Why isn't Canadian Sovereignty an Election issue?

[William Ashley]

Ok we know the US would never join Canada, and that any trend will be stripping Canadian sovreignty in place of United States control of Canadian processess.

The elected senate thing is very unCanadian and seems to mimic US ideals ---

then the Perimiter Security thing is looming --- Harper agreed to it (but it wasn't made law in Canada... but it overrode the law- since it is placing a non legislated body as making "law" basically it is acting as unauthorized - non parliamentarily authorized royal comisssions.

Does it not strike any other Canadians on this forum how giving the US military control of our borders, the US police the ability to operate in Canada including surviellance and profiling and other types of data gathering (effecitvely spying but also acting as police without a Private Investigators license or Canadian police credentials, --- and the US government saying who can enter or leave Canada --- -- do you not see this as "problematic" for Canadian sovereignty...

Ever since this thing popped up on the news.. I've heard nothing about it.. it is this shadow government no one is seeing.. but we know exists.

Isn't the fact harper gave away Canadian soverignty to the US enough not to vote for his party? One that only wants to do more to sign away more soveriegnty? And so far without even consulting parliament.. the people who make the laws in canada?

Here is another article on it:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hCh_2BFJLlloWaZ3gLSBIkfEK-tw?docId=6544976 <---- ongoing lies by Harper about what was going on.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24132 <--- US govt to gain biometric data on Canadian citizens - usuable by Military drones and other systems to track and even assasinate or abduct people.

http://www.hilltimes.com/page/view/foodsafety-04-11-2011 <-- how food will be effected.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Canada-U-S-Deep-Integrati-by-Dana-Gabriel-110329-169.html?show=votes <--- non legislative panels controlling " how the deal will work.. not Canadian Legislators"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24274 <--- how US homeland security is writing the system.

This is telling

"An overwhelming 91% of Canadians say the negotiations should take place in public so that they can see what is on the table"

Edited April 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[GostHacked]

All part of the soon to be American Union. It will be more of an International Force than Canadian or US forces. Since we have just seen how the US and Canada are now taking their orders from the UN/Nato (see Libya), those international forces patrolling Canadian or US streets will be coming soon.

[Battletoads]

The Conservative base's wet dream is to be American, so they don't care

The Liberals leader is an American, so they don't care

The Bloc can't tell the difference between Canadians and Americans, so they don't care

So the real question is why the NDP isn't talking about this.

[M.Dancer]

All part of the soon to be American Union. It will be more of an International Force than Canadian or US forces. Since we have just seen how the US and Canada are now taking their orders from the UN/Nato (see Libya), those international forces patrolling Canadian or US streets will be coming soon.

Soon? Not before the price of tinfoil passes silver..(cues maple leaf)

[bush_cheney2004]

The Conservative base's wet dream is to be American, so they don't care

The Liberals leader is an American, so they don't care

The Bloc can't tell the difference between Canadians and Americans, so they don't care

So the real question is why the NDP isn't talking about this.

..and the Greenies "leader" was actually born in America! That's a hat trick.

[Moonbox]

because perimeter security does not equal loss of sovereignty. The mouth frothers and bed wetters on this forum would make it out to be otherwise but it's not something I'm terribly worried about. If it means I don't have to spend an hour crossing the border anymore then I'm excited about the prospect...

I would say we need to know a little more about it, however.

[ToadBrother]

because perimeter security does not equal loss of sovereignty. The mouth frothers and bed wetters on this forum would make it out to be otherwise but it's not something I'm terribly worried about. If it means I don't have to spend an hour crossing the border anymore then I'm excited about the prospect...

I would say we need to know a little more about it, however.

Every treaty or agreement involves the surrender or limitation of sovereignty to some extent, just as a contract creates limits on the signatories. If that was bad, then we shouldn't have treaties at all.

[Michael Hardner]

..and the Greenies "leader" was actually born in America! That's a hat trick.

Oh my. Wait until this gets out.

[segnosaur]

The elected senate thing is very unCanadian and seems to mimic US ideals ---

You're right... no other country in the world apart from the U.S. has an elected senate.

Well, except for France. And Italy. And Spain. So apart from those countries its a purely U.S. ideal. Oh, and Belgium and Brazil. So only those 5 countries. And Australia. So 6 countries.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24132 <--- US govt to gain biometric data on Canadian citizens - usuable by Military drones and other systems to track and even assasinate or abduct people.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24274 <--- how US homeland security is writing the system.

Ummm...

Here's a question...

Why are you using the 'globalresearch' web site as a source of information? Globalresearch is one of these web sites that hosts plenty of conspiracy nonsense (like how the towers were "demolished with explosives", etc.) That kind of hurts any sort of credibility you might want to have (much like linking to a UFO site would harm the credibility of someone trying to talk about science.)

[Moonbox]

Every treaty or agreement involves the surrender or limitation of sovereignty to some extent, just as a contract creates limits on the signatories. If that was bad, then we shouldn't have treaties at all.

I don't think the OP was talking about sovereignty in the sense of every treaty we sign. I think he was indicating something extraordinary with this deal...

[GostHacked]

Oh my. Wait until this gets out.

Well for what it's worth Obama might not exactly be American. Being born in Kenya n all, (queue M. Dancer with tinfoil hat stuff ... edit .. awww M.Dancer came too soon)

Edited April 12, 2011 by GostHacked

[Smallc]

Well for what it's worth Obama might not exactly be American. Being born in Kenya n all,

Are you for real?

Everything is always true to believers in conspiracies...except the truth.

[William Ashley]

I don't think the OP was talking about sovereignty in the sense of every treaty we sign. I think he was indicating something extraordinary with this deal...

Yah, I find allowing the US army navy and airforce etc... to control Canada's borders to be "issued" in terms of sovreignty. NORAD is one thing, having the US army especially involved in implementing US border security within Canada is issued in terms of Canadian Soverignty - it effecitvely turns Canada into a "protectorate" state.

While speeding up the border is one thing - this is being done by profiling everyone - getting all their private data, and biometrics - the US has abused information like this before. The CIA for instance has abducted people. People who are Canadians that the US govt has a problem with will no longer be legally protected from FBI and other operations within Canada --- even if they arn't breaking Canadian laws.. the US patriot act being enforced in Canada means, Canadian phones being tapped by the US, and people being held on suspicion, abductions and other operations - that if the US police are given operational access in Canada - it means that all the protections Canadians have effecitvely disapear - CIVILLY, and on a level of military protections.

It is a dejure and de facto takeover of the "means" of free exercise --- it more or less takes over the Canadian executive as the sole executor within Canada.

It violates the constitution by refusing the right to enter or leave Canada --- as well as protections again arbitrary detainment, and unauthorized search. It violates the Constitution and canadian law.

That is a violation of Canadian Sovereightny --- the US could implement this unilaterially as a program for Canadians willing to submit their biometrics (like most people on flights have to do anyway) --- the extra measures are essentially the ability to enforce US law and surviellance in Canada legally.. that is a violation of Canadian Sovereignty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectorate

Basically this is the short term objective of the SPP and NAPSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association

but even less so -- I am hard pressed to beleive the 10% unemployed US will open up the flood gates.. of course .. Canada has more jobs... so it is a benefit to the US to do it. With NAFTA provision the two together mean the US can just flood Canada take the work and the resources, and pump them out all expedited like, since the goods in Canada are being harmonized for the US and the barriers removed.. this means as soon as something like COFA comes along.. and we are damn close to that.. Canada will be raped.

http://www.fsmlaw.org/compact/index.htm

Like something like COFA is a long way off... but it is skating dangerously close... most Canadians don't get they only get a very small portion of the wealth these companies carve out of Canada.... there is TONS of money in Canadian resources that the public sees almost no profit from... where foreign companies reap the benefits.

The US is far more willing to dig a hole in their back yard than their house, unless its for the bunnker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act

US enforcement is arbitrary, and on a basis of suspicion -- not on actual occurence -- it involves massive means of interferance such as financial interferance, jailing, and sending people to other places -- even with a court hearing. This is not the type of practice that should be imported into Canada as it enhances the police state and removes civil liberties, and right to a fair trial.

It allows the police to control people without a basis of legal grounds... it is the g20 everywhere in Canada every day.

Do you want americans doing this to you because you don't support a takeover of any given country... or your own.

These measures also including policing the internet..

Edited April 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

....It violates the constitution by refusing the right to enter or leave Canada --- as well as protections again arbitrary detainment, and unauthorized search. It violates the Constitution and canadian law.

Nonsense...it does no such thing. Canadians do not have the right to cross the US border, same as any American wishing to go to Canada. Your self admitted transgressions and penalties in this regard are not reason enough for changes to border/overflight security policies.

[William Ashley]

Nonsense...it does no such thing. Canadians do not have the right to cross the US border, same as any American wishing to go to Canada. Your self admitted transgressions and penalties in this regard are not reason enough for changes to border/overflight security policies.

Nonsense they have the right to cross their own border. Since when is the Canadian Border the US border?

Canadians can cross their own border it is a constitutional mobility right.. the right to enter or leave Canada.

Read the constitution of Canada...

not being admited to the US is another matter completely.

6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Canada is not only bordering the US but also Denmark and France. - although these rights do not even acknowledge the united states. It is self recognized soveriegnty.

I'm offended an American comes on here and tries to tell me that US permission is required to exercise Canadian rights.

You are flatty off base with any ascertation to that extent pulling massive bs in the process and being highly offensive.

As said though what the US wants to accomplish is a violation of Canadian Constitutional rights and it is simply unacceptable to pass over a Canadian constitutional right to US law.

While the US can deny entry to Canadians (even though they are suppose to be visa exempt) - Canadians can still legally leave Canada -- even if it is illegal entry from an american legal perspective.

It is fully legal for a Canadian from a Canadian legal perspective to do so.

Edited April 12, 2011 by William Ashley

[Bryan]

The Conservative base's wet dream is to be American

There isn't a shred of truth to this accusation. Some of the most stridently anti-american people I've ever met were at CPC meetings. Canadian Conservatism is a decidedly different animal from the American one. Making our country stand out on its own merits is the goal, not mimicking another one.

If anything, it's the left in Canada that is obsessed with the US.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Bryan

[bush_cheney2004]

Nonsense they have the right to cross their own border. Since when is the Canadian Border the US border?

Canadians can cross their own border it is a constitutional mobility right.. the right to enter or leave Canada.

Read the constitution of Canada...

not being admited to the US is another matter completely.

Good luck with that...better buy a boat or an aircraft with extended range!

I'm offended an American comes on here and tries to tell me that US permission is required to exercise Canadian rights.

Then be offended....this web site is hosted on my side of the border in the United States of America!

You are flatty off base with any ascertation to that extent pulling massive bs in the process and being highly offensive.

Thank-you!

As said though what the US wants to accomplish is a violation of Canadian Constitutional rights and it is simply unacceptable to pass over a Canadian constitutional right to US law.

Then you will also have to stop watching American television!

While the US can deny entry to Canadians (even though they are suppose to be visa exempt) - Canadians can still legally leave Canada -- even if it is illegal entry from an american legal perspective.

It is fully legal for a Canadian from a Canadian legal perspective to do so.

Ha! You are banned for life....forget about your ex-girlfriend in California..she has moved on.

[William Ashley]

Good luck with that...better buy a boat or an aircraft with extended range!

good advice.

Then be offended....this web site is hosted on my side of the border in the United States of America!

Thank-you!

Is it really? I thought it was out of Calgary.

Then you will also have to stop watching American television!

I really don't watch much TV if any. I'm more into music, and - actually tend to like European import.

I'm not too impressed with American programming, I'm into docu's and the closest thing I get to content is History http://www.history.ca/ --- although yes I'm sure some is American programming. I don't watch TV except when maybe at the gym... that is it, and once I'm back up north that is Nada --- maybe some RadioCanada but probably nada.

Ha! You are banned for life....forget about your ex-girlfriend in California..she has moved on.

I have no idea what you are talking about --- --- I'll wait for the lifeban on an official basis.

The only American female I lived with was engaged and from the east coast. No idea on anyone in California - who is this chicki you are speaking of?

We were flatmates, no dates, she was friendly chatty but no there was nothing more going on, she really loved her to be hubby - a lawyer I think.

You still sorta make me bedazzled that you would suggest I've dated someone from California. This is as nutbar as CBP thinking I was intent to move to Cali to collect welfare, while crossing over from Ontario to inspect a sailboat. Just because I got a cheap sailboat in Cali doesn't mean I intended to move there and collect welfare.

Actually I may have been forced to move it out of Cali due to California DMV restrictions on registration and insurance - getting the thing registered would have required a Postal Service and some other administrative hurdles, nothing I couldn't step around, (I looked into what was required for registering the boat with the DMV - the boat was so inexpensive for its class that it was well worth the overall trouble and a month of slip fees to organize how to deal with things.. in a worst case scenario I was looking into the sea scouts for a possible boat donation - whether or not they would take it at the end of the month if I couldn't take it north or south - it would have been quite a trip but nothing I wasn't willing to work towards for the price) but the legality is rather complex, but no I didn't intend to stay, I was going there to learn how to sale. While it was a older male Californian and Oregon guy that taught me how to sail in Mexico --- another story completely.. --- I was going there to learn to sail, to learn about boats, and only planned on porting for up to a month on my own budget, which I had planned out. But no to repeat I never intended to do anything I was accused of by CBP, and no I've never had a girlfriend from California, and I actually have only chatted with one female from california while in Mexico who happened to dating a camera man from Oregon working in California... factis though nah there is no one in California I've been dating... and no one lined up for me to impregnate so I could collect welfare--- actually I think that provision is only applicable to females so it is basically IMPOSSIBLE for me to collect welfare in California so even proposing that is off base. The closest thing to welfare I would get in going to California is up to 10 years of free housing in a federal prison.

This is only an example of why Canadians should be warry of signing their rights over to America - because freedom of speech will be derided by BushCheeneys of the world who try to deny rights for their own gains and political positions - positions that put them first and Canadians lesser so.

Its really a non issue for me, because I won't be travelling until atleast september -- spending the next few months at home --- and latin america is a much more relaxing trip for me because I get to practice my spanish and I like the jungle and beaches. US is way more expensive to travel in.I really have nothing to bring me to the US... true it is $100 to $200 more to fly via a non US carrier but the risk is pretty high-- from what I've heard, I've known people who have been strip searched just for knowing the wrong person. Customs is really harsh in the US... even if they'll watch some football while waiting to remove you or drive you to the airport and pay for your flight home

(there are flight deals to if you get lucky with booking)

-- if I wern't going home in the first place before they did it, it'd probably have a much better overall image -- you know cause I was gonna do it myself then I get held over a day to month or so so they could do it-- it is making things a little more complicated.. but that is behind me for atleast another 4 and a half years unless Canada really pisses me off before then.

This is a secondary issue though.. I can disagree with CBP's acctions it really doesn't matter though because I'm not travelling to or through a us port for atleast another 4 years, and it isn't really a loss for me. They don't want any potential money from it that is their call - I'm perfectly fine spending in Canada or another country other than the US. There is nothing in the US I can't get in Canada or latin america that I'm aware of. I would likely be flying through the US or buying products like a boat or rv from the US... but those are things that arn't on my radar with my home taking precedence right now. I can crew on a boat if I want to go sailing. The RV thing is years down the road for me if ever now - as I bought a house instead of an RV (that was a judgement call I made a couple years ago)

In my opinion it is America loosing out, not me.

I think it is justified for me to protect Canada from CBP practices coming to Canada, because quite frankly Canadian customs is easier to deal with than US customs - even when I have to go through 3 or four screening points -- US CBP just makes stuff up.

Edited April 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[Battletoads]

There isn't a shred of truth to this accusation. Some of the most stridently anti-american people I've ever met were at CPC meetings. Canadian Conservatism is a decidedly different animal from the American one. Making our country stand out on its own merits is the goal, not mimicking another one.

If anything, it's the left in Canada that is obsessed with the US.

"But seriously, your country [America] , and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."

-Stephen Harper

Oh yeah, Anti-American to the core.

[bush_cheney2004]

Is it really? I thought it was out of Calgary.

The University of Lethbridge....Alberta, but web hosting is cheaper in the "states".

I have no idea what you are talking about --- --- I'll wait for the lifeban on an official basis.

The only American female I lived with was engaged and from the east coast. No idea on anyone in California - who is this chicki you are speaking of?

Wow..too much information. I must have pushed the right button...oh love...where for 'art thou?

... true it is $100 to $200 more to fly via a non US carrier but the risk is pretty high-- from what I've heard, I've known people who have been strip searched just for knowing the wrong person. Customs is really harsh in the US... even if they'll watch some football while waiting to remove you or drive you to the airport and pay for your flight home

I think a lot of Canadians try to save money this way...guess the Americans are tolerable if it means saving money!

I think it is justified for me to protect Canada from CBP practices coming to Canada, because quite frankly Canadian customs is easier to deal with than US customs - even when I have to go through 3 or four screening points -- US CBP just makes stuff up.

Well yea....'cause you are in their database big time...like Osama Bin Hidin'.

Edited April 13, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[William Ashley]

The University of Lethbridge....Alberta, but web hosting is cheaper in the "states".

I have currently free webhosting from a university - it is also cheaper to self host all you need is an internet connection. Of course a sizable website could get more expensive -- Us webhosting is not the cheapest... the UK has been the lowest price I've found but there are some other alternatives.. it depends on the type of hosting you want.

I think a lot of Canadians try to save money this way...guess the Americans are tolerable if it means saving money!

Sometimes.

Well yea....'cause you are in their database big time...like Osama Bin Hidin'.

Yeah if so it has me wonder how much of it is actually true though. I'm geussing there is no freedom of information requests.. I know you can request your own FBI file but I'm not sure about CBP.. it'd be nice to file for a correction, the closest thing you can do is file a TRIP request and watch them laugh at you for doing it.

Hosting in the US can mean US law, and it is often quite severe especially for posters of illegal content -- such as a forum where people use it for illegal means dealing with the US can be quite frustrating because Americans are quite frankly more picky and pushy than a lot of other countries. (not all are, but they have a concentration of that sort) Even if it isn't you posting you could still be held liable, or have other unpleasantries happen as a result of your ongoing in hosting in the US --- for instance sale of things illega in the US but not say Canada like kinder eggs might get you into trouble there is a rough line but the US isn't that hosting friendly, compared to a bunch of other countries. Also US domains are just as likely to get hit by cyber attacks compared to low profile countries. It is fairly dependable though, but I've seen some large US hosted sites go down. In the two years I hosted in the UK my host had a flawless record with 100% site uptime as far as I'm aware, I was a little legally sheilded by hosting in the UK, but my site was mostly dead weight to begin with. The host was stellar, although my account may have been compromised, this would not be an exception.

hosting is a dollar a month or less in most cases (for mostly unlimited hosting), you will likely pay more for your domain name than hosting.

Edited April 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[Moonlight Graham]

The elected senate thing is very unCanadian and seems to mimic US ideals ---

Elected lawmaking officials is "unCanadian"?? Personally i don't care if an "ideal" is from the US or Zimbabwe, it should be judged on its merits not where its supposed origins lie.

The Senate has a few good uses, but mostly its a useless tit of an institution filled with overpaid elite hacks who only work 3 days a week. Best job in Canada. Needs some kind of reform. An elected Senate doesn't have to be one them, less major reforms could improve it without reopening the Constitution.

[Saipan]

Why isn't Canadian Sovereignty an Election issue?

It really should be.

Harper is the first PM to assert Northern Pasage is CANADA, lock, stock, and barrel. Whether other countries like it or not. And will be patroled by our NAVY now.

[William Ashley]

Elected lawmaking officials is "unCanadian"??

Yes, yes it is, if it is in the senate. The commons is where the commons elects people to. Its been that way since day 1 and any proposed changes to the going on 150+ year heritage is unCanadian. Yes do you deny that? The government in the day didn't even come from the commons until about 1900. Further trends are making government more and more partisan and unstable in doing its job - instead it is turning into one group of people attacking another for their beleifs -- that isn't Canadian, Canadian is making Canada a better place to live, not marginalizing people of a different view, that is why partisan control of both houses on a wave of momentary sentiment is FOOLISH BACKWARD AND UNCANADIAN.

Personally i don't care if an "ideal" is from the US or Zimbabwe, it should be judged on its merits not where its supposed origins lie.

Its not Canadian. It is an alien concept. Why even have parliament if you can have just a single elected assembly why even two houses, etc... It is flattly stupid. The senate is suppose to be there to insure legislation is "proper" by people with more experience and knowledge - the seniors who have much experience, rather than young pups who are in a world of gloss and suposition.

The Senate has a few good uses, but mostly its a useless tit of an institution filled with overpaid elite hacks who only work 3 days a week. Best job in Canada. Needs some kind of reform. An elected Senate doesn't have to be one them, less major reforms could improve it without reopening the Constitution.

The only reofrm needed is the PMs to make better choices in who they nominate put in the thing, rather than benchwarmers and retiries.

The public shows election after election on how little popular vote does to benefit the country with good people to fill positions in government spreading more of that will only perpetuate the ills of elected government.

I'm all for every citizen for one vote.. but you let parties make these changes they just end up doing stuff like proportional representation of their own parties... you know just the big hitters who we want in, well send who we want up there based on a vote in a given election... just divide it down the line, that type of bs.

Fact is, the parties only care about themselves, they won't make a better government, because they arn't governing based upon what is best for everyone and universal benefit.

the PCO can nominate whoever they want -- the Privy Council Office is the means of the executive government along with the queen gg. (the form / executors)

The PM is suppose to organize for that execution. (the apparatus)

Parliament is suppose to dictate what to execute. (the case)

The senate is suppose to insure the case is sufficient for the form.

Executive officers are RARELY if ever elected.

Although I think there could be more commons input - it is Canadian and doesn't represent a constitutional monarchy as it doesn't represent the Canadian constitution.

Where does it say anything about an elected senate in here???

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/

22. In relation to the Constitution of the Senate Canada shall be deemed to consist of Four Divisions:

1. Ontario;

2. Quebec;

3. The Maritime Provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island;

4. The Western Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta;

which Four Divisions shall (subject to the Provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate as follows: Ontario by twenty-four senators; Quebec by twenty-four senators; the Maritime Provinces and Prince Edward Island by twenty-four senators, ten thereof representing Nova Scotia, ten thereof representing New Brunswick, and four thereof representing Prince Edward Island; the Western Provinces by twenty-four senators, six thereof representing Manitoba, six thereof representing British Columbia, six thereof representing Saskatchewan, and six thereof representing Alberta; Newfoundland shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by six members; the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by one member each.

In the Case of Quebec each of the Twenty-four Senators representing that Province shall be appointed for One of the Twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A. to Chapter One of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada

(5) He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed:

it is clear the senate described in the constitution is appointed.

Any change from that is UNCANADIAN and ALIEN. IT IS TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.

Edited April 13, 2011 by William Ashley

[Moonbox]

You are flatty off base with any ascertation to that extent pulling massive bs in the process and being highly offensive.

Nobody else thought this 'sentence' was hilarious?