Wilber

True Gerry but I think it is fair to say that many, if not most of us now look at you as a one trick pony and as a result it's getting more and more difficult to take you seriously. Pity because any of your observations that have merit become victims of your single minded partisanship and your desire to discredit one single person in every topic you start and nearly every post you make.

15+ million Afghani women perhaps.

The only reason we need hate crimes legislation is because our weak kneed judiciary don't treat violence against anyone with the seriousness it requires. Why does a violent act against a gay person require more attention under the law than a violent act against one who is straight?

I was only trying to say if couples are going to be allowed to income split it would be more fair if all households had the option of being taxed in such a manner rather than just applying it to those on pension incomes. As far as what constitutes a household, I would say what currently applies. Two people cohabiting in a married or common law relationship. Perhaps other criteria could be added such as the aforementioned example of two siblings who have lived together all their lives. As far as tax rates go, the government is going to get their pound of flesh one way or another. Is this fair? I don't know, fairer to some than others just like every other tax. Guess it depends on where you fit in the system. I'm sure not complaining, the bulk of our income comes from my pension.

Declare war on every country that doesn't practice conservation and fishes where they want, how they want, when they want. Build the biggest damn navy in the world, get a bunch of long range bombers and blow their fishermen out of the water. What would you suggest?

To be an ally you have to be part of the alliance and pull your weight otherwise you are a parasite living off those who do.

Why would it? Your T4 gives your individual gross earnings not your taxable earnings. That won't change. T4's are not going to be issued on a basis of family income, that would require both spouses employers to share income and tax information to determine how much tax to deduct from your paychecks. I doubt that would be legal. Taxable earnings already vary from person to person depending on deductions and taxable benefits. Why would income splitting for tax purposes be different? I'm not saying it can't turn out that way but it doesn't make sense to me. Can you show me where the payers tax situation is already a consideration when a judge determines payments? If they don't now, why would they in the future? Tax laws change all the time, I don't think judges read the tax code every time they make a judgment. You are saying a change in tax law is going to automatically cause a change in civil law. That would be the exception rather than the rule and a stretch at this point.

I don't think I am missing the point at all. As far as I know the new legislation just concerns how income will be taxed. You are reading everything else into it. I think that is a stretch at this point. If you can show me where this legislation refers to anything other than how income will be reported for taxation, I would be interested in seeing it. I'm sure you will still report your income separately, just allowed to split it for tax purposes. Family's are already fiscal units but not for tax purposes. Individuals are responsible for support, not family's. I don't see this changing because of the way income is taxed but am quite willing to admit I could be proven wrong. Not about to get divorced voluntarily Jerry. After 37 years, I'm too old to be retrained and too lazy to train someone new.

Lets face it, parties say what they think they need to say to get elected. Hopefully they do the right thing after they are elected. Didn't hear a lot of people from any side saying getting rid of the trusts was such a great thing during the election.

I think you are making an assumption here. All that is being done here is income splitting for tax purposes. When the courts determined that support payments are not tax deductible, they as much as said your tax situation has nothing to do with the amount of support you owe, IMO. Like I said, I don't see how your new spouse could be made financially responsible for your ex. I assume you would also still have the option of filing separately. The government is not going to complain if you give them more money. That said, I'm sure there would be a lot of ex wives and their lawyers lining up to test it in court.

I don't have any first hand experience but am I wrong in believing support payments are no longer tax deductible so I don't see what you are getting at. Seems to me when the courts made that change they were saying your tax situation and support payments were not related. Not that they couldn't make an exception to that in a heartbeat. I don't see how your new spouse would have any financial obligation to your old one.

The F-18 was a good choice. A versatile aircraft. The US Navy and Marines have used it to replace both the A6 and F-14. The F-15E didn't go into service with the Americans until 1988. All previous versions were air superiority aircraft. When the CF-18's went into service in 1982, our NATO role was ground attack, one of the design roles of the original F-18. It also had more up to date avionics and flight control systems than the F-15 as well as being built to withstand the stress of carrier landings. The Leopard was a replacement for the Centurion which was probably the best tank in the world at the time it was built but was Korean War vintage. It's purpose was to duke it out with Soviet armor in Europe. Probably as effective as an Abrams in a place like Afghanistan. Never heard of the Canadian Navy wanting missile cruisers. Whatever for, we don't have task forces to protect from hostile aircraft. The submarines and helicopters were dealt with in a way that borders on criminal. Nothing but pure politicking at the military's and public's expense.

As a recently retired pensioner this certainly works for me even though our RRSP's and other investments in the market are taking a bit of a hit right now. Glad our adviser was not a big fan of income trusts. That being said I do think taxing household incomes across the board rather than individual incomes would be more fair for everyone.

The reason they are there isn't Germany.They only need it as a staging point for the Balkans and the Middle East. They already had bases in Frankfurt and Wiesbaden so why not use them.

When you look at what is available it is a no brainer as far as I can see. The C-27J and C-295 that the Americans are looking at for their short range transport don't have the capability. Arctic sovereignty is an issue these days. At best these two aircraft could carry less than 15,000 lbs into Alert from the nearest Canadian forces base and be right at the limit of their range. The 130J could haul as much as 35,000 lbs from several bases. The A400M won't be in service until 2010 if everything goes to plan. God knows when we would see one in service. Airbus has no track record when it comes to military transports so don't expect things to go smoothly. The A380 is well behind schedule, Virgin has just put back their delivery dates 4 years till 2013 because of the problems it is having. Against this you have a proven aircraft that has been in service in several countries for several years and of a type with which our air force has decades of experience. What's to think about?

JCA Could this be the competition they are talking about? I don't think we are looking for an aircraft that can only carry 25,000 lbs just 1000 NM. Particularly one that hasn't been built yet or even contracted. The Americans are after something different if this is the spec. It would seem the 130J is too large for their intended use.

Good question but remember this is the aircraft the military want. It's nice that they are getting something they want for a change instead of being told what they want. The 130J may not be able to do everything they would like it to do but my guess is it comes closer than anything else. It is also available now. The Americans continually upgrade their military so they aren't so desperate for new equipment. They may well be able to wait a few years until Boeing or someone else comes up with a new design that fits their spec exactly. It is decades since this country has been able to write the specification of a new type. We just don't require enough so we have to buy what's available then try and tailor it to our needs. We also have a tendency to let everything wear out then panic because everything is worn out and we really need it. Like now. Still, I agree that the government should be explaining things better.

The Air Force will be responsible for operating the aircraft but one of its main functions will be to carry army personel and equipment. The Army's needs will just be one factor in the specification but a major one.

The Opposition is there to ask questions. The government is there to answer questions. The Defence critic is not the only one asking the question. When Conservative critics asked if the British subs were the best for Canada's navy, I thought it was a legitimate question. I don't dispute that but a critics function is to criticize not ask questions and there should be some substance to the criticism, so why do we call them critics? I don't think it is to much to ask for a critic to have some knowledge of the subject. Critics should be able to suggest alternatives. I also think the government should be able to justify the purchase to Parliament and the public. From what I have seen the only real alternative is an aircraft from Airbus that hasn't even flown yet, built by a company that has no experience with this type. That doesn't mean it won't be a very good machine but who wants to be the launch customer of a new type with all the teething problems that go along with them, when there is a proven alternative. I'm pretty sure the military doesn't. They will want what they know which is the C-130.

Aside from the USAF, Coast Guard and Marines, the 130J is operated by the RAF, RAAF, Italian, Kuwaiti and Danish air forces. Maybe others for all I know. Since it is the Canadian Army that will need the planes for their transport, I'd be very interested in knowing what specs the plane didn't meet. Wouldn't mind knowing myself but a real critic would find out and explain why as they were criticizing. That is the difference between a real critic and a politician.

From the article. Does anyone know what the American specification is? Does Ujjal Dosanjh know what the American specification is? Does he know anything about military transports? Does anyone in the NDP know anything or even care about military transports? I doubt it. The article says the present USAF requirement is for a short haul transport. Canada is not looking for a short haul transport so why would we be using the same specification as the Americans for our requirement? Aside from the USAF, Coast Guard and Marines, the 130J is operated by the RAF, RAAF, Italian, Kuwaiti and Danish air forces. Maybe others for all I know.

Just reading in our local real estate paper. According to it, a person making 65K a year cannot afford to buy an apartment in greater Vancouver. The average detached house price is 658K and would require an income of 168K to buy one as a first time buyer. Suburbs are here to stay I think.

Nope, they've got some here to. The Otter Co-op in Langley is a great place.

After reading all this is it any wonder that some of us can't figure out if anyone really knows what they are talking about. Not knowing if they have any basis in truth but doing a little arithmetic with the numbers presented here, Kyoto depends on us reducing CO2 emissions to 6% below 1990 levels and we are now 27% higher than 1990 so we would have to reduce by 33% today in order to meet our Kyoto commitments. Canada produces 2% of world emissions so a 33% drop would result in a 0.66% reduction in world emissions if we met our Kyoto commitments today. What is it we really expect to accomplish here and at what cost? As someone pointed out, the Kyoto figures are not based on science but a result of getting a consensus between enough countries to make an agreement through horse trading. They may be overkill or they may not be enough.

Who's looking to build a wall? I'm certainly not. I said you have to make the urban environment attractive so that people want to be there. Suburbs are just the lesser of two evils, and really aren't very nice places to live. Given a choice, people would prefer to live and work in a vibrant urban community where all the provisions and services they need are within a two or three block radius. By comparison, commuting two hours a day to a barren stucco house on a treeless plain, far from any attractions or points of interest, is a pretty dismal existence. Vibrant urban areas are diminished when they become cluttered and conjested with suburbanites' cars. They only get life when people choose to live in them. Speak for yourself. I moved farther away from the city because although I like some of the things it has to offer, I don't want to live in one. Mind you, I didn't have to commute every day, live in a village with a creek running through the property, often have deer in my yard and walk my dog along the river every day on part of the Canada Trail. My village is part of a city of 140,000. I grew up in Vancouver and while I like to visit it a few times a year, have absolutely no desire to live there. Each to their own. I think you are correct in that we should be trying to make cities more livable but even the greatest cities in the world such as London, Tokyo, New York etc depend on large numbers of people coming in to work every day. The difference between them and Canadian cities is most of them have rail and other transit systems that make cars unnecessary for the majority of people. However they still have extensive road systems.