scribblet

I'm not aware about the robot issue, or that robots have a gender or wear clothes, please enlighten me, your post makes no sense. and as far as I know robots and gender are not issues for any of the parties, I wouldn't believe everything you read in the liberal media either. I have not been nor am I greatly concerned about the 'gender issue', what I am concerned about is the statement by Bob Rae (and other potential leaders) and the potential for changing our democratic process by somehow manipulating the system to bring about those quotas .

Fortunately both Harper and Flaherty are showing their fiscal conservatism if only by setting a prudent direction for the federal treasury. The statement does show that the CPC understandz that if there is too large of a surplus, there is too much money coming in - that we are overtaxed and some of it should be returned to the taxpayers. At least it beats liberal or NDP creative ways to spend it or waste it.

I would, and you would know that how? If they where voted in under our current system, then we would have nothing to complain about. I too find it down right frightening that these ideas to subvert our democratic process are being floated, especially where Bob Rae is concerned. I saw what happened under employment equity, supposedly voluntary action, the same would happen given the opportunity, and voluntary action becomes coersive. It is extremely frightening to hear potential prime ministers speak of a limitation to the political process in order to accomodate quotas, and we know that very often, voluntary compliance becomes forced. But exactly how do you get the voters to 'voluntarily comply' with quotas - tis a puzzlement.

http://www.beyondborders.org/p9.shtml - The current law is flawed and does not offer enough protection, it is vague and leaves much of to the law's discretion. Most western democracies, namely England, Scotland, Australia, and New Zealand, set the age of 16 years to be the age of consent to sexual activity. Countries like Ireland and the U.S. set the age of consent to 17 and 16 to 18 respectively. The Dept. of Justice's position flies directly in the face of all Children's rights organizations' position across the country and the Association of the Canadian Chiefs of Police. Alberta MP Rick Casson, who had this to say: “The Criminal Code of Canada, as exists today, provides tacit approval for sexual relations between adults and adolescents as young as 14 as long as the sexual relations are consensual and the adult is not in a position of authority or trust over the minor. The same Criminal Code also excuses adults who have sexual relations with children as young as 12 years of age as long as the adult involved was under the impression that the minor was at least 14 years of age, the sexual relation was consensual and there was no abuse of position of authority or trust.” There is really no reason to oppose the new bill other than the simple fact it is a CPC bill, if it were the Liberals I'm sure it would be okay. If gays continue to oppose these changes or continue to campaign for sexual access to young boys, they can't complain about perceptions associated with those actions and choices.

Any 14 year old who is preyed upon is protected by law. Really - you still havn't told me why you think why its okay for 14 year olds to be preyed upon, and why protection from sexual exploitation should not be a priority The last bill made iillegal for over 18 to have sex with a teenager if the relationship is deemed exploitative which is left up to a jude to determine , and leaving the teenage victims to prove they were exploited. Judges are now left to determine that. One need not be a conservative to take issue with current law that permits 40-year-olds to have sex with 14-year-olds. In few other places in the Western world is the age of consent as low as it is in Canada, where it is legal for an adult to have sex with anyone 14 or older. One does not, nor should not need to be conservative to support protecting children, if ideology is the reason for not supporting a measure to protect our kids - how sad for our children.

?? What party doesn't give a 'rats ass' about gender parity' and please provide a source. I don't have a problem with equal access, I do have a problem with with a process that would be in conflict with democracy.

How does it protect 14 year olds now and why should we continue to make it easier for 14 year olds to be preyed upon. Bill C-2 didn't raise the age of consent, what it did was new offences of voyeurism and redefine child pornography. Under current Canadian law there is no way to prosecute adults unless they are in a position of authority or trust over the youth, in which case they can be charged with exploitation.

Oh sure, build a few more hoop courts, community centres etc. and the gangs will dissolve just like that. There are many people who are poor who don't kill each other ir engage in criminal behaviour. How about we get rid of the idea of minimum responsibllity for an individual's actions, quit blaming society and conservatives and put the blame where it mainly belongs - at home.

"This bill isn’t about sending teens to jail for doing what most teens will do regardless of the law: have sex. It’ll happen, and proponents of the bill know this and they don’t expect, nor seek to change this. The objective here is to prevent vulnerable children from being manipulated and exploited by some sick bastard who seeks only to terrorize an innocent childhood. Personal lifestyles between those of the same age will not be criminalized." So far I haven't heard why older people want to make it easier to have sex with 14 year olds, or would want to.

Whatever makes you happy Rather than allow separatists to seize the initiative to elevate their province into a national designation, Harper launched a pre-emptive strike of strategic brilliance, at least in the short term......

oooohhh, now now, calm down, have a glass of warm milk and take it easy - your getting kind of apoplectic there , be careful and don't start drooling

So - agree or disagree with the points, if you don't think Axeworthy actually said them or they are incorrect, please provide a source. And Actually, I believe the Liberals assigned him the task of assembling their blueprint for party renewal; he also said " the gun registry was "an administrative disaster" and the response to the sponsorship scandal was "bizarre."

Huh - who on earth is the Pillsbury doughboy? I agree, maybe it is time to send Quebec packing; I couldn't care less if Quebec separates or if I need a passport, it works both ways. They can kiss all our equalization payments good by and take on a good portion of the national debt etc. etc. they would be the bigger losers; either way there would still be economic ties and trade. I doubt they would get a majority anyway in a referendum. I was in the process of editing the post when you responded. As far as a referendum majority, Harper has just delivered it on a silver platter. Welcome to Steve's world. So much for your current signature: "Please adjust your shorts. The discomfort you are experiencing is caused by Grits." My signature still stands and is still apprapro.....I direct you again to the G & M article I found this article very, very good. I think it is important for all Canadians to understand the importance of this move, and why it was the right move. r. Graham gave his reply in an equally moving speech. His party would support the Conservative motion, he said. Mr. Charest, who received a copy of the motion just before it was read in the House, called to say he was delighted. Inside the House antechambers, MPs on the Liberal and Conservative side were jubilant. Thursday morning, former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who is on vacation in Florida, called Ms. LeBreton to say how impressed he was with the media coverage. “I said to the Prime Minister,” she said, “You can never go wrong when you do the right thing.

Some good points raised here http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...6d-0bf46ff41415 Liberalism's 'dirty secret' - It doesn't always work OTTAWA - On the eve of the Liberal leadership convention, the man charged with leading the party's renewal process has dropped a bombshell by questioning one of liberalism's key convictions -- that government actually works. In a hard-hitting policy paper obtained by the National Post, Tom Axworthy, a former top advisor to Pierre Trudeau, says there is an "implementation gap" between what Liberal governments promise and what they deliver. "Liberalism's dirty secret [and it is not so secret these days] is that government doesn't seem to work well much of the time," he says, citing such examples as the 800,000 potential immigrants waiting for their applications to be processed; massive cost overruns at the gun registry; lengthy procurement delays for military equipment; poor water quality on aboriginal reserves; and the Jean Chretien Pledge to Africa Act, which promised to produce generic drugs to help fight AIDS but has yet to export a single pill. Mr. Axworthy's paper also urges the Liberal party to: - reject the Conservative motion on the nationhood of the Quebecois because it has "no basis in logic." - introduce security considerations to Investment Canada criteria to ensure Canadian assets are not sold to state-owned Chinese companies. CPC allready working on that - ensure human rights are raised with the Chinese Communist leadership so they know such values are central to a relationship with Canada. good point huh - Reverse the Conservative decision on income trusts, grandfather existing trusts and put a size cap on trusts with tax-exempt status; (hmmmmmm) - Channel higher-education funding directly to students, in the form of grants, rather than to provinces; - Offer a Resources Security Pact with the United States, which exchanges a guaranteed supply of Canadian oil for trade concessions; and - Reform the party's internal structure by allowing local members to decide how much funding is retained in the ridings and how much goes to the central organization. In the paper, Mr. Axworthy notes that without renewal, institutions atrophy. "This is what has happened to the Liberal Party of Canada." He says the party has lost sight of the core mission of philosophical liberalism -- "to expand the life choices and life chances of every individual."...................

Huh - who on earth is the Pillsbury doughboy? I agree, maybe it is time to send Quebec packing; I couldn't care less if Quebec separates or if I need a passport, it works both ways. They can kiss all our equalization payments good by and take on a good portion of the national debt etc. etc. they would be the bigger losers; either way there would still be economic ties and trade. I doubt they would get a majority anyway in a referendum.

How many threads on this now, at least 3. Did anyone bother to actually read what Harper said: which wass, "That this House recognize that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada." I don't think we should be getting our knickers in a knot yet, as he was referring to people, who identify with the Francophone culture. He did not propose that the province of Quebec be recognized as a separate nation. Word is now out that the Bloc Quebecois will agree to this. Maybe this will be used as a spring board for separation - maybe it is time to let them go.

From the CPC. It was heartening to see both the Ontario Liberals and Mayor David Miller (NDP) supporting these amendments. Considering the problem of flying bullets in Toronto, something has to be done - and quickly. CANADA’S NEW GOVERNMENT TACKLES GUN CRIME BY INTRODUCING BAIL REFORM AMENDMENTS November 23, 2006 Toronto, Ontario Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that Canada’s New Government is delivering on another of its campaign commitments by introducing amendments to the Criminal Code to provide a “reverse onus” in bail hearings for offenses involving firearms. “As you know, cracking down on gang, gun and drug crime has been one of the top priorities of Canada’s New Government since we took office nearly ten months ago,” the Prime Minister told his audience at the Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel. “We made it a priority because Canadians had made it very clear to us that they wanted the scales of justice rebalanced.” The reforms, to be introduced today in the House of Commons by the Honourable Vic Toews, Q.C., the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, will require those accused of serious crimes involving firearms to provide sufficient justification to be granted bail while awaiting trial. Currently, it is up to Crown prosecutors to prove that the accused should not be granted bail, either because they represent a threat to society, they may flee to avoid prosecution or to maintain the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. “In this city, police report that almost 1,000 crimes involving firearms or restricted weapons have been committed so far this year,” Prime Minister Harper said. “Nearly 40 per cent of them were committed by someone who was on bail, parole, temporary absence or probation. Gun crime is a menace to public safety, and protecting Canadians must be the first priority of our bail system.” Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Toronto Mayor David Miller both attended the announcement. The Prime Minister acknowledged the support he has received from them and many other municipal and provincial politicians from across the country for bail reform and other anti-crime bills introduced by his government since it assumed office....... http://tinyurl.com/ydt3dd (why are the Star's urls so long) Leaders unite against gun crime Harper, McGuinty, Miller to unveil tough new measures today Nov. 23, 2006. 06:13 AM Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Premier Dalton McGuinty and Mayor David Miller will today unveil plans to make it harder for those accused of gun crimes to get back on the street, the Toronto Star has learned. The three men, who have never shared a stage together, will meet at Toronto's Sheraton Centre Hotel to announce ambitious measures targeting gun criminals not far from where teenager Jane Creba was shot to death on Yonge St. last Boxing Day.

With 'nationhood' comes responsibility, maybe this means Quebec will have to start paying their own way This article by Gloria Galloway is an impressive look at the character and quality of the man we have in 24 Sussex. What's even more impressive is that it was penned by Galloway who prior to the last campaign had shown a distinct bias against Mr. Harper. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home When Mr. Harper's press secretary approached him about 6 p.m. on Tuesday with the Bloc motion in hand, it didn't take him long to decide on action: defining Québécois as a nation within Canada GLORIA GALLOWAY From Friday's Globe and Mail -- Nov. 24, 2006 OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper was surprised by the Bloc Québécois motion calling for the recognition of Quebeckers as a nation. But he'd been pondering the subject for some time — at least since the question was put to him by a reporter in the province last spring. Over the summer, the Prime Minister discussed the concept with Quebec Premier Jean Charest. And when the Liberals waded into the quagmire after leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff supported a party motion stating that Quebec was a nation within Canada, Mr. Harper knew the issue would eventually confront the Conservatives. So when his press secretary, Dimitris Soudas, approached him about 6 p.m. Tuesday with the Bloc motion in hand, he didn't take long to decide that action must be taken, Conservative insiders said Thursday. “I think because of the difficulties that the Liberals have been having with this issue, he contemplated the day that he would have to articulate his own views,” Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton said Thursday. “He seems to be a long-range strategic thinker and I am sure in his innermost thoughts he was contemplating how he would handle the situation once he was confronted with it. But he had to sharpen the focus when he heard about the Bloc motion.” Mr. Harper's immediate reaction was that the Bloc was trying to divide Quebeckers — and the federalist political parties. But Conservatives said the Prime Minister believes the separatists made a historic error in asking Parliament to define the status of Quebeckers. Separatists have always said “We'll take our own destiny in our own hands and we don't need Ottawa to tell us what to do” — to Mr. Harper's mind, the Bloc motion marked the first time the separatists had indirectly admitted that Ottawa has a say in Quebec's future. -snip- Mr. Harper met with NDP Leader Jack Layton and Liberal Leader Bill Graham on Tuesday evening to ask if they would form a united front against the Bloc. During the brief meeting with Mr. Layton, the NDP Leader said his party has recognized Quebec as a nation for many years. Mr. Harper left believing that the New Democrats would be onside. Mr. Graham was less clear. Conservatives suggest that was due to the divisions within his party. Liberal sources say the meeting was simply intended as a heads-up. “It was something to the effect of, ‘This could turn into a Gong Show, and I'm going to try to put something together,'” one Liberal said. -snip- Mr. Graham gave his reply in an equally moving speech. His party would support the Conservative motion, he said. Mr. Charest, who received a copy of the motion just before it was read in the House, called to say he was delighted. Inside the House antechambers, MPs on the Liberal and Conservative side were jubilant. Thursday morning, former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who is on vacation in Florida, called Ms. LeBreton to say how impressed he was with the media coverage. “I said to the Prime Minister,” she said, “You can never go wrong when you do the right thing.”

That's not a new question and it has already been answered many times over. The law you're referring to has already been struck down by the Ontario and Quebec court of appeal. It is not protecting anybody right now because it is not even being used. Your attempt to imply there is some sinister conspiracy to attack young people is pretty sad. If you want to question motive you may want to start asking why the Mulroney government removed the laws protecting 15 and 16 year old girls. Actually, Mulroney lowered the age of consent for females in the name of equality, to bring it into line with males. He should have raised it for the males. Too bad you think it is sad to question why some advocate sex with 14 yr year olds, I would love to see a few Liberal candidates explain why they do so, and also explain to the voters why they think they think its perfectly fine to want to have anal sex with 14 year olds also.

I think it is linked to FIDO operations, is that all U.S. ? RBC seems to be down more than the other banks.

Just a question here: why would any old men want to make anal sex (or any other kind) with 14children legal. This begs the question of motive here. Besiodes, who would support a a law that gives sexual predators easier access to our children?

Did the party have a policy about how to deal with income trusts or was that just a promise? Didn't the Conservative party appoint a floor crosser to a cabinet position, appoint an unelected man to the senate and fire an MP, without reason, who was nominated and elected by the people then refuse to allow that card carrying member of the party to seek nomination again? Considering that the entire reason for your existence on this forum seems to be for the promotion of the CPC it may be in your best interest to steer clear of using the word democracy in your arguments. Wot in ell does that all have to do with gender parity

RBC in particular are having problems with debit machines. Black Friday is the U.S. biggest shopping day, bigger than Boxing day (here that is they don't have a 'boxing day') The U.S. Thanksgiving sales are bigger than Christmas. Just an overload on the systems. Dang....that second bottle of Cabernet Savignon is affecting my typing skills or lack there of LOL used to be 100 WPM not anymore.

Your right on that, CBC et al don't like to use 'Islamikc Militants' too politcally incorrect, besides don't you know its those 'right wing evangelical fundies' that are the problem .

Where did I say that? When the age of consent law is passed, sodomy will be legal at 16 and will also be subject to the difference in age clause, so the problem of equality should be solved. As far as I'm concerned anyone advocating that it should be 14 is doing so for nefarious reasons. Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolution: Allow "Anal Intercourse" with 14-Year-Olds seems silly in face of the age of consent being raised to 16. By John-Henry Westen http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112202.html OTTAWA, November 22, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In what is likely a Canadian first for a major political party, the Liberal Party of Canada is proposing lowering the age of consent for "anal intercourse" in their publicly-released book of policy resolutions. -snip- Sexual health experts have warned that anal intercourse is a recklessly dangerous activity which is the "riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS" (see coverage: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021403.html ) Nevertheless, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, calls for lowering the age of consent for such activity to 14-years of age. Policy no. 45 reads: "WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity." The age of sexual consent for heterosexual intercourse in Canada is 14.