login

Social Assistance rates should be done regionally based on cost of living. The amount is completely secondary. It should just be a flat rate assigned based upon cost of available housing and what is expected as a diet meeting the standard nutrition expectations that would be equivolent for a child/adult of the same body makeup if the person were subject to child welfare standards or prison standards or other in custody requriements. It will stop a lot of waste and reward those who get lower cost housing etc... since they still have the same maximum assets it will get them to be involved, when people are active in life they have more oppourtunities to find links for new work. Also with a solid work fare system they gain no advantages over alternative work. I think the cost of living based on the location (region/municipality/district/etc) should be the point of assesment with modification on food allowance based on calory expectations for the workfare portion above the sedentary and health rate. They shouldn't get money though they should be able to buy things they need and those thigns should be monitored through a "members card" debit /credit card, with only a lesser amount in cash on an as needed basis but they should note what they are spending the money on, with large value purchases over $500 for OW and over $1000-2000 for ODSP being screened. Since ODSP has a non needs based capital limit of about $5000 and OW $500 I think both programs are totally run the wrong way, the monetary sideis really secondary. The programs are really stupid the way they are run though. This is ludicrist. The rate of wage labour versus OW are two completely seperate issues. People have to survive. Living within the grounds of society on $500/month is absurd in some areas, with easily over $100 on food and it being rare to find adult housing for less than $300, people still need to keep hygine etc.. people earning minimum wage don't have it easy in all cases either. These rates should not be based on monetary rationality they should be based on what is needed, that is the only principle that is required in determining what needs are met, all them. It is the government that is REQUIRED to provide or they loose right of governance because they are not living up to their obligations as government. Rule of law is lost for them lawfully when they shirk their human duty. While having communications is expected for these programs all phone (and if applicable internet costs) are to come from the basic needs portion. Internet and phone are not required by the programs but expected. These programs need to be demonetized though, social housing needs to be created, food co-op gardens, and other enterprises to fullfill these programs provided by those especially those long term in those programs. Demonetization of the programs is what needs to be done.

What does Canada need to know about the Russian's there is a hunk of ice seperating us.. jk. Honestly I don't know, but I would be suprised him going to the Russian Embassy wouldn't be a flag if his area of intelligence involved every aspect of Russia. Him just showing up at the Russian Embassy would have been a flag. I am very suprised he had need to know based on the breadth of the information reported to be leaked. I don't beleive this. Also why would you give top secret clearance to a first term officer? I don't understand that. That a first term officer would have access to international intelligence that was sensitive in nature. I would expect need to know information being screened and audited, particularly if sensitive information on Russia were accessed that they didn't come into contact with any foreign nationals without clearance, or those foreign individuals being security screened and monitored. "Corrections" provided after audits, I don't beleive that in non emergency situations open access is required. While it is possible for carear solidiers to still defect or otherwise I would consider that to be less likely. Infiltration would also be less. or the database is captured or information is leaked, or individuals are tortured for intel, or info is mined by other means. Fact is I bet most info in there wouldn't be needed except for long term ops and that should be able to be screened through auditing and assessment of data for specific usages. Most intel is useless. If people want to get books out for study time they should be screened on need to know as well as superior approval for clearance of non required intel being exposed to a larger audience. You don't just share sensitive information and not put safegaurds in place to deal with fallout, that is just irresponsible. You don't keep compromising data. No I don't think he needed to know, unless you count that $3000 bonus for leaking intel as part of his job, in that case I might agree. This was data mass backed up onto a USB stick (press reported floppy disk to get the old folks on side), fact is USB sticks should not be coming in or leaving Canadian Intel locations without screening and security put in place. You shouldn't be moving secret information out of secure facilities. As far as I'm aware his job was assessing statistical information on sealanes regarded to sensor monitoring, but I really don't know. I don't see what that has to do with Russian Mafia links to the Kremlin. No, I'm saying it is too easy and too broadly dissiminated needlessly, without sufficient safegaurds or oversights. About 12 to 16 years of service, with 20-25+ being ideal. With a virus inside. I do think it is too easy, I know of many people in the Forces and their background and I do think it is too easy. Based upon a general impression I do think that sensitive data especially data that needs to be analized should be kept in secure facilities and recording and capture equipment should not be allowed in those facilities, for that matter no electronics brought in. Defence contractors are in the habit of employing these same requirements so I don't see why top secret secure access sites shouldn't also be secure as such. Also all data should be flagged for review by superior or screening officer, example officers should have non specific screeing officer to asssess and audit, that is ask why information is accessed periodically. But no, never should a USB stick have been allowed to even be able to get into a computer without some type of superior oversight in a non emergency setting that would include USB slots blocked off taped over etc.. Also information doesn't need to be "materially accurate" to be useful for training purposes.. You just need to insure that information is able to be ammened when it is required. ex. names palces can be changed the magnitude or other aspects, like wise parallels can be applied - however general intel and special information that would be at a top secret level are two entirely different things.

It wouldn't be illegal, peacebonds are a perfectly legal mechanism to prevent breach of peace. Adding a clause requiring refugee claimaints to remain in Canada in absence of a court order to leave would in no way be illegal if it were enacted. As stated Europe is not Canada, the EU rules for mobility do not apply to Canada. Roma from Europe claiming refugee status in Canada, have fled Europe, Canada cannot allow them to return without good reasons, otherwise it is fraud. 380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or (b) is guilty (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction, where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars. "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada." Refugees should be comfortable staying until they have their court hearing to leave or gain citizenship and gain the right by cause of citizenship.

Are you refering to "us" as a bunch of idiots? Labour is labour. Most jobs people have take half a brain to perform and can be trained for in a very short period of time. It is just a bunch of BS. It is because the people that accumulate capital only use it for their objectives rather than employing people. That is why the government needs to be a bottleneck and safegaurd to insure employment, real work for those to develope skills because we as the public cannot depend on private individuals to employ us, because they don't need to. There is no safegaurd other than a strong federal government work program through essential public services, key goods production and resource extraction.

Letting them in to kick them out is the fault in your rationality, but locking them out isn't the option so locking them in is the solution. Hopefully you understand. Well then you shouldn't be worried about them leeching off the government just include conditions in any handouts. Its a a pretty simple solution. I think we do need more public space for people such as the Roma though, free campgrounds etc.. for all the public. Canada isn't the EU, the conditions both geographically and administratively are not the same the line of reasoning is not equivolent.

Lock them in then. If they claim refugee status make them protected persons and don't let them leave the country without a very good explanation. The Roma just need a solid management program to remove their integrative faults. If you want to settle the Roma, than settle the Roma. You can't leave if there is no way out. Give them freedom at the end of a stick. They'll like it. Example high risk refugee claimant must sign peace bond which includes not leaving the country without judicial permission. Breach results in work camp time. Stoping them from coming here isn't the problem it is making sure that they are cared for once they are here, if they choose to come here, but they need to know where they are coming first.

No I'm pushing for people to make rational decisions in life, as well as requiring those who expect the government to care for them to care for the public that allows for their care. So yes I think people who depend on the government for their needs in life should provide for the publics needs in death. I'm not the left I am a Social Libertarian. (Fiscally Right, Socially Left but in essenance a moderate. I am Rational) I advocate for: -removal of blanket taxation, give the people a choice what they pay for on an individual basis except essential services. -government management of essential public services -eradication of poverty though proactive government measures -government non interferance in private matters. -giving the family their authority back -reduction of government to only the essential services -fiscal duty to not place a burdeon on the public, i.e. removal of the public debt, and 0 deficit budgetting, raise emergency taxes if you need to spend more but never spend more. Also through currency manipulation more equality in taxation can be acheived by taxing the dollar rather than the man. etc.. Rationality is key and we need people to help save other peoples lives through being a donor on death. This will be reduced as time progresses because of artificial cloning and artificial blood that exists, but we are still waiting for costs to come down. Peoples last act in life should be selfless not an act where they choose to keep body parts they don't need that could help people live, it all turns to dust anyway, you'd rather feed insects than give someone a second chance at life? Its a body, it is our spirit that matters. " A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem." The problem with the left and right is that they arn't rational they are objectivist, but not socially inclined, they are partisan. I believe in total endevour for societies gain rather than just a segment of society.

If you can save another person from being looked on that way and arn't willing to swallow your pride so you can see someone one last time then you are only adding to the problem of people dying. I don't give a crap about people who don't give a crap about their chance to save peoples lives for vanity's sake. I'd sooner piss on them. Its not like most the good stuff stays in anyway, it just gets pumped full of formaldehyde.

I advocate for a national health insurance plan, that is paid on a premium basis. I think everyone should have to be a donor on death to receive free public health coverage or atleast a reduction on their premiums on a basis of net savings to the system from harvesting after death. I only think people in poverty should have basic health coverage provide they participate in the total program which would include work and or other streams that are designed to be self supportive that is production based to fill the needs of the program and goods instead of wages within the production of the system to a certain extent. But no its not twisted it is rational it is a cadaver. Further they don't have to die first, disabled people for instance should participate in studies and clinical trials. Medicare is not sustainable or rational, the government should aim to reduce health costs through leveraging but otherwise they need to get rid of the bulk of public tax dollar cost on health care, and encourage private and alternative medicine. Only the military and the poor should have free medical coverage, other people should pay based on their income amount or buy a private health insurance plan, it should not however be from general government revenue, it has to be seperate to be transparent and people need to be able to choose what type of coverage they want and at what cost to them. Things like voluntary mental health need to be completely removed from the public purse, likewise buying overpriced equipment should be totally not taxpayer funded, the government should cut the crap and make the devices for a fraction of the cost because it is extortion to gouge prices on essential life saving equipment akin to aiding and abbetting murder through cost extortion.

If you can't find something humans can offer then it is your failure at enterprise. Their body alone is worth well over $100,000

Well first off, they wouldn't have likely left Afghanistan if Canada hadn't been part of a coalition of countries that turned it into an even bigger war zone. Canada has a humanitarian duty to those less advantaged from the developing world, and it should have the smarts to resolve these sorts of issues. 1. You give them more time to learn and adapt different learning strategies, 1 year is a short period of time to gain a strong level in any language. They have 4 years before they need it for the immigration test. 2. You give them work that doesn't require english or has someone who knows langauges they do speak. For instance they may know Hindi or Urdu etc.. thus there may be a bridge, just because they don't speak English doesn't mean they can't work. There is medication for Epilepsi and TB is tragic but it is something that we can correct. If the pharmaceutical industry wasn't so capitalized on its essential medications like any TB medications or anti virals, or the government took a more active role in buying IPs for domestic production, or funding research for rights to discovery then the costs involved in medicine would be secondary. But no if the government actually cared about eliminating poverty and making real work by creating nationalized neiches that the poverty would help with such as resource development, essential public services, and just cut a huge hunk of the overpayed public service off and suplimented it with baseline payment for those without private stream work then both government costs and general productivity would increase. You can't blame them you can only blame an ignorant fascist government.

Yes just because one group is involved in criminal enterprise doesn't mean all people of a Roma background are. Your comments are akin to rascist banter. Just cause MJ13 exists means all latinos are criminals, just because there are gangs with black people in them mean all black people are crimnals, just because there are various european ancestory group criminal organizations means all european anscestory people are criminals. You are so utterly blind and ignorant in your thinking. Yes stoping crime is something to do, yes improving the social assistance system such as a better more productive work fare is something to do, but labling all Romani people as criminals is just simply rascist. http://www.thecanadi...organized-crime The solution is not to expel and hate, the solution is to compel and make. Canada has plenty of room it is just underdeveloped. Immigraton has to be geared to development and meeting unmet shortages. Fact is the government has been lazy and only trying to stem off revolt since forever in managing the disenfranchised. That's got to stop. We also can't being one of the largest countries in the world be greedy and keep out the needy, we need to manage a system that integrates and faciliates global needs. This doesn't advocate for a hand out but it asks for a hand up and puts people to work as the only option. People can't complain about social assitance if those receiving it are assisting society.

What province are you in? When you buy a car here in Ontario you just need to pay for the transfer tax / HST etc... Insurance is only if you drive it this differs also. I understand what you are saying but you still are living inside the world were money makes stuff, money is just a place holder. It doesn't really make anything. You can buy a car in any province in Canada and use it in Quebec. You can also use a license from anywhere in Canada, or for that matter a large chunk of the world. Using an out of province registration or international may save you some fines too.

You don't understand. States needn't be confined by geographic boundaries. Any true state is not limited by political boundaries except out of respect for other states. Government is over poeple. Jurisdiction is over territory. States are free, if you don't understand it is because you don't understand statehood. You line of argument is political not legal. *Bidden Smile* You failed the main question though, how did the Bonn Conference come about, the dispute over who was pro west and who was not is another question, and needn't be who was CIA, that was never the question so it is a bit of a false dichotomy but one that could be returned to. Also don't use NATO links, wikipedia is included as a NATO link.

That sounds like limited sales, it depends whether it is for lawful use or not. That is an awfully broad question can you be more specific, and perhaps message it to me. Like me myself or if I were a criminal, or if I was doing security assessment testing for walmart or selling to someone who was? I'm not driven by money. I'm driven by benefit to society.

Canada is a multicultural society not totalitarian. Go back to your cave. If it ain't hurtin no one bugger off.

That is a whole different issue. First off he shouldn't be held under a foreign sentence, the whole concept is bogus. However, under security certificate grounds, it would be possible to persue protections for the sake of national security. One has to question the reasonable grounds, as basically it would constitute an unlawful search or violation of his constitutional rights. Get the hell out of the country if you don't beleive in the constitution. People like you ruin this country by washing away freedoms and protections we all should enjoy. If he wanted to kill people he'd be attempting it in gitmo. section 21 of the CSIS Act 21. (1) Where the Director or any employee designated by the Minister for the purpose believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16, the Director or employee may, after having obtained the approval of the Minister, make an application in accordance with subsection (2) to a judge for a warrant under this section. Matters to be specified in application for warrant (2) An application to a judge under subsection (1) shall be made in writing and be accompanied by an affidavit of the applicant deposing to the following matters, namely, (a) the facts relied on to justify the belief, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16; (b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or why it appears that they are unlikely to succeed, that the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation using only other investigative procedures or that without a warrant under this section it is likely that information of importance with respect to the threat to the security of Canada or the performance of the duties and functions under section 16 referred to in paragraph (a) would not be obtained; (c) the type of communication proposed to be intercepted, the type of information, records, documents or things proposed to be obtained and the powers referred to in paragraphs (3)(a) to (c) proposed to be exercised for that purpose; (d) the identity of the person, if known, whose communication is proposed to be intercepted or who has possession of the information, record, document or thing proposed to be obtained; (e) the persons or classes of persons to whom the warrant is proposed to be directed; (f) a general description of the place where the warrant is proposed to be executed, if a general description of that place can be given; (g) the period, not exceeding sixty days or one year, as the case may be, for which the warrant is requested to be in force that is applicable by virtue of subsection (5); and (h) any previous application made in relation to a person identified in the affidavit pursuant to paragraph (d), the date on which the application was made, the name of the judge to whom each application was made and the decision of the judge thereon. Issuance of warrant (3) Notwithstanding any other law but subject to the Statistics Act, where the judge to whom an application under subsection (1) is made is satisfied of the matters referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, the judge may issue a warrant authorizing the persons to whom it is directed to intercept any communication or obtain any information, record, document or thing and, for that purpose, (a) to enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing; (b) to search for, remove or return, or examine, take extracts from or make copies of or record in any other manner the information, record, document or thing; or (c) to install, maintain or remove any thing. Matters to be specified in warrant (4) There shall be specified in a warrant issued under subsection (3) (a) the type of communication authorized to be intercepted, the type of information, records, documents or things authorized to be obtained and the powers referred to in paragraphs (3)(a) to (c) authorized to be exercised for that purpose; (b) the identity of the person, if known, whose communication is to be intercepted or who has possession of the information, record, document or thing to be obtained; (c) the persons or classes of persons to whom the warrant is directed; (d) a general description of the place where the warrant may be executed, if a general description of that place can be given; (e) the period for which the warrant is in force; and (f) such terms and conditions as the judge considers advisable in the public interest. Maximum duration of warrant (5) A warrant shall not be issued under subsection (3) for a period exceeding (a) sixty days where the warrant is issued to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada within the meaning of paragraph (d) of the definition of that expression in section 2; or (b) one year in any other case. 1984, c. 21, s. 21. Renewal of warrant 22. On application in writing to a judge for the renewal of a warrant issued under subsection 21(3) made by a person entitled to apply for such a warrant after having obtained the approval of the Minister, the judge may, from time to time, renew the warrant for a period not exceeding the period for which the warrant may be issued pursuant to subsection 21(5) if satisfied by evidence on oath that (a) the warrant continues to be required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16; and (b) any of the matters referred to in paragraph 21(2)(b) are applicable in the circumstances. 1984, c. 21, s. 22. Warrant authorizing removal 23. (1) On application in writing by the Director or any employee designated by the Minister for the purpose, a judge may, if the judge thinks fit, issue a warrant authorizing the persons to whom the warrant is directed to remove from any place any thing installed pursuant to a warrant issued under subsection 21(3) and, for that purpose, to enter any place or open or obtain access to any thing. Matters to be specified in warrants (2) There shall be specified in a warrant issued under subsection (1) the matters referred to in paragraphs 21(4)(c) to (f). 1984, c. 21, s. 23. <a href="http://www.csis-scrs...cle-24">Warrant to have effect notwithstanding other laws 24. Notwithstanding any other law, a warrant issued under section 21 or 23 (a) authorizes every person or person included in a class of persons to whom the warrant is directed, (i) in the case of a warrant issued under section 21, to exercise the powers specified in the warrant for the purpose of intercepting communications of the type specified therein or obtaining information, records, documents or things of the type specified therein, or (ii) in the case of a warrant issued under section 23, to execute the warrant; and (b) authorizes any other person to assist a person who that other person believes on reasonable grounds is acting in accordance with such a warrant. 1984, c. 21, s. 24. =---------------------------------------------------= Anyone with half a brain can make a bomb given the proper components. Do you honestly think Omar is going to get out after over a decade and start making bombs in Toronto? If you start criminalizing people who know you are an idiot. These things are not complex, and based on your statements you would likely fall into this same trap. MAKING PEOPLE STUPID IS NOT THE ANSWER. FREE PEOPLE AND WE WILL BE FREE. Jack the ripper could accomplish more than any bomb Omar is making. It is incredibly easy to kill people. Those sorts of IED's were to fight solidiers not civillians. "threats to the security of Canada" means (a) espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage, (b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person, (c) activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political, religious or ideological objective within Canada or a foreign state, and (d) activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada, but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d). R.S., 1985, c. C-23, s. 2; 2001, c. 41, s. 89 What of those things does Omar represent?

I think anyone who gives a first term intel officer access to non duties specific intel is just a lack of intel to start with if it isn't filled with misinformation for a non need to know authorized clearanced context... it is stupid to give full clearance to a first term officer if it is senstive and not need to know. Its just idiocy there would be open access to sensitive information like that, I don't beleive it, I don't think 5I is that stupid. And are you really going to trust intel from a group that stupid...? If I were 5I I would have filled the data with misinformation to cause disruption on the Russian side if they acted on faulty intel. Sow discord in the ranks etc.. It is just absurd. Rules of Intel: 1. Compromising Data doesn't exist. 2. Sensitive Data should be limited to those who need to know. 3. Top Secret or Above should be for closed facilities only. 4. People should be limited to access information that is required for their operational duties. I am very suprised a first term Naval Intel Officer would be exposed to compromosing or sensitive data, or given access to classified information that was non operational in scope, or that clearance wasn't granted for. Trust and Loyalty doesn't equate non dissimination. The info above is somewhat suprising if it is true, not because someone gave it away but because someone in their first term of service had access to confidential data like peoples addresses which I couldn't see as being operational for a Naval Intelligence Officer, but maybe I dont see it. That to me should have immediately triggered a flag higher up.

Isn't it funny that the tax on gas is how much it costs in Saudia Arabia.

States are self recognized. Read a little bit about what a state is, what is required to be a state and get back. Fact is people don't like recognizing new states. If I am self recognized as state XYZ and you don't like state XYZ you can say I don't recognize that state, but the fact is, it is a state because it is self recognized, and it is only politics stopping the second point of statehood, a willingness to communicate. A state can possess the willingness to communicate and thus be a state, but others not willing to communicate limits the external recognition of that state. You just see only real countries are states, false. Only totalitarian governments won't let the world be free and force conformity. Take for example the US negotiating with the Taleban as a party of war. Other countries recognize(d) the Emirate for example Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the third one. I also do not doubt it is a state. Its just politics at play not legality. They were a government. They still exercise as a government in a warzone, although their scope is limited externally. No they still have power. The UN is a members only club, while China was not a member it was definately a state so your point is irrelevant. Fact is a lot more governments exist than the UN recognizes, or than Canada recognizes, this doesn't make them any less real. You could say that of the Canadian government too. It is all perspective, what matters are the essential legal elements that make a state or a government, that's it. Why don't more people shoot cops? Why arn't bullets put through lawyers and politicians on a daily basis? People don't think their life is worth killing the other person over. Sense of duty, religious grounds, who knows. If people just killed everyone they hated it'd be a different world. Killing people has to work in the big scope of individuals values. Some have. As I said though NATO has both propped up Karzai and put a lot of money in, now that develop projects are winding down their use for NATO will be less. ,A rigged election is a rigged election, its the same as here in Canada. It isn't a fair and free election if it is rigged and candidates don't have access to run. Very few countries do, this doesn't make it any less of an issue. people who know. Without any proof? It is well documented NATO disallowed specific candidates from running including threatening people. Wiki is totally tainted and incomplete, it is aligned with only pro west statements and they lock pages that are politically charged and force a pro west position, likewise they remove edits that arn't pro west.

1. (1) Immigrants make considerably less average income than native-born Canadians, http://www12.statcan...SC=13&SO=99&O=A 2. GDP growth

That was not an argument that was me educating you.

Only if you can't kick his *** without shooting him. You are fully entitled to apprehend the person for tresspass and/or in the process of committing an indictable offence, but like the police, you may only use as much force as is reasonably justifiable to stop the contiuance of the offence and apprehend the person. If he attempts to flee you would be lawfully able to use deadly force to prevent the flight. Police power is only different in that they may increase the use of force by default to the next highest level of the force they face, although still they are only suppose to use reasonable amount of force. If you do what a police officer does lawfully you should not be concerned, but if you are unreasonable in your application of force you could face civil penalties, but if you can justify your assault on justifiable grounds you would have a defence. So no you are wrong. no its not, CIC screens on a basis of admisability. It has nothing to do with being worthy. worthy = Deserving effort, attention, or respect admissable = Acceptable or valid, esp. as evidence in a court of law This does not relate to worthyness. It relates to qualifying. http://www.cic.gc.ca...en/CIT0002E.pdf see: admissibility http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf http://www.cic.gc.ca...f/enf02-eng.pdf

Their job is to follow the law that effects their jobs. It is up to the citizens to protect themselves from domestic dangers and foreign dangers. If people depend on government they loose their own security, because the government doesn't care about Joe Public. They are a machination. That is what the citizenship test is for.The issue here is discriminating based on an ethnic or racial basis. That is strickly wrong, and offensive. Everyone is equal and free. Your racial stereotyping is just not sane for the basis of applying the law. Racist and discriminatory law is unconstitutional. You loose your own freedom when you subject yourself to government. The citizens are the highest order of government. It is the Queen who owes us duty, but we owe duty to ourselves and to government. It is only when we our ourselves strong that our government is strong, because we are the government. You have a split brain conception of government and the people. We are the government because we are responsible for the people, and when all people are responsible we are free.

Where are these Canadian Statistics? BS.. there are 80,000+ gypsies in Canada.. they've been here for some time now. Totally offensive and discriminatory statement. Dude you are utterly rude. More mass media from the NFB for you http://www.nfb.ca/film/Opre_Roma_Gypsies_in_Canada/