jacee

The ammendments are good. Lying and pretending they are your own ... that's bad. Got it now?

Well it's certainly going to be interesting.The Supreme Court says they must be consulted about all developments on their traditional lands, and a written Impact-Benefit Agreement must be negotiated. Of course this is all heating up quickly because of the delay in the Trans-Canada pipeline through the US. It doesn't sound to me like they are taking a negotiating' position. It sounds like they are simply opposed to it, period. Harper will be having coniptions, but he can't just send the military in against .. what ... a meeting? The oil companies will be scrambling to pay them off, but I don't think it will work. I can only assume that those bands may have other sources of income as I'm sure they know Harper will try to beat them down any way he can. Why don't they use container transport for oil? Wouldn't that address the leaky pipeline, leaky ship issues? I agree with them. I don't think it's safe.

I agree that integrity seems totally lacking.They're a bunch of crooks.

In order to clean up fraud and corruption of democracy in Canada, clearly we have to take down both the Libs and Cons. They're both too entrenched in corruption to ever clean up without total destruction, imo.

Aboriginal groups in British Columbia said on Thursday they have formed a united front to oppose all exports of crude oil from the Alberta oil sands through their territories. The declaration adds to the uncertainty over Enbridge Inc. ’s planned $5.5-billion Northern Gateway oil pipeline, which would move 525,000 barrels a day of oil 1,177 kilometres to the Pacific port of Kitimat. It could also affect an expansion of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners’ Trans Mountain oil pipeline, which runs from Alberta to Vancouver. The company is currently seeking commitments from potential shippers for the project. The First Nations groups say they fear the consequences of a spill from the pipeline, which would pass through some of Canada’s most spectacular and mountainous landscape. They also oppose the idea of shipping oil from British Columbia ports. “First Nations, whose unceded territory encompasses the entire coastline of British Columbia, have formed a united front, banning al exports of tar sands crude oil through their territories,” more than 60 aboriginal groups said in a statement. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/bc-natives-form-front-to-fight-oil-pipelines/article2256786/?from=sec434&service=mobile Stay tuned to watch Harper go ballistic.

Well I shouldn't be surprised that some used this topic to slam the east. I am a bit surprised that corporate subsidies used as political payoffs doesn't seem to concern people, as long as it's payoffs to Alberta Conservatives through oil companies. Let me explain again: I'm suggesting that the corporate 'subsidies' are not for the oil companies at all, but are political payoffs going into the pockets of conservative backers. I'm suggesting that the government subsidies don't do anything within the oil company: They just FLOW THROUGH profitable oil companies directly into the pockets of shareholders as payback for their political contributions. That's my theory. Prove me wrong anyone?

I think it's a good idea. Gets them in the habit of voting before they leave home.

Ya, punching your kids is a great strategy ... to teach them to punch out other kids. You want to teach your kids to punch out your grandkids?

Ya ... that'll teach them ... Teach them to bully with a horsewhip next time. Some 'bozos' teach their kids to be bullies just like them.

they are ... when the kid is sent home. However, kid will likely get bullied or worse at home.

The business of governing can't be predicted years in advance. Things arise when they arise and not everything that comes up was in the election platform. I've always thought it was silly to equate the entire business of governing to what os said during an election campaign. We do expect our leaders to deal with the day-to-day and the unexpected.I think McGuinty is highlighting the bullying issue so MPP's recognize bullying behaviours in the Legislature, because it's an epidemic of bullying there.

I think that's an unnecessary comment.I also think that it's not helpful to keep going over and over the history of conflicts between Palestinians and Israelis. To move forward it's always necessary to let the past go and find a solution that is midway between the desires of each party: Both sides will have to give up something. Palestinians are ready to accept a two state solution. It doesn't appear to me that Israel is ready to accept any solution, and they are now the obstacle to peace due to their ongoing aggression.

Likely right.Link for the data... http://www.ecojustice.ca/media-centre/press-releases/kairos-study-reveals-billions-in-canadian-tax-subsidies-to-big-oil-come-at-the-expense-of-conservation-and-climate?searchterm=oil+sands+subsidies $1.5b this year, confirmed by the govt.

Hmmm ... I guess there are two schools of thought among economists, not surprising. I like this one ... The Occupy Wall Street movement, displaced from some key geographic locations, now enjoys a small but significant encampment among economists. Concerns about the impact of growing economic inequality fit neatly into a larger critique of mainstream economic theory and its deep faith in the efficiency of markets. Many unbelievers (including me) insist that we inhabit a global capitalist system rather than an efficient market. Willingness to use the C-word(capitalism) often signals concerns about a concentration of economic power that unfairly limits individual choices, undermines political democracy, generates financial and ecological crises and limits access to alternative economic ideas. We can’t address these concerns effectively without a wider discussion of them. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/occupy-economics/

Agreed! We know one thing about former Bishop Ratzinger ... He was the coverup man. Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests' The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight. In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated. The Panorama special, Sex Crimes And The Vatican, investigates the details of this little- known document for the first time. The programme also accuses the Catholic Church of knowingly harbouring paedophile clergymen. It reveals that priests accused of child abuse are generally not struck off or arrested but simply moved to another parish, often to reoffend. It gives examples of hush funds being used to silence the victims. Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April last year, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith. An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the 'enforcer' of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings. Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times. Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome. Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself." And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen. "When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world." http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do He's a criminal. And still dangerous. He just told the world that child porn and sexual abuse are normal. A warrant would be nice.

I think you mean "in more danger", and the answer is obviously that there are more adults riding bicycles these days, resulting in more accidents. This is especially true as some drivers (like Michael Bryant) are becoming increasingly aggressive toward cyclists (as in this thread), and are less willing to accommodate the increased numbers, and the fact that cyclists insist on their right to the road: They are often commuting or working too, and do have a right to be there. I like the idea of sideguards on trucks. Makes total sense to me. Also keeping big trucks off city streets as much as possible. Cyclists are becoming more numerous all the time, and we have to address the safety issues.

Oops sorry smallc ... my comment was in relation to Michael H's post. 'Conflict of interest' is a euphemism for corruption, imo. This link - "Oil isn't subsidized"- defends tax breaks/deductions, calling them "subsidies", because oil companies bring in a lot of government tax revenues. However 1) the article never addresses DIRECT government subsidies to oil industries. Conflating 'tax deduction' with 'subsidies' obscures the issues. 2) I suspect the differences in tax rates may simply reflect differences in profit margins, again obscuring reality. Since Canada first agreed to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the federal government has spent more than $2 in tax subsidies to the industry for each $1 spent on action to implement the accord. "This government prides itself on accountability and a change from past practices," said Bea Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada."It is unclear how big tax breaks to an industry that is making massive profits fits with those policies." http://www.pembina.org/media-release/1242 Source of 'tax break' subsidy data: FOI requests to government. The government confirmed the tax break figures in its responses to a formal petition filed with the Auditor General of Canada by KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, a church-based social justice organization. KAIROS' analysis of likely GHG emission reductions is based on the federal government's own figures The petition was filed last November and the government was legally required to respond within 120 days. 2008 The concern of these groups is polution. While that concerns me too, especially since 'Canada' is likely to walk out of the Durban conference on Dec 23, having rejected the Kyoto Accord. However, in starting this thread my interest is in raising the issue of oil sands subsidies as an example of politicians possibly blatantly paying off their financial backers through taxpayer subsidies to corporations that are absolutely unnecessary in a highly profitable industry. As in the company I tracked and reported earlier, subsidies that are unnecessary to the operation of a profitable business will, of course, and up as profits distributed to shareholders, and my common sense tells me that some of them may be. contributers to political campaigns and are receiving, thus, a payback of their political contribution (or more) at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. If so, it is blatant government corruption. Prove me wrong, anyone? Why else would hugely profitable companies, oil or otherwise, get ANY public subsidies?

@smallc By "conflict of interest" I assume you mean corruption? There are other avenues for 'subsidizing' the oil sands indirectly too, like (disgraced) Bruce Carson's use of federal funds allocated for development of 'clean energy technology' to put on a multimillion dollar road show to promote the oil sands, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/11/pol-vp-weston-carson.html an indirect and fraudulent 'subsidy'. Carson left in disgrace over another scandal, but he and the government (PMO) that funded the project haven't answered for this. I suspect I'm only skirting the tip of the iceberg on corruption associated with the PMO and the oil sands industry. To those of you who may say "butbutbut ... the Liberals did it too " (sponsorship scandal), I say ... Do you want that cabal back in power? Do you want another corrupt government in power? In my opinion, both the Liberals and Conservatives have become too comfortable operating via corruption of political power, being supported by corporate interests and in turn doling out perks to them. Frankly, I don't think either party is fit to govern our democracy and it's our fault for not being diligent about corruption of politicians such that they serve the business interests of their backers instead of the needs and interests of ALL Canadians. How many of us 'assume' there are government 'payoffs' to corporate backers, and dismiss it with a "What-can-ya-do" rhetorical shrug? It's almost the epitome of being Canadian, that statement and that shrug, as much a part of us as saying "eh?". It's no secret that I don't trust Harper, but the real issue isn't just now or just him or just oil sands corps, but the entire political culture that we have allowed to develop and to persist in Canada, undermining democracy and contributing to the extreme wealth inequality that now threatens to bring civil strife to our streets. And it is our responsibility. I think we need to expose the whole system of corruption that results in governments paying off corporations through contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, indirect support programs, etc. etc. It stinks. It's our fault, our responsibility, and I think we need to address it.

Good luck finding that info. The gov doesn't want us to know much about corporate subsidies. However some time ago I slogged through budget documents and followed one oil sands corp subsidy for $250m. At the end of that fiscal year, the company posted profits of ... $250m: IE, we taxpayers paid the shareholders. I sure don't appreciate my tax money showing up as their profits, especially if it's a political payoff. Much more work needs to be done to expose corporate 'subsidies'.

At his news conference, Mr. Kent announced an nvestment of $600.8-million over five years to renew the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in Canada. The money will be used to align greenhouse gas regulations with the United States where appropriate, finalize and implement a national air quality management system, strengthen commitments to reduce trans-boundary air pollution, and improve indoor air quality. But Clayton Thomas-Muller, a campaigner with the Indigenous Environmental Network who took part n the news conference with Mr. Saul, dismissed that announcement.“Is $600-plus million over five years enough? No, t’s not,” said Mr. Thomas-Muller. “Canada is currently giving $1.4-billion in subsidies to the tar sands patch alone every single year.” http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/climate-groups-to-canada-commit-to-kyoto-or-stay-home/article2252151/?service=mobile You know, I wouldn't have a problem with corporate subsidies in general if we taxpayers were treated like investors and got a payback once companies are profitable ... but we don't. Corporations treat government as a source of income, without respecting the origin of the money - ie, us. I am opposed to the destruction and emissions of the oil sands, and I would consider public subsidies to clean up the emissions issues, if the resulting technologies are government patents and income for us, not for corporations. I guess what I'm saying is that corporate subsidies should not be giveaways, WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO TAXPAYERS, but investments with potential for return for governments/taxpayers. Corporate lobbyists working for the 1% wealthy and powerful, and the politicians they lobby, need a wakeup call to remind them that 'government' isn't just a bureaucracy, not just a potential source of 'charity', but democracy entrusted with tax money to use for the benefit of ALL Canadians. As it exists now, taxpayer subsidies to wealthy corporations are a scam ... a sham ... a pretense that there's something in it for us ... a blatant fraud committed against the Canadian public by corporations and the politicians they own.

And what would the cops do with them anyway? Is Ford building more jail facilities to house the homeless? (Only if Harper gives him the money, and I doubt that!) Are we now paying police officer wages to herd the homeless around from here to there ... since they aren't allowed to sleep? Maybe police will beat them up so they can take them to the hospital to sleep! Maybe they should just deliver them to Rob Ford's front yard ... with tents and video cameras! Or to City Hall! Wouldn't it be cheaper than police and jails and hospitals to just keep the shelters open? I'll be interested to see how the police (TPS, Chief Blair) respond to this information.

Trial-and-error, I love your whole post and welcome you to the board. Keep posting! The issue of Canadian bank bailouts is still secretive in Canada, and needs to be exposed. We're paying for it. We have a right to know and a responsibility to act on the information. Boges, I get it. However, I disagree to some extent: The OCCUPY movement would never have had the impact it is having without the in-your-face occupations of the parks. It may not last forever, but it was a necessary initial tactic.Now the movement is mostly moving indoors to more traditional operations, consolidating national and international connections and coordinating actions. The occupations were just the vanguard, to test public support ... which is HUGE ... and to be a very public face and gathering place. It also made very public the development and implementation of the direct democracy general assemblies that anyone can participate in. It's unique, organized, possibly slow (as democracy is), and because it is/was out in the open, literally, in the parks, people learned a lot about it very quickly. Those who criticize protesters and defend the 1% would criticize no matter how the movement operated. Those who focused on the problems of drugs, alcohol and violence that accompanied the homeless people into the OCCUPY camps are grasping at straws because those problems happen on the street everyday and they don't pay attention then. The homeless people, more even than the occupiers themselves, epitomize the deep fractures in our society, where those with good fortune come to believe they are more deserving, and dismiss those less fortunate to 'deserve' their punishment. It isn't so: A human being is a human being and those who are 'left behind' are the signal that something is terribly wrong. The rapidly increasing wealth of the 1% is being taken from the rest of us, and the cracks in the system are now exposed. We face a further round of 'austerity' cuts in services, with the most vulnerable among us already in dangerous circumstances, postsecondary graduates lacking opportunities, older workers unemployed and considered unemployable, the elder population about to increase dramatically, putting pressure on the system that will open more cracks and fissures that vulnerable people will fall through ... The current system of power-by-wealth via corruption of our democracy, ie, by bending the political will of our governments - regardless of political party - to serve corporate interests over the interests of ALL Canadians ... that system is no longer acceptable, no longer viable: It only leads down the road of increasing public discontent, activism, and ultimately civil disobedience, disorder, and a complete breakdown in 'civil society' - rioting, looting, and pre-dominance of an underground economy. Those who denigrate the OCCUPY movement might want to reconsider: Would they rather deal with an open, democratic movement that respects expression of ideas and seeks cooperative common solutions ... or the rapid expansion, indeed takeover, by the underground economy? Don't be too bothered by the lackeys of the 1% who malign the OCCUPY movement: They're just stooges following orders blindly to ingratiate themselves to the 1%. They do it out of fear of the wealthy and powerful, because they know their wrath and try to avoid it. The Occupiers, however, have no fear of the 1% or their stooges, and persist with direct democracy because Canadians see themselves as a democracy and have those values. It is a very mainstream movement. It's the power cabal of the 1% and their bought-and-sold-out politicians and other lackies that are out of step with Canadian values.

I believe you are wrong about the permits. Israeli settlements don't always have them and they never get removed by Israel.In fact, the bulldozed Palestinian settlement stood on ground that was to be for another (unofficial) Israeli settlement.

Closing shelters in a recession is ludicrous, especially when it's just been made illegal for people to sleep on sidewalks/subway grates, they can't sleep in parks ... where do the homeless sleep?

I would think you'd be wrong regarding any usual campsite. If someone was rifling through tents, they'd definitely be reported to police, detained, and possibly charged.As for Mr Levant ... if he went to any public park and started rifling through people's picnic baskets, knapsacks etc, likewise the police would be called. Similarly, rifling through someone's tent would be offensive and possibly an offence. Regardless, it is an invasion of privacy and reveals the arrogance and lack of social values of Mr Levant. I'm sure the 1%'rs cackle about what he did, while avoiding him personally. That's the mentality of the powerbrokers: The rest of us are just automatons working for their benefit. They love to benefit from the antics of goofs like Levan but they consider him a loose cannon. Such is the mentality of the 1%'rs... the mentality of schoolyard bullies and those who salivate at their heels. It's a power regime comprised of people we wouldn't want in our social circle.