scribblet

The outcome isn't a total loss as they are looking into equal footing, and rightly so. http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/08/08/sun-news-a-very-lovely-defeat/

Well, of course it would be if it doesn't agree with your perception.

People do know where the gov't stands and the gov't has no more obligation to continually re-enforce that position. If anything the CPC has now become the champion of gay rights, as well as upholding freedom of choice for women. To suggest we don't know where they stand on the issue is just plain wrong.

Churches are not subsidized, the only break they get is a property tax exemption on the land and I’m pretty sure a municipality can tax the property if they choose. They and other non profits get that break because they provide a community service which benefits the public. If non profits such as the Legion do turn a profit e.g. liquor sales, they do pay a tax and employees do pay taxes on their earnings. Bear in mind that while you scream about separation of Church and State you want the State to put it’s hands into their business. If you take away the property tax exemption then you open up the arena to Churches (and other orgs.) for political activities. Not that it actually stops the United Church http://www.united-church.ca/files/getinvolved/takeaction/2011-election-kit.pdf Not all claimed religions qualify either e.g. scientology. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/csp/csp-r06-eng.html A Calgary church was stripped of it’s charitable status because the minister spent too much time denouncing homosexuality and abortion. http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alberta/2010/01/23/12588276.html

As the ethics commissioner said: OTTAWA – The federal ethics watchdog says she won’t investigate Liberal leader Justin Trudeau for accepting speaking fees from unions. He did accept a speaking fee, he sure didn`t turn it down, and is now voting against Union transparency.

How do you know Baird is gay, has he confirmed that and if he is, why should the media discuss it? Kathleen Wynne (Ontario premier) is gay which was mentioned when she first took over but is no longer discussed. Really, what is there to discuss and who cares. Whether the gov't really supports SSM is not an issue because they actually do support it legislatively and constitutionally. One might get the impression that it is illegal to be gay in Russia and that gay people in Russia can be assaulted and murdered without consequences but such is not case. Homosexuality is legal in Russia. What their legislature recently decided is that there is no recognition of gay marriage, no permission to hold gay pride parades, and no permission to engage in gay advocacy activities, especially among young people. I'm not against the idea that Canada should try to influence or improve human rights and freedoms elsewhere. However, in a world where there really are thousands of people being assaulted and killed every year e.g. just because they are Christians, in countries such as Pakistan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc, one would think that there would be more pressing and immediate targets at which to direct our energies. However, it's not cool to suggest that our gov't should not try to influence a country when it comes to homosexuality issues, if they did, they would be 'homophobic'. That subject appears to be more important for some than other human rights violations.

It sure looks like a conflict of interest to me. He accepted over $100,000 in personal payments from unions, including tens of thousands of dollars in his time as an MP. After receiving this money, he is now a vocal opponent of the union transparency bill and his party is opposing it in the Senate.

But - but - but.... David Suzuki says Canada doesn't need any more immigrants.

A non sequitur. Your definition of a troll is obviously someone with whom you disagree.

Hmmm, how many Alberta pig farmers do you know ?

And of course - you really know what went down....

Actually 'tis a puzzlement because the Elections Act says that if you break financing rules you can be subject to a $1,000 fine or three months imprisonment. Guess E.C. has their own interpretation depending on who’s breaking the law.

No it was not gutted, he had to cut back on funding because Paul Martin as finance minister cut education (and health transfers) to the provinces. Martin chopped $8 billion, or 24% of that funding.

They do, and for how long are they required to pay their bills. We have to limit the no. of elderly immigrants because we can't afford to pay for the burden they place on the health-care system and other social resources. According to Kenney, a set of grandparents could cost the system $400,000. Note what's going on in N.Z. and so much for 'family reunification' as the kids dump their kids elderly parents and leave for greener pastures. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10887537

They should pay back the money but E.C. is no longer pursuing the issue... ergo - they are not paying it back.

No surprise there. Of course it's the conservatives fault doncha know cos 'the laws are not enforceable' sure...

He also committed to an open nomination process that bars him from appointing candidates, but here http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/30/john-ivison-justin-trudeau-parachutes-star-candidate-chrystia-freeland-into-safe-toronto-centre/ he's parachuted in a star candidate over Smitherman who no longer has a riding to run in.

Here we go..... What happens if they close up, would the town get any money at all, or would the lawsuit in the U.S. take precedence. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/financial-noose-tightens-around-u-s-firms-at-centre-of-quebec-rail-disaster-1.1389615 The financial noose tightened Monday around companies connected to the deadly Quebec derailment, with a hint that the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway could close shop. The Quebec government issued a lawyer's letter demanding that the railway involved in the Lac-Megantic crash and two petroleum-logistics companies foot the entire bill to clean up the environmental mess, the latest in a series of legal threats since the disaster.

Here's a link with some emails if anyone is interested. I haven't read it. http://www.tomadamsenergy.com/2013/07/26/gas-busters-part-51-emails-ontario-liberal-insiders-tried-to-destroy/ http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/07/29/scott-stinson-an-appalling-new-chapter-in-ontario-liberals-gas-plant-saga/

I sure hope not, and besides, I thought Virginia was for lovers. I really don't understand where some of these guys are coming from, no doubt he's also anti birth control and of course anti choice. The most rabid of them do believe the pill and some other forms are 'abortifacients '

What is it with some of these rabid Republicans, I can`t believe I`m reading this. No wonder they elected Obama !!! http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/republican-candidate-wants-to-revise-laws-ban-oral-sex-1.1380291

I beg to differ. Considering the Star`s reporting the last couple of years or so, I`d say their journalist standards are sorely lacking.

I wonder if the streetcar had been cleared first and we don't know what happened before the final scene. I'd like to wait for the full story before rushing to judgement although it does appear that they really didn't have to kill him. ETA: The streetcar had been evacuated because the guy was exposing himself and swinging a knife. Not that it excuses killing him like that, but the Chief is speaking now about the investigation.

I don't trust the partisan hacks at the Star either but as far as I can tell they didn't even report on it. It's likely a pause, nothing else.