Jerry J. Fortin

There were lots of other little kisses that year as I recall as well, but you needed the income to take advantage of them.

Look people, if you want airport and airline security then why not just hire some of the happy folks at EL AL Security.......these guys know how to handle stuff properly.

Yet some benefit more than others from tax breaks. Usually they are targeted in some manner.

Maybe, but maybe not. It sort of depends what he has to say, and how he says it. If he is partisan in anyway, this could be spun six different directions at the same time. If he is not, then it could well be another story altogether.

Oleg we are going into Social Credit very quickly here......

We shall see....

So if the opposition parties show up on the 25th of Jan, what will or could happen?

Who knows the answer to this question...I don't If opposition members show up in Ottawa and are inside the House of Commons, during a period of time in which the Parliamentary Session has been prorogued, and some agreement is reached between the elected members of the House Of Commons, could such agreement constitute grounds for the the standing government to be removed from office and a replacement of that government be undertaken with a group representing the majority of Canadians?

The solution to that particular problem is found within the concept of direct democracy. The Swiss model being the only functional example to date.

This could be interesting.

First past the post is a misnomer. What that really means is the guy with the most votes wins, and there is no real viable alternative to a democratic majority. Proportional representation could result in the removal of a winning candidate in a riding just to balance a national popular vote, that would not be fair to the constituents who in their majority selected a representative. No it isn't. The most numerous partisan faction goes to the GG and asks to form a government. The leader of that partisan faction is not determined by the House of Commons by any stretch of the imagination. To prevent corruption and promote agendas. They? You mean the British Parliament, which by intent of the Statute of Westminister is specifically prevented from doing this. Of the Senate, which should be used in an auditor General type of role, yes. Yes but that means nothing when the PM appoints these people at their own discretion. Under the current system yes, but I have said why I think that is wrong. The Governor General should be both the Leader and the Speaker of the Senate and that position should be an elected one. Same answer as with the PM. Elected officials need to steered away from corruption and assisted in pursuing public agendas. The Monarch is already effectively removed from the political process in all but name. They serve as a rubber stamp for the most part. If your idea of managing the country consists of living on a golf course and meeting foreign officials, then you are of course entitled to your opinion but I choose to believe that is not managing a country. Simply signing on a dotted line to pass legislation into law for an absentee monarch simply doesn't cut it for me. I want more from someone on the public dime that just that. Yet the PM should be as the leader of government, and a deputy should be as well. U have no idea who you work for but the CEO of my company is a hands on kinda guy. Nothing escapes his micro-management. This is what the PM currently does and it is not something I am in favour of at all. Do you really think that the Senate is where our most experienced and capable employees are? Give your head a shake! Tommy Hunter, Mike Duffy? Not all of these folks meet that criteria at all, or should I say not many at all. Like meeting foreign officials and living on a golf course waiting to sign something for somebody else? The Senate gets two jobs, one of their own design and one that the Commons shovels over there. That needs to change, the Senate needs to hold the purse strings and serve as accountants and auditors for the most part. Legislation that comes from the Commons should simply get an official nod after an audit. This is why there are thousands of government employees and a monster size bureaucracy. People watching people ? Big brother rules and the citizens pay for this system. Each and every elected representative should have a position of responsibility and authority within the government regardless of partisan affiliation. Ever hear the Harry Trueman phrase "The buck stops here." When you do the selection process and you do the nominating, and you own the guy holding the rubber stamp, then what you are doing is appointing. Who are you trying to kid? They get to Ottawa by skateboard if they want. But I would suggest that they rent a place there like everybody else. They already have that "right" should they chose to exercise it. The Governor General / Leader of the Senate, should represent neither public opinion or public interest, but instead serve as a fiscal/legal watchdog for the government. Certainly, if that was the will of the House of Commons. All legislative efforts currently are vetted for compliance with the constitution. Where is you platform/policy ? Of course it isn't! Another thing that needs to be changed. A little of both I think. Both the House of Commons and the Senate can be organized in such a way so as to comply with all legal aspects of incorporation, in so doing they would of course be crown corporations owned by the people, operated by the government. Not merely committees but instead functional systems of audits and accountings, holding the purse strings for the House of Commons.

Yes and your point is?

So anybody that has two houses isn't allowed an opinion, or has no credibility to be respected? Dave is okay, and he is right more often than not. Yes he is a lefty tree hugger but that is okay, we need those opinions heard as well. Besides the man makes many valid points.

Is that written in their constitution, or policy somewhere? Sorry not a party member or privy to that information....

I can agree with that.

Question their motives? You are kidding right? The trough is deep and tasty on the tax payer dime! They see the PC's taking a bath with the latest polling just as well as you or I have. They just want to keep their jobs, nothing more than you or I would.

So your idea of a real leader is Harper, and you support him. That is fine

Yes the board of directors would be the House of Commons. Having the members of the Commons then elect one of their as a leader or Prime Minister is something I agree with. Provided of course that the newly elected leader was separate from the partisan factions within the house and accountable to all members, so that a non-confidence motion would result only in the removal of the leader, not the removal of all members. I think the PM should have a term limit of at least 1 year or perhaps two. The CEO, should not be appointed by the PM, but instead elected, with a longer term of office than the PM, perhaps 6 years, and then be subject to term limits prevent consecutive terms. The PM should be in charge of the Commons but not the Senate. The upper house leader should be elected as well, but for less time than the leader of that house, say three years. If you are speaking of the owner as the PM, then I would suggest that the PM choose a deputy to take the reins in case of some tragic event. I must disagree here and suggest that the CEO should be the leader of the Senate, which would also be the Governor General. If we retain the upper house, and the GG then it would seem to me that the two positions and functions should be combined. Give the GG something to do, and give the Senate something to do while we are at it. Yes, but those department heads should be the best people for the job, not merely elected members. I would agree that the PM would and should appoint members to the Senate, provided those appointments were made with the consent and approval of the provinces. These people are SUPPOSED to represent the provinces anyway. The Queens representative is and should always be the Governor General, but that position should be elected not appointed as a rubber stamp. I agree completely with this, getting the folks from Quebec to swear allegiance to the crown is another matter though. When the board violates the articles they should be tried and sentenced for their crimes. Once convicted they should be removed from office. Here we disagree. The courts need to be independent from the government. In other words elected, at least in the case of the Supreme Court. The shareholder ALWAYS get a vote, on a fixed date on a fixed cycle, determined by democratic decision of the House of Commons. Not oddly at all actually. We are the product of our environmnet. I suppose you could look at it that way, but they are really both Crown Corporations. No it is not the same, it is different and possibly better once made into what we are really talking about. Convoluted isn't it. Some revisions are indeed necessary. That is part of the problem, but as I said early can be changed for the better. The Senate should function as the auditor general, only with added power. The power to prevent mistakes from happening in the first place. That would be an enhancement from the lonely corner of second thought that it currently is.

I was actually...typing out loud.

The board being accountable to the citizens must be replaced with a profit motivated group designed to put the legal entity into a fiscal position of prosperity.

Meanwhile the citizens investment in the nation through means of taxation has yet to yield any dividends of notice to most.

Now to go a step further, the nation is not being run in a profitable manner is it? The current board of directors has laid claim to being fiscally responsible, yet has taken us into deficit and greater debt.

When you look at it in this way, then we become the owners of the assets, as well as the debts. We are therefore entitled to a share of the profits of the legal entity known as Canada. The board of directors then is accountable to the shareholders for the lack of profits.

So we are shareholders of the legal entity of Canada. The shareholders elect citizens to a board of directors. The board of directors is therefore the government of Canada....right?

Our status is that of a natural citizen entity, within a legal citizen entity known as Canada............ As such we are responsible for the legal actions of that legal citizen entity, Canada, and accountable for the debts and liabilities of that legal citizen, Canada. We are Canadians....right?