Queenmandy85

Oh, yes, the massive tank battle when NATO pushed back the Russian invaders. I remember it well.

The complaint that Canada and some European nations are not contributing to NATO is a bit of a red herring. The purpose of NATO is to deter Russia from invading Western Europe. The only weapons that will accomplish that are nuclear. Only the US, France and Britain are permitted to have nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Troops on the ground, tanks and tactical aircraft are irrelavent in the era of ICBM's, and SLBM's

With regard to the OP, keep in mind, any war involving the US, Russia and / or China will be a nuclear war. Nobody walks away intact from that..

There is no need for a referendum in Canada. We wish to remain in NAFTA and it is President Trump's decision whether or not NAFTA continues. Unilateral free trade means we allow imports free of tariffs but our exports would be subject to tariffs. Not a balanced trading situation. We do not do referendums in the country. We have had two in our history and both were polarizing. Brexit should never have been put to a referendum. Prime Minister Cameron took that course to quell the whining of some backbenchers, on the assumption that the remain side would win easily. Many Remain voters did not bother to vote for the same reason. Issues such as this are the jurisdiction of the Crown and Parliament.

I don't think the U.S. Armed Forces are stupid. Occupation of Canada would be fairly painless at the start. However, it wouldn't take long to find out Canadian resisters would not be as nice and polite as the Viet Cong, the Taliban or ISIL. Canadians would suddenly have access to the 2nd Amendment and ...well it isn't going to happen. The most important reason it won't happen is Americans are wonderful people. European reaction against the invasion would pale to insignificance compared to the wrath of the American public.

The question is can a government win re-election if it eliminates supports for producers?

Just to set the record straight, the Canadian dollar has been below par for over five years.

We should have a charity boxing match between President Trump and Prime Minister Trudeau. No stakes, but with the current publicity, it could raise billions around the world and it would give President Trump the opportunity to demonstrate his courage and toughness. It would show who is meek and mild.

Taxme wrote: It appears to work fine in America. From my understanding the government does not fall over a vote? In our British style Parliamentary system, the Government must have the confidence of both the Crown and Parliament.

There comes a time when you have to stand your ground. If we give in the the sunset clause, then there will be another pre-condition and then another. There is a good deal on the table now for all.

In Canada, all land is owned by the Crown. We lease "our "property from the Crown in a freehold lease. Actual ownership remains with the Crown. As a conservative, I know you appreciate this.

I am concerned that we are selling our oil at much less than it is worth. If we cut back and preserve it until the other major producers run out of oil, we will have a monopoly. In the mean time we should be transitioning to nuclear power exporting both reactors and fuel. It will greatly enhance global carbon emission reduction and create mega jobs and profits for Canada. Western Canada is the Saudi Arabia of uranium. It is certainly more profitable and cleaner than oil.

I would love to see how you would do running on that platform. Politics is the art of the possible. You cannot build support by confrontation.

So, you are saying lets not build the pipeline. Why should we help Alberta? That is what you are saying.

That is what they have just done.

That's easy to say, but, if the Government loses a vote, they fall. there would likely be an election. I agree, party leaders have too much power but if you were an MP, would you want to go through the expense of an election every few months?

You haven't quite got an understanding of how politics works. Governments may have a majority, but they must obey the law. That is the 'constitutional' part of a Constitutional Monarchy. However, Trudeau is forging ahead and ensuring the TM is starting construction. Indications are that Horgan is anxious for the whole issue to go away. That is why he has merely made a futile court referral to be able to tell Weaver he did all he could. It appears this is all moot.

Yes, but as the commie premier of BC said, "every vote is a free vote, but if we lose, there will be an election." That ended that idea. The NDP will not chance an election if they face defeat. Same for the Greens.

That's easy to say, but it is just vague rhetoric. By what process do you 'nip it in the bud?' If you have any concrete ideas, I'm sure Trudeau and Notley would appreciate your ideas.

Again, what exactly are you proposing? 3 MLA's hold the balance of power. They are the road block. How do you deal with them?

And...where do you propose to go from there? Do you expropriate KM? That's what the bolshevik commie Socialist Credit Government did to BC Electric, stealing money from the shareholders, Do you over throw the BC government? Do you ignore the law or the political realities? What exactly do you do to not be a "sucker."

The main issue is how do you bridge the concerns of the BC Government and the concerns of the Federal and Alberta Governments. Kinder Morgan received approval from the current Federal Government. How do you get the TM pipeline built other than as a Crown Corporation? It is similar to the Conservative Government's efforts to get the Transcontinental Railroad built. They said that was going to be a boondoggle too. The real problem is the lack of education in this country. We should be replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power. It should be a global effort. But shoulda-woulda-coulda has no impact in the real world. The Federal Government has no choice and it will at least have the strong potential of making money for the Crown.

I bow to your expertise. How would you get the pipeline built within legal and political parameters?

No, they learned it from a Conservative, Sir John A. MacDonald and the trans-continental railroad.