Now Stephen Harper is ready to give into Québec and sell out the other nine provinces. Whether Gilles Duceppe likes it or not Québec is a province not a country, and isn’t entitled to it’s own international voice.

Quite frankly, I am tired of the separatists never ending whining that their getting a raw deal. Québec’s based Bombardier’s aero division would not survive if it weren’t for subsidies from Ottawa. Québec got the contract for the CF-18s despite a cheaper bid from Manitoba; the built the 100 griffin helicopters used by the Canadian armed forces, armed coyotes etc.

The Quebecers want nine provinces officially bilingual, but Québec to be

officially French only. Québec is like the favoured and spoiled kid of the family who can get all the gifts under the Christmas tree and still not be satisfied. Anyone who says this special treatment isn’t fair is accused of being

anti-Quebec, and pro giving them a raw deal.

I am now fan of former PM Mulroney, but he was right when he told the seperatists to go to hell!

participate in the national television debate, and exclude the leader of the Green

party.  Make no mistake about the only objective of the block is to split Canada in two.

The Green party has candidates from coast to coast and a million dollars of our taxes

to get their message out. Taxpayers should have the chance to see and hear the leader

of a party they’re funding, and see hear his unrehearsed replies to questions from both

the media and callers.  $1 100 000 is actually small potatoes for a national campaign;

less than $4000 per riding, but every little bit helps for a fringe party.  The greens

might not stay on the fringes if their leader was seen on the CBC debate, and between

a national party getting tax dollars and a party that just wants to split Canada it’s the

bloc leader that should be the odd man out not green leader Jim Harris.

Voters should get to see how their party differs on issues instead of the same old

me-tooism by the liberals, and tories.

Some idealist and arrogant people feel man has the God given right to make

decisions for other species. A case in point is a orca in an inlet on the west coast

of Vancouver Island. The department of fisheries and oceans have tried to reunite

this orca with his pod courtesy ill conceived do gooders.  People are so wrapped

up in whether they could reunite orcas that they don’t think whether they should.

They aren’t giving the orca credit that he might not want to reunite with his

pod or he would have done so by now, they haven’t considered that when and if

reunited there is no guarantee an orca would stay with his or her pod.

Man’s arrogance is not restricted to marine life. How often do conservation officers

go shoot cougars, or bears that they claim behave badly? Who gives them the God

given right to decide how to judge how wild animals should behave. We are the

ones encroaching on their territory. Four legged animals have just as much right to

life, and preservation as we do. They do not understand, or care about boundaries

of civilian population, and why should they when we’re destroying their habitat.

We are the only species who hunt for pleasure, or just to make a fur coat. ( I would

rather go naked). I have seen the monster that walk the earth, and they are us!

Andre

Only a delusional fool would think criminals will stop carrying handguns just because of a change in the law banning all handguns except for those worn by police or by security guards who transport sacs of money.

 Even the police say 80% of guns confiscated in crime are smuggled and not
registered by legitimate gun owners. There is already a lengthy process including  courses, and background checks to assure the only people licensed to buy any firearm  or crossbow are people who act responsible by securing them and transport them to  a range, or designated hunting area in safe manner. By law any registered owner who  have their firearm(s) lost must reported to the police soon. Criminals don’t care about laws prohibiting guns or any other law for that matter; that’s why they’re criminals.

I see registered guns as an equalizer which  responsible law biding citizens can defend themselves and their kids and spouse from  armed evil doers. In fact the last time the last time I checked the criminal code people  have the right to use as much force as necessary to protect themselves or another person;

am I the only one who recognizesmaybe even discharging a firearm would sometimes be  the amount of force necessary? I am not advocating will all  take the law into our own hands anytime we witness a crime against property, or put a
cap in someone’s ass just for cutting you off on the highway; I am saying if they outlawed guns only outlaws would have guns.
If Brinks or Loomis security guards can wear guns on  the job because they
handle lodes of other peoples money than banks should be allowed to arm
themselves for the same reason.  Stores should also be permitted to protect
their assets such as money with guns just like they do in the states.
No wonder armed criminal choose Canada for their bank robbing.