normanchateau

(1) It still strikes me as unfair that all young males must pay a penalty for the sins of some young males. Sure it's legal but that does not change the fact that it's a sexist and ageist policy. (3) There are private auto insurers in BC who I assume skim off only the lowest risk drivers from ICBC or they'd have more than a handful of clients. The one time I checked on what my rates would be with a BC private insurer, it became apparent why ICBC has what you refer to as a virtual monopoly.

You say 'of course' Jews rallied round the tree, yet the judge in the case seems to be Jewish ? Are you saying that they're rallying around this tree idea out of fear rather than good sense ? I don't see where the 'of course' part is. I did say "...unlike that Toronto judge." I don't think Jews and Muslims are rallying around the trees because of fear but I do think that they're motivated by what's in their best interests. For example, if Christian symbols can be displayed, so can their symbols. And if you want the dominant religious culture to support you in times of need, you'd better support the wishes of the dominant group. If I had religious beliefs of any sort and they weren't Christian, I'd want the Christians to display their trees so that I could display my symbols if I were so motivated.

First, well of course Christmas trees are Christian symbolically. As far as I know, no one on this thread has linked them to Muslims or Jews. And if Christians choose to celebrate the birth of their founder by killing evergreens, so be it. But I see no need for these religious symbols to be in government buildings. How would religionists feel if Satanists and Wiccans demanded the right to foist their religious symbols on government buildings? Second, well of course Muslims and Jews rallied round the tree. They know what's in their best interests...unlike that Toronto judge. If you were a Christian or Jew in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, would you protest if there were Mohamedmas trees in government buildings. You bet your life you wouldn't. You'd rally around the tree and tell your Muslim brothers that you favour whatever it is that they favour

Would you say that Winston Churchill's floor-crossing switch from the Conservatives to the Liberals in 1904 confirmed "that he never ever was a conservative"?

They mis-spell labor, harbor, defence, neighbor and a host of other words. What you are referring to are those words that Americans consistently spell incorrectly. Canadians typically use the English spelling. This is considered bizarre to most Americans. Imagine...using the English spelling for English words. It's a quaint Canadian custom which I'm sure will disappear with time. But "seperate" is neither an English, American nor Canadian word. It's incorrect in all versions. Even Americans have not yet decided that the incorrect spelling of "separate" is now the correct spelling.

I'm not sure why you can't call them the NDP rather than the Dippers. I'm tempted to call the Conservatives the Harpercrites but I don't do that because it encourages the proliferation of derogatory names for political parties and their leaders. All kidding aside, is "Dippers" considered derogatory? The term "New Democratic Party" or "New Democrats" would seem to breed confusion since Bill Clinton called the more conservative iteration of the Democratic Party he was allegedly seeking to build the "New Democrats". The New Democratic Party has been a part of Canada since 1961 and I think the number of Canadians who would confuse the NDP with Bill Clinton's New Democrats could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Is Dippers considered derogatory? If that's what NDP members called themselves, probably not. But I'm guessing that the term Dippers is employed mainly by those who tend not to vote NDP. Just a guess though.

Nope, nothing wrong with lighting up... But symbolic Christian trees, in my opinion, belong in homes and religious institutions. Private businesses of course will do what benefits the bottom line. That's their right. They're commercial enterprises. But we're not an Islamic theocracy so it would be nice if government and religion were kept separate.

US lumber lobby? Or Canadian lumber lobby? Norman Chateau, look me in the face, and tell me honestly that Canadian lumber producers lost that money and not new house buyers in the US. Who paid the money, the $1 billion? Americans or Canadians? Because of these tariffs on softwood lumber, ordinary Americans paid a high price for a new house. We Canadians tried to help them but their Congress prevented us. The $1 billion is not ours, it's theirs. Good thing we got the deal considering there was no deal under the previous gov't. So are you saying that Liberal Cabinet Minister David Emerson was wrong to advise Paul Martin to turn down this deal when it was presented to him in December, 2005?

George Bush has not been pessimistic with respect to the war in Iraq which at this point has cost the US 350 billion dollars. His lack of pessimism has not made the situation winnable but it has prolonged it. Now there is a civil war in Iraq, one which the Shi'ite majority is likely to win thereby increasing the chances that Iraq will ultimately ally with their Shi'ite majority neighbour Iran. Previously Iraq was a secular dictatorship. Thanks to meddling Bush, Iraq is on the pathway to an alliance with Iran. Harper went on US television to let Americans know that he supported the US invasion of Iraq. Well he was wrong then and he was wrong to extend the Canadian mission in Afghanistan without further debate. With more debate, he might have got more than a mere 30 Liberal MPs to support the extension. As is, with a majority of Liberals, NDP and BQ MPs not supporting the mission, he has put Canadian forces in the unenviable position of risking their lives for a mission most Canadians no longer support. Now that Bush is a worthless, lame duck and only four NATO countries are willing to risk their forces fighting in southern Afghanistan, Harper needs to sell this mission to Canadians and not merely pretend to support our forces. If Harper could go on US television to let Americans know why he supported the invasion of Iraq, he should have the b-lls to go on Canadian television to sell the mission to Canadians. Even if he sees no political gain, he should at least do it for the Canadian forces. They deserve it.

Who paid the money, the $1 billion? Americans or Canadians? The $1 billion is not ours, it's theirs. Really? "MONTRÉAL, Nov. 15 /CNW Telbec/ - Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. today confirmed receipt of approximately US$225 million, pertaining to softwood lumber duty deposits made by the Company since 2002. The funds were transmitted to the Company through an agreement with the Export Development Corporation (EDC) of Canada." I wonder why Abitibi-Consolidated received back their lumber duty deposits if they never paid those deposits to begin with? And why is the Export Development Bank of Canada returning duty deposits to Canfor? And why is 4 billion of the 5 billion in illegal duties returning ? If US consumers paid that 1 billion to build their homes as you claim, who owns the other 4 billion? And why did the US Court of International Trade rule as follows on October 13, 2006 if the money was not ours: "On October 13 the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) made it official: the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber dispute is over. Canada won. The tariffs and duties imposed by the U.S. on Canadian lumber exports are illegal. The U.S. must pay back every cent of the $5.2 billion collected from Canada since May 2002. Unfortunately, Canadians will not be cracking out the champagne any time soon. The court’s ruling doesn’t matter because Stephen Harper’s government has already volunteered to lose the dispute. Instead of holding on just a few more months to finally reap the full returns of Canada’s successful legal fight before North American Free Trade Agreement panels, the World Trade Organization and U.S. courts, the Harper government locked Canadian lumber producers into a one-sided deal with George Bush. In its ruling, the CIT justices recount the story of Canada’s impressive and successful legal challenges. In actions at the WTO, NAFTA and finally the CIT, Canada won round after round, appeal after appeal. The Americans’ legal avenues were cut off one by one. Back in April, following the defeat of U.S. “extraordinary appeals” of NAFTA rulings, it appeared that justice would finally prevail. The U.S. would be forced to concede at last that that there is no threat of injury to U.S. lumber producers from Canadian imports, nor is our lumber unfairly subsidized merely because the Crown owns most of our timber rights. But then, along came the Harper-Bush deal. Instead of the clear, precise legal determination that flowed from the CIT verdicts, Canada was locked into a deal that capped at 34 per cent our share of the U.S. market, even though other countries are still allowed to ship unlimited amounts of duty-free lumber to the U.S. While the CIT ruling means there is no basis for claiming Canadian companies receive subsidies, the Harper-Bush deal gives the U.S. oversight of Canadian provinces’ forest laws. According to the Vancouver Sun’s Gordon Hamilton: “Friday’s court ruling is being viewed by most players as the ultimate irony rather than a chance to kick-start the legal battle again.” And the deal is already biting in Canada. Last week at least ten wood processing plants closed on this side of the border, throwing out of work some 2,500 Canadians. “This is insanity,” says Russ Cameron of the Independent Lumber Remanufacturers Association, a man with an obvious gift for understatement. “We just gave away a billion dollars and subjected ourselves to a border tax. It doesn’t make a lot of sense. What we have done is rejuvenated the coalition, given them half a billion dollars for when we have to fight the next round.”

136...

But the voter is stupid. Judging from Flaherty's record in Ontario and Harper's record so far, they will also: -provide income-splitting... -give more beer and popcorn money... -send some Ralph bucks to everyone... -come up with 100 new tax credits... -cut corporate taxes... -pour billions and billions into Quebec... -pour more billions into subsidies... -earmark lots of money for studying how to improve health-care... -spend more to build more jails... -give money to some seniors... -cut the immigration application fee... The result of all these wonderful initiatives will be: -lots of votes for the CPC -a massive hidden deficit that everyone will know about but will not show up on the books until after the following election (when they will be kicked out of government) -lots of angry voters when they realize that not everyone qualifies for everything I agree with you completely on the CPC 2007 federal budget plan. Harper saw that big spending worked for Brian Mulroney so he expects it will work for him. But I'm not as certain as you that the voter is so stupid as to be fooled once again by Harper. Sure Harper will be shoveling money off the back of the truck but because he's not as slick and oily as Mulroney, it'll stick to Harper and perhaps tarnish him irreversibly. I expect Harper will try to pretend that he's a Red Tory in the next electtion. I noticed that his national campaign chair in the 2006 election was Hugh Segal. Segal of course was Chief of Staff to Brian Mulroney and now serves as a political strategist to the Conservatives. It's interesting that in 2005, Paul Martin foolishly appointed Hugh Segal of all people to the Senate. Segal then went on to manage Harper's campaign while drawing a full Senator's salary. Can you imagine Stephen Harper ever appointing an opposition politician to the Senate? One of Harper's first acts was to appoint his close Quebec friend Fortier, the same man who had run his leadership campaign, to the Senate AND a cabinet position. It would not surprise me if Harper got this sleazy idea from Segal or Mulroney since it completely contradicts the 2005 Harper Mr. Clean persona.

I'm not sure why you can't call them the NDP rather than the Dippers. I'm tempted to call the Conservatives the Harpercrites but I don't do that because it encourages the proliferation of derogatory names for political parties and their leaders.

You admire McGuinty for wanting Christian symbols in government buildings? He's merely engaging in Wal-Mart politics and knows that far more voters will be impressed than offended by his pro-Christian stance. Muslim voters won't flock to the Conservatives because McGuinty favours symbolic Christian trees in government buildings.

Christian symbols, Jewish symbols, Muslim symbols...they all belong in the home or in religious institutions.

That's laugable. Washington is not filled with scandal. Canada is filled with scandal. The largest scandals in recorded history. Canada ALWAYS has one scandal or another. This is not so in Washington. I think Washington is filled with scandal but neither Republicans nor Democrats necessarily view at as such. For example, the US national debt is now 8.7 trillion, the largest recorded national debt in the history of the world. It is rising at a rate of 2 billion per day, the fastest debt rise in recorded history. In March, 2006, faced with a potential government shutdown, the US Senate voted to raise the nation's debt limit for the fourth time in five years. The debt "limit" is now 9 trillion. The US federal debt, as a percentage of GDP, is now above 60%. Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5282521 If Washington does not see this as the greatest scandal facing their nation, that in itself is a scandal. Canada's debt declined while the US debt continues to rise scandalously. The US deficit is yet another scandal. Canada has no deficit. Shame on us for not spending more than we take in unlike the "scandal-free" Bush government. The US has so far spent 350 billion on the war in Iraq. What have they got to show for their efforts? Is that not a scandal? How much would they have to spend on Iraq for you to view it as a scandal?

No they cannot. Written reasons must be given as to why you were denied insurance and you can in fact dispute the reasoning with the Superintendant of Insurance. I know they must give you written reasons for denying you insurance. I'd want written reasons when I was denied insurance. Perhaps the issue is you feel that a private industry should provide you without limitations? There are several issues here for me. (1) Private insurers can legally discriminate against people on the basis of age and sex. It strikes me as unfair that all young males, including those who've never had and will never have an accident, should be financially penalized because of peer-based, statistical data. I can understand paying more because I drive more but not paying more merely because I have a Y chromosome. (2) What's to prevent private insurers from eventually collecting and using statistical data to discriminate against people based on race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation? If race Z has a higher accident rate, should everyone belonging to race Z pay more? (3) ICBC delivers auto insurance without discriminating on the basis of age and sex. Why does this option not exist in most other provinces where all young males continue to pay for the sins of some young males? BC does have private insurers but they have to compete with public insurance which has successfully existed here since the early 70's.

If she is offended by Christmas trees, others may be offended by seeing the star of david in public places. Let's get rid of both Sure, let's get rid of both. Religion belongs in the home, not in government buildings. So does homosexuality......... I don't actually agree with that, but your logic applies to that too. Someone might be offended! Let's lock them up and hide them from the world. Sheesh. Any sexual activity belongs in the home, not in government buildings. Sheesh.

No they cannot. Written reasons must be given as to why you were denied insurance and you can in fact dispute the reasoning with the Superintendant of Insurance. I know they must give you written reasons for denying you insurance. I'd want written reasons when I was denied insurance.

If she is offended by Christmas trees, others may be offended by seeing the star of david in public places. Let's get rid of both Sure, let's get rid of both. Religion belongs in the home, not in government buildings.

Aren't you the one who was saying that Dion was the "establishment" candidate? But now you're saying he isn't supported by his party members (or cabinet) aka the "establishment"? Make up your mind...is Dion supported by the establishment or not? That's the thing. The other party members are the anti-establishment. Dion/Kennedy had the old establishment backing them. Chretien, Trudeaus son, and other people behind the scenes. Rae had the new establishment backing them and I'm sure Stronach wanted to get Rae in. So what you're saying above is that Dion, Kennedy and Rae were all backed by the establishment. ..two by the old establishment and one by the nerw establishment. However, as many Liberal MPs backed Ignatieff as the other three candidates put together. So that makes Ignatieff as the candidate of the Liberal MP establishment unless you view Liberal MPs as not the establishment. One could argue that all four were backed by the establishment. Why is being an establishment candidate bad in your opinion? And is Harper who was a Reform MP beginning in 1993 then an Alliance MP then a Conservative MP not a candidate of the Conservative establishment?

Last year Wal-Mart staff were not allowed to wish shoppers a Merry Christmas. People complained and this year Wal-Mart staff can wish customers a Merry Christmas. Why did Wal-Mart change their position? Because the number of Christians complaining about being wished Happy Holidays last year was far greater than the number of Muslims and Jews offended by being wished a Merry Christmas in previous years. Conclusion: The baby who cries the loudest gets the biggest cookie. The poor Toronto judge is about to discover that Canada has no shortage of Christian cry babies.

Just so that we do not leave a false impression here let me clarify your statement. Private insurers CANNOT deny you auto coverage, should you meet their underwriting criteria that THEY file with the Ontario Insurance Commission. Penalty for ignoring that rule is severe. In fact, every driver seeking or currently with auto insurance coverage can request quotes from all insurance companies a broker represents. (cant remember if it is all or 4 companies) But we must privide them in writing. Private insurers can deny you auto coverage in Nova Scotia.

Harper raised the personal income tax rate on July 1, 2006. And he raised it such that it disproportionately hurts those who earn the least. " * Lowest Personal Income Tax Rate Raised - To partially offset the cost of the reduction in GST, the lowest personal income tax rate (for taxable incomes of up to $35,595) will be raised to 15.5 percent July 1 2006, in effect making it 15.25 percent for 2006 and 15.5 percent for 2007 on." Now why would Harper do something so incredibly stupid? It's easy to guess. When he announces the federal budget in February, 2007, he'll announce that he's cutting the personal income tax rate on those who earn the least. He's counting on the voter to be even more stupid than he is.

Well it's not equality what they are doing. Especially the age part. BC has real equality it seems when it comes to auto insurance. Auto insurance cannot be denied. We MUST provide a carrier if asked to do so. Maybe not in all provinces but private insurers can deny auto coverage in Canada.