I understand they were ordered back to work during the last dispute in 2005. Can't do that now since parliament will not be in session till January 27, 2009.

She just ordered the union in the Ottawa bus strike situation to allow members to take a vote.

I understand bargaining is still going on here, so let's hope for the best. Shipments have already been diverted, though.

Vancouver is still by far the largest port of entry on the Canadian West Coast, so they carry the clout. Houston, the CEO of the Port wrote the Minister from Edmonton a few days ago indicating the economic impact of a strike.

A strike in 2005, no contract since 2007, a potential strike in 2009. What is happening to cause such a lack of assurance to the users of our facility. Whose responsibility is this? Why is this being continually dealt with in a reactive fashion rather than proactive fashion? It takes more than having the physical facilities in place to run a smooth operation.

I just know that Mr. Harris and Mr. Hill will be getting right on that, as will that new Senator that will give us the clout we need to settle such disputes quickly.

The CN Container Terminal in Prince George has been a bust since it was built. Initially they had 11 employees and I think this has now been reduced to six. At one time there were over 100 Container Chassis sitting empty in their yard, however a large portion of these are now gone, and there were at least 45 for sale at the last Richie Bros Auction.

The few containers that moved to Prince Rupert recently were because of a series of extenuating circumstances and had nothing to do with establishing a regular movement. There have been very little if any Containers loaded to Rupert from this area in the last year.

For those who dont know, the Container ships that dock in Prince Rupert, then go to Vancouver, and then Seattle, or Portland before returning to China.

Only a fool or a knave would suggest that this is a good service route to Asia.

The 40,000 containers per year that are always being talked about, are presently being loaded through the Port of Vancouver, and if they were (were) to load in Prince George and go to Prince Rupert it would be the same tonnage going to a different port, with little or no increase in jobs. In order to get additional Containers or jobs you will need new industry and I dont see any of this coming on stream at this time.

The Container ships that presently unload at Prince Rupert and Vancouver will be diverted to US Ports until the strike ends, after which it will return to Canada because the US Railways cannot handle this huge increase in traffic over an extended period of time.

The real concern for the Port of Prince Rupert is the expansion of the Panama Canal, which will be completed in 2014 and allow the larger container ships to go through the Canal to the Eastern US, the building of and soon to be completed new Container terminals in Mexico, and because of the overall decrease in Container Traffic world wide the increased competition from American Ports, and of course the Port of Vancouver.

This country cannot afford any disruptions for any reason when it comes to imports and exports. Things have already deteriorated enough. Ask CN how many empty cars they have sitting on sidings? It's a huge number.

Global Recession symptoms, actually.

If one does NOT have a (like Rupert which is very small to begin with) container port at all the prospects of ever attracting ANY container business are Zero, Zilch, None.

Now that we have a container port in Rupert let's work hard at making it work, even if only partially for the time being.

I have family who work at the container port in Rupert and from talking to them not 15 minutes ago,they seem to think that Palopu has some valid points.
They think that far too many people have their heads in the sand and a pair of rose coloured glass over their eyes!
It is still pretty hit and miss and not what so many expected it to be.
And they are VERY worried about the expansion of the Panama Canal!
Rupert is constantly trying to compete with the Port of Vancouver and it can't be done so they remain the poor relative.
Hard to break old habits I guess!

AAhhhh unions continue to contribute to business in Canada.

Actually it is the large companies that just want to rip off the employees so the profits can be larger and get more money shipped out of Canada, is the problem. IF this was important to the companies, they would come up with a deal but lately it seems everyone wants to take from the little guy and give to the big guys / government. I mean do this CEO's really deserve these huge pay increases and yet then when the workers want a pay increase they always say due to the economic climate it can't be afforded. No it can be afforded as most companies have too much upper management getting way too many dollars for not really doing anything.

IPG still insists that Prince George has a population of 80,000. Might I ask what this number is based on. The letter keeps refering to the negotiations as a labour dispute - if the unions get locked out will it be a management dipute. The free enterprise system is working well with the taxpayer being asked to susidize big business because some of them couldn't run a popcorn stand. I agree with most of what Lunarguy has said.

Any ILWU labour disruptions are only a formality in the process of the ILWU and all the dues paying members getting what they ask for.
They get ordered back to work and always get what they asked for before going on strike.
So there is no need for anyone to get their shorts in a knot, it will soon be settled.

Born in BC, if it was not for the unions in this country everyone would be working for minimun wage and no benefits.
I suppose that would suit you just fine.

Correct me if I am wrong but din't Mr. Harper want a moratorium on strikes before the Commie coalition "urged" him not to? Hey! What does Harper know, eh?

Mr. Harper wanted a lot. He shut down parliament and so does not get. He has to learn to say "pretty please".

Commie? Kind of an outdated word that has lost all meaning in today's world.

Labour associations are no different from oil cartels and industry associations who each have learned to wield the strength found in numbers and like minded members for their own purposes. They are either all "commies" or none "commies".

Hey gus. You say Harper wanted a lot. I said he wanted a moratorium on strikes. Am I wrong about what Mr. Harper said? Please be specific. I am.

Harbinger. Harper wanted a moratorium (2 Years) on Government Employees going on strike. I dont think that the ILWU is considered to be Government Employees, however I could be wrong.

What Harper really wanted was to flush the coalition out of the bushes and force them to show their cards. By putting this legislation into the mini budget announcement along with the pay parity for women not being retroactive, and no more Government funding of Political Parties he forced their hand, and as a result the Coalition is dead, Dion is gone, Bob Rae, is gone, Ignatieff is pretending to be a leader, and Jack Layton the talking mustache is being very quiet because he was one upped.

If the lefty socialist, parties are so sure that they have the confidence of the Canadian voters, all they have to do is vote down the the budget in January. That is not likely to happen, so at this point in time Harper is the winner.

The question is not whether Harper is the winner. The question is whether someone can form a viable government that will be beneficial to the people of the country.

This is not about the MPs, party leaders and prime minister and prime minster wannabees.

This is about Canada as a country and its citizens. What will be done and how it will be done to improve the lot of Canada and its citizens is the important thing here.

To continue with the topic of this article, it seems that the cargo transportation operations in this country are still tenuous. How the heck can we operate as a trading country with those kind of situations festering? Neither the Federal Liberal or Conservative government have been able to improve the situation of late. Why? Why is Ottawa not doing the job they should be doing? Why do these things get lost at election time? Get on with governing the country. I really do not care whether it is Harper or some coalition or the Governor General or the Queen. I expect better for this country.

What Harper wants

1. an elected senate
2. crack down on gas price fixing
3. a majority in parliament
4. barring that, rule as if he has a majority in parliament
5. inflation target extended
6. Quebec MPs for cabinet
7. to be loved by the people
8. a Canadian free trade model with Latin America
9. a fixed election date (he got that but did not like the consequences)
10. us to believe there is no financial crisis
11. to attract the same US investors into Canada who have failed miserably and are now tripping over themselves for bailouts
12. crack down on movie piracy
13. meet with Obama
14. a deal with Ignatieff
15. wants Canadians to believe the Liberals are not a centrist party
16. wants Canadians to forget he was a founder of the Reform Party and moved on to become the leader of the Canadian Alliance and then created an alliance with the PC
17. wants to be seen as a competent leader

I sure hope that is detailed enough. Others can probsably add some more that I missed.

He ended up being the first Prime Minister to shut down parliament due to a potential non-confidence vote.

Not a sign of someone sure of himself or a sign of competency in my book.

Hey Gus, the only ones running were Harper, Dion, Guisseppe, Layton. Those were the only choices you have. Canadians voted and decided who out of this bunch, they preferred. So, your suggestion is???

It's a pretty sad bunch.

It is a pretty sad bunch, however Harper rises far above the rest. He went from Reform, to Alliance to Conservative, to Prime Minister. Not bad for a Country boy from Calgary.

Canadians are so used to useless, pandering, corrupt, Prime Ministers, and Government, they couldnt recognize a real Prime Minister, or someone with some integrity, and values, even if it is staring them in the face.

Harper is probably the best Prime Minister this Country has had for the past 50 or more years.

Apathetic, voters, whiners, snivlers, etc; would have you believe that we would be better off kicking out Harper, and bringing in Ignatieff, who has not even lived in the Country for the past 20 or 30 years, or to elect Layton, who would break the back of this Country.

Its time for Canadians to grow up and to recognize the fact that the mish mash we have in Government to-day is a direct result of Canadian voters. Liberals, NDP, Bloc, Conservatives, Independents, etc;.

50% of eligible voters dont vote. I suspect that 25% of those that do vote havent got a clue as to what is happening in this Country, or what it is that each of the Parties represent. Very few Canadians actually belong to a political party, so are therefore not involved in selecting who will run for what party, and therefore with the exception of election day, they are totally out of the political loop.

A large number of Canadians,and especially the younger ones abdicate any responsibility for the Government, or the running of this Country, and are without their knowledge members in good standing of the whiners, and snivellers club.

The club is not a club of whiners and snivlers ... it is a club that is telling the parties that matter and have a chance of getting a majority government, the Conservatives and Liberals, to smarten up and get themselves some better leaders.

Remember, unlike the USA, Canadians do not vote for the prime minister/president, they vote for the local representative and the party that has a majority gets to choose the Prime Minister. If a party does not get a majority, anything is fair game.

There seem to be a lot of people on this site that do not understand the English parliamentary system that Canada has adopted. Maybe Canadians born here need to take the test that immigrants take.

So, snivlers? Count yourselves in until you understand the system. It's not called politics for nothing. There is absolutely nothing that guarantees that a party without a simple majority can run a successful government based on solely on being the party with the most seats. In that case you have to have some diplomacy, some leadership, some cooperation and several other skills that it takes to get people to work together.

That is why Harper is not seen by the people in Canada as the leader of choice. He may be the leader of the party of choice, but if people were to elect the PM separately from the party, he would end up dead last as poll after poll has shown.

The only reason he got more seats this time out is because the vote between NDP and Liberals was split to such a degree in many ridings due to the lack of good leadership with the Liberals that the Conservatives came up the middle, so to speak to take those seats.

BTW, I really do not care who is in. Just get to work and don't take a vacation on my taxpayer's money during a time when full attention has to be given to the business of governing this country.

"Harper is probably the best Prime Minister this country has seen in the last 50 or more years."

Give me a break, he is probably right up there with Kim Campbell.

This is a leader who has had 3 tries against parties in Canada who cannot get their sh*t together.

This is a leader who if he had a plan for the economy he couldn't sell it to the opposition.

This is a leader if he had no plan for the economy he couldn't use his great leadership skills to sell that either.

This is a leader when he got in the room to negotiate a deal on international trade he negotiated our softwood right to our American friends.

This is a leader who has no leadership ability within our own country as he has shown or on the international stage as well.

It takes a lot more than to tell your MP's to shutup and tow the party line to be a great leader.

Good comments Palopu.

I am in this business....I move 30,000 containers per year ex BC alone.

Not 1 will ever go thru the PG inland site or Rupert for that matter.

This comment from IPG "One year later the first regular shipments of pulp bound
for Asian markets are originating in Prince George providing significant cost and
efficiency benefits to regional manufacturers. "

There is absolutely no significant cost savings and zero efficiency benefit to a shipper.

leoleo, do you do this by yourself, or do you have help? Are they empty or full? Do they originate in BC, or are they just passing through? Do you move them by truck, rail, ships? What is the final destination?

full cans....woodpulp....originating in BC and AB.
Move via truck and rail to lower mainland for export.
To date every load of woodpulp loaded at the PG "inland container port" has been due to inadequate car supply to the pulp mills....forcing product to be stored in the CN warehouse.
Costs and transit times are premium thru Prince Rupert vs Vancouver and for IPG to say otherwise hilites what they know about this business. (very little)

"hilites"? says leoleo? Stick with yer day job and stay away from them little kid spelling bees. OK?

Sorry Harbinger....how would you spell it ? Highlights?
so would I except I thought we were talking exports and the export terminology is as I spelled it.

Gus. You should take the immigrant test, as it appears that you are not aware of how a Prime Minister is selected in Canada.
It has nothing to do with the Party having a majority choosing the Prime Minister.

Members of a political party in their ridings elect delegates who attend a national convention at which time they select a leader of their party. If they then get a majority of seats in Parliment that person who was selected as leader of the party then becomes Prime Minister. In the case of Harper he becomes Prime Minister because his party has more seats than any other Party.

If the so-called coalition had in fact taken place Dion would have become the Prime Minister.

Because of the selection process taken by the Liberals you now have a situation where if the Liberals get more seats than the other parties in the next election Ignatieff will become Prime Minister.

So:

1. Local party members elect a member to represent their riding. If elected he becomes a MP.

2. Local party members also elect representatives to represent their wishes for a Party Leader at the National Convention.

3. The Leader that is selected at the Convention if not already a member of Parliment would have to run in an election or a by election to become a Member of Parliment, and to become Prime Minister.

Every one of these steps are taken by people who are members of political parties, and therefore it is them, and not the voters at large who determine who will be your Prime Minister.

In Ignatieff's case he was selected to be the Liberal Leader, bypassing the convention route, and the delegate selection process, and if the Liberals were to get a Majority, or the most seats in the next election he would become Prime Minister, even though the only people in the whole Country who voted for him, would be those that voted in his riding, in other words approx 15000 votes.

So, now you have the other side of the story.

Lost it all.

1. The Conservative Party was relagated from the largest majority in Canadian history under Mulroney to two seats in the House of Commons, because of Mulroney.

2. Harper worked his way through the Reform, Alliance, and finaly the Conservative parties to get the Party back to where it is to-day. The Conservatives now have more members in Parliment than any other Political Party, even though they are still in the rebuilding process.

3. Harper did in fact have a plan for his mini budget in December which was a prelude to the regular budget that was due in late February, or early March, however when it was determined that the Liberals (Dion) NDP (Layton) Bloc (Duceppe) were working behind the scenes on a plan to topple his Government when he brought in the budget in Feb/March which would be a time of their choosing, he brought forward legislation that they could not support.

1. Doing away with Government funds to political parties.

2. Recinding the right to strike for the Government Employees Union for two years.

3. Pay equity for women workers not to be retroactive.

Anyone with half a brain and a blow hole would know that the Liberals and NDP could not support that kind of legislation.
I knew it, and you knew it, so dont be so naive as to believe that Harper didnt know it. Of course he did, and he forced them to come out of the shadows with their ill conceived coalition strategy. He was then able to get Parlimet porougued, and will now bring down his budget in January.

4. You can rest assured that now that the coalition has been dealt a death blow, that none of them will have the balls to bring down the Government in January. If they did it is almost a certainty that Harper would get a Majority.

5. What you have witnessed in the last month is a great piece of political strategy that because it was so brilliant, and well engineered most Canadians, and political pundits missed it entirely, yourself included.

6. Maybe its the voters in this Country that are lacking in intelligence, rather than the politicians. You would certainly think so after the last few elections. Seems they dont have a clue as to what they want or who they want, or when they want it.

I didn't miss it Palopu, I saw like most Canadians a leader who had no plan scrambling to engineer a plan to blame the coalition for his massive over budget. So as he could save face and say he was forced to do something he said he would never do. I never said the coalition leaders were smart the problem is as the Canadian voter has proven once again, the talent pool in Ottawa is a little shallow.

Palopu - semantics.

I wrote "the PARTY that has a MAJORITY gets to choose the Prime Minister". I said nothing of the people at large. In fact, I wrote that is one of the several ways we are different from the USA. The timing of the choice varies. It may have been the choice of the party leader prior to an election. It may have been the choice of a party leader after the election when a leader steps down and the party was the ruling party.

Also, notice the nuance that the party has to have a majority. If it does not have a majority, there are a number of other options which immediately become available.

Also, if there is a coalition, the PM does not necessarily have to be from the party with the largest number of members of the parties in the coalition. That may be the tendency, but if one of the conditions of the coalition would be that another leader become the PM, then so be it.

In fact, there is nothing to prevent the coalition members from selecting a Prime Minister other than a party leader as far as I know. After all, Ignatieff has just been made leader of the party without a vote of the party membership. Also, if the coalition or another coalition should form by the end of the month, Ignatieff has stated he may not take the "crown" as Coalition leader and possbile PM if Harper falters and does not call an election.

Belgium is into its third prime minister since its last general elections in 2007. It has a coalition government made up of 5 parties. With the addition of a strong party in Quebec which has no seats in the rest of Canada and with the splitting of the country down the middle similar to the USA, we will likely be getting more used to coalitions, I believe, and many of the methods used to choose the government in other parliamentary systems in the world will be tried in Canada.

So, hold on to your hat Palopu, you may be learning more and more about the system in Canada and the flexibility it has compared to what we have been used to. There are very few rules. When it comes to the position of PM the general population has no say in the matter and the party members may also not have a say. We elect our MPs and when push comes to shove, it is their decision who will lead them in government.

Palopu - you might also recall that the leader of the party in power is not necessarily PM automatically. Remember that in 2003, Martin was elected the leader of the Liberals, while Chretian stayed in as the PM for about a month during the election.

To make it even more complicated, while party leaders and house leaders are usually the same, they do not have to be.

Are we having fun yet?

Palopu wrote: "The CONSERVATIVE Party was relagated from the largest majority in Canadian history under Mulroney to two seats in the House of Commons, because of Mulroney."

Wrong again!!!! That was the PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

We now have the CONSERVATIVE party, which is something like the BC Liberal Party, a party which has been taken over by a more right wing component and kept part of the previous party's name. Just to confuse people like Palopu. LOL

A bit of history about the true Tories and the period just prior to the takeover of the PC party by the Alliance and the new party called Conservatives.

Perhaps they should be called REGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES.

forgot the link www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/0306_leblanc.pdf

Gus. Your post Jan 1 1025 pm. second paragraph contradicts your following posts in regards to how a leader is selected.

You should go through your posts to determine what it is you are actually trying to say.

In any event I agree there are a number of different ways that a leader can be selected to a political party in Canada and then become Prime Minister, however most if not all of them exclude the participation of most voters, mainly because most voters do not belong to a political party, and are not involved in the process, and only get to vote at election times.

There in very little difference between a Conservative, Progressive Cponservative, Reform Party Member, Alliance Member etc; they are all Centre right. the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc, are centre left, however they all share similiar platforms, and in fact the Liberals are famous for stealing the NDP's platform. So you summed it up correctly when you said it is all semantics.

Have a nice day.

Palopu

That paragraph states:

"Remember, unlike the USA, Canadians do not vote for the prime minister/president, they vote for the local representative and THE PARTY THAT HAS A MAJORITY GETS TO CHOOSE THE PRIME MINISTER. If a party does not get a majority, anything is fair game."

The first condition is that they need a majority. The Conservatives do not have a majority.

The norm is that the leader will become the PM. That leader is most often voted in by the delegates and a few others attending at a party convention. The Conservatives have a direct voting system by members in each riding which is then converted to a percentage vote.

It is quite possible that a party leader will step down but remain PM. It is also quite possible that a PM and party leader will step down after a new party leader is chosen and he/she then become PM.

In my short paragraph, I did not show all ways a PM could be chosen by a MAJORITY party. The choosing can be before an election or after an election. The choosing can be by a party vote, a delegate vote, an appointment or by acclamation of sorts as in the Ignatieff case.

Thus there are all sorts of other ways that a Prime Minister can be chosen. None will include going out to the total Canadian electorate. It may also not go to a vote by the party mamebers, but may stay with the governance body or, perhaps, caucus.

In the case of the Conservative Party the leader of the Party may be an MP, a Senator, or anyone else not in an elected or appointed postion of Parliament.

A leader may also be appointed by the caucus (Conservative constitution) if a leadership selection process is entered into and will hold that appointment until an elected leader is chosen.





"There in very little difference between a Conservative, Progressive Cponservative, Reform Party Member, Alliance Member"

That is an opinion that many right of centre people, especially PC party members and past PC party leaders and PMs will not agree with. But, we are all entitle to an opinion. Your statement is not a statement of fact, it is an opinion which is held by some people. That is all it is. Saying it, does not make it so.

Gus. You clearly state that the party who has a majority gets to choose the Prime Minister. This of course could be true in some instances, however the fact of the matter is that it is the delegates that elect a leader, and THEN if they get a majority, that leader becomes the Prime Minister.

Have a nice day.

Palopu, thank you for your input.

Palopu.

Each party has its own constitution by which they elect, select, or appoint a leader or an interim leader. They are not all the same.

Here is the Conservative Party of Canada's Constitution as an example.

www.conservative.ca/media/20050319-CPCConstitution.pdf

With respect to your statement "the fact of the matter is that it is the delegates that elect a leader", read 10.9 carefully. In their case, each party member has a vote.

And yes, I have from the start clearly stated that the party that has the majority gets to choose the PM. I say once more, the Conservatives do not have a majority in Parliament at this time nor did they at the completion of the most recent election. They told the GG they could form government and she then appointed Harper PM. Then they ran into problems because they too seemed to have some problems with understanding exactly what a mojority is.

I think they now understand. In the meantime they got rid of the devil they know and now have to deal with the devil they do not know.

I wish them and those of us who are interested in having a good-willed rather than an arrogant government good luck.