Queenmandy85

You have to be kidding. Lucien Rivard, the Spenser affair, the tripple furniture bribe, the mafia money that went into Pearson's 1963 campaign and the election interference by the CIA that promoted Pearson over the Conservatives. How do you compare the current government that with the mafia run government of Lester Pearson. Pearson's own Parliamentary Secretary offered a $50K bribe to get Rivard out on bail. Dinah Christie sang songs about the many scandals in Mike's government. CanFox, my friend, you have a short memory.

Would run off elections satisfy your issue. If no candidate in a particular riding receives a majority of the votes, have the two top candidates run in a second vote two weeks later. That way, the winner takes her seat with a majority of the votes. A top down structure is what works best. I hear criticism of elites but historically, it is elites (eminent persons of merit) who govern best.

Would you like to elaborate?

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the explanation. 👍 Why would anyone consider including people as a negative?

What did he say. For those who are not stupid enough to click on suspicious links, a little bit of text would be nice.

It was a mistake to put Israel into Palestine. A better move would be to move Israel to Oregon and allow the Palestinians to reclaim their land. Oregon has a similar climate and the neighbours would be more welcoming.

Mike Pearson???? The man of more scandals than Rex. The Prime Minister who wrecked the Canadian Forces.

I'm sure you are privy to information I am not, but from what little I know of Mr. Singh's personal situation, if I had his money, I'd burn mine. It appears, based on Canada 338, that it is going to the grits. I'm not worried though. My MP is Kevin Waugh and his seat is safe.

So, how would it work in the Canadian context? Also, could you eleborate where transparency and accountability is lacking and why those instances are critical?

We've gone over this before. You still have failed to explain how that would work in the Canadian context. How do you execute a proportional result in and election. A writ is dropped in your riding and lets say four people (A, B, C and D) are nominated to contest the election. When the votes are counted, the result is A 7%, B 38 %, C 22% and D 33%.You may think Ms. A would sit in the HoC for 7% of the sitting days, Mr. B for 38% of the sitting days and so on. But how do you allocate who sits when and since the number of sitting days is unknown because another election can occur at any time, if there is and early election, Mr. D may not get his allocated opportunity to take his seat. How do you make that work?

I can see a national unity crisis in the making. It is not a change that falls within the authority of the Federal Government unilaterally. The Provinces have to willingly agree. Perhaps the genius of President Trump will be the catalyst that makes it possible.

I've been keeping track of the seat count on Canada 338. In the last two weeks, the CPC has dropped 18 seats (238 to 220) and the Grits are up 22 seats (41 to 63) If we go back 4 weeks, the LPC is up 28 seats. What should have Mr. Poilieve worried is the NDP have dropped 10 seats in 4 weeks, down to 15. If you were Mr. Singh, would you want to go to the polls with that trend and those numbers?

They are taking their time with the revolution. Bad news for Mr. Fox and darling Betsy, but the CPC is dropping and the grits are on the rise.

If we did not pay taxes, would have none of the government services the citizens want. If you do not like how your MP spends your tax money, elect one who will be more to your wishes. You only have to convince your fellow constituents to vote for your candidate.

Kokanee, not Coors. Molson, not Bud.

Yes, but if Julius Caesar gets tossed, we have an Octavius Caesar in a heartbeat. It is Caesar's role to ensure the citizens are served. It costs money to operate a 21st century government and on Tuesday, it is going to cost a lot more. We see our fellow corespondents on this forum complaining about high taxes at one moment, but then say we need to spend another $50 billion to give to NATO. While I am a firm believer in NATO, when the rubber its the road, I've been assured NATO will not protect us. Canada does not have the capacity to prevent invasion.

Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's. In other words, pay your taxes.

The author of that little bit of bolshevik propoganda is a communist.

So, if we are invaded by the US (I still think it is unlikely, but they are the only nation in a geographical position to invade Canada) all that money we spend on NATO will not protect us. We are, in fact, members of NATO to defend Europe, not Canada. In my opinion, that is a good thing. The American claim that they are spending their money to defend us is incorrect. Nobody is going to protect us. It would be prudent to look for more reliable allies than the US. On the other hand, we need to commit to defend Greenland if it should come to that. I have advocated for decades that Canada have a military capable to defend us, but no political party and certainly not the taxpayers, are willing to make the sacrifice.

It was the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker who refused the nuclear weapons. The Liberals under Mike Pearson ran on a promise to arm Canada with nuclear weapons. The Liberals won and we got the nukes. Funny old world, isn't it.

Under Russian offensive doctrine, the first stage of attack begins with overwhelming bombardment to neutralize resistance. They do not differentiate between conventional and nuclear ordinance. The first opening salvo will be nuclear weapons. Ukraine has had the effect of reinforcing that long held doctrine. It was based on the miscalculation of Ukrainian resistance and they won't make that mistake again. A stong nuclear force capable of killing everyone, reduces the likelihood of any military engagement. The benifit of a large Canadian arsenal is it will discourage anyone who would attack us, not just the Russians.

A question for those more learned in military affairs. If Canada upgrades our defence posture to a level in compliance to NATO's requirements, (2%), and then we are invaded by a NATO member, (the USA), if we invoke article 5, will NATO come to our aid? I am sure Greenlanders have the same question.

I don't believe it.

Well, Doug, I do love Barrett's Privateers. Damn them all. "CBC traitors to the Crown." I think that shoud read CPC traitors to the Crown after hearing about Pierre's blasphemous arrogant letter to Mr. Carney. It confirms that Mr. Poilievre is an acolyte of Fred Rose and WAC Bennett. Communists. Hearts of Oak, M'Lad.

Mr. Poilievre just sent Mr. Carney a letter ordering him to ban current members of cabinet from being re-appointed. This reveals Mr. Poilievre is not a conservative. How can he, as a former cabinet member himself, not have a clue of who appoints the ministry. The kid is ignorant of how the system works and to whom he is ultimately responsible to under the constitution. The people appointed to the next ministry is none of his business. He is the antithesis of a "conservative."