programs and the per capita funding of those programs to the provinces. It is a revenue neutral move in theory but in pratice it will cost the provinces dearly. It will give them what they want but complicate their lifes greatly. The provinces will have to eat a bunch of bureaucracy to do it. The feds will save twice from the effort but the bottom line is that the provinces will actually lose in the process.

Income taxes are regressive. They hurt the little guy far more than the big guy and they are used against us for political gains by governments. When the governments claim to lower taxes, what they really do is lower personal or corporate income tax then raise a levy in some other area. The total tax load, or government revenue stream is rarely reduced. Worse yet the reductions from one level of government are ususally picked up by another, that process is called "TAX ROOM'. The worst case of income tax is the withholding variety. That little animal bites most citizens, the working class. Business and professional corporations fare much better and utilize many technics of clawback that avoid reducing their disposable income to the same degree as the average working citizen. The only "fair tax" system is a transaction tax payable on disposable income. The more you have the more you spend system works as an effecient means of taxation. If you cannot afford to buy things you obviously can't afford to pay taxes. Going to a fair tax system would eliminate a large federal bureaucracy, or at least a big part of Revenue Canada. Collection is possible through the same means as the current GST.

Mr. Harper has successfully gathered up all the Premiers and got them to publicly announce that they cannot get their collective crap together. He acquired lots of information about each provincial stance freely. He now has all the political tools to exercise his constitutional perogative and arbitrarily impose a federal solution to the problem. That is his right because we are talking about a federal program. Oh it may be a provincial problem but he holds the keys to a political solution. I give Harper two bonus points for political manipulation, those fools were rightly played by Harper. I also now have all the confirmation I ever needed to prove that he is intent upon formatting a means to maximize the political power available to him within his minority government capacity. He has just shown Canadians that the provinces are not capable of playing at the federal level of politics in this nation. He comes out looking smarter than they do in this exercise. The issue of fiscal imbalance is a little football that can be tossed around without hurting the political fortunes of parties at the federal level. Putting the provinces at odds with the feds is a new one, usually this sort of thing is initiated at the other side of the equations by the provinces. Harper is a force to be reconned with.

I like your analogy. It is only that I believe the government is doing just that, "legislation seems to apply to cars or trucks without drivers". There is a lack of accountability for the law makers here. They are not acting in the interests of society as much acting in accordance with the special interest groups that have access to legislators. The real question here is whether or not individual freedom is subject to the approval of a society who renders judgements based once again on special interests. Laws that are created should be equally applied to all citizens. Yet the citizens making decisions in the business world are not held accountable in the same manner as others. These individuals hide behind their legal citizen corporate employer and are basically immune from laws that apply to natural citizens. You can't put a company in jail. In the same manner legislators are not accountable from there errors in judgement in any legal manner either. The point I am trying to make is that the interest of the individual and that individuals personal freedom are being subjected to the judgement of society without cause. The regulation of behavior is only relevant when it becomes an endangerment to society. Until that clear and present danger is manifested by an individual society is in fact infringing upon the right of that individual in its attempts to regulate an individuals behavior. Our government and our politics are being guided by other than individual representations. Our society is composed of individuals and yet these individuals have found little democracy and little empowerment. Perhaps I have been up too long, these 20 hour work days are a killer.

Kinda looks like election planning doesn't it? I just got counted by the census folks out here....hmmm

Well Blackdog you are right in that so far it seems that the military might of Israel has been ineffective at stopping the rockests. You also know the reason for this is that they are attempting to avoid non combatant casualties. If they want to succeed they will have to santize the areas where the rockets are launched from. You also know that this is true. Does this now mean that you would say they were justified by santizing these positions?

Dangerous? These people have one of the highest standard of living ratings in the world. I think you need to educate and trust your children. You need to help and trust your neigbor. You need to speak your mind and oppose what you believe to be wrong. If you do this, and everyone else does this, then you have started to work toward being able to trust your society to protect you. This is what the Swiss have done. They have been doing it this way for more than one hundred years now. They have abstained from wars but been there when it was needed with humanitarian help. Their system works for them. Nobody has done anything stupid, because the popuation at large will not allow it. The same could apply here.

A mind that was schooled in hatred and fear. The individual may well be found to be logically challenged.

You OWN the land? Now just a minute, I thought that First Nations people sought to be stewards of the land. Now I am hearing something very different. This seems to be about money, nothing more. It appears that what is sought is some sleezy means to extort a maximum of unearned profit based on some bogus arguement. I may have to change my position on this subject as well. I am all for legitimate settlement of claims in a reasonable fashion. Having said that I certainly don't support evicting anybody, nor do I support attempts at extortion based on the goodwill of a regretful nation for the actions of men long dead. I now offer my formal apology to the First Nations peoples for the travesties that have occured in the past and I promise not to support any future effort of like kind in the future. I wish those First Nations peoples all the best in their lives, but I will not support their efforts any longer until such time as those efforts are geared toward reasonable settlements. When the debate centres on financial matters, it is no longer about culture or justice it is all about money. Taking money from my family to give to First Nations peoples is not something I can personally afford to do. I am sorry, but that is a simple truth. Now that I have stepped onto the other side I think it would be prudent for the government to reconsider its position. No citizen in this country can own the mineral rights to their property. Why is the law not being equally enforced. All citizens must pay taxes. Why is the law not being enforced. The best defense is a good offence and it is time for the government to start fighting back.

I absolutely hate the fact that my generation was spared the horrors of war, because it seems now that my children will pay that price. Our political system and our society has known all along that this crap could happen and they decided not to prevent it. It may very be the start of WW4,3 was the cold war. We could have done something to prevent this crap. We could have made peace.

Forget blaming the UN, they only do what they can with the resources they are given. Assignment of blame will not bring these people back and will not prevent the same type of incident from happening again. In war people die. You don't have to be a soldier to die, you just have to be there. The main issue here folks is that there is a war going on and people are losing their lives. Now you may wish to stop this war, but I caution individuals to think very carefully. A cease fire is a lot different than peace. To end this war you need peace. In order to get peace the combatants need to agree to stop killing each other. Now think very carefully, does that seem even remotely likely? This is a war alright, but it is not our war. Should other nations become involved the outcome will be larger numbers of dead people. There is not thing one that can be done to stop this present condition in those two countries. Let them settle this on their own. When they have had enough or can't take it anymore they will stop for a time. It will not be a long time you understand because it will start again. The nations of the world have already concluded that the preconditions for a cease fire must include a plan for a lasting peace. Wake up people, those in the know just decided to let her go man. Those nations are now at war until somebody wins. Those two soldiers are not going to be handed over and the rockets are going to keep flying. Even the Lebanese have said they have no interest in disarming the terrorists that started this in the firstg place. There is nobody to turn it off. I would recommend that if you have friends in either country that you call them and wish them all the luck. Maybe go to a church and light a candle for them or something, perhaps just pray if you are into that because it may be the only hope those poor folks over there have.

All natural substances are good for you? Of course they are, how silly of me. I'm going to go take some of my hemlock and breath in some smoke from a forest fire. All natural man, you should try some! Saying weed is natural so it should be legal is about the worst argument for legalisation I've heard yet. Who said taking drugs was good for you? I certainly didn't. The harm from drugs is realized on two fronts, one is an individual harm the second is the harm to society. On an individual level, weed causes loss of memory and motivation. It impairs judgement and to a small degree coordination. Having said this the drug itself is far more safe than booze. Unless you smoke as much weed as tobacco it is safer than cigarettes. The harm to society with weed is very limited, but that cannot be said about hard drugs. The main problem with weed is that it is not regulated because it is outside of the law. Vendors target kids to get them hooked and provide a nice little underground revenue stream for them selves. Make it legal and sell it in a regulated environment requiring age restrictions the same as booze and cigarettes. Make selling to minors a capital offense and you will scare off the dealers from selling to children. The thing to do is address the problem and get it under control, as long as it is illegal it is effectively out of control and nothing can be done to stop the trade or fix the problems.

Give me an example (either real or hypothetical) of how a "government" can legislate for the benefit of society but NOT legislate the behavior of citizens. Environmental Laws, Labour Laws, the list is nearly endless. These laws regulate business and industry which dictate the behavior of non living legal citizens. Living citizens are natural people who are regulated by criminal and civil laws. That legislation that is relevant to them retains the spotlight yet detracts from their freedoms. Once again I will state that human beings should be free to act in a manner of their own choosing. The only restriction to humans beings should be that causing harm to others is an infraction of the other humans individual or civil rights that is declared punishable by legal authority.

WE are over taxed and under serviced in Alberta. This size of our surplus was nearly half our budget. This situation is happening while we experience problems in education and healthcare. Politicians have no right to tax beyond the requirments of funding program spending authorized through legislation. The situation is a sad commentary on our democracy. A tax revolt accross the country may not be a viable option, but in Alberta with a leadership race begining to shape up Canadians would be well advised to watch what happens here.

Those brave men died in service to their countries. They were soldiers in their own nations and attached to a UN security force that was assigned a dangerous mission. In carrying out that mission they all lost their lives. That is a sad reality, but no amount of crying will bring them back. No number of investigations will bring them back. No matter who was at fault and responsible for their deaths the facts will forever remain that they died in the service of their country. They did not bug out, they never cut and ran even when it was clear that their lives were in danger. They stayed and did their job under the most difficult conditions. They lost their lives in an effort to complete their mission of maintaining peace. They should be honoured for their sacrifice. Sadly the members of this forum choose to lay blame on one side or another in this conflict and declare that the UN failed in its responsibility. If the UN fails we fail because we are a part of it. I refuse to believe that those brave men that gave their very lives in the cause of peace failed. The only failure here was a political one. The UN needs reforms if we are to be able to find some measure of hope for world peace. Those brave men gave their lives for peace, can we do less than to give some political ground for peace? It is time for the citizens of this planet to be as brave as those soldiers and seek meaningful changes in international relations. If the UN cannot do the job, then we should get rid of it. It the UN will not reform itself we should get out of it.