AlienB

Thanks for the info I see a constitutional monarchy differently. The Monarch is the State, while Canada is the Monarch's territory.. the monarch claims and chooses to exercise their will over that territory. Provinces are constiuent bodies which have different civil laws, which the division of territorial administration is set out in the constitution 1867.. however the Monarch is the head and final point of process and laws are exercised as the will of the monarch who ascends laws. The monarch uses advisors such as privy council and parliament to determine their will. People just have some foreign view of what Canada is, it isn't a republic, which is a people exercising their will over a territory. A monarch is a person that being the monarch exercising their will which has territorial implications. This is further complicated by Canadian nationalities that came into existence in 1952 or so, and further complicated by the end of British Subject status.. however in effect new citizens are still british subjects (actually Canadian Monarch Subjects) as well are people born before 1982 (they are actual british subjects though unlike new immigrants today). There is an ever increasing issue though due to the population born after 1982 increasing, as only new immigrants are new subjects as natural citizens of Canada unless they exercise an office mandated by law to require subject status by taking the oath, do not exist. Run of the mill people who havn't taken the oath who were born after 1982 arn't pledged subjects of the monarchy. They hold "citizenship in Canada as a Canadian National by virtue of jus soli. None the less, Canada itself is a constitutional monarchy, but no there is no national oath or oath to the nation, if they want an oath to an inanimate object they should move to America. Canadians pledge to the monarchy not to a flag. The republicanism of Canada has been gradual post WWII though.. this is why this case is troubling. There are other issues too. So what are those provinces and federations then? Is it the Lt. Governors who make the decisions for those entities, or is it the legislators.. but arn't legislatures only for making laws? They don't execute the law, they are not the executive so why would you pledge to a legislature? People in America don't pledge to the President or the congress... it is the idea of the what the flag represents. Much like pledging to the monarch is pledging to the idea of what the monarchy means. That is Canada, there is no other Canada that exists. Personally if people don't support legal Canada they shouldn't be Canadians... its a free world people don't need to be citizens of a country whose laws violate their beliefs. I'm not really sure how to describe people born after 1982 in Canada other than "Canadian Citizens", that is they owe no loyalties but are subject to the laws of Canada currently though to hold specific offices they have to become a "Canadian Monarch Subject" In effect they are under jurisdiction only while in Canada but subject potentially upon their return. The subjects are not confined by territory in their duties as subjects of the crown.

hmm that was the figures for the hmcs victoria ... I'm not talking crush depth I'm talking test depth. Perhaps you can dispute the wikipedia article if you think it is inaccurate.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Victoria

http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/much+blood+Researchers+fear+gift+life+sometimes+endanger/8652224/story.html Ok so it appears it is safer not to get transfusions I recalled that story from a few years back about a doctor forcing a Jehovah's kid to get a transfusion against the wishes of her parents. People saw it as "crazy religious beliefs" but it appears it is medically a better practice.. go figure.. So will the courts now back up and reverse their position on taking away parental rights to treatment and being the agent of informed consent? It appears the courts and the medical community increased risk to the child not lowered it while also alienating parents and their rligious beliefs in terms of acceptable treatment. Why is informed consent not absolute that if it is not consented the operation or activity cannot be performed.

Ok a few permanent residents wishing to become Canadian Citizens do not want to issue an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Personally I think those people need to reread their immigration materials, because if they don't understand the Queen is the head of state, the head of parliament, and the head of judiciary, and Canada is a constitutional monarchy... that is headed by the Queen they need to read more about Canada's legal system. Canada is a constitutional monarchy if you want to be Canadian then you become a constituent of that Monarchy, as the monarch is representative of the state. There is no "Canada" as a legal entity. Did they want to pledge to the Supreme Court? What about to Parliament? Well sorry no those insitutions are not the state, they are sub components of the state. There is no "Canada" There is a Federal Government, but Canadian Citizenship is not Federal Citizenship, it is state citizenship. Of course this would be a landmark case if it was accepted. None the less the perversion of Canada into a republic by antimonarchists is just further proceeded by your guys following comments. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/07/11/canadian_citizenship_oath_to_queen_will_be_challenged_in_court.html

There is actually a proposition circulating now... of course the legislature might just ignore the petition but it is I think finally coming to light from Dana Larson to alter the administration of simple possession so that simple possesion not be enforced in BC. This is quite a bit like what happened with Washington State, and Colorado and perhaps some others.] Considering the US is less pro pot than Canada it is suprising to see that the US is leading Canada in some respects in legalization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_US_state Perhaps Marc has an aura. This would be like half of BC being legalized in Canada right now in terms of legalization advance. Isn't it ironic ... the US has laxer treatment than Canada by constituent units... Perhaps marc gave some magic beans to America.. I could see this as a Childrens book years from now, Marc and the Magic Seed Stock.

I just looked it up, according to wikipedia it is Test depth: 200 m (660 ft) which is more brown than the subs I mentioned, also its dive time is substantially less. What exactly makes a blue water boat to you?

The thing has a test depth of 700ft what is the Victoria classes test depth? You didn't really answer the question can you go back and answer the question The schedules are posted online I know when they are listed as. None the less the service contract with Babcock is ticking away..

Actually I didn't in anyway suggest the german boat.. it was the spanish/american one that was my second suggestion. I'm very surprised you are saying they are too small, what exactly is missing, why is such a large crew required? 48 instead of 40. All I'm seeing is that these things are all due for another ERDP at the end of this decade for a few years, and that to me is the natrual turn over point because that is when the service contract is up. The other option puts replacement in the mid to late 2020's and in that scenario the subs won't likely be too servicable if there is a problem with the replacements for callback. IMO those are the only two options... either new subs start coming on in about 7 years, or they start coming on in about 12 years.. I can't see these things being the primary and only subs into the 2030's.. perhaps you can share your vision in how these things will perform in that environment? In either case a multi billion dollar purchasing program should have many years of prior planning 5 years is a slim.. 10 years is where it should be at at least.. and well for 2026 for the last decomisioning that is well 13 years from now, but the first is about 9 or 10 years from now. You seem to be saying these boats should be run into the 2030's, is that what you are saying? This is a little over 100 million a year to run them.

Pots illegal. It may be a stupid law, but its the law. What really concerned me about this story is that the US needs approval from the government of Canada to return a Canadian to Canada. It is a constitutional right to enter leave or remain in Canada, the government shouldn't be able to veto those rights arbitrarily outside the law. Then again constitutional violations only have a pecuniary interest according to the supreme court for violations.. which is a little absurd in itself. The real question is thought how would the US respond if there was no extradition treaty, would the situation be better or worse for Canada? The criminal precendent here was that Emery was making it easier for people to grow pot which would reduce the price of pot and cut in on organized crimes proceeds and thus capabilities to be strong and conduct other illegal activities and make payoffs etc.. so it directly effected the interests of the US government because america was loosing drug money. What run of the mill person would pay for pot if they could watch it grow itself? Sure there might be a specialty trade but lets get real pot is big business, people selling seeds into america effect that trade and make it more difficult to control the drug. Personally i think pot should be able to be privately used, but I'm not in favour of public use in smoke or vapour form, (edibles would be ok), as it is a public safety risk to people exposed in public especially those in specific occupations that require completely clean minds. None the less... I've been casually exposed to pot and it is not a big issue for me, however, if I were needing to do insurance, or medical procedures, travel, or work related issues, it would be a big deal. None the less Canada nor the US have laws that adequettely address the safety issues of pot, and many people arn't really aware or concerned about others peoples needs when it comes to contact with pot, and until there is adequette safegaurds in place, selling or moving pot can be irresponsible if not in a controlled manner. None the less the guy broke the law, did time, and is now potentially on his way back into Canada. It is a stupid world, a very serious world, but it is the only world that is around.. all you can do is vote for politicians that support a drug strategy that will accommodate private use of marijuana amongst responsible adults, and allow growing of pot for personal use. I'm libertarian and that means as little government intervention in peoples personal lives as possible, but no I don't support full legalization of pot and what Mr. Emery did was a little irresponsible, but commendable, it was blind faith I would hope. None the less I do think pot should be legalized for personal use including growing because it doesn't harm society, and definately not more than legal alcohol, pharmaceuticals, junk food, and an absence of access to clean air, water, or exercise. The world is getting rougher and more corrupt, I don't see pot being legalized tomorrow. It was in effect traffiking in marjuana, I've seen undercovers busted for having seeds, resin and stems. this means like a month in jail and a $50 fine type thing. 5 years is a long time, but he was in effect conspiring to enable the production of marijuana. I don't see that as a crime without a view of who is doing it and for what purpose but the US does and there is an extradition treaty so legally it is open and closed. Hopefully marc will reestablish himself, not have been replaced by the CIA and run in the next election.. but lets see where he is at when he gets back and out and if he can garner support to change pot laws in canada and/or extradition rules with the US. What I think everyone is wondering is who were his cell mates and did he get raped.

Derek, I havn't actually proposed a platform, I have actually said that the subs need to be replaced because they will be 50 years old by the time they can be replaced if we decide to replace them today. Step one is accepting the fact these subs need to be replaced, step 2 is getting a sub that will replace them. I am still at step 1. From what I know though I am aware that there are only 3 or 4 subs that will work that are currently in development. Also having a contingency should the subs be damaged or lost is always good. You can't get new upholders. --------- None the less perhaps you are right... Canada doesn't need new subs, what is the worst thing that can happen? It is somewhat nonsensical to be paying 1 billion dollars every 10 years for upkeep on 3 subs. It makes no sense. It is nearly as much as buying new subs every 10 years. the pricing is rediculous considering the ships only have a few hundred dollars worth of electronics in them. 1990's electronics are madly outdated. GPS etc.. was all the rage 20 years ago, today it is commonplace. Really the subs are dated. They are better than nothing but for a billion or 100 million in upkeep every year? It seems disproportionate to the role they play in terms of defence spending. Maybe you can let me know what that 100 million a year is going to. Now this is a drop in the bucket compared to the 350 million in aid given to the afghanistan government for their domestic security.. but 100 million is actually quite a bit of money to upkeep 3 boats each year. Last I saw their operational duties were docking, and potentially stationary port defence. And other times patrol... it seems to mostly engage in training exercises. None the less I am not firm in any position, however I think absence of dialog on post 2020 or even the end of the current service contract needs to be brought into perspective in terms of direction after 15 years of service. I don't think you can really not have an overlap period for the boats even if it means 1 in 1 out.. this is not have new subs tommorrow this is years in advance.

1. Some people are living longer. 2. Peoples quality of life may not be improved. Yeah living those extra 10 years fighting cancer is just a great experience. I'd rather die young than have 20 years of medical problems and being drugged to lethargy. The advances of medicine and medical technology do not mean that industrial activities have not reduced life span. People get sick but they are treated. Not everyone survives cancer, and yes oil causes cancer and other serious illnesses. You seem to be advocating for polluting watersheds in that instance you have no standing in this discussion because it is an ignoramus position. You seem to be down playing the fact a square km of a town blew up due to lax safety controls. Well you know what they are idiots because they aren't protecting people or their cargo. You saying its ok only 0.01% of hazourdous materials moved kill or injure anyone, so we don't need to make that safety record better. You know if I only pick up a gun and kill one person it matters, the same should apply to companies hauling hazourdous materials including oil. This includes pipelines. The stuff kills and makes people sick, there needs to be safety measure in place to prevent this, as ethically it is repulsive. It is negligence causing severe injury and death that any reasonable and sane person can see. It happened because it could happen. The government isn't being safe. As scary as it is to believe, the pipleines are worse than the trains in terms of safety..

To asses the capabilities of that technology as well as to use if required for false flag activities. Why does the US buy Russian technology? Why do they have Migs, and Assault Rifles etc.. The Chinese are some of the best students out there. Yes but being a smaller and faster boat that can stay underwater for 100 times the amount of time does assist in not getting detected by a torpedo, and yes size and maneuverability can matter when it comes down to it, although the fact the new sub runs quieter is it right there, also less metal to detect, less sonar to ping etc.. The boats will not be able to fill their mission role 10 years from now. Those things will be a needle sitting on a table.

I think I may have seen one of my old roommates and atleast one of his friends in Aleppo from a photo today, I think he was originally from Homs if I remember correctly. He was carrying a really beat up person I couldn't recognize on a stretcher, but atleast the guy is alive and well regardless o the politics he was a nice and friendly guy.

This should be in federal. This issue only highlights that the security of chemical transport by rail and pipe are seriously not up to snuff. 1. If a train catches fire, you would expect that there is a way to contact the person responsible for it, not someone unrelated to that train. If a Captain of a ship went to shore and his ship caught fire and was put out, you'd think they'd contact the captain of the oil tanker and be like, Captain your ship caught fire, we'd like you to come back and do an assessment of it and its cargo. With this train the engineer was in bed until the train blew up and they called in a track inspector to assess the situation? Huh? Does not compute. 2. This occurred pretty much the same day or within a couple days of the announcement of the conversion of part of the transcanada mainline to carry oil to the trains destination. None the less the safety compliance on pipelines is absolutely absent, this is disgusting as that mainline travels over a whole lot of wetland, any sort of leak will be devastating. If Canada were serious about security there would be hazmat trained military officers on every hazmat train, and pipelines would not only be patrolled daily, but they would have every foot of the line under sensor and video surveillance with response sites every 10 or so km of the thing with manned military staff. Most of all they would have shutdown systems that worked by default. Some pipe doesn't even have backup power for emergency shut down. This is just absurd. The safety standards are just plain irresponsible and this town and its watershed how now suffered and will continuing suffering for years to come as a result of the federal governments complete negligence in providing security to hazourdous, lethal, toxic and explosive substances being transported in bulk in Canada. It is absurd. Until I hear things like trained military security experts atached to hazmat cargos, daily water quality testing along all adjacent wetlands to pipeline or railline, surveillance redundant contact for person in charge of hazmat cargo, emergency shutdown, daily patrols etc.. these are just idiots who have been left in charge of materials that otherwise will kill and make sick people in WMD proportions. I don't understand how poisons that will kill the environment and humans like Crude oil arn't considered a hazourdous substance by the federal government, thus requiring safety measure to prevent environmental exposure and accident with that substance. It just ins't sane.

I think you area seriously underestimating China's technological capacities take for instance their attack helicopter from two years ago the WZ I could go item for item against the US equipment roster including their new jet which has superior performance to the f35, I sort of expect their other top line stuff to also be superior performance in various roles to US equipment which is burdeoned under a fractured military industrial complex, which in China is state run. I don't see how $2.50 a year is unfeasable for Canadians for 4 new subs every 10 years. I think you are just not budgetting properly or placing your priorities properly. The whole structure you seem to be advocating is rather blind. I have the feeling you don't really have a big picture view of Canada's defence needs or what the budget should be or where money should go and how it should be raised. As stated costs are something that would need to be worked out but I suspect the newer boats will cost far less than the older boats, particularly in fuel efficiency, which with less tonage means less weight, it also means a smaller target, more manouverability, greater transport potentialse. Likewise it has an air independent system meaning it can stay fully underwater and run for like a month unlike the Victoria Class which needs to snorkle. Now I'm not saying scrap these today, but quite frankly Canada cannot continue to use them, this is really the end of the road for them. It will take a few years atleast to replace them, but it should be very obvious these things are near the end of their life, and likewise any upgrades or equipment purchased for them should be bought in mind with future repurposing, so that crew will be trained and prepared on the next ship with as little retraining as required. Bear in mind the extra crew might be put on an extra working boat, however you are wrong about, the space, frankly they have around the same crew compliment. I'm not a submariner I won't pretend to be one. I'm also not a Naval Logistics officer, nor a procurement specialist. To get the numbers down to an actual number would take some time, also it would need to figure out what sub exactly was used. bear in mind, this new sub won't be here tomorrow, it will be 5 or so years from now at minimum. Even Spain's new boats are on a schedule for 2018 or later and they are first in queue for instance for DCN. However the potentials area actually quite limited because there really arn't many subs of these types left being built.

Oh really now. I actually have had quite a few manufacturers warranties. Cars computers, work performed all commonly come with warranties. You would expect MILSPEC parts to actually hold up to the MILSPEC. Derek come now you are advocating for accepting worse quality it is a nonsense position. We arn't retards. Derek I've read quite a bit on the new Chinese equipment and I'm not unimpressed with their performance. You know the Chinese are a space power now. Why buy from companies if their crap breaks and can't survive 10 years of use without needing to be replaced as a milspec peice of equipment. Canada uses it stuff for 40 years or more, you are basically buying stuff 4x over that period. It makes more sense to buy new stuff every 10 years. But lets just assume.. what exactly i the scorpene not performing the same way as the victoria? Except it being new as opposed to 30 or so years old. Why should Canada be using 50 year old subs 10 years from now? As opposed to having brand new ones? for the same cost? For less than 1.8 billion Euro Spain got 4 Scorpene. Are the French, example the Marlins obsolelte and useless technology? How is it these new DCN subs are far worse than the 40 year old upholders? Your argument amounts to lets fill these things with more overpriced US technologies so my stocks can benefit... meanwhile submariners are left in 40 year old hulls that have had a tendency to start on fire. Canada if it plans to keep some subs will need to get new subs soon, using 50 year old hulls is just irresponsible. s80 is about 2.2billion euro for four. They are faster than the Vclass too. 12 and 19 knots respectively. a crafty canada would find a way to repurpose the vclass equipment on the new subs such as towed arrays. meanwhile mothballing the VClass or using them for an alternate purpose such as shore defence as opposed to overseas operations. Here is more info on the s80 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-80-class_submarine You should like this they are partnered with Lockheed.

Very surprised to see this http://www.680news.com/2013/07/08/toews-resigns/ I was expecting the post to change if he opted not to run again during the shuffle but a resignation was not expected. Looks like he may end up on a board of some sort. Not sure exactly what is in store.

Wow was very surprised to see this http://www.680news.com/2013/07/08/toews-resigns/ Although I was expecting the post to change if he wasnt going to run again as speculated down the road a resignation was totally unexpected.

1. The media is in Parliament, there is a press gallery. For Duffy not to communicate with a media would seriously jepordize his ability to serve the public interest because the media is a mechanism. Also binding Duffy's will where his duties of office may require him to take an act with money is bribery. Frankly speaking with the press is part of a Parliamentarians job to address the public. While it is not essential, there very well may be instances where it is in the public interest. Example in the firt instance 16. (1) No member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered or to be rendered to any person, either by the member or another person, (a) in relation to ...controversy... ...accusation... ...or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons or a committee of either House; or His expenses WERE before committee and the senate... the money received was in relation to that, and it was a direct payment in relation to that. For duffy that is a fine of between $1000 and $4000 while for Wright that is an indictable offence and up to 1 year in prison and a $500 to $2000 fine. 119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who .. if relating to official duties. You may have a point on the official duties aspect.. but is serving the public interest or the queen's interest an official duty, and if so is being bound not to act in the public trust and good faith infringing the senators ability to do their official capacities as a senator? If there is a controversy if Duffy contrary to his normal actions would have spoken to the media, is getting the money thereby serving a a breach of duty as a senator in serving the public interst? I would say that if Duffy would have spoken to the media to insure transparency and serve the public interest then yes, it was a bribe. If it was not in the public interest then it was not. However, the fact the media records parliament, it effectively would silence Duffy to speak on the matter. So yes it would obstruct parliament. now what are senators charging the senate as part of their official expenses in relation to the senate? Do any of them have costs for media communications? 121. (1) Every one commits an offence who (ii) being an official, demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for himself or another person, a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence or an act or omission in connection with (iii) the transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the government 121 seems fairly clear. It was money to influence his actions in the matter. I would not see the same issue with a no string gift, but string attached it is binding his free will. It is just obviously hush money, and it was done in a way to not be directly visible to parlaiment because it wasn't a direct payment it was paid to a trust then duffy wrote a seperate personal cheque. whether or not, in fact, the official is able to cooperate, render assistance, exercise influence or do or omit to do what is proposed, as the case may be; Now where it gets really intersting is with Perrin, Woodcock, Brunno and the Stephen Harper with Conspiracy to 121, 119 ccc, and s.16 pa. as well as the PM giving a patronage posting to bribe bruno into the consipary. The fact the Conservative Party itself was considering paying the tab is obvious that the upper echelon of hte party was disussing the matter, so I am very suprised the PM had no insight into the developments over Duffy's bailout. It would have him completely outside the loop on the biggest political controversy at the time, which really calls into question the whole Harper puppet master mythos that surrounds the PM and his office being a controlling dominating influence on the hill and in the party. 465 - Conspiracy 465. (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy: c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph a or b is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and I think Perrin was very aware of this now, him sayng he wasn't in the loop on the payment but Wright saying he was is very odd, why is this one misrepresented? I think Perrin realized he could face being disbarred if he is hit with an indictable offence. At the same time why would Wright have it out for Perrin? Is Perrin telling the truth and if so why isn't he sueing CTV for slander? http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-s-former-legal-adviser-arranged-deal-for-wright-to-give-duffy-90k-1.1289718It seems the PMO has done lots of suits to opposition members you would think they would be well prepared to sue the newspaper for printing a false and defamatory article? Yet another anomaly is that people claimed there was no letter of agreement but the same article ssays "e letter of agreement, saying it is now in the hands of Ethics Commissioner" Currious, very currious this seems like a blarring mis statement, how could Perrin draft a letter he had no knowledge of? Doppelgangers are the only answer, that and forgery.. but WHO? Where is Sherlock and Scotland Yard when crimes of this magnitude and extravagance occur? True this is nothing compared to Rob Ford Smoke Crack ordeal and dead bodies and long term jailtime for the survivors but it is an enigma none the less. Do parliamentarians ever speak to the media in an official capacity? Now law and corruption are like horse and carriage. I would not expect the moon to outshine the sun. At worst this is probably just road kill and only god knows what really happened. I got to say if championing causes such as Munsons $30k to give speeches is covered for official costs, then how is talking to press in Ottawa not seen as an official capacity if it relates to a controversy in Parliament? I think they really need to nail down what their official capacity is and why certain activities like travelling to give speeches is paid by the senate. And no I think that the senates place is to serve the public interest, however there seems to be a big grey area here. Was speaking to the press or responding to questions in committee or in a house of parliament something that was an official capacity? Is infringing those activities by paying someone not to do those things a bribe? Further is obstructing parliamentary inquiry contempt of parliament, and is obstructing the RCMP by political staff or members of parliament illegal? Is covering up those things also illegal? This is a DuffyGate but no no I think Canada is too corrupt to really care about politicos being beyond the law. There are no bodies of family members no rape victims or torture and mutilation so its not worth the publics time, but why the hell is everyone elses suppose to be bound to those laws if the ones making them arn't?

That's a good question Derek L, I would guess it is the intelligence of the people signing the contracts. Well the Chinese have the best of American tech and the Americans have some of the best in the world, so I figure future Chinese models will 1. be cheap and 2. be the best.

Cost to maintain boats over the first 10 years of their life, a little bit of elbow grease and knowhow.just get a if it breaks in the first 10 years you fix it clause. None the less blue water brown water, I havn't made any such differentiation, nor suggested an exact model. Perhaps you can start by suggesting a scenario for the math of brand new subs perhaps something like a type 096 or similiar sub.\\ If I knew that it would be relevant instead of fantasy.

Well just when I see 2 billion dollars spent in 10 years on upkeeping and repairing 20 year old boats, and boats costing less than 500 million each.. it seems to be pretty basic math. Perhaps we can compare. What can be bought new and what can't? What will the costs be over the next 10 years for the old boats as opposed to new boats.. also remember the old boats equipment can be reused in some cases, and the old boats can still serve in mothball some purposes or be repurposed. Canada is not confined in what nations programs it decides to partner with or what its own programs it determine for itself. I sincerely was interested in what terrorist groups have subs or surface craft, there was no afghan navy joke, the Afghani's do have beaches, just none to which the Canadians can reach by sea, Afghanis arn't terrorists and there are more terror groups than the CIA organized Al Qaeda. Bear in mind Al Qaeda emerged from the CIA funded Mujahdeen.none the less... What countries is Canada covertly operating against? Last I checked Canada wasn't at war with any countries. Canada has no lawful grounds to be assassinating or conducting extrajudicial operations in foreign countries. As nice as it seems Canada is not the US it is suppose to follow international law. .. Lets do the math.. none the less these changes will go ahead but no they won't cost less and no they won't be better. and no the boats have no use right now except in Canada and training. Bear in mind Canada already has a many 10's of billions of dollars ship building program it makes sense to just make the subs too. This is all http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.html so it is idle banter. but none the less I would question 2 billion dollars on upkeep when new ships of similar characteristic could be bought, and the old ships mothballed or salvaged for equipment spares and backups. maybe use the subs as undersea bunkers or something, communications infrastructure or some other useful purpose.

Yes that is the one. It was a way of saying, well if they arn't lying someone must have posed as them. Note this is possible, just more difficult to believe, than the fact a market insider and or lawyer, or the PM lied to the RCMP and public. "In the contemporary vernacular of some English speakers, the word may be found used simplistically to identify any look-alike of a person" If the bodies arn't found little evidence would indicate people on MLW have been replaced. Net anonymity is not anonymous, and yes people could be spoofed online, even yourself, unless some people know you in "real life" as well as in your secret identity. None the less, someone is lying or there is major covert action going on the likes of which has never been reported before. One thing I do know is that the Prime Minister RCMP head of security was given a posting to Jordan... as the new Ambassador there. He might have an idea of who the PM talked to and about what. http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/17/bruno-saccomani-to-be-appointed-canadas-ambassador-to-jordan/ Odd that the appointment and the cheque issue coincides in date... April 17th.. Brunno given post... "April 19: Duffy issues statement saying he has repaid more than $90,000 in housing and living expenses. Senate committee on internal economy confirms $90,172.24 repayment, but does not say when payment was made." what day did the discussion occur?

Lac-Mégantic derailment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuVDczYz6JQ strangely occurred around the same time as the announcement of the pipeline on transcanada between Alberta and new Brunswick. There have been a few other small scale incidences. The thing that scares me most about conversion of transcanada's gas pipleine to oil, or one or two of the tubes is that transcanada's pipeline isn't secure. There was even an explosion on this line a year or two ago, and the entire thing has been sabotaged, from what I have seen of it. It really scares me to think that pipe sections go under water in major rivers up here... the thing is a death trap and response services would take hours. There needs to be heavier security better safegaurds and insurances that these things won't leak into the waterways like kalamazoo. There is major activity and development ongoing but the federal and provincial governments have shown zero interest in protecting the environment from accidents, and criminal acts. It is completely irresponsible. The water up here is clean enough to drink out of the river, one spill will kill all wildlife around here. While development is great if done responsibly, these things are ancient, and built by the mafia, they need to present a plan that actually is SAFE. Dear god, there is no safety in these peoples minds, and the government is turning a blind eye. Now 40 people have been incinerated, and northern alberta has been flooded with both oil and water. The government needs to wake the hell up. The safety measures arn't enough!

You didn't read the opening link did you? So you are accusing the RCMP of issuing a fraudulent press release? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/07/05/pol-rcmp-duffy-documents.html excerpt.. The RCMP met with Wright's two lawyers... "Wright asked for two conditions to be met in return for the $90,000: that Duffy stop talking to the media..." Perhaps you can read the article and post back informed opinions. If Duffy nor Wright misled the RCMP, than the PM did. You don't seem to have all the facts in your awareness. May 28th PM says he didn't know... "Wright let the RCMP know on June 21 that he told Gerstein and three people in Harper's office that he was going to write Duffy a cheque: David van Hemmen, Chris Woodcock, and Benjamin Perrin." If a $90000 check to shut a Senator up isn't worth mentioning to the PM, what is? Perrin the offices legal advisor has since resigned also in addition to Wright. " Perrin issued a statement on May 21 saying he "was not consulted on, and did not participate in" Wright's decision and that he never talked to Harper about the matter." So this would mean that either Perrin is lying or Wright is lying... one or the other provided false information and or obstructed. OR there is a doppelganger... where was the SVR and vopel in Ottawa when this was going on? Scotty, what exactly to you think transpired? Is Wright lying, or is Perrin the Lawyer? Or was there indeed some type of doppleganging in the PMO and who is in charge of security at that office?