scribblet

The US has and still is providing funding to most midle east countries for sometime now. As for them pulling that funding i don't think Israel is going to chance it do you ? One would think, they should have thought about all that before the threw in with the other Arab countries in thier attempt to crush the state of Israel...it's funny how it's OK for the Arabs to evict Jews from lands they had in Jordan, Syria,Egypt etc once it was decided they were going to create a state for the jews. But when it comes down to the creation of the state of Israel it's different. Just one question how many Jews are left in these countries ? One would think, they should have thought about the outcome of creating a Jewish state in the middle east when it was all Arab countries, would lead to people hating and wanting to crush Israel. Why do the Jews need their own state? Why not create a state for Christians, or only Muslims, or Buddhists. I would like to see the dollar figures that the US gives to the middle east countries. Comprehensible breakdown. I think you must know why a new State was created for them. Anti Semitism, oppression and prejudice, caused thousands (millions ?) to be displaced, no country including Canada, would take them in, they had no place to go. Given that the land chosen was originally Hebrew land, 'they' partitioned it. Politically not sound, but could the powers that be at that time really envision the hate and violence from the Arab world toward's Israel. Probably some, but not to the extent it has become. Can anyone of us here, truly conceive of hating people so much that we would turn our kids into human bombs to wantonly kill innocent people, our own people? Pretty hard for anyone to imagine. All the 'Palestinians' have to do is renounce violence and accept peace, in return Israel will cease retaliating, the "Palestinians' will receive aid and life would become much better. Eventually they would have their own State.

Finally it appears we may be coming to the end of this saga, if it does, it will look good for both Emerson and Harper. Softwood lumber deal appears close BARRIE MCKENNA AND STEVEN CHASE WASHINGTON and OTTAWA — Canada and the United States appear very close to a historic breakthrough in the enduring softwood lumber dispute. Industry sources who have been briefed on the discussions told The Globe and Mail that U.S. President George W. Bush called Stephen Harper on the weekend to outline an offer. In it the United States would lift duties on Canadian lumber and return most of the $5-billion it has collected from Canadian lumber companies. In a complex arrangement that would include both a quota and an export tax, Canada would agree to cap its share of the U.S. lumber market at one third, which is roughly the current level. Mr. Harper is particularly anxious to put the lumber dispute behind him before a possible state visit to Washington in the coming months. more here www.globeandmail.com

I don't think its anything to do with 'transparency', its to do with respect for the parent's/relative's grief. Do we really need to see the bodies in caskets. Also I'm guessing its to do with not letting the media spin things out of control. Although it is a situation Harper inherited, if any more soldiers die, I'm also guessing it will become his 'war' and not Martins.

Lots of subsidies for sure. What would happen if all marketing boards and subsidies were lifted, in favour of a completely free market? Why should marketing boards control who can grow what and when?

If they are incapable of managing their own money, they should at least have the good sense to hire a trusted investment advisor. In any case the decision is entirely in their hands, if they aren't up to accepting resposibilty for their fate then they deserve the fate they get. They shoudl be the last ones complaining when government or companies mismanage their money, when they are not even up to the job themselves. So margrace, you point out in your examples that there is a risk in companies or government managing workers retirement funds, and you say that most workers can't manage their own money. So, who exactly do you think should be in charge of their funds? Who do I think should manage the money? Simple question no answer. In a parallel idea it seems to me that the so called religious churches wouldn't be able to conrol people so easily if there were a simple answer to your question. A lot of people want to be looked after, they cannot or willnot look after themselves. How do you change such a large part of human nature, I don't know do you. Not sure what religious churches (are there any non religious churches ?) or if and how they control people relates to this thread. However, the link you provided in another post is the same one I posted earlier. The gov't of the day (liberal) allowed Stelco to do that because they were insolvent. if they hadn't, Stelco would have closed and all jobs and thel pension funds would have gone out of the door. It was a temporary measure to save jobs. If a any company allowed their employees to opt out of a group benefit the cost of that benefit, in this case pensions, would go up for those left contributing. Pension payouts are based on a certain amount of money and all employees paying into them, lots of calculations go into it. Maybe the best option is for employees to pay into their own RRSP type plan and manage it themselves (I think its something like a 400k U.S. plan ). Problem there, is what happens to the employer matching portion, that amount is not paid out to an employee if that employee quits. Same with a life insurance benefit, most employees including retirees don't have the option to opt out. If people did opt out, the premiums would be considerably higher for the company. This is particularly hard on retirees as they are paying tax on an employer paid benefit which they might not want or need. Personally I have to pay tax on around $1,800.00 for a life insurance benefit I don't particularly want, cannot opt out of.

Is that the only way you know how to honour someone? Lowering the flag at half-mast for every soldier who dies will eventually render that gesture meaningless. Typical Liberal outlook...all pomp and no substance! Same as all talk and no action! Typical for sure. I doubt that neither Harper nor Martin were gung ho to put our soldiers in harms way to please Bush. Just maybe they are doing it for freedom, and as a woman we know what will happen to the women if the troops leave. As far as I'm concerned as soon as someone brings out the Bush bashing rhetoric it lowers their credibility. There's a good article in the NP today: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...7e-594ba6e609bd -snip- Set amid news from the front, a debate about the placement of our flag may seem trivial. Yet it is a debate worth having, for it symbolizes the larger discussion taking place in Canada about our role in Afghanistan. That debate may be defined thus: Are we at war against the Taliban, or are we at peace? If the former, then military casualties are an expected, if tragic, consequence of our deployment. If the latter, and our soldiers are to be seen as peacekeepers, not combatants, then every death should be regarded as an aberration and, therefore, an occasion for national anguish and soul-searching. We believe the answer is clear: Canada, like the rest of the civilized world, is at war -- not only against the Taliban, but also against every other entity that seeks to pervert Islam into an excuse for senseless slaughter. It is also a war to bring stability and freedom to Afghan society. In this war, as in all wars, people will be killed. And sometimes, those people will be Canadian.

It is my understanding that traditionally parliament never lowered the flag to half-staff ( a mast is on a ship) it was the liberals who broke the tradition. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realityc...06sheppard.html Three Canadian soldiers were killed last month in Afghanistan and for none of them were the flags on Parliament Hill lowered to half-mast. A mistake by the new Conservative administration? A show of disrespect? Actually, probably quite the opposite. The flag flies at half-mast on the Peace Tower in Ottawa on April 18, 2002, in honour of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press) The tradition, if we can call it that, of lowering Parliament's flags to honour Canada's war dead is very recent. In fact, it stems only from 2002 when the Jean Chretien government ordered the Maple Leaf to half-mast for the four Canadian infantrymen killed by so-called friendly fire while on a training mission in Afghanistan. It continued for the next three soldiers who died in Afghanistan – Sgt. Robert Short and Cpl. Robbie Beerenfenger were killed when their vehicle struck a land mine; Cpl. Jamie Murphy died after a suicide bombing. But the Peace Tower flag was not lowered when Pte. Braun Woodfield was killed in November in Afghanistan, when his armoured vehicle rolled over, and the practice has not been picked up now that the Conservatives are in office BTW Margrace, it has nothing to do with Bush.

That would be in line with personal responsibility and liablility. A concept that will take a generation or so to morph back into the Liberally trained sheeple. Exactly !!! Why do some people think the the government should be entirely responsible for all our actions, do we not have some responsible for ourselves, the government is not nor should it be a babysitter. Margrace: you still havn't provided a link for your comments re: government allowing Stelco to ..... whatever. I know Stelco was given an exemption from making pension contributions when it declared bankruptcy, which has since been revoked, is thist what you are reverring to? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3MK...113/ai_n9775841 Essentially, Stelco was granted a pension holiday in 1996 that permitted it to stop funding its pension plans on a solvency basis. Instead, it could fund them on a going-concern basis and pay into the province-wide Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund. http://www.stelco.com/investorCentre_artic...eleaseId=673118 The Ontario Government amended Regulation 909 under the Pension Benefits Act in 1992 (was that David Peterson then? ) to allow a pension plan with over $500 million in assets to elect to cease funding the plan on a solvency basis. Pension Plans that have taken the 5.1 election are exempt under the Regulation from making special payments to fund a solvency deficiency. These plans, however, must continue to be funded on a going concern basis, and pay higher Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund premiums in accordance with the Pension Benefits Act.

The Government made a promise. There was a demand for some sort of action on daycare. To address another post of yours, the Government's plan also includes the use of tax incentives to create private daycare spaces. I'm getting tired of the bleating by socialists nanny staters, and day care lobbiest who think that given a choice, nearly all parents would put their children into institutionalized daycare centres. I do not believe that to be true. A study released by the Vanier Institute last year found that 90% of Canadians believe that in two-parent families, one parent should, ideally, stay at home and raise the children. Institutionalized daycare centres rated only 5th in preference, behind parents, grandparents, other relatives and home daycare. What parents really what is real choice and not where the State dictates what is best for their families and at least the Tory's plan takes into account parents who choose to stay at home to raise their kids. Neither plan is perfect, but the actual cost of a true nationalized daycare program has been estimated at $10 billion a year, not $5 billion over five years as the Grits say, sorta like the gun registry. Harper is hoping to get the cheques in the mail by July 1st, a promise kept if he can get it through. The daycare lobbiest and this culture of entitlement that usually accompanies these type of people, is quite apparant.

We are not prepared, but I remember years ago looking into buying dried food, never did. Actually it would be a smart move to stock up, just never get around to it.

I guess the hardass Harper haters are all too eager to believe left wing hogwash. According to two other reports, it isn't true. The most likely source is of course - guess who - the Liberal party LOL http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...d0-c8c61eb58080 "Minister Emerson said no such thing. This was said by the Liberal party," Mr. Harper said while in Montreal yesterday. "I think that not just Minister Emerson, but I know all of my ministers are pleased not to be in the Liberal party these days," he said. " Emerson is denying the claims and says the liberal aide is spinning it. Are we surprised LOL

I don't suppose this and the released transcript will get rid of those conspiracy theories. Its amazing how many people really believe that there was no plan, it didn't happen etc. etc. We are all supposed to believe that Bush and the White house created 9/11, not sure why. Right up there with Bush creating hurricanes I suppose.

Boy, Dalton's at it again, his nose can't get much longer. http://www.torontosun.com/Money/2006/04/21/1543641-sun.html Fri, April 21, 2006 Dalt, you little sneak Hidden behind a 'What's New' web button, McGuinty quietly jacks despised land transfer tax By STAFF Of all the sneaky, back-handed, greedy tax grabs. Dalton McGuinty's done it again. This time it's the hated land transfer tax that's going up in a secretive move that not even the Greater Toronto Home Builders Association knew about. It took an astute law clerk in a Mississauga real estate law firm to notice the March 31 tax bulletin on the finance ministry's website under "What's New" and alert me. And what's new is buyers of new homes and condos will be paying more in land transfer tax as a long list of upgrades and extras, including Dalton's Smart Metres, will now be added to the purchase price and taxed. Even more hideous -- buyers will now be paying tax on tax, as the taxed purchase price will now include an obscene list of levies which already hit new homes.

Putting money in people's hands is a good way to help them. But why have the government take the money in the first place, just adding the usual massive beaurcracy. It's much better for the economy and all families to get a sizeable tax cut instead. That helps parents, students, seniors, disabled people, gays, straights, rich and poor. This handout only helps a selection of the population, at everyone else's expense. A nice big tax cut like all Canadians deserve right now is the best solution to many of our problems, whether its GST, income or capital gains. The government takes too much, I think you've agreed with that statement before in other threads August. Why not apply the same logic here? The last thing we need is another transfer program. Well said...too many people sitting on their collective butts expecting handouts from the rest of us. A social safety net is one thing, a permanent nanny state is another.

I agree with the breath of fresh air. Turns my crank a lot more than the "re-made" Bob Rae, the ex-pat academic claiming he is a Canadian and the re-tread Tory. Me too, if I were liberal, but in the long run Bob Rae would probably send more over to the CPC.

I can guess what the conspiracy theorists would say, but I'm guessing its to get ready for more hurricanes and more homeless people. FEMA dragged a leg the last time, maybe this time they are preparing for disaster. I think we all believe there will be many more deadly hurricanes etc.

Iran stood up at the U.N. and said Israel should be destroyed...what did the U.N. do - you got it - diddley sqat. If the U.N. won't stand up to racism and anti semitism in their illustrious halls, they are not likely to sanction any action. In fact, they would probably cheer Iran on. IMHO attacking Iran would start off a chain reaction of suicide bombings and attacks on the Israel and the west like we hoped we would never see. These people are completely irrational, if not insane, but I would prefer we all continue with the democratic method.

No, it isn't and I don't think the Tories are trying to hide that fact either, to be fair. Neither they nor the Liberals want PR. I commented previously about the NDP mentioning PR in their proposed ethics package. But their proposal tries to pin down in advance what PR in Canada should look like. You have to look hard to find any reference in their literature to the notion that the people should decide this, not politicians. Thanks but its spelled wrong and I can't correct it. I believe the NDP do want PR, probably because it might be to their advantage, also the Greens would have had a few seats under PR. The liberal dominated Senate is now making noises about stalling the package, another good reason to get rid of it or reform it. To G et al: The CPC has always relied on small donations from individuals, the Liberals used to rely on huge corporate donations until the rules changed, maybe that why the Liberals are in the red now. According to Elections Canada from 1993-2003 big corporations gave the Liberals $10.8 million and gave the other two right of centre parties only $3.5 million.

There's an article here on it that says a Federal Court decision has allready ruled on it, so what can the current gov't do, can they overturn the court decision? It was our own Canadian courts that opened the flood gates, so now the dairy farmers want the imports capped. Not sure if this is good or bad for world trade in general, if we cap them or allow tarrifs isn't that what the U.S. is complaining about with the lumber dispute? Maybe the WTO would rule against Canada on that. http://www.dairygoodness.ca/en/Media/Media...4/06_02_01b.htm Ottawa, February 1, 2006 - The Federal Court yesterday ruled that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s decision on the tariff classification of a European milk protein concentrate was “reasonable”. Dairy Farmers of Canada is deeply disappointed and alarmed by this decision that will illegitimately displace fresh farm milk in the making of Canadian dairy products to the benefit of subsidized imported ingredients. “The judicial process is taking away the right to limit imports of these products that was negotiated by Canada in the last WTO round of negotiations,” said Jacques Laforge, President of Dairy Farmers of Canada. “DFC expects the government to respect its commitment to supply management and restore import measures to preserve the integrity of the Canadian dairy system.” In March 2005, the CITT had ruled that it was more precise to classify the milk protein product in question as “protein substances” instead of “natural milk constituents”. This decision is illogical: under a food product’s ingredient list this milk protein concentrate would be specifically identified as originating from milk. Unless the government acts quickly to close yet another loophole created by this decision, dairy farmers stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming year alone." Margrace: Your rant is a little off kilter, I doubt very few people can afford 650,000 cottages, only the very rich can do that., and likely don't complain about the price of milk. I don't begrudge people being successful and earning more than I do. Milk is allready highly priced, low income people with a lot of kids would certainly find it so. Personally I don't drink the stuff, its for cows.

This is one of the best responses I've heard on the whole marriage issue. Does anyway know the history on when and why government got into the marriage business in the first place? I'm wondering if it was precisely because they had linked survivor and other benefits to wedded couples. Or may it have been an equality issue, viz non-religious having no other recourse? I'm not posing these as rhetorical questions. I know nothing about the history of this issue and would appreciate hearing from those who do. That seems the most sensible and fairest solution. I don't have a link, but I heard an excellent speaker on this a few years ago. Gov't originally got into the marriage business to protect women and children who were extremely vulnerable. It offered some protection from violence and financial issues (not a h..l of a lot) And of course, there's Roman Law (familia) which we base a lot of institutions on.

Whoops, that should have read, 'its no surprise that the tories tend to rely on smaller donations etc." I will edit the original post. Traditionally the CPC (and prior to that Alliance) received more individual donations than large co-orporate donations. So, this proposed bill will affect the grits more than the tories.

Apparantly the Tories are adopting their new party financing rules now (The Chronicle-Herald 2006-04-15) even though it isn't law yet. The Liberals are opposed to it, no surprise there as they are have a 4 M debt so the Grits will continue to take advantage of it, its no surprise that the Tories rather than the Grits tend to rely on smaller donations from a larger number of donors. MacKinnon says the financing reforms proposed in the bill directly target the Liberals. "It's no secret to anybody that the Liberal party is the most affected (by the proposed law)," said MacKinnon. I would guess that this could affect the Tories financial position for the next election if the grits continue to take in the larger amounts. Wonder how soon they can get the bill passed. Edited to correct the second paragraph.

40%+ is all it takes in a first past the post system.

My guess is as long as Harper refuses to treat the media with repect. With a minority government I would try to get them on my side; not alienate them. I saw a bit of the press conference and she had him in knots. Like I said before, his gagging of his MP's and disrespect for the media, is going to come back to bite him in the butt. Her job is not to "have him in knots". If Harper is ignoring the national press and going more to local and regional media it's because the latter tend to lack the kind of ideological motivation for their stories the national media lives for. The regional media will just ask questions, wanting a good, solid interview. National reporters will be trying to get something nasty, something quotable that will make the headlines and embarrass the government. Here's a question. If Harper is doing one on one interviews - which he apparently is - how long before Julie Van Dusen gets one? Here's a second question. If you're a news editor seeing rival stations and networks getting direct access to the PM and cabinet for interviews while your reporters are shut out because of their obvious political slants, how long before you dump those political reporters and hire someone more neutral? We are providing Canadians with a steady intelligent hand on the tiller staying the course, which is what Canada needs and wants right now. We mightl reach 50% soon., Now we need Preston to become Premier of Alberta.

Guess they won't, Jacko says now way , the libeals'a aren't left wing enough, so there you have it. http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060415/n041537A.html MONTREAL (CP) - The federal Liberals are wasting their time trying to persuade the New Democrats to form an alliance of so-called left-wing forces in an attempt to take power back from Stephen Harper's Conservatives, says NDP Leader Jack Layton. In an interview with a Montreal newspaper, Layton said the Liberals are far from a left-wing party and that the sponsorship scandal has tarnished the party's image for a long time to come, especially in Quebec.