Jerry J. Fortin

I agree! The CCF and the Socreds were very interesting groups. Lots of stuff got done, the proof is in the pudding. Public Heath Care, education, EI, and dozens of other programs were created to form a floor from which nobody would fall below. They were ahead of the curve, but have now lost there way.

There is no doubt about it. We can do this ourselves, now anyway, but not then. I understand the argument, but I think the problem is a little too sticky. I agree that we should change the way we are doing things in terms of development. We now have both expertise and capital to do what should be done. Now reality sets in, NAFTA and all that you know. We need to be aware that it is very difficult to change. I would suggest that if the citizens of this nation desire to take the bull by the horns, invest in ourselves, then we will benefit.

Well Scotty I think that you need to look inward and see what you can. In my view you have to back the truck up all the way the First World War. While we were not watching, our lands and resources were frittered away, and guess what? We are supposed to be happy about it! You know what else? We were!!! Okay, let me explain myself here. What some will call sovereignty some will call development. You can hire someone to do it for you or you can do it yourself. At the turn of the last century we either lived in cities and worked there or worked on the farm. This nation is wealthy beyond dreams, in terms of natural resource wealth. Raw material, we have plenty of. What we did not have and did not need before the war was industrial expertise. Well, we lacked more than that but in essence we lacked the means to convert raw material into industrial production. The reality is the nation was developed with foreign capital and foreign expertise. This is not to say that we developed nothing by ourselves, but the big corporations that had the means were able to take advantage of this industrial void in Canada. The Americans have spent trillions of dollars on Canada, or at least American companies have. So here we are suggesting that since now the Chinese want a share of the pie that something is wrong! WTF.....

Social disorder is where my money goes! We should study India in order to understand China. Keep in mind they (India) are the largest democracy in the world. They have 40 times our population!

The elusive viable solution problem! I will bite that problem with dialogue. The answer is quite literally at our fingertips! A dialogue of ideas and concepts, new ways to look at things and new ways of understanding things. If all you want is an alternative to the rule of partisan politics, then look no further than this; Have the Prime Minister stand in the House of Commons and ask that all members join the Government of Canada as Cabinet Ministers. I do not believe there is any legal impediment to this political strategy. Once accepted as Cabinet Ministers, a one representative one vote rule is applied, party whips are not required, there being no fixed opposition to the government. Opposition is created during the debate and voting process by means of free votes. Why this strategy? In two words, High Treason. Better to be like Caeser's wife than be accused in that manner. The cost to the would be traitor simply too high to compensate for monetarily. The point of the exercise being known as a means of preventing corruption of officials. Taking this approach provides protection for the public from the hands of corrupt officials. It allows for zero wiggle room for the slime who would seek to benefit at public expense. All that from simply devising a way to promote free voting in the Commons.

The PM can lead, that is all he can do. The rest is done by majority vote. Knowing this should we not simply seek leadership?

The concept of free voting needs to be enshrined in our constitution. Its time to revamp the system. I actually think that a leader of citizens could do worse than being an advocate of the free will of citizens to act within the law, in a government where the free will of the people can be expressed democratically in a system of government based on the free votes of the representatives of the people. This is not an argument about anything less than the freedom which a nation can provide for its citizens. It is as simple as deciding how a citizen wishes to be governed. It is as simple as deciding what power and or authority we decide to provide our representatives in government to have.

I agree with you for the most part, but. The citizens of this country, through their elected representatives can vote freely in the House of Commons. It is mere partisan convention, political influence that forms the "will of the government" to whip votes in the first place. Granted that whips exist in many political systems, I have yet to find this job or function within the text of the constitution. Do you not find the concept of free voting as appealing at all? Should not the free vote of a citizens be determined to be a fundamental entitlement of our citizenship?

You identify the rot in this system, yet do not want to treat it? In your own words "it is much easier to purchase a few MPs than to purchase an entire party", you then believe the system is either already corrupt or able to be corrupted, is that correct?

I don't think Trudeau relied on American defense as much as many think. Keep in mind he was following the guy who created "Peace Keepers". He was hemmed in a tad too much by this Liberal Party approach.

Free votes can be done, have been done and will again be done with the consent of the House. Is this statement incorrect? Whipped votes are the creation of partisan affiliation and are not specifically mentioned within the Constitution. Is this statement incorrect?

If I were PM what would I do? I would attempt to gain the confidence of the House in an effort to make each and every elected representative responsible for some function of government. This nation as all others have more problems than people in public service. The current system is fundamentally flawed as it is a patronage based system. Let us be realistic here, people want to reward their friends and in politics its simply what is done. Herein is a nice paradigm for us. The system can change with the will of the people expressed freely in the House of Commons where it really matters. We can end patronage, nepotism, or anything at all that we so desire with a simple majority vote. We don't. We continue to allow individuals to accumulate power and or wealth and use it against us. We all know it, but we don't do anything about it. That does not speak well of us, that we should continue with the system that we know is fundamentally flawed. As PM, one could speak as an advocate of direct democracy and actually have a chance to bring our nation to the next step in the evolution of our society. In a direct democracy the people determine the passage of legislation, not the government. One person, one vote. You want a say, then you should be able to stand and say it. Creating a direct democracy would soon become a national will, a political will that would provide an entirely new set of opportunities. It would allow us to rethink government from the point of view of the citizen instead of that of the bureaucrat. Every vote in the House of Commons MUST BE a free vote. It is only from the floor of that House that Legislation in this nation can be legally created, and to prevent democracy through partisan means is a very shallow approach to government. It needs to be said that we are a free people with free will. That concept must be enshrined within the terminology of our constitution. As PM you could lead the House into approaching constitutional change in a rational manner. Such change need not be feared. but instead embraced. The first change needed is in the amendment formula, from there the rest is less complex. If I were PM and could wave a magic political wand ....that is the question that was really asked wasn't it? I would give each and every elected member of the House a REAL job with real responsibility and shake the hand of one less senior bureaucrat. I would not simply fire them but instead encourage as many as I could to simply retire in peace. Attrition is the key to successful change in bureaucratic terms. I would use the resources of the Government of Canada to convince its citizens to support direct democracy. I would legislate to make voting a requirement of citizenship. At that point I should hope that true democracy should lead to public opinion compelling change from that point forward. The expressed will of the people.

Granted that many if not all could in fact make more money in the private sector, but that would be too much like work for those same people. These individuals are not supposed to be going into civil service seeking riches for heavens sake. The elected representatives in this country get paid at least a buck and a half, that's what five times the average wage for citizens? I have made nearly that much a year myself so I can tell you that when you are making that kind of money, you are not to stressed out to enjoy it. To answer your posed question, they should cut their pay and benefits because they are supposed to be leaders in this society of ours. In this society you lead by example, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Applied to this instance, the government needs to practice what it has been preaching. Show me where in our constitution it says that politicians are immune from the ills of society? The entire golden goose concept must be considered. The cost of democracy can be high, and having said that our politicians take full advantage of it. You suggestion of making it worth their while to undertake civil service is utter nonsense because there are numerous perks and privileges outside of the realm of taxable income. These elected folks do fairly well. I will counter your assertion by suggesting that elected officials are already generously compensated, and for that reason alone they should step forward and offer to review the process and structures necessary to replace their defined benefit packages.

I think you are right!

The Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763 "And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid." When I read this I conclude that ALL INDIANS in fact come under the protection of the Crown. Further to this I read into it that those lands that were formerly in the control of "Indians" from that day forward, ALL LANDS are to be controlled by the Crown. Does it not follow then that since the land and the people fall under the dominion of the Crown, they are in fact citizens of this nation.

To me, Quebec seems to historically lead a trend of sorts. They can never support the Government, but they can always support the Opposition in a moral kind of twisted commonsense.

While I find no flaw in your argument, the fact remains that optics are everything in politics and if I was a member of the opposition I would be laughing all the way to the bank! In addition, those poor bastards that were locked out and screwed over have clear memories and a long list of friends. The pattern is very clear and there is much political mileage to be made from it. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Damned well said Wilbur !

The truth is that we need new birds, period. I don't care which partisan decision is which, just give our guys the tools they need to do the job we tell them to do with a minimum risk of life and limb. Look folks when it comes to the military, we simple cannot afford to risk what precious little we have just to save a buck.

Sorry folks, but welcome to the real world. Since we signed into the North American Free Trade Agreement we have given away the farm. We can protect NOTHING. It leaves the door open to the USA, but it really is a one way street. In this case I invite folks to look into what happened with the truck plant that went on strike, the outcome is assured. The plant gets closed and the company reaps the tax rewards for shutting it down. If you doubt this talk to your friendly accountant buddy. Its just dollars and common sense.

1763 Canada was made up of Upper and Lower Canada thats it.

Look CR, face the facts. Brandt was in fact instrumental in the the deal struck with the Crown, that deal was in fact proposed by Brandt. The deal was simple, support the Crown and get some land. These natives were refugees from the losing side in the quest for American Independence. Those Six Nations people were from the USA, that is a fact. You can say what you want about Brandt, but you cannot ignore the reality of his position. He was designated as a leader and he legally represented those of the First Nations. What is more is that BRANDT WAS ONE OF THOSE SELLING THE LAND.

duplicate post

Ooooppps

You are out to lunch. The Six Nations RETURNED to Canada from a long absence, they were given a piece of land along the Grande River. You should know it as the Haldimand Proclamation, a nice little bundle of goodies courtesy of Mr. Brandt. This is the same guy, a first nations guy, who then sold off the land back to either the crown, or agents of the crown. This man was trusted by the crown as an official representative of Six Nations peoples. Are these not facts CR ?