login

The problem is you would need to cutout tounges and hands to, also some sexual offenders got nothing to castrate or are psychologically imbalanced so even if their female parts were cut off they could still jepordize people. Sexual offences happen with more than just male organs. The you have stuby arms to deal with.

In response to tbe OP, I would reform the prison system hand in hand with justice system reform and social programs. 1. Create a public safety code and treasury code, which would set aside crimes into either catagory, for capital offences, while turning over lesser crimes to the provinces that were more of a personal nature to determine. 2. Responsible drug control as opposed to criminalization. 3. Set up a graduated prison colony - work camp system, where »level 1 they are removed but have access and equal priveleges but are confined to a geographic zone for resource extraction and other functions. »Level 2 would be more confined and more remote, »level 3 would be reserved for people too dangerous for level 2 and would be in the arctic. Prisons would be reserved for people who were too frail to work or opted not to do paid work in a camp community that was based on cost of upkeep and a work input value shared capital return like a coop, and would be similar to prisons today. The camps would be structured for community members to produce their own basic goods like food. 4. There would be a new pretrial system that had individuals given the option to resolve no harm crimes. 5. an option for foreign service in the military or merchant marine would be reserved on a case by case basis in a federally organized mercenary crown corp, 6. A portion of earnings would be set aside for release as a post incarceration stability fund, 7. Criminals would pay a life criminal fee for justice administration costs which would be calculated as a portion of justice system costs divided by total number of criminals. As well as poverty reduction and public councilling for individuals who feel pressured to crime to determine the reason and provide them with a means of obtaining their desires without resorting to victimization of the public. The key is to make would be criminals into productive community members who enjoy life, only pathologically criminally insane people would be forced to incarceration or remote arctic living. The added benefit of come clean would provide criminal intellegence and allow police know wnerr and what to police. The other part of course is to ask the criminals, what do you need to stop being a criminal... what are the costs of that as opposed to catering them in a prison? We must realize that petty crime costs more than the crime itself and some serious crime could be prevemted by civil intervention before crisis point through active community dialogue. The prisonner subscribed death penalty is another element for would be long term inmates.

It is in effect war peopaganada. If you were to focus on issues suchas the abuses the Quakers faced at the hands of the British in York or the high cost of the war, it might present the real effects. However a bunch of battle simulations without casualties aside from the odd case of heat stroke, and fireworks is just a dramitization to make the war a specticle and cover over and gloss up the war. There is in my opinion too much focus on war in the classrooms, it is only 10 or so years of well over a century of Canada. It brings back remberance day ceremonies as a day of war. What about korea, yugoslavia, iraq, afghanistan or libya, what happened to those conflicts.

While strick gun control is the only solution such as check points, scanners, and rfid tagging of new guns produced, with tags placed inside the metal, these things are not feasible. The tagging of old guns is another step, butthe costs are just not feasible. Distributing body armour or selling it seems a far more proactive measure 5 million in body armour protects perhaps as many as 25000 people. Make that available to anyone who feels threatened, maybe create a few jobs. Just armour everyone. atleast bystandards will be greater protected, and people who pick it up on request may be a lead for investigation, afterall why is this person afraid for their life, something going on around them? Localized scanners and checkpoints are the way of the future, what you had at just airports will find its way into malls and busy commercial centers. It is only a matter of time and ionized radiation prevention. I personally support that people should be able to buy guns like corndogs, cause the people getting shot either 1. deserve it, or 2. were victims. I think death is over rated as such a bad thing, people with their faith in order shouldn't fear death or think it a bad thing, it is gods will. But more police will do little, what they need is more new things because they can't stop it, and more police just put more people with guns on the street, youcan do that by just making a program called "train to stop" where people train to be hitmen and assasins and concealed carry for the heck of it and civic duty to take out people if they start shooting - save the $100,000 in salary costs for each one of them, and just get people who like to carry a gun and shoot do it cause its fun. Take this for instance, http://stream.wsj.com/story/london-olympics-2012/SS-2-13789/SS-2-37279/ or BC's security infrastructure and spy cams left by the VANOG

I find it hilarious Witmer is gave up her job to chair the labour board meanwhile Fife will give up her job as a chair of the waterloo region school board, presindency of the ontario boards association and vicepresendency of the federal boards association. This is all about keeping the liberals as a minority government.

My thoughts today have been that the funds gained should be insured to be set aside from offsetting the potential of damage such as security assets like helicopters, that can have a dual role of forest fire releif, pipeline inspection and surveillance, and peace officers to regularly patrol the pipleine as well as surviellance technologies for the pipeline. Boats for tanker escort in BC waters, and installation inspection. The oil companies can't be trusted to do this stuff right on their own. Oil tankers should also be required to be a bright colourful colour to be scenic. The money should come directly from shares in the company operating the pipleine in bc and some seed funding. But the province should consider "taking control" of the pipeline and charging their fee based on operational costs, as well as port fees which the provinces should also operate the loading facility. This would be a private public joint undertaking by BC and the rest of the pipeline to have the pipeline and port facility owned by the province and for them to control the movement of the hazourdous materials at a rate that insured 0 cost overlay as well as offset environmental loss and loss to reputation tourism, as BC is known for its great environmental rep even if that doesn't represent reality. If they want a pipeline I say give them a pipeline but let BC operate it because they have higher standards for the public well being. This cannot be a payoff that is used for some other purpose. Its not about money to offset spill cleanup costs, its about preventing a spill in the first place. Money doens't remove the environmental damage, BP's gulf spill caused effects and massive ecological damage that will last for decades. The money needs to go to not only response resources that can act immediately, but it needs to be in place before the stuff goes online not after. Personnel need to be trained and equipment put in place. If you want money for the damages you can get that via a lawsuit anyway, its about prevention of damage, health damages, and loss of marine resources, we don't need the BC gulf to be the next lake athabasca.

Alberta has control of the land, if they want to set Environmental Standards Regulations they should be able to, even NAFTA has environmental protection clauses. Although in reality if they want to earn a profit they could look to port fees or some other provnicial tax surcharge on import/export into and out of the province, it doesn't need to be cut with the province itself. Although in reading a post on various news sites today one post really struct me, that being Alberta blocking BC commerce. BC has higher environmental standards than Alberta that is all there is to it. Oil Piplelines and tankers are expensive, and as we can recall from Exxon Valdez or BP Gulf is that the costs of a spill can be int eh billions, why take that risk for no profit? Alberta has a point but BC should be able to regulate its Environmental Safety, and insure addequette funds and resources are available to respond in the event of a leak or spill as well as lost prestige as it lowers their tourism value and increases their public safety costs. The risk of Environmental Terrorism would also be another factor, or just terrorism itself or foreign espionage or corporate espionage. BC is bearing risks it is atakeholder and should get its fair share to give it some benefit. It is fair to do the same of commerce in Alberta. Example: "...the Dominion possesses legislative powers… to regulate this branch of external trade for the purpose of protecting it, by ensuring correctness in grading and freedom from adulteration, as well as providing for effective and reliable public guarantees as to quality. It does not follow that it is within the power of Parliament to accomplish this object by assuming, as this legislation does, the regulation in the provinces of particular occupations, as such, by a licensing system and otherwise, and of local works and undertakings, as such, however important and beneficial the ultimate purpose of the legislation may be" This would not of course stop BC from taxing all Oil Tanker Crews, oil pipeline regulators with professional fees and special professional taxes in the billions, effectively killing the pipelines ability to function in BC. Nor seting up toll roads at all access points with a 1 million dollar toll for entry and exit. Carnation Co. v. Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board, Martland J. held that provincial regulations that had an incidental effect on extraprovincial trade were valid: Likewise Attorney-General for Manitoba v. Manitoba Egg and Poultry Association et al. "Conversely, the general limitation upon provincial authority to exercise of its powers within or in the province precludes it from intercepting either goods moving into the province or goods moving out, subject to possible exceptions, as in the case of danger to life or health" It is clear oil is a toxic substance that poses great danger to health and safety. BC could ban crudeoil if it wanted, and seize it from the pipeline.

I think saying things are good is a little circumspect there is labour unrest, people are displeased about reforms to government programs and cuts, as well the government racked up the debt. Bringing the deficit down is a far cry from paying down the debt. However, was paying down the debt even part of the plan? The price of consumer goods has skyrocketted since 2008. With recent drought in the US many foodstuffs may increase further. While you can paint a picture of aresponsible government, there is still a lot left in want. Making life better for the rich at the hands of the poor isn't a good government. Government programs should be hand in hand with poverty elimination, I don't see taxes being adjusted enough to provide the provices with the capacity for poverty reduction, nor greater subsidies for the poor. The removal of programs such as RRAP is just one example of how the government is alienating the poor. Personal debt is also very high in Canada. I think passing the costs off and giving people a worse deal isn't improving the government. While some changes are needed, one still needs to see the way the government has gone about doing it, and it is one that alienates regular Canadians, and the poor. It is also one that abuses the processess of government such as the parliamentary process. It is also grossly negligent in efficiency. While everything I would say in review is not negative I will fixate on the negative as they are important points of fixation, in labour interferance, underhandedness, and absence of provision of the poor through assurances. There is still a lot of waste, government luxury is just one part of that. Its not all just dollars and cents, there should be a social interest in mind of policy, and I don't think the government is insuring that the provinces are given the leadway. Canadians are too taxed for no social safety net. While the removal of corporate taxes is good in the long run, there needs to be reorganization of the personal tax system, and drastic reductions in that system, with subsription based program delivery implemented. There is still a lot of bad programs out there and a lot of bad funding that is purely porkbarrelled nonsense and political bribes. It ain't good enough and it ain't doin it in the right places. Cut perks for the rich and bring the quality of life of the poor to a relative standard though assurances from the programs to provide a streamlined equal oppourtunity program for social housing, local development and self sufficiency. The government is not insuring provision. It is not good results, they are horrible results.

The OPer's question immediately had me question the cost issue 100+ million for Libya etc.. My thoughts on the question are that total alignment with US defence policy is not in the interest of Canada or Canadians. Part of the reason for cost infeasability is that US companies own the manufacture and intellectual rights to the technologies, and only the US government benefits on the profits of those companies. There is no expenditures incentive to Canadians to give work to Americans and wealthy industrialsts south of the border. If Canada were to mirror US defence policy a Canadian Patriot Act for Buy Canadian would be required, as well as heavy support of Canadian Industries and employment as opposed to US based purchases. Also Canadian Climate is not the same as US climate. Canada had few if any enemies aside from NATO which was engineered to the defeat of the USSR. All in all I don't think it is fair to the tax payers to eat up 30% or more of their tax dollars to fund US employment and industries for US wars. Now should Canada make a section of its forces available for NATO missions, sure if it is a member of NATO. However it is a great diservice to sacrifice Canadian defence and economic well being in the process. It is of far greater economic benefit for Canada to send Canadians to the US to train if the idea of a Canadian Military is to be a satalite of the US. Canadian Defence Policy should be based around Northern resource development, a merchant marine, secure delivery of government agencies such as through communications infrastrucutre upkeep, the postal service, and civil service. A strong Canadian Militia needs to be supported, in allowing people a tax deduction for purchase of military equipment such as arms ammunition body armour and other equipment. People should also be able to indicate tax funding for military or no funding for military on their tax forms so that conscientious objectors such as Mennonites and the Amish are exempt from practices contrary to their religious beleifs. Attacking others cause we can, is not moral, it should be that it is for defence. Dialogue is what is required for all else. If there is no jepordy to our defence it should not be an object. NATO in Afghanistan is just mind boggling. Attacking others is only going to get others to attack you. I'm not in beleif of preemptive defence. The fact is people blamed for 911's attacks were Saudi's who lived in the US and Germany, people can train to be terrorists anywhere, afterall homegrown terrorists is why we live in a police state today. It is just not smoothly thought out. The Arab Spring Operations and the offshoot in Syria is just representative of that. It isn't about defence it is about politics, and national politics should be left that way, Imperialism is a great diservice to those it consumes. Rule by Force is uncivilized. We need rule by ratious dialogue and agreement.