kward

You'd mentioned she occupied something near the political centre. So, that basically means she personally will fight for whatever's politically expedient - instead of something that actually means anything. Which is fine by her as long as taxpayers keep forking over to her 158 thou a year plus benefits, pension, etc. Hmm...$158 000 a year just to keep racking up the national debt. Great work if you can get it.

I've got news for you, trying to buy safety is an exercise in futility. You make yourself more secure by keeping out of the affairs of others, and by opening for business with any and all. You lead by example, and you practice good diplomacy, always open to talk with anyone. THAT's keeping a country safe...the other stuff is an arms race with no end, and it impoverishes more than it enriches.

Yes, that's exactly what I'd said in my reply. Well done. Hey, I hear Coles Notes is hiring.

Waste of money.

Of course not, that would be ridiculous. It comes in requests for this amount, then that amount, and so on, and so on, and so on. It's 50 mill here, 50 mill there...before you know it the national debt's unserviceable.

See my previous reply to Smallc.

Okay, that's fine. Point is, whomever wants to leave whom, no need to get in the way strictly out of fear or knee-jerk. But, yes, I realize the odds of any of the above happening is slim to none - I'm advocating keeping an open mind - especially if there's a buck to be made.

Good at diplomacy is good. Class...I would trade that for backbone any day.

Canadians live in Canada. Yes. I'm not beating around the bush, I've asked you questions. No need to put up a wall, it's conversation...never a bad thing.

Yes, because I'm ten feet tall and bullet proof.

To what end? Can you quantify the policing? You're talking about an endless money pit spent on a notion that will never be achieved. Canada is so vast you could sink a hefty portion of the GDP into "policing our airspace" and still have loopholes to be taken advantage of. If you chase after some arbitrary feeling of "security" you will forever chase, and lose billions if not trillions in the process. See: the War on Terror Diplomacy works, and it's cheap. Beyond that, being an economic power, and an attractive place for people to invest will render Canada un-attackable by nation states when we're important to their bottom line. Of course, there will always be non-nation-state ideologue terrorists - no amount of money spent on conventional war machines will ever change that, nor will they ever fully erase the threat. So why waste Canada's money trying?

1. "Our resources" Whose? Yours? 2. Who cares if the investors are "foreign"? 3. Okay, if theoretically no Canadians are employed in the physical extraction of the resource from the dirt. Are there any Canadians employed by Canadians who make a good buck on the cheaply, efficiently extracted product? Are there jobs created when shareholders profit from a resource extracted in such a way that maximizes profits? 4. "Our people" Whose? Yours? 5. Is a minimum wage job not better than no job at all? 6. Selling out? How about selling? Which means earning money...here...in this country. Money that circulates, that creates jobs. 7. My way of managing our resources? Why manage at all? Managing is expensive. Selling is profitable. 8. Earning in the present allows for savings and investment that pays dividends in the future. Ignore the present and you leverage the future...needlessly. 9. The fisheries? What about it?

Yeah, all they want is fifty million taxpayer dollars. A dime spent on conventional war machines is too much. What a waste.

Why?

What kind of bombs we talking about here?

It wouldn't matter which major federal party was in charge, the laundry list of complaints would remain, just with different items, and the complaints would come from the herd who live in the blue pen, or the red, or the orange, etc etc.

There's probably many media "outlets" who support the Liberals, ones who support the NDP, ones who support the Greens, etc. But it doesn't mean anything.

You missed my point...which is...it doesn't matter which party you vote for of the major parties...the difference between them appears vast but that's by design. Being "sick" of cheerleading is an emotional reaction to a game that's been rigged from the start. We're all losing? We've been losing for as long as we've been lazy...and that's a long, long time.

We don't need F35s.

The question was, will the company employ any Canadians? If it employs one, that's a royalty. It's a small one, yes, but it's there. We can always negotiate for more, or do as was done in the news story you linked, negotiate through the courts. Are there not Canadian investors who will profit from this company extracting the oil? Does this company have any Canadian shareholders? Would this company not have to improve local infrastructure around its Canadian-based operations to improve its productivity? Are there not ancillary benefits from those improvements for those who live where those improvements are made?

A Chinese-owned oil company extracting oil from Canadian soil will employ zero Canadians?

Is a job not a royalty?

Yes, because we wouldn't want to elect someone that actually stood for something.

+1million

1. Yes, it may be economic suicide for Quebec. But in the face of that, if they want to try it - I have no problem letting them do it. Maybe it would work out for both parties economically. Probably not, but let's not waste money on a language dispute that never ends. Let them put their money where their mouth is, and if they have to come crawling back...so be it. If they make it...great, let's cut some deals and be economic partners. 2. As for Alberta...see number one and replace "language" with "economic". Some of "they" don't. Then again, some of them do. If "most" of them don't, then the nationalists have nothing to worry about. My point is, the worry exists, and it's silly.