[whelan costen]

<strong>Written By:</strong> whelan costen
<strong>Date:</strong> 2006-09-29 00:48:00
<a href="/article/4845589-urgent-action-required-canadians-must-say-no-to-bill-c16">Article Link</a>

Canadian Action Party/Parti action canadienne (CAP/PAC)
916 W Broadway, # 385,
Vancouver, BC V5Z 1K7

THE POSITION OF CAP/PAC RESPECTING BILL C-16,
An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act

September 28, 2006

Clerk
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
Room 630, 180 Wellington Street, House of Commons
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A9

Re: Bill C-16 “No election until 2009 will render Canada meaningless,” Connie Fogal, Leader

Dear Sirs and Mesdames:
The Canadian Action Party/Parti action canadienne is entirely opposed to this Bill! We have grave concerns that the impact of this Bill will profoundly affect the constitutional entitlement of Canadians to a sovereign, independent Canada. In addition to our concurrence with all the Arguments Against Fixed Election Dates, which arguments are set out in the Backgrounder respecting this Bill C-16 located on the government website (some of which are reprinted below) we see this Bill as a mechanism to further facilitate the de-structuring and de-stabilization of Canada to effect an integration of Canada, the USA and Mexico into a North American Entity dominated by the USA and ruled by a corporate, military, industrial, financial elite.

Well under way is the bureaucratic implementation of a North American Union with its own surrounding perimeter and an elimination of borders within it, along with the harmonization of all policies respecting all the significant areas of national business that makes an independent sovereign nation. You are aware of the various unconstitutional agreements that drive this agenda; for example, the Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement signed by Presidents Bush and Fox and Prime Minister Paul Martin (L), in March 2005, which was affirmed in March of 2006 by the two Presidents and Prime Minister Harper (C), as well as the Smart Border Plan of December 2001, and many others.

The Prime Minister’s Office already exercises an excessive and arbitrary power contrary to the interest of Canadians. You have Mr. Harper’s institutionalization of rule by unelected, unaccountable forces of the military/industrial/financial elite by his creation of the Competitiveness Council (arising out of the aforesaid agreements) so that their representatives can guide his government. You have secret meetings occurring between such people along with present and former members of government including Deputy Prime Ministers, and Deputy Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, and senior officials, such as occurred this September 2006 at Banff, AB, Canada, all for the purpose of planning, reporting on, and agreeing to ways to hasten this process. That power must be clipped, not augmented.

Bill C-16 comes into play here because the North American Agenda calls for full integration and unity by 2010. Bill C-16 would prevent any election before 2009. That time frame would stifle and prevent the only democratic way of stopping this Union – an election to unseat all those MP’s who are complicit in the Betrayal of Canada.

Further, we have grave concerns that Bill C-16 will eliminate or frustrate the “confidence convention” referred to in the Backgrounder. We concur that this convention “goes to the very root of parliamentary democracy”. It is crucial to our democracy that government must possess the confidence of the parliament, and that the “confidence convention” principle must remain protected as a basic tenet, untarnished and unviolated. Elections restricted to once every four years would undermine this principle, and would cripple the power of minority governments to reflect the will of the people to activate the power inherent in non-confidence motions.

We quote from the Backgrounder, “Under the confidence convention, the executive, or ministry, must have the confidence of the majority in the legislature. A government that is defeated on a vote of confidence is expected to resign or seek a dissolution. A new government must meet the House, and demonstrate that it has the confidence, or support, of the majority. What is involved is a convention, one that does not appear in the text of the Constitution (though, arguably, it forms part of the Constitution), in a statute, or the Standing Orders of the House, but which goes to the very root of parliamentary democracy.”

For your ready reference, we repeat the arguments against a fixed election date as set out in the backgrounder.

<a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c16&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1">http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c16&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1</a>
Arguments Against Fixed Election Dates
… opponents cite various disadvantages associated with setting fixed election dates. These include the following:
Fixed election dates and fixed terms are inconsistent with a parliamentary form of government, in which the executive must retain the confidence of the legislature.
Governments would be able to do anything they wanted after an election, knowing that they would not have to face the next election for a specified period of time – there would be no requirement or incentive for governments to retain the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons, and they would be insulated from public opinion.
It would make it harder than at present to remove an unpopular government between elections.
It would not accommodate circumstances where governments may need, or want, to go to the people with an election; for instance, if a major issue or change of platform arose, or if the House of Commons was at an impasse.
The calling of elections is an important and legitimate tool for a government: the threat of dissolution allows governments to keep their members in line, and the opposition off balance.
Much of the impetus for fixed election dates comes from the mistaken notion that governments are elected; governments, in fact, are appointed, and are responsible to the House of Commons; an election is the election of individuals to serve in the House of Commons.
With respect to the argument that fixed terms would lead to stability and to the opportunity for the government to carry through its policies and legislative program, it has been pointed out that stability and accountability are often inherently in conflict, and that security for governments should not take precedence over accountability.
Fixed election dates or fixed terms would remove from individual Members the power – seldom exercised – to withdraw their support, and cause the downfall of the government. Thus, the status or independence of individual Members, whether government or opposition, would arguably be no better off under such a system.


Further, we concur with this observation and statement:
“Opponents of fixed election dates argue that they are inconsistent with parliamentary traditions and interfere with the effective functioning of Parliament. It is argued that the Prime Minister must have the flexibility and freedom to seek the dissolution of Parliament at any time – whether because of a loss of confidence or because of a need or desire for a renewed mandate from the electorate. Major policy initiatives, on which the government believes an election should be held, can arise outside of an election period. Fixed election dates could lead to paralysis if the House is unable to function, and if the situation cannot be resolved in the usual way by calling an election. Fixed election dates also raise the prospect of an American-style campaign that stretches over months or years, rather than a short period. It would also be possible for a government to forestall a fixed election date by engineering its own defeat on a motion of confidence. In addition, it is not correct to say that the existing system, where the Prime Minister determines the date of the election, always works to the advantage of the governing party, as many governments have been defeated at the polls. It is also debatable whether a fixed election date would in fact loosen party discipline.”
<a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c16&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1">http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c16&source=library_prb&Parl=39&Ses=1</a>

This Bill is contrary to the best interest of Canadians and should not be passed.

Thank you for your consideration of our position. We look forward to the defeat of this Bill.

Yours truly
Constance Fogal, Leader
Canadian Action Party/ Parti Action Canadienne

Contact info:
Canadian Action Party/ Parti Action Canadienne

Leader, Constance (Connie) Fogal
Telephone (604) 872 2128 home; Fax: (604) 872 1504
E-mail: [email protected]

#385- 916 West Broadway, Vancouver B.C. V5Z1K7
Tel: (604) 708-3372;Fax: (604) 872 1504; e- mail: [email protected]
<a href="http://www.canadianactionparty.ca">www.canadianactionparty.ca</a>








[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on September 29, 2006]

[Milton]

Thanks for posting this Catherine. When is the third vote on this Bill C 16 going to take place, are they going to try to pull a fast one?

---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)

[whelan costen]

Hi Milton
I don't know what to call it, but the first reading was May 2006, the second Sept 19, and it has already gone to committee. We were notified Sept.22 and had to submit by today. So I think it is moving fast. No discussion with the public, no explanation about what this means. All the other parties speeches indicate they have concerns about lack of power with a minority gov and the power of the PM, yet they still say they support it. Not sure where that so called opposition lives?

We need to speak out now!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

[Dr Caleb]

It may be too late to get any MP's to back away from party lines. Perhaps the GG's website is a good place to comment? It cannot become law unless the Senate and her both pass it.

Go over their heads.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

[Michael Scott]

Straight out of the link you posted:

Clause 1 of Bill C-16 inserts a new section in the Canada Elections Act just before the heading “Writs of Election” before section 57. The proposed section 56.1 – headed “Date of General Election” – starts with a subsection that asserts that nothing in the section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

Which means that if the government loses a motion of confidence (which is likely to a minority government), the government is still dissolved and an election called. They don't have to wait until the next fixed date if the government falls. You don't get a fixed term for minority governments (unless of course they last until the fixed term is up which would be a minor miracle). What you don't get is governments vasillating about the election dates, and extending or shortening their time for political expediency.

Maybe I just don't get your arguement against this. I would have thought that you would have been all for this, since it levels the playing field to a degree for all parties, since they know exactly when they need to be campaigning.

[whelan costen]

Michael, on the surface fixed election dates make sense, but if you read our document in full, and/or go to the gov website and read the backgrounder you will find that it gives too much power to the PM and that office already holds too much power. If we are committed to a democratic parliamentary system which continues to rely on the people's involvement we must stop this Bill now and work on real democratic reform. This doesn't cover it. As many of the arguments state this goes against the 'confidence convention'.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

[whelan costen]

Something else worth considering. Canadians have been yelling for electoral reform, including recall legislation. Why would we think we could get recall legislation or any other reform in our best interest, when we do not even consider the implications of this kind of change? We do not use the system we have and blindly accept the rhetoric. Are we still so gullible that even with all we know we are willing to hand over more power to the PMO? That is what this Bill will do for us, prevent 'the people' from demanding an election through our MP's. The only person that could go to the GG is the PM and only if he wants to, and he/she could easily manipulate the system to have the gov fall when it is convenient for his government. So nothing about this Bill gives Canadians more accountability, in fact it is an attempt to Americanize our system now, before 2010.

With all that is being implemented towards the NAU, and with no possibility for election until 2009, we can expect that the rest of the program will be implemented just as smoothly as what has already happened, without our informed consent.

I think it is worth standing against this Bill and for a sovereign Canada.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

[rearguard]

"When is the third vote on this Bill C 16 going to take place, are they going to try to pull a fast one?"

So, when do WE get to vote on it?

Canada is NOT a democracy, it is in fact a DICTATORSHIP - Let's get that through our thick skulls so that we can start thinking clearly about what must be done to fix the mess.

Whatever vote you may have will always remain meaningless when undemocratic stunts such as Bill C-16 are possible.

[whelan costen]

What surprises me is that people never want to put out the fire before it becomes a three alarm blaze. We've had numerous little fires and warnings about fires, but it still seems that the preference is to wait until the country is gone, maybe then we will look back and say, 'oh, I see clearly now'

FTA, NAFTA, SPP, Smart Border, CODEX, Secret Meetings, Tri-lateral Commissions, Emerson situation, anti-Terrorism Act, Emergency Preparedness Act, NAU, and now fixed elections which put more power in the hands of the PMO. All of these were little warnings, and any one could have been fought against if we stood up together.

You say we want PR, so never mind this Bill. That amounts to leaving the small fire burning and wait until it is full blown. What makes anyone think we are going to get PR, or Direct Democracy, or Recall or anything that remotedly sounds like accountability to the people of this country.

Until we have a strong movement of people demanding government see the people as the primary stakeholder in a healthy, safe environment, and all other things, including corporate interests, secondary we shall be not have democracy, freedom or control over our nation.

If you read the document as I've mentioned before you will see that fixing the date is a minor aspect of this change, are you ready to accept a 'trust me' from those who propose this bill? When some members of the opposition declared their concern over the ability of the PM to manipulate this law, the response was 'this PM wouldn't do that'.

Well that might be good enough for them, but it isn't good enough for me, and given the history of Lib and Cons; trust is not something I hand over to quickly.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

[whelan costen]

Fyi- thought you might want to read one response we received. IMO if the government is still posturing like the NAU is a theory with all the data to prove otherwise, we ought to be very concerned about these bills...think anti-terrorism act, (nothing to see here, move along sheep!)

Lauzon, Guy - Assistant 1 wrote:

Dear Ms. Fogal,

Your conspiracy theories about North American union aside, your arguments against fixed election dates focus almost entirely on the false notion that the Conservative government's legislation would somehow eliminate the need of the government to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons. That is not the case. If you care to educate yourself about the bill, you will find that it makes provisions to explicitly preserve this crucial element of our parliamentary system. Under the bill, elections would occur on the same date every four years unless the government loses the confidence of parliament, in which case the election will take place forthwith, and the following election will take place four years later, and so on.

Regards,

Aaron Hynes
Legislative Assistant/Adjoint Législatif
Office of/Bureau de Guy Lauzon, M.P./député
992-2524


Aaron Hynes
Legislative Assistant/Adjoint Législatif
Office of/Bureau de Guy Lauzon, M.P./député


My Response to him on behalf of CAP:
Dear Sir
Is your response reflective of Mr. Lauzon's views as well? If you have read Bill C-16 with as much exploration as you have the North American Union we reserve our opinion as to your full awareness of the situation. Anyone closely associated with the government who calls the North American Union a conspiracy theory, when it is a fact, reveals their lack of education on the subject or their inability to comprehend the end results of the many agreements we have listed in our submission.

Rather than declare that we have misread the document in question, Bill C-16, we ask that you show us where it is written and not merely a belief or hope that as you suggest, 'false notion that the Conservative government's legislation would somehow eliminate the need of the government to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons'.

We stand by our submission. We ask that you provide the evidence to support confidence in this Bill to uphold and not eliminate or frustrate the "confidence convention" referred to in the Backgrounder.

As we have stated, "We concur that this convention "goes to the very root of parliamentary democracy"."

As for your statement regarding the North American Union, and with the mountain of evidence available revealing the NAU, we ask that you provide your argument and facts to support that it is a theory and not a fact. We have repeatedly asked for all members of Parliament to declare their position on the Security and Prosperity Agreement, the Smart Border, the various other agreements involved, and have yet to have a reply. It is our responsibility to act on behalf of Canadians. We have presented our submission for discussion and consideration. We shall be very dissappointed in the democratic process if it is your position to force your Bill without exploring all points of view. In the spirit of pre-election slogans of 'accountability' we await evidence of that in practice.

yours truly
Catherine Whelan Costen
Canadian Action Party President & Communications Director




---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

[whelan costen]

Here is a piece of information some of you may not be aware of; Charter of Rights and Freedoms 4(1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general eleciton of its members.

So if the intention being promoted is fixed election dates, we already have them. If it is to set a precedent to go against convention, than that makes more sense. harmonize with the U.S. election dates also makes sense with what they have planned.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

[whelan costen]

I should probably post this as another article, but I think it is important for Canadians to know what response we are getting from gov. Note: One of our contacts recieved a more blatant reply from this person which said in part," In answer to your questions, there is no plan for North American union.As for my own nationality and personal history, it is none of your concern."<br />
<br />
CAP President Responding to Uninformed Public Servant on Bill C-16 and NAU<br />
October 2, 2006<br />
<br />
Dear Mr. Hynes<br />
In response to your letter. Let us deal in facts. You are a Legislative Assistant to Guy Lauzon and you state, ‘I'm afraid I remain unaware of any plans for North American union’. Sir it is I who are afraid. If you are truly uninformed about such a dire situation for Canadians and your MP is equally uninformed, how can you defend a new Bill such as C-16? Canadians cannot possibly have trust in a government that is so out of touch with the events unfolding right under their noses? What manner of fool do you take Canadians for if you expect them to take a Bill like C-16 at face value, when you have clearly revealed so little knowledge of the Canadian situation?<br />
<br />
In order to understand Bill C-16 and the threat it poses to Canadians you must understand all factors that may affect it or be affected by it. You are defending the bill based on one concept with regard to the Governor General. But when you say this, “The convention by<br />
which the government must retain the confidence of the House is just that -a convention. In other words, it does not exist in writing.” You are denigrating the very foundation on which our parliamentary system is founded. Much of what Canadians rely on in our parliamentary system are based on tradition. We do not follow the U.S. traditions. Elections every four years will harmonize Canadian elections with U.S. elections. This fits very clearly with the North American Union. There are mock parliaments already in process. “Under the sponsorship of the Canadian based North American Forum on Integration, students met in the Mexican Senate for five days in May in an event dubbed "Triumvirate," with organizers declaring "A North American Parliament is born."<br />
A similar event took place in the Canadian Senate in 2005. The intentions of organizers are clear. "The creation of a North American parliament, such as the one being simulated by these young people, should be considered," explained Raymond Chretien, the president of the Triumvirate and the former Canadian ambassador to both Mexico and the U.S.” * So a North American Parliament is born. Do you consider that a theory?<br />
<br />
As for your dismissal of our ‘tradition’ or convention. I quote for your full understanding from an important Constitutional Expert, Eugene A. Forsey in his document ‘How Canadians Govern Themselves’.<br />
“…Our written constitution still contains not one syllable on prime ministerial qualifications, the method of election or removal, or (except for the calling of the constitutional conferences) the Prime Minister’s powers. Nor is there anything on any of these matters in any Act of Parliament, except for provision of a salary….Everything else is a matter of established usage, or ‘convention.’(emphasis mine) ….there is nothing in any law to say that a government that loses its majority in the House of Commons on a matter of confidence must either resign(making way for a different government in the same House) or ask for a fresh general election.” Reference: Pg 30 How Canadians Govern Themselves<br />
<br />
This is very significant. The premise or arguments in favour of Bill C-16 do not hold up under close scrutiny. To suggest that fixed election dates will make the House work better because members will know the date of the next election, is contradictory if you maintain that the non-confidence remains. This Bill must be examined with clear understanding of its intention, not simply its wording. Our Constitution already provides a fixed election date that members can rely on if they are not defeated by a non-confidence motion. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states under section “4.(1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members.” Therefore we find that this Bill is simply an attempt to set a precedent to remove ‘convention’ and allow for other changes to our traditions. This is a matter, which requires full discussion, disclosure and perhaps a referendum by the people of Canada. The timing of this bill along with the Conservative government’s recent elimination of funding for the Law Commission is significant.<br />
<br />
I am very disappointed in your response to Connie Fogal. As a Legislative assistant and not an MP you have taken a very unimpressive position in your comment to another Federal Political Party Leader, Ms.Fogal. Your attempts to label her a ‘conspiracy theorist’ are derogatory at best, but more importantly they reveal the lack of communication in Ottawa and lack of full understanding of the political system in Canada. Canadian Action Party is fully aware of our legitimate role as part of the Opposition. It is not only our right to criticize, question and debate decisions which will impact the Canadian public, but it is our primary duty. Your attempts to downgrade our role, as defined by Elections Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, are unacceptable. If you are a Canadian citizen you should be concerned about the loss of our country. Rather than discount a statement which you have admitted you have no knowledge of, perhaps you ought to be asking your MP and others to answer the questions. You have taken a very strong stand to defend your party’s Bill, although your MP has not in fact put forward an argument. No MP has responded to our letters of concern regarding the Security and Prosperity Agreement or the NAU.<br />
<br />
Once again I express on behalf of the Canadian Action Party, our position is that Bill C-16 must be defeated. It serves no purpose based on the information contain therein other than to harmonize our government with the U.S. and set a precedent against convention. Our Parliamentary system is designed to ensure that all Federal Political parties work together in the best interest of the citizens. We do not owe security and certainty to any political party’s ability to hold power in government. Confidence in the government and its members remains the primary objective to ‘good government’. We owe security and accountability to the people of Canada. The two are not always mutually beneficial.<br />
<br />
In the interest of public disclosure and information I copy this document to all MP’s , Senators, citizens and media for their information. We look forward to the defeat of Bill C-16.<br />
<br />
Yours truly<br />
<br />
Catherine Whelan Costen<br />
Canadian Action Party President<br />
<br />
Reference: * <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52104">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52104</a><br />
<br />
Cc: Canadian MP’s, Senators and Citizens<br />
<br />
Contact info:<br />
CANADIAN ACTION PARTY/PARTI ACTION CANADIENNE<br />
Catherine Whelan Costen, Canadian Action Party President [email protected] Ph: 403-660-0449<br />
<br />
P.S. For your information, 4 U.S. Congressmen(see article below) Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va.Goode, Reps. Thomas Tancredo, R-Colo., Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Walter Jones, R-N.C. have put forward a resolution to defeat the NAU effort which you are denying. Clearly you are playing games with words. Are you more comfortable with the acronym USNA, the United States of North America? It is time for our government to realize that name calling to dismiss dissent (conspiracy theorists) does not work. The people are smarter than you think. We know the tricks and do not buy them.<br />
<br />
North American Union threat gets attention of congressmen<br />
Resolution aimed at blocking merger, funding of 'NAFTA superhighways'<br />
<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52230">http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52230</a><br />
<br />
Quote from article: “The resolution calls for the House of Representatives to agree on three issues of determination:<br />
<br />
The United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;<br />
The United States should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and The President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.”<br />
-30-<br />
<br />
-----Original Message-----<br />
From: Lauzon, Guy - Assistant 1 [mailto:[email protected]]<br />
Sent: October 2, 2006 6:55 AM<br />
To: info<br />
Subject: RE: [Cap_mps] No to Bill C-16 An Act to Amend the Canada Elections<br />
Act<br />
<br />
Dear Ms. Costen,<br />
I'm afraid I remain unaware of any plans for North American union. However,<br />
I am happy to address your questions about Bill C16. The convention by<br />
which the government must retain the confidence of the House is just that -<br />
a convention. In other words, it does not exist in writing. Rather, it<br />
stems from the power of the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime<br />
Minister, to dissolve Parliament, forcing an election. The Governor General<br />
may also refuse to dissolve parliament when so advised by the Prime<br />
Minister, as has occurred on one occasion, when the Governor-General instead<br />
called on the leader of the opposition to form a government without an<br />
election. These powers of the Governor-General are explicitly preserved at<br />
the beginning of Bill C16, in the following clause:<br />
<br />
"56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor<br />
General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor<br />
General's discretion."<br />
<br />
If you still have concerns about the content of the bill, please indicate<br />
exactly what clause in the bill is in question. Also, please indicate your<br />
residential address in further correspondence, so that it may be directed to<br />
your own representative or filed in this office, as appropriate.<br />
<br />
Aaron Hynes<br />
Legislative Assistant/Adjoint Législatif<br />
Office of/Bureau de Guy Lauzon, M.P./député<br />
992-2524<br />
<p>---<br>If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

[Spud]

Whelan,I have said before and I will say again the public DOES NOT CARE!Yes those of us on Vive do.The majority rules.The public does not want to know,the cell phone,shopping,SUV,consumer lifestyle has them happy.Even if it does mean the end of Canada,the public is using it's democratic right.They have chosen to let this happen.Explaning any of this to the average Canadian is beyond futile.My question has always been;Why are so many so dumb?
The politicains and business leaders must be astounded at the stupidity of the public.So can you really blame them for doing something like this?If the public refuses,(and they are refusing Whelan) to wake up,what do you expect to achieve?I am not in agreement with any of this,but.....
WHERE IS THE PUBLIC?It has always amazed me how many people do not know what NAFTA is.I don't mean school kids either,but adults in the business world,university educated adults with a career.As the old saying goes;you don't know what ya got till it is gone.
When it is gone,and it will be GONE,then the dipshit public might just say OH THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT!Well.........I...I...I...was shopping.I was busy.
I had my head up my ass?
I wished I had an answer Whelan.

[whelan costen]

Better to have tried and failed than to never have tried...never has it been more important for Canadians to at least put in the effort...I sleep better knowing I've done my best to save my country for future generations!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?