Government to be ousted....

[JohnS]

QUOTE (mcgregok @ Nov 29 2008, 06:03 PM) For those of you in the west who are tired of being controled by the eastern socialist parties

http://www.separationalberta.com/


Ooops....forgot to ask.....
How does my criticizing Harper`s so-called "leadership" style translate into my being a socialist? I just can`t figure that one out at all. Unless it`s because I`m from our glorious nation`s capital, so of course I`m an eastern socialist.....

Have a good one....comrades.....

JohnS

 

[ZanderRobertson]

hahahaah, yes no doubt, but the point is there`s another drive there. i`m convinced that those with another drive deeper and more meaningful will be more successful on the money end too.


QUOTE (Jack @ Nov 29 2008, 03:06 PM) Yes.

And there`s nothing wrong with that. I don`t know them well enough to comment on their alledged "philanthropic work" that you speak of, but of course they`re money focused. Come on, Zander.

 

[GarthChapman]

Harper gambled the Liberals would not act with Dion as leader. A very big and a very bad bet. And he showed again that he plays to kill, and all that does is turn off those beginning to trust that he`ll do a good job for the country. He really needs a trusted aide to have the guts to tell the Emporer that he has no clothes on once in a while.

This will cost him - let`s just all hope it doesn`t cost us. Can you really imagine a government of Libs plus NDP acting with the support of the Bloc?

The rest of the world must be laughing out loud. "Nice people, those Canadians, but what a third-world democracy they have!"

 

[Stephen1151]

QUOTE (Dan_Eisenhauer @ Nov 29 2008, 03:20 PM) Here is another way to look at Harper`s doing away with the political party funding, and it is a MAJOR concern to me.
I have had two conservative party workers tell me that there is a general, well founded, feeling within the party that Harper called the last election to put the Liberals into bankruptcy, or at least make them much less likely to call for a non-confidence vote for a while, and therefore a less effective opposition.

It is my feeling and belief that this reduction of the public funding is one more step to prevent a true opposition from forming, from calling non-confidence votes. It was designed to allow Harper to carry out his programs unfettered and unobstructed. Its true intent was to keep any opposition at bey.

I suggest this battle has less to do with money than it does for a struggle for unhindered power in Canada. If I am right, we all need to pay attention, and not shrug this off as children bickering. That is a HUGE HUGE concern to me. Harper and George W seem to play games in subverting democracy. At least W is on his way out.


How is public funding democratic? Its politicians lining there pocket with tax payer money to further there party and agenda. If it was truly democratic why cant the party faithful support there party out of there own pockets up to a certain limit...For instance why are our Canadian tax dollars going to fund a party that wants to separate from Canada??? How does the cutting of this "subvert democracy"?

You forget that the Liberals are in the financial state they are in because of there own financial decisions from there internal bickering. True democracy lets the people (who truly beleive in there party) support there party.

 

[JohnS]

QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 01:59 AM) How is public funding democratic? Its politicians lining there pocket with tax payer money to further there party and agenda. If it was truly democratic why cant the party faithful support there party out of there own pockets up to a certain limit...For instance why are our Canadian tax dollars going to fund a party that wants to separate from Canada??? How does the cutting of this "subvert democracy"?

You forget that the Liberals are in the financial state they are in because of there own financial decisions from there internal bickering. True democracy lets the people (who truly beleive in there party) support there party.


I`m sorry, Stephen, but that isn`t entirely true, although it does have a small bit of merit. A few years ago, the Conservatives changed the rules, when they realized they could do so without dramatically hurting themselves while at the same time dramatically hurting the Liberals. Once the Conservatives had mastered a different style of fundraising, they dropped the limit of personal contributions by roughly 80%. The limit had been about $5 000, and they dropped it down to about $1 100, I believe. This didn`t hurt their own income that much, but had a huge impact on the income of the Liberals, along with the other parties.

And then, they followed it up with this attempt, to eliminate over 50% of the funding of the other parties, while not really affecting their own, and with no forewarning. And somehow, we`re supposed to believe that this is just coincidence? I think not! To me, this isn`t as much about party politics as it is about stifling the viewpoints of your opponents, and that is something that any democracy should avoid. I would be just as appalled if the Liberals tried to do it to the Tories (although I would be even more shocked, as I`m not that surprised that Harper is trying to eliminate dissent!)

As for your comments about funding the Bloc....I really, really dislike the idea of a separatist party getting a seat in a federal election. But you wanted to know how it`s democratic? I just keep reminding myself of what Voltaire was (incorrectly) credited with saying.... "I disagree with what you have said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That`s how it`s democratic. In a democracy, we ensure that even those we disagree with get a chance to espouse their views before we try to prove why they`re wrong. Of course, this is totally different from Harper`s approach, where he tries to muzzle everyone, detractors and supporters alike. He seems to want to ensure that his ideas are the only ones the public is exposed to (even when his ideas have been scientifically proven to be wrong!)

Have a good one!

JohnS

 

[RebeccaBryan]

QUOTE (thomasbeyer2000 @ Nov 29 2008, 11:15 AM) Harper is smart .. and surrounded by smart people ... he would have anticipated that the 3 parties don`t like the withdrawal of federal funds for their parties .. and thus, major howling .. and as such we either get a re-election in a few weeks or more likely we may get a new very weak coalition government for maybe 4-8 months .. then likely a new election .. and then a majority conservative government with more seats in ON and Quebec !

Pretty clever !

and yes, AB and BC (with maybe SK and MB) would be much better off as their own country within a North-American trade framework .. without the socialists from "out east" !!! Any country with a left leaning (or left of center) government has a weaker economy within a few months and thus: higher taxes, lower wages, lower GDP growth, less enterprising people, less private investment and more/bigger government !

NEP II .. here we come ??

Great post!

 

[Jack]

QUOTE Once the Conservatives had mastered a different style of fundraising, they dropped the limit of personal contributions by roughly 80%. The limit had been about $5 000, and they dropped it down to about $1 100, I believe. This didn`t hurt their own income that much, but had a huge impact on the income of the Liberals, along with the other parties.

Awww, poor Liberals! They aren`t as good at fundraising! Here`s a crazy idea - get better at it! It`s not exactly a hard concept to comprehend, even for politicians.

I love that Stephen Hitler is taking away the $1.95/vote scheme. Where does that revenue go, anyway? Crappy, annoying commercials and obnoxious lawn signs? We could use a lot less of each, in my opinion. The one good thing is that it continues to directly fund the separatist Bloc, which I like, because we should all want Quebec to continue to want to seperate, they do us no good, and it`d be more than pretty funny to watch them try and stand on their own two feet as a nation without transfer payments coming from Western Canada. The words "sacre bleu!" come to mind.

 

[mcgregok]

I second the "Awww, poor Liberals! ". Nobody seemed to care when the PC party had problems and it was a one party system with the Liberals at the head.

 

[terri]

QUOTE Stephen Hitler

hehehe, very funny Jack.

I think my favortive thing during the last election was to see a Green Party campaign supporter riding his bicycle up and down the streets of my neighbourhood with a BIG campaign poster on a dolly behind him. Now in the case of the green party it was an excellent example and reminder of practise what you preach, but if Harper gets his way and cuts funding, it may be all everyone else can afford come the next election.

 

[rforgiel]

Thank you JohnS for your replies. They make perfect sense to me. Keep up the good work.

This crisis is of Harper`s own making. Nobody forced him to introduce this policy. He did it out of mean spiritness. You live by the sword and you know the rest.

Harper has only been in power for a couple of years. Was not Alberta in boom times under the other government as well. Why this simple mindedness that only Harper brings good government. REIN keeps bringing up the fact Canada has strong fundamentals to get through this storm. These fundamentals have been building up of years under various governments.

As an eastern, just want to let you know we want growth policies for you and all regions of the country for that matter. Dan raised some good points. Give Harper a free ride at your own peril.

I can`t believe how many times the NEP keeps coming up in these forums. The NEP happened before most members were born. Is this some kind of mythical lore that gets passed down from generation to generation. What is the relevance to today.

Regards,
Ramon Forgiel

 

[mcgregok]

QUOTE (rforgiel @ Nov 30 2008, 06:09 PM)
I can't believe how many times the NEP keeps coming up in these forums. The NEP happened before most members were born. Is this some kind of mythical lore that gets passed down from generation to generation. What is the relevance to today.



Regards,

Ramon Forgiel




The NEP keeps comming up because there is a lot of us still around. Alberta was devestated. People were trying to sell there home for $1 just to get rid of them. The oil industry vanished with all the jobs. The liberal goverment thought that oil was going up to $80 per barrel. Brought in the NEP so they could get a chunk of the action. Oil did't go to $80 it went down. Exces tax on the oil industry in Alberta has the same effect as having exces tax on the manufacturing sector in Ontario. Its no mythical lore when you home and job is gone.



PS: It seems from latest news that the NDP had already made a deal with the BLOC last week to bring down the goverment prior to the conservatives annopuncement.

 

[GarthChapman]

Hey folks, if we end up with an coalition government of the three parties we did not elect to govern us (one of whom is dedicated only to removing Quebec from Confederation) these things will be critical elements of the new Canadian reality:

1) The coalition will be pre-occupied with positioning themselves rather than governing for the benifit of all our citizens.
2) We`ll be back at the polls within 6 months as that is as long as the Liberals can provide a PM before their party convention.
3) The west will be almost completely un-represented.
4) The west will fund the initiatives of the new Government that Canadians did not elect.
5) The Bloc will extract even more piles of cash from the rest of the country (ie from the west).
6) Our currency will remain extremely under-valued.
7) Foreign money will shun investment in our economy. Investors do not put their money where there is uncertainty.

P.S. I was born and raised in Quebec.

Ed Renkema - I`ll clean the Winchester. I think you`ll be called upon soon.


Oh yeah, and tomorrow our stock markets will take a big hit.

 

[JohnS]

QUOTE (Jack @ Nov 30 2008, 09:41 AM)
Awww, poor Liberals! They aren't as good at fundraising!

Here's a crazy idea - get better at it! It's not exactly a hard concept to comprehend, even for politicians.






I wasn't arguing that they shouldn't get better at it - far from it. What I was saying, and what nobody seemed able to refute, is that it just isn't fair to strip your opponents of the ability to argue against you. In a democracy, we're supposed to examine the various points of view, and then make decisions based on that, but Harper has repeatedly tried to strip his detractors/opponents from being able to present their opinions and even their facts. In this case, bully that he is, he tried to strip this power away without any prior warning. Now, if he had discussed doing this in the long-term to enable others to get used to it, I would have been fine with it. If he had included it in his campaign platform just a few months ago (and if he had released that platform before millions of Canadians had already voted), I would have been fine with it. There are valid arguments for what he wanted to do, but the only arguments for how he did it are meanspirited and unjustified.



Now, you can use disdain and sarcasm to try to argue against this idea (aw, the poor liberals.....did they want a kleenex for their big tears?), but all you're doing is demonstrating that you don't have a problem with people being petty. I do. Especially from my leaders, I want more. And I think Canada deserves more from its leaders. I think Canada deserves leaders that treat everyone with respect, including their detractors. Leaders that try to build Canada up, not divide it into separate components. Leaders that understand the difference between beating an opponent's ideas and beating up an opponent. Basically, leaders that are positive influences, not negative.



When I think of all the true leaders in my life (my dad for life stuff, Russell and Don for REI stuff, different coaches I've had), they all live by the above principles, and that's why I submit to their leadership. If Don and Russell started treating REIN members the way Harper treats people, (lying to them, insulting them, pitting one region against another, discouraging people from looking at other sources of information, etc.), I know I would leave REIN the next day, and I believe I wouldn't be the only one heading for the door. I'm sure that most REIN members will agree that it is possible, (and preferable) to be both informed and have good values, and that those two attributes, combined with action, will lead you to whatever you want out of life.



However, Harper has given very little evidence that he believes that as well, and that's why I don't want him as my leader. He's mean, divisive, and prefers to attack people over arguing things on their own merits.



So sure, mock me for wanting things to be "fair". I can take it. And I know my arguments can take it, as they're backed up with both logic and tons of examples. But until you're able to demonstrate that Harper is actually an honourable individual, with nothing but good intentions and that he acts on those intentions, you won't be able to convince me that he's a good leader for Canada.



I want more out of our leader, and I know Canada deserves more.



Have a good one, all!



JohnS

 

[Torey]

Just quick comment on Canadians who enter politics and the motives behind why they enter politics, if not for the the meagre salary.

I heard recently from Dr. Stuart Wilkonson of Calgary, giving a speech on the reality of vacines, of a Canadian cabinet minister`s hidden agenda in pushing the Gardasil vacine. He had family connections to the success of this vacine. This is sick.  (By the way, 87% of Canadian MD`s do not vacinate themselves.)

It`s definitelly not for the "white" salary and public service, but rather for the "grey area" benefits, and sometimes even the "black" areas. This reminds of some sleazy mortgage brokers I`ve encountered before.

I find it difficult to believe in the integrity of our politicians - liberal, ndp, or conservative.

 

[Stephen1151]

QUOTE (JohnS @ Nov 30 2008, 08:45 PM) I wasn`t arguing that they shouldn`t get better at it - far from it. What I was saying, and what nobody seemed able to refute, is that it just isn`t fair to strip your opponents of the ability to argue against you. In a democracy, we`re supposed to examine the various points of view, and then make decisions based on that, but Harper has repeatedly tried to strip his detractors/opponents from being able to present their opinions and even their facts. In this case, bully that he is, he tried to strip this power away without any prior warning. Now, if he had discussed doing this in the long-term to enable others to get used to it, I would have been fine with it. If he had included it in his campaign platform just a few months ago (and if he had released that platform before millions of Canadians had already voted), I would have been fine with it. There are valid arguments for what he wanted to do, but the only arguments for how he did it are meanspirited and unjustified.

Now, you can use disdain and sarcasm to try to argue against this idea (aw, the poor liberals.....did they want a kleenex for their big tears?), but all you`re doing is demonstrating that you don`t have a problem with people being petty. I do. Especially from my leaders, I want more. And I think Canada deserves more from its leaders. I think Canada deserves leaders that treat everyone with respect, including their detractors. Leaders that try to build Canada up, not divide it into separate components. Leaders that understand the difference between beating an opponent`s ideas and beating up an opponent. Basically, leaders that are positive influences, not negative.

When I think of all the true leaders in my life (my dad for life stuff, Russell and Don for REI stuff, different coaches I`ve had), they all live by the above principles, and that`s why I submit to their leadership. If Don and Russell started treating REIN members the way Harper treats people, (lying to them, insulting them, pitting one region against another, discouraging people from looking at other sources of information, etc.), I know I would leave REIN the next day, and I believe I wouldn`t be the only one heading for the door. I`m sure that most REIN members will agree that it is possible, (and preferable) to be both informed and have good values, and that those two attributes, combined with action, will lead you to whatever you want out of life.

However, Harper has given very little evidence that he believes that as well, and that`s why I don`t want him as my leader. He`s mean, divisive, and prefers to attack people over arguing things on their own merits.

So sure, mock me for wanting things to be "fair". I can take it. And I know my arguments can take it, as they`re backed up with both logic and tons of examples. But until you`re able to demonstrate that Harper is actually an honourable individual, with nothing but good intentions and that he acts on those intentions, you won`t be able to convince me that he`s a good leader for Canada.

I want more out of our leader, and I know Canada deserves more.

Have a good one, all!

JohnS




Harper is not trying to strip power away. Changing the laws so you can not donate as much makes it much more fair for all parties. That way corporations have less power of who they want in and allows the individuals influence to be stronger (as we all know, individuals cant all afford $5000 in party donations) This needed to happen so the Liberals and there Cronies didnt have an unfair advantage which they have had for many years. Logicaly speaking you cant tell me that taking away tax money for parties is stripping away power when ALL parties suffer for it. Like i said before...why are tax dollars going to a party that wants to separate from Canada? If someone wanted to start a terrorist party of Canada should they get tax dollars? where do you draw the line? Fair democracy lets the people speak not tax dollars speak. You are giving Harper an amazing amount of credit for the liberals own undoing. Its the result of "The law of attraction" within the Liberal party.

 

[JohnS]

QUOTE (rforgiel @ Nov 30 2008, 08:09 PM)
Thank you JohnS for your replies. They make perfect sense to me. Keep up the good work.



This crisis is of Harper's own making. Nobody forced him to introduce this policy. He did it out of mean spiritness. You live by the sword and you know the rest.



Harper has only been in power for a couple of years. Was not Alberta in boom times under the other government as well. Why this simple mindedness that only Harper brings good government. REIN keeps bringing up the fact Canada has strong fundamentals to get through this storm. These fundamentals have been building up of years under various governments.



I can't believe how many times the NEP keeps coming up in these forums. The NEP happened before most members were born. Is this some kind of mythical lore that gets passed down from generation to generation. What is the relevance to today.



Regards,

Ramon Forgiel




Thanks Ramon - I appreciate it! As for Harper and his sword, unfortunately, I think it'll serve him quite well in the short term. To the detriment of Canada, of course, but he'll be better off.



But I liked your point that Canada did well under other governments, too. We are lucky to be living in a country that has so many strong features that we'll be at least partially protected from what's ravaging the world. I was just talking to a friend on facebook, though, about people's short memories. Not only do they not remember that life was good pre-Harper, but they forget that Harper was trying to get a coalition government just four years ago. Of course, now that he's the one who could lose (even though he got in with what.....only 37% of the popular vote?), it's "undemocratic" for the other 63% to team up, as they're just trying to "steal the power", or whatever BS he's spouting these days.



And I think you're right about the mythical lore of the NEP. That was way before my time, and I don't want to trivialize the pain it caused many people, but I think a lot of people are over-scared of it. I mean, they're terrified of anything that looks remotely like it. From all I've heard, it was a bad policy and shouldn't be duplicated. However, that doesn't mean that anything and everything related to it should be summarily jettisoned to the trash heap. From that mistake, let's look at how we can do it better, or, better yet, let's look at how other countries do similar things successfully. I believe it was Garth that talked about....Norway....and how well it's doing.



It's the same basic gripe I have about having a two-tiered health system. I think it's probably the only way to fix our system. However, because we've been 'trained' to associate a two-tiered system with all the problems they have in the States, most Canadians have a knee-jerk reaction to associate "two-tiered" with "bad". They don't bother looking at the successful countries that have implemented it. I say, look at how successful countries have done it, and model ours after theirs while at the same time ensuring that we avoid the problems we know to exist.



However, I've gotten fairly used to being alone on those issues, as logical as they seem to me....



Have a good one!



JohnS

 

[Thomas Beyer]

QUOTE (rforgiel @ Nov 30 2008, 06:09 PM)
I can't believe how many times the NEP keeps coming up in these forums. The NEP happened before most members were born. Is this some kind of mythical lore that gets passed down from generation to generation. What is the relevance to today.




NEP was in the 80's .. only 20 odd years ago ..



NEP = Raid the west for the benefit of the East & Quebec .. even Barack Obama seems right wing compared to the new coalition government.



A new PM (Dion, oui ?) who can barely speak English .. a disaster for Canada !



A new coalition government means:

a) higher taxes

b) less investment from abroad

c) less internal investment

d) a weaker Can $

e) a continued and deeper recession in Canada

f) a new election once people realize these follies

g) possibly a new majority conservative government once the 3 parties can't agree .. perhaps as early as mid 2009 !

h) newly flamed strong sentiments of separation .. from Quebec and the West .. weakening Canada's overall position and G7 standings ..

i) huge government deficits, thus higher interest rates, thus lower GDP and real estate values !

j) higher gasoline prices thus less disposable income, thus less spending, thus a downward economic spiral



A DISASTER FOR ANYONE PROUD OF A STRONG AND FREE CANADA !!!

 

[mcgregok]

QUOTE (thomasbeyer2000 @ Nov 30 2008, 08:34 PM)
h) newly flamed strong sentiments of separation .. from Quebec and the West .. ..






23% of Albertans already believe in seperation. (An Angus Reid Poll released Feb 20, 2008 for QR77 )

 

[JohnS]

QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
Harper is not trying to strip power away. Changing the laws so you can not donate as much makes it much more fair for all parties. That way corporations have less power of who they want in and allows the individuals influence to be stronger






I think you have a couple things mixed up here, Stephen, as you're also talking about the power of corporations and their ability to donate. As I understand it (and I could be wrong here, as I just started researching this whole thing a few days ago), it was the Liberals who outlawed corporate and union donations. I don't know how they did it, or the timeline of it, but I don't have a problem with that in theory. The government is beholden to act in the best interests of its citizens, not the best interests of businesses or unions. Now, sometimes those interests coincide (I would posit moreso with business than with unions), but sometimes they don't, and in such cases, the government should do whatever is best for its citizens. However, it was the Liberals who did this, not the Conservatives.






QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
(as we all know, individuals cant all afford $5000 in party donations)


This part, I'm also ok with, in theory. But it's the way it was implemented that was meanspirited. As I already said, in an earlier post, that I can see some of the arguments behind doing it, but not in how it was done. The truth of the matter is that the Tories were better at raising smaller amounts from lots of people, whereas the Liberals were better at raising larger amounts from fewer people. So, without much warning or lead-in time, they made what the Liberals were doing illegal. This instantly hamstrung the Liberals ability to finance the spreading of their ideas without affecting the Conservatives' ability to do so. That is how he stripped power away - he limited their ability to spread their ideas.






QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
Logicaly speaking you cant tell me that taking away tax money for parties is stripping away power when ALL parties suffer for it.




Actually, I logically CAN say that, when the parties don't all suffer to the same extent. If I lose a dime, and you lose your life's savings, you can't say that we both suffered equally. The Conservatives' would only be losing about a 1/3 of their funding, whereas the other parties would all be losing at least 2/3, I think it was, with the Bloc losing around 80%. Now, if everyone was losing only 1/3, or if everyone was losing 4/5, then I wouldn't have a problem with it as that would be fair. Or if the Tories had said that in 4 years, after the next election, that is how it would be done, I wouldn't have a problem with it as that would give people time to get used to the new rules. But to do it with no warning, when your main opponent had been counting on that money to stay out of the hole...well, to my mind, that's just another example of Harper being a bully.






QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
-quotec-->Like i said before...why are tax dollars going to a party that wants to separate from Canada? If someone wanted to start a terrorist party of Canada should they get tax dollars? where do you draw the line?




I already answered the first part of this - you're the one that didn't respond to it. As for the terrorist argument, as inconceivable and ridiculous as it is, they would first have to cross the threshold that was set years ago: I think it's 5%, but just ask the Greens, as they've only been across it for 2 elections, I believe. In the alternate universe you're talking about, where enough peace-loving Canadians vote for the Canter Party (No, not a party of horse enthusiasts, but the Canadian-Terrorism Party) that they actually do manage to cross the threshold that is needed to qualify then yes, they would get it. Of course, they'd also be in jail for being terrorists, so I doubt they could do much with it.......



And now, back to the real world....








QUOTE (stephen @ Nov 30 2008, 10:05 PM)
Fair democracy lets the people speak not tax dollars speak. You are giving Harper an amazing amount of credit for the liberals own undoing. Its the result of "The law of attraction" within the Liberal party.

You're ignoring a few things, though, like the fact that people need dollars to speak. Money helps the spread of ideas flow faster. If you don't believe me, go start up your own national paper, or tv network. In today's society, communication costs, and it costs a lot.



However, you say that a "fair democracy lets the people speak", but in that case you're also ignoring the fact that Harper didn't let people speak. He gagged the scientists that worked for the government and wouldn't let them speak about scientific fact, he didn't want to let the arts community speak, and he even gagged his own delegates and ministers. Then, even worse, he didn't even speak. I mean, he insulted and lied a lot in the election, but he didn't actually speak. He didn't even release his own platform until after millions of Canadians had already voted in advance polls. So, if you believe in a fair democracy that lets people speak, you shouldn't be supporting Harper!



Of course, the Liberals did things wrong too, but I haven't seen that much evidence that their mistakes were due to bad intent. Their mistakes seem to be more due to process.



Man...life would be so much easier if I was just Supreme Benevalent Dictator of the Universe.....

Have a good one!



JohnS

 

[GarthChapman]

QUOTE (mcgregok @ Nov 30 2008, 08:40 PM) 23% of Albertans already believe in seperation. (An Angus Reid Poll released Feb 20, 2008 for QR77 )

Those who have little say in how their tax dollars are spent tend to feel this way when those dollars are used to fund those who seek to break up the nation, and to fund perpetuatation of an unbalanced system that does not serve the best interests of the whole.

Contrary to what some believe, most Albertans are ready, willing and proud to contribute our share and more in building a sound economic future for all of Canada. We know that the first-developed Provinces of this country funded our early development, and that now it`s our turn to help areas of Canada that are not currently as fortunate as we are. We just take exception to not having a balanced and proportionate input into that spending, and to being told by those needing our assistance that they know what`s best for us. Those paying the freight ought to have a say in the course taken.

We don`t expect to have it all our way - just to have a voice in the direction our nation takes.

Only when our political masters gain some maturity will this nation realize its potential.