login

Age doesn't equate respect. There are lots of old idiots out there. Respect is earned not defaultive. We can start with a clean slate of course but points can rack up quickly to designate someone as contemptuous.

The kid did not comit an indictable offence by taking a picture of a security gaurd takedown of some chap. Rinse your head out. He was compliant to the request to leave. 1 A person may not be convicted of an offence under section 4 in relation to premises if the person's action or inaction, as applicable to the offence, was withcolour of right. 'an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it existed, would be a legal justification or excuse.' However, lets just get the facts straight, the kid wasn't arrested for tresspass. In any event taking pictures of the RCMP if it was still on the property and instructions were to the effect of "don't take pictures while on mall property" as opposed to "don't take picture of us" We don't have those facts. The first instance was innocent because he complied with leaving the property. The second incident was tresspass if the instructions were blanket instructions --- that is " don't take any pictures while on mall property" But I still think the gaurds were negligent in escorting the kid off the property, like one of them. Also the question of the time frame of the prohibition of entry etc.. it left things a little vague. I think it is reasonable for the kid to think he had the right to take photos for purposes of public record. I think that he was in belief the security gaurds could ask him to leave, but that those gaurds did not have the right to deny him taking photos since everyone was clothed. Did he commit tresspass.. perhaps, if security gaurd instructions were blanket instructions, which I am skeptical if the sitation was explained clearly and was given as a blanket prhobition as opposed to just applying to the events with security gaurds being --- don't take photos of us. I am very questionable about why "a prohibition" on taking photos exists at the mall....

The conservatives havn't made cuts yet. They superinflated the budget 2006-2008 added 10% to the public servicesize. They are still normalizing. Tax revenue has increased and they are still deficit spending by 28 billion this year. Their goal by the end of the term is to stop overspending, people are skeptical. Giant scissors is the only thing that comes to mind.

Another Harper tax, your dollars to his pockets.

I'm geussing you guys all get antsy in June for christmas.. its nearly three years until the next federal election.. I have more odds on the world getting there than who will have favour 3 years from now.

Dude, do you have a statue in your room or something? Its like someone who is part of a union praying to Buzz Hargrove. Its unfortunate when people are killed, but it happens every day. If he could be killed why send him there to begin with. Him not being there because of security concerns while there is an ambassador in India already who could make an apperance for much less money, just makes sense. What don't you get about the fact it is a waste of money to go to the level of expense there is to protect one guy who has next to no importance in a national security context. The only way he would be is throgh corruption of what the office is suppose to entail. Fact is, he is just a politican. Politicians should pay for their own security. Stop wasting the publics money. Less people to be pissed off in that scenario.

So what. Its the PM not the leader. He assembles a government, not the state. So hang out with a world leader. What the heck is he there for anyway, Canada has ambassadors for that stuff who get paid quite well to be there. Sounds more like someone wants a vacation on the taxpayers buck. Well that is just irresponsible to the tax payer. Wasting peoples money even if it is the norm doesn't mean austerity should fall on the people and the poor while some nuffigntatty lives it large protected by people cause he is unpopular. the PM ain't the executive, that is the Queen and the Queen ain't suppose to be partisan. None the less the point is, it is a waste of money let him get kidnapped or shot if it comes to that. Save the 50 million to pay down the debt idiots have racked up over the last century. You need to reduce the deficit by 26 billion there is somewhere to start. The pension savings alone will wipe out the cost of an election. Now I'm not saying off him, I'm saying, if between him getting offed and paying 50 million a year to protect him, it wouldn't be a great personal lost knowing I save 2$ a year with the first scenario.

Their country, their rules. They kill gay people and murderors too. So did Canada. Fact is there were more death sentences than other sentences a 200 years ago or even 150 years ago. so don't drink alchohol. Not all islamic countries have death sentence for drinking alchohol,some have zones set up. But it is their law. imo more crimes should carry the death sentence I think most indictable offences deserve it. (hopefully everyone could agree) People view the death sentence as some sort of immorality. Well sorry but you rape someone that is pretty immoral. Good ridance. You kill someone unjustifiably good ridance. Who the hell are you to say what is good law for someone elses society? Its not yours its theirs. Their freedom is their choice how to deal with their social crimes. You think property ownership really exists. It doesn't. Laws are just cultural phenomenom there is no right or wrong law other than what an individual or group beleives. Alchohol and the antitemperance movement and prohibition are well rooted in Canada's past. They arn't islamic concepts. They are actually quite morally pure beleifs. Of course it is a matter of choice, but still pot, heroine and other drugs carry life sentences. I'd rather have my head cut off than spend life in a jail cell. Murder is more moral than life of forced confinement especially when the gaurds are half the time a bunch of mules. Of course I don't respect killng people without their permission but no I think that killing people for transgression should be the principal resolution for something that is unredeamable as well as not simply an offence, but a persistent and clear danger to society. Removal from that soceity is required either by death or exile. Exile of course is the prefered resolution, but death is the only resolve, and it would be wonderful if all people of the society could understand that death is for the wellbeing of everyone as to be carried out for any serious crime. To keep things simple and to remove the questions and problems, economic issues, and deprivation of human freedoms from individuals through imprisonment or confinment. It is just a waste of resource hopefully people can see that. Canada has stupid laws too.

If you are violating someones charter rights, you are probably breaking the law, plain and simple. The charter sets the bar at what is acceptable conduct and what is not. So yes if you are violating their charter rights you are breaking the law. Example an infringment of life --- is criminal, infringment of liberty is criminal infringment of security of person - criminal violating individuals right to beleif, religion thought, etc.. are hate crimes are forms of harassment, etc.. and potentially hate crimes... impeding other objects of the charter likewise fullfill those grounds. The charter is designed to be a basis of which lawful action exists and what constitutes unlawful action. This basis is mean to perpetuate into society because the legislatures are the means at which law comes into existence in case of statute. Other aspects such as "rights of arrest" etc.. apply to anyone who is arrested. regardless of who makes the arrest. Where there are violations such as cruel and unusual punishment.. those are criminal offences. The idea is that immunities often enjoyed by government are not meant to extend to the areas protected in the charter and that any law or sections which violates those fundamentals is void. The concept also forgotten is that government includes the people because all citizens are subject of the government, buttheir rights as government are limited in as much as the law limits them and as privleged as those priveleges exist. Since government sets the bounds to which individuals fall within the government. Individuals have specific "governmental" rights and duties, for instance a requirement to aid police, or to not act in certain ways, or to act in certan ways, in that aspect their freedoms are limited by the law, which makes them agents of government. The charter is bs though for instance the blue wall bs Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. charter of the police state. luckily the bill of rights still holds power http://laws-lois.jus...2.3/page-1.html 1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law; (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press. So where the charter fails the bill of rights still holds power. In that way there is a reciporal action between the bill and charter to that held within government and "the law of Canada" being held by the bill of rights where not held by the charter. "and any law in force in Canada or in any part of Canada at the commencement of this Act that is subject to be repealed, abolished or altered by the Parliament of Canada." example no law of canada may (a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, as well the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;

Looks like the only solution is to play the smurft theme via speaker next to every windmill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU2Jkc1cHrE&feature=endscreen&NR=1 Should shut them Tories up with all the complaints.. cause they're blue right... Blue is good, isn't it?

Thats what basements are for right. Remember it is Canada sending their doctors down there not the other way around. As soon as the research well dry's up in the US This thing is 1970's technology.. https://www.google.c...iw=1250&bih=673 The patents are expired. eg. http://www.airwar.ru...r/draw/b70.html http://www.airwar.ru...raw/xb70mk.html http://www.airwar.ru...b70valkyre.html J-47 Turbojet with some tweaks this is archaic but unused that can easily be tidied up a bit and slapped together.' Nuclear powered aircraft projects date back over 50 years ago. eg. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Convair_X-6 nuclear power has gotten much cleaner since the Tupolev Tu-119 The designs of course are not fully maximized as --- the idea of generation of power is secondary tothe direct capacity to use nuclear exhaust for thrust, in addition to powering a filtered compressed oxygen mixture for high mach flight through the use of nuclear energy to create fuel while in flight. Effecitvely making a nuclear air thrust scramjet sonic wake riding strike bomber / ICMB (with ai guidance) / anti aircraft due to DEWS.. as well as the ability to have increased air fluidity through compression or release of specific LTA gases. If the need be you could paint it with some silly putty too.

Looks like something better suited for a patty's day pint.

Where is the indictable offence? The person was taking photos hardly grounds to assault someone, it wasn't even paparatzi harassment. You are confusing the fact TPA isn't an indictable offence, it is barely a summary offence, and usually only carries a fine. You clearly don't understand what an indictable offence is. Generally only police can arrest for summary offences, because they are not endangering to the public. What occured was clealy an abuse, and the gaurds should have their security licenses revoked for assaulting someone without charge. Especially since police were already on route, and the kid wasn't endangering. This is equivocable to tasering or shooting someone who isn't causing a problem. The fact the kid was compliant with leaving the building only further demonstrates. The issue was clearly that photos were being taken, not that he was tresspassing. There was no indictable offence by the kid, so an arrest using force was clearly unacceptable since the kid wasn't non compliant. When I was pursueing charges for tresspass on someone the police wouldn't even charge because, it was just a mistake, they didn't have the intent to tresspass - even though they clearly intended to park in my driveway without my consent. I think the same applies here. I couldn't even touch the person to take them into custody because the person wasn't using any force and was not fleeing. Although I asked if I could touch their shoulder I didn't receive a response. Since any non permissive physical contact is assault, and individuals do not have immunities, you can't lay a finger on someone else. That is the bottom line. You can't physically arrest someone unless there is no other recourse. i.e. they are in flight, and even then you are only suppose to pursue unless use of force is justified. The individual does have the right to meet force with force, and assault for self defence. But using no more force than is required. In the instance where an indicatable offence changes the rules change a bit because the individual can then use deadly force especially in the instance where flight occurs. Note cops often ignore assaults though. I've been assaulted by touching twice in my life, and cops don't take it seriously. But tackling someone to concrete or ashphalt is definately assualt. I have been assaulted more times than twice but it doesn't make it acceptable. This is just a class bias so often facilitated in Canada, where the act isn't what matters it is who commits the act, and that is just part of the corruption of the justice system in Canada. It doesn't make it right though. There is a lot of systematic corruption out there, not only in Canada but other parts of the world too, like the US. Although the world would be much easier if individuals could resort to violence where civil law is violated, this is not the case. While individuals could request a court order to have non permitted photos of themselves destroyed, if they serve as an invasion of privacy, that is definately civil, and individuals do not have the right to personally seize the recording equipment and destroy the film. That is criminal. If I could attack people for civil violations against myself I'd be an MMA fighter full time. Canada doesn't have the same sorts of laws as France in regard to public filming and photography. Note in Canada taking a photo is a potential tort.. civil violation, not a criminal offence Privacy Act, 1.: Violation of privacy actionable (1. It is a tort, actionable without proof of damage, for a person, wilfully and without a claim of right, to violate the privacy of another. (2. The nature and degree of privacy to which a person is entitled in a situation or in relation to a matter is that which is reasonable in the circumstances, giving due regard to the lawful interests of others. (3. In determining whether the act or conduct of a person is a violation of another’s privacy, regard must be given to the nature, incidence and occasion of the act or conduct and to any domestic or other relationship between the parties. (4. Without limiting subsections (1) to (3), privacy may be violated by eavesdropping or surveillance, whether or not accomplished by trespass. Taking photos of someone without their permission a lot though could be considered harassment, which is a criminal offence. Especially if they have communicated they don't want their photo taken. Harassment can be an indicatable offence, so in that event use of force may be justified to stop the behaviour. In this instance though it wasn't harassment because photos of the individual with the complaint stoped, (subject moved from the take down to the arrival of the RCMP.) However the privacy issue may be mitigated due to Privacy Act, 2. (3.: A publication of a matter is not a violation of privacy if (a. the matter published was of public interest or was fair comment on a matter of public interest, or (b. the publication was privileged in accordance with the rules of law relating to defamation Criminal Harassment 264. (1) Criminal harassment - No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonable, in all circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them. (2. Prohibited conduct - The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them; (a. repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them; (b. repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them; (c. besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, c arries on a business or happens to be; or (d. engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family. (3. Punishment - Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of (a. an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b. an offence punishable on summary conviction I think the kid was well within his rights, even though a privacy breach was potential, that would have been a tort not a criminal offence. Torts don't allow for assault, regardless of how greatly people who are subject to torts may wish to respond by use of force instead of use of court. Perhaps its something Parliament could look into to ammend, see how it goes for a few months. I recommend the medicare issue be addressed first though. His behaviour fell well short of criminal harassment.

Well yeah, saying don't take pictures with your camera.... sort of implies the presumption that it is his camera. Thus trying to seize the camera or damage his film is a criminal act for a private citizen to engage in. Now if the photos or the act of taking photos incorporated illegality or aided and abbeted an indictable offence, I might say it would be justified to seize the camera, such as state secrets, child porn etc.. however these were photos of a violent citizens arrest, which we do not have a background of the reasons the person on the ground was being arrested at the mall..... deleting the photos destroying the film would be totally out of the question unless it jepordized national security immediately etc.. otherwise it would have to be left to a court order for destruction. It would definately be mischeif to destroy the property as it is intentional destruction of property totally illegal. Also itmay be worse if that destruction was to obstruct justice due to the nature of the film catching criminal acts by the security gaurds. The guards have also raised false alarm in telling the kid to stop resisting, as well as getting physical with the kid where no use of force prior existed, meaning the gaurds were not meeting force with force, which means they also definately assaulted him. Making a physical arrest in a non violent person where there is no flight is definately an unreasonable use of force, which may be why the gaurds were all edgy to begin with.. they were using unreasonable amount of force and could be sued and charged for that use of force if it was not requried.

So can someone take an infared image, or paint a picture then at that mall? What about filming that ain't photography. So like this wouldn't get him kicked from the mall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography

I've never seen the posting. None the less, you can't confiscate property if someone violates a private property rule. Like occured, you can ask them to leave the property which he started doing. But, there was no arrest for tresspassing. You could apply for a court order, but a breach of personal preference does not facilitate use of force for private citizens. Also normally security should escort someone off private property, but they do not have the right to make any physical contact whatsoever, unless the person fails to leave the property endangering peoples lives and police will not be available to intervene--- Security are not suppose to make arrests through use of force unless there is no other option and even then they are liable if they act outside of the the TPA or whatever other act exists because individuals do not have immunity, except perhaps indictable offences. And confiscation of private property is a definate non allowance, that is theft. Also issuing orders to individuals under threat of violence against the indivdiual or their property is also assault,and could be interpreted as uttering threats. Basically anywhere you can't smoke, you can take photos.

No, no it won't. My plane would have a propulsion system. Radar is a little dated, and I would upgrade it to better detection systems that don't spew emissions (example internal sensed differentiation sensed presence). No data link is requried. Missiles are secondary, as HEWS are better for air combat , and neutron bomb or sabots ar ejust as effective for bombing screw conventional war. HEWS can be used for ground attack also. no need for chain gun, hews. No need for GPS with intermal intertial tracking computer system. No need for trainers if it has autopilot ai. sims are secondary as they can be done in a rigged up jet with ai and display sims, and other stuff. Just throw a high power HEW on the cyclotron mounted to the engine cycling generator. Throw in the EW suite also. as well as vector thrust. See my plane could fly itself, or have a pilot if required. In place of a pilot you could add payload such as a megaton nuke or tons of chems or rig it up for a robot assasin insertion etc.. tech has advanced a lot. I'd also go for a bomber model, based on valkryie. for boom wake ride, or even include that for supercruise boom wake at mach 3. for delivery. You can even mount mini nuclear power generators in bombers these days for continuous operations. Thats a bomber the enemy don't want to shoot down over tehran or shanghai or moscow. Shiva star is only the tip of the iceberg circa 5-10 years ago what is capable. Lets get real though projects like the f35 arn't about war machines, they are about making the military industrial complex money so they can kick 3rd world countries. Now bear in mind this is not a total solution due to the ability to use disapation fields to defend against lasers i.e. dampeners. It gets rather complex. a missile mount is not impposible. But one would have missiles as only a last resort because they are generally inferior to say a 10MW laser.

Yes I think you may be partially correct but not fully, some people wanted change, it is rather unfortunate really. It is unfortunate society is so apathetic today. I do think the maple leaf does represent Canada, but it doesn't represent Canadians. One must realize that Canadian citizenship didn't even exist until after WWII. It is very unfortunate that People had to be selfish and result in the loss of so many rights both Britains and Canadians would be enjoying today. It is strange that now the boomers are aging, soon the British Canadians will be gone. Of course then there is another 25-30 years before the common wealth citizens are gone. But within 50 years if Canada still exists the citizenship bonds will be all but gone between Britain and Canada. that is rather unfortunate. It is still a long way off, there is no telling what a world 50 years from now would be like to 50 years as a midway from the year of the mapleleaf to today to how far we have gone. It is hard to imagine a world half a century from now... I think though the mapleleaf was reactionary.. to the suez crisis, and it really didn't represent Canadian public identity

It would be in the liberals interest to Merge with the green party since they are the most environmentally proactive party regardless. In giving concessions to the greens in terms of policy consolidation, if it succeeded then it would position the liberals much better. ex. Insuring the Environment Canada and Industry Canada profolios to the Greens and appointing green sentators.

I think the problem here is that people view malls as public places, but they are privately owned. Although I think we should bequestioning why he was asked to leave. As taking pictures in a public venue is not illegal, and I doubt the there is a no photos in the mall bylaw etc.. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Public_space It is definately public space, that all members of the public are invited to attend. Actually it is not legal to descriminate in a public venue. Which shopping malls are. Now when asking, could he have been uncuffed to allow the backpack to be removed without damaging his property for a "breach" Also are there tresspassing charges? Overall though we should always be critical of harsh treatment from non violent indivdiuals where force is used. Damaged property is a tort,so unless it is a justifiable use of force it should not have occured. I agree with the kid as far as his right to be on the property, and to take photos because it is legal to do so. Now being asked to leave because he was taking photos is very problematic, this isn't a communist country where taking photos is a form of spying. IMO the fact there was no tresspassing charge means the breach was unjustified. Destruction of his property was malice, because there was no threat to the officers in uncuffing and removing the property. It was just bad policing, and bad morals for a public space like a mall. The kid wasn't the bad apple it was the security and police in this instance because they infringed his liberties unjustifiably, because he is assured his security, it is a breach of his charter rights. Now also his swearing is legally negligent because it was not assaultive (no assault charge).. the cops did not respond legally correclty given the destruction of property and breach given the justification. The teen was within his rights the cops infringed his liberties, and it was not fundamental justice, it was corruption of justice. Since the kid is allowed to defend his charter rights in absence of reasonable use of force in infringing his liberties, the kid is in right. The real issuehere seems to be the potential of the plainesclothes being IDed who is perhaps an undercover security gaurd who was id'd by the photos. Further he was assaulted by the security gaurds. Since the security gaurds did not have grounds to make physical contact with someone in absence of a criminal charge. The security gaurds broke the law. BS causing a disturbance, the breach was the takedown by the gaurds. i.e. causing public alarm. security is only suppose to give chase , the fact they did a physical takedown is the breach. now the question does surround if the security used more force than necessary (eg. twisting the guys arms) i.e. was the guy in flight when they opted to pin him? But no security gaurds have no right to physically detain someone who has not broken the law nor seize their property. That is criminal. The guards should have been charge with theft under $5000 and assault. The kid complied with the gaurds request to leave the property, and was not escorted off the property. The gaurds broke the law.

First Nations do not include the Inuit so they must be represented differently. Also some sort of symbol of early immigrants should also be included, such as Germans, Ukranians, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Eastern Europeans etc.. so a symbol for immigration. Also the Metis are a distinct nation in Canada and should be recognized seperately. You may even question if religions should be included also such as Mennonites, Catholic and Protestant groups, as well as other religions, because they have infused so greatly into the history of Canada. They needn't be large, much like a star on the US flag is not large. But I think having the many symbols of Canada could go well beyond the ignorance of the Canadian Monarchies authority base as a means to describe what Canada is. I think Canada is more than the Monarchical rule, but it does include it.

I don't like the idea of "new flags" it should have just been used as an expeditionary banner or something. Frankly I think the Union Jack was pretty good. The fact it isn't even in the flag is quite a coup... I think that it should be the red ensign with http://www.pch.gc.ca...bl/arm2-eng.cfm coat stamped onto it. as well as the first nations symbols eg. inuit, metis and major groups of first nations - because they are the peoples of Canada. http://www.google.ca...IhYHoDg&dur=795 and http://www.google.ca...29,r:4,s:0,i:80 and http://en.wikipedia....iki/Métis_Flag The Flag should be updated to remove the overt ignorance of Canada's past. The maple leaf really is a way at erasing Canada's history from the flag. While the maple leaf is great as a simplified flag, it is really hollow in regard to Canada's heritage. The us has 51 stars.... canada has founding nations, as well as modern immigrants... we should have them as a means of instilling Canadians to know their own past and all those who helped to make it what it is today.

First off I beleive in a militia and the right to bear arms. So I think everyone who is concerned with their protection should invest in that. But I think the freedom of choice is important. That is why individuals who wish to support the purchase of a given fighter jet should be able to put in for that. It works the same way for people who don't want to spend for some arts program or justice system or sports or etc... they shouldn't need to pay, and programs should be open for spending and proposed to the public, whereby the public can then decide what services it wants to buy from the government. The government in their grant proposal can convince Canadians why it is needed, and Canadians can comment on that. Heck even foreigners and residents could buy in. What is the difference between the gov and a corp in that instnace, the government monopolizes some services for the publics well being, or insure competition where otherwise a monopoly might exist. I think if old folks with pensions or young folks with pensions as it the case of MPs want specific services they should be willing to pay for them, but they shouldn't be forcing other people to if those other people don't want them. Back to the militia though people should be able to put their money to their defence first. But in reality I think some Canadians do support the f35 and they should be the ones to pay for it, much like the people that support the arts or the environment should be the ones to pay for it. Now there are exceptions but I think that if we are to equally pay for it, then it should be a measurement of our currency - and that means inflationary spending into programs, rather than direct taxation, it is the only way to insure that everyone is financially being treated the same on the costs. I think the whole tax system needs to be restructured to be more representative of the people gaining the benefits paying the costs, but except for essential services all skeleton crew like that should be left to the public to decide. Let the legislature decide the law warrantedly, perhaps they could start with all the bad ones they've made and clean it up a bit before moving on to screw things up more, but law shouldn't be about raising budgets. Can you beleieve there was once a time taxes only existed in emergencies? Are we in an emergency now? I don't think so, so why can people not pay down a credit card before putting themselves in debt even more? Oh I want that, I want that.... well F.U. if you don't got the money in your pocket bugger off you nut. Even adding tax referendums to tax forms is a way I would go. I beleive in tax democracy. I would take it much further though. Don't take away choice unless there is no other option. The current governments are just intentionally poisoning effective government and paying for yesterday today, but living further and further in the past in regard to their payments. People say Canada doesn't need austerity, well it needed in 100 years ago, and it has needed it from that point onward. It is fiscal insanity and no one can live the life of a debtor consciously saying, yes this is moral, Canada isn't a financially moral state, and that is wrong. Canada needs to represent freedom in all ways and that includes emancipation of the people from the shackles of the public debt.

no tax is good tax. We need to remove taxes not add more of them. Municipalities need to reduce their spending. Sales taxes are already high enough in Canada. I'll take dirt roads and snow shoes over paying someone for something I can do myself. Costs are way too high.. things are too developed in Canada in terms of infrastructure upkeep. People should be able to accept less. Tax people who use the programs. Blanket taxing is immoral. Costs should go to people who get the benefits.