Accountability Now

I'm having troubles with this issue mostly because I don't really follow it, however am I correct in saying there are three positions on this? 1. Those who say women can wear this at all times. 2. Those who say they can wear it most times but just not during certain occasions such as government events such as citizenship or licenses. 3. Those who say it should be completely banned. Is this correct? if so then I think #2 is the most correct. I don't care if they wear it during their daily activities but it shouldn't be worn during legal or governmental situations that require a positive ID

I just saw your post after I posted mine above. You are absolutely correct.

First off....you are the one that posted this so don't hide behind the author as if you have nothing to gain from it. Second...and more importantly....the article doesn't state that less intelligent people are more likely to be Conservatives, it says they are likely to be 'social conservatives'. You do realize there is a difference, don't you? Here....I'll help you out. There are four types of conservatives in Canada: - Economic - Social - Conservative Populism - Red Toryism http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2008/HarperRecord/Understanding_Stephen_Harper.pdf The fact that you would conflate social conservatives will ALL Conservatives speaks volumes about you. So I guess the question is just how many Conservatives are 'social conservatives'? So in trying to tie back to the OP about Harper, I feel that the last part of that quote is very important. To further illustrate this I offer another insight: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/National_Office_Pubs/2008/HarperRecord/Understanding_Stephen_Harper.pdf Your conflation of the study is one thing but then trying to tie it back to Harper even though he is not known as a social conservative is another which shows that your list full of opinions bear no credibility It appears that not only is your list BS but so is your attempt to qualify your list.

So let me get this straight....your study says that conservatives have lower IQs yet you also go onto to say that conservatives include the top 1%. Do you think it's just by luck that these people are wealthy? Even those that inherit wealth need to be smart to maintain it. So which is it? Or is it possible that there are stupid and smart people on both sides and that such a rash generalization is just stupid?

The financial crisis started in 2007 and peaked in 2009 which is why many call it the 2009 crisis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_200708

My point wasn't to focus on the differences between the US and CDN entities but to say if we are going to look at both then all the major firms have lawsuits and suspicious which makes this not about KPMG per se but rather the system itself and having that change. I agree. I was on that thread and I added a few points showing that the decrease in corporate taxes is a global issue and that Canada is competing with other countries in that respect. So we need to keep that in mind when establishing the rates. However, once the rates are established there is no reason the companies shouldn't pay the taxes that they are legally bound to. If they want to leave then leave but you can't stay here and not pay.

I agree but sadly that is our current conditions. I should say it might have changed since I spoke to that guy but it doesn't seem that way.

I'll ask you this question....do you think you have seen or even have access to ALL the evidence? I assume you are making your claim based on the CBC news stories and the fact that where there's smoke there's fire. A company like KPMG will not just roll over based on some circumstantial evidence. The government needs to make a calculated move in order to strike properly. Such moves take time. I hear ya. I often get told about other 'tax plans' (aka schemes) that are completely legal today however similar plans of the past have been shut down. I guess I'm one of those odd ducks in that I feel a moral obligation to pay tax. I am all for trying to minimize that tax in honest and logical methods but some of these tax plans out there are truly intent on just screwing the government which I will never agree with. I sat next to a CRA auditor on a plane ride a few years back and we talked about some of these tax evaders. His comment was that the CRA is so burdened right now with guys who are deliberately breaking the tax laws that they don't even have time to chase guys who are at least walking the grey line. Not sure if that was entirely true however I have been told by many accountants that if you can back your reasoning enough to make CRA think twice then you have a strong enough case as they would rather spend time on more obvious cases. That said, these cases may have a carrot that makes it worthwhile considering the money involved.

I am not an accountant nor do I have many (if any) accounting skills. As a business owner I get drawn into the accounting world once or twice a year for year end financials but that's about it. The CRA usually picks its spots where it can do the most damage. So I'm guessing this delay is due to information gather and/or waiting for that spot to open up. As I said in an earlier post, the legality of the matter is that the final decision to go with a taxation plan lies with the business. As such there may be some issues with going after or actually prosecuting KPMG on this. I certainly don't think its a slam dunk case. There have been cases where large accounting firms have paid the ultimate price (ie Arthur Anderson due to the Enron case). So there may be hope here.

KPMG Canada is technically not the same as KPMG US where you are citing your example from. However it does hold water in that KPMG is a part of the Big Four which is not only in Canada but in many other Western countries. Here is a good article citing cases about Deloitte, PWC, Ernst and Young and KPMG and how they all do these scams in some shape or form. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/10/end-tax-scams-by-hitting-big-four The reality is that tax law is not viewed as absolute by the CRA or these accountants. There is a grey area where if you can explain your reasoning then you are ok which is how these 'scams' arise. Most of these scams would actually continue to work if the companies didn't get so greedy and paid something but as you see some of these guys don't pay anything. These companies represent the VAST majority of large business in Canada. The government/politicians have no other way but to rub shoulders with these guys as there is entirely way to much business/events/information sharing that happens with them. Of course the first thing that an accountant will tell you when they present their tax plan (whether its a scam or not) is that ultimately the business signs off on it and the accounting firm is not responsible for the decision. The accounting firm will present various options and its up to the business to decide which plan they want to go with. Now I'm with you, a reputable firm wouldn't even offer such a plan but the competitive nature of corporate accounting pushes the limits which is why they do. So to answer your question, hanging out with this scum is part of the job. Its how they stay on the inside. The CRA is constantly adjusting and trying to crack down on scams but they also need to preserve a relationship that will allow business to continue. If they just constantly put the hammer down then our economy would shrink and we would have a new cry of outrage.

Alberta has Catholic schools but determination of who is separate is based on which school system was there first. So in one community the Catholic system was there so they are the public system and the separate system is the non-religious. In most other cases the catholic system is separate.

KPMG is one of the big four accounting firms in Canada and they sponsor many events like the Canada2020 event which Justin Trudeau spoke at in June. The fact is that the the Tories did not got to KPMG event, they went to a Vancouver Board of Trade event which happened to be sponsored by KPMG. Of course, I would also like to remind you this matter is currently in the courts and I thought in this country it was innocent until proven guilty. Or is that only when it fits your narrative?

Nope...keep reading. It says "polls showed a significant number of “yes” supporters did not think that a sovereigntist victory would have set Quebec on the course of independence. The polls say the the YES supporters did not think it would have set Quebec on the path of independence if their side had won.

I guess you didn't read the quote or the article I posted: Quote The polls state what a 'significant number of yes' supporters thought. I agree with this. I'm certainly not upset by any stretch and the broadcasting group can decide on whomever they choose by their standards. Not to say that I have the same standards but then again I'm not putting on the event

Tacilty? The last time I checked that word is a very weak way of saying implied which is the position the federal government had to take. Parizeau on the other hand was quite intent that yes meant separation. Of course what really mattered is what the voters thought: As per Elections Canada, there is no regulation as to forming a political party. Its keeping that party registered that requires regulation. So forming would be the first step. Getting registered would be step 2. I am fine with the Bloc up to that point. Its when we start talking about them at the debates or being involved in other federal election issues then I I disagree with their presence.

Sure...you can have it on your radar but having it in the House of Commons is putting the cart in front of the horse. If Quebec wants to separate then have them elect the PQ. When they have repeatedly elected the PQ, then have another referendum. When the referendum votes yes. Now its time to act. Its not like they will separate immediately. Remember...a referendum is only asking the question. The referendum question has always answered with a no. I'm not saying that the Feds can't pour time and/or effort into this issue....but do we really need a party at the Federal level to represent the issue when on a regional level they continue to say no?

And none of that stuff matters until Quebec actually decides they want out.

Do you always use strawmen argument? Seriously....where in anything I said would you conclude that I am looking at guns or bombs. That is clearly your level of comprehension or lack there of. If Quebec ever wants out then they can leave. The ROC can't do anything to stop that nor should we try (and that includes by force). The point that I keep making, hoping that it will eventually sink in, is that until Quebec actually decides as a region that they want to leave then the issue is entirely regional and not federal. If you think its Federal then why do the ROC not have any input? Just so you think I'm not biased against Quebec, I also feel that any other party in a similar situation would be the same...for example the Western Block Party (http://www.westernblockparty.com/wsps.htm).%C2'>

I think there are about 20 registered parties. At what point would you make the cut off to who can and cannot come to the debates?

Your judgement on what is "very well thought' out has never been very good so your above comment really means nothing to me. What you apparently need time to think about is that its not a federal issue until Quebec makes it one. At this point its all talk with the two referendums they've had on this issue resulting in a no. When that referendum is yes then its an issue. In the mean time, having a regional party at the federal level who's only purpose in life is to remove that party from the country is not what I would view as a proper federal party.

Thanks for the history lesson however I wasn't talking about the reason provinces were formed I was talking about the role they play in today's world in that they give us a regional representation. There are many things that happen at the provincial level that are of no concern to the nation. Which is why I was saying they represent a regional concern...because they have their own jurisdictions. A province that legitimately wants to leave would be a federal concern however anytime they have addressed this question it was asked provincially and it never made it to the next level. If it was truly a federal issue then why does the ROC not get to vote on it? Quebec as a region has contemplated the idea of separation. And as a region they voted not to pursue it, yet. When they do then it becomes an issue. In either case, you do not need a federal party to make that happen.

Again...that is why we have provinces and provincial elections. But I really dont care if the Bloc wants to run federally but I just wouldn't want to hear any complaints if they weren't treated as a federal party

I've never said the reigning party is the National party, I said any party that runs in every province with a number of candidates is a national party. The NDP are a national party and they have never reigned. I would also consider the Greens to be national. Not the Bloc though. By my definition there are four national parties. I could write Gilles Duceppe. I could also write Scooby Doo. Both would result in me spoiling my ballot and not actually voting for anyone. I can only vote for Gilles if he was in my riding. My point is that I don't even have the option to vote for the Bloc and choice is the key thing in democracy.

So Canada announces it plan on the Immigration of Syrian refugees and wait....who announced it? That's right, the Immigration Minister himself Chris Alexander. Is this all starting to make sense for you now? http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/canada-election-2015-chris-alexander-refugees-1.3235415

What do you define as significant? Quebec is about 23% of Canada, population wise. Even if every person in Quebec voted for this party they wouldn't have a chance of getting in however you think they should represent Canada as a whole? I didn't ask if you have or would vote for them, I am asking if you 'can' vote for them. If you don't live in Quebec then you certainly cannot vote for them. Democracy is about choice....so how's my inability to vote for the Bloc democratic? Its not. I have never voted for the Greens nor will I probably ever however they have a candidate in my riding and the vast majority of Canadians have the opportunity to vote for them....hence they are a National party that is representative of democracy since people actually have the choice to vote for them. Not true. The three major parties give you the option to vote for them in almost every constituency. The Greens aren't in every riding but a good majority of them (80% I believe). The opportunity to vote for the party is what matters. Again...this is all about being given the opportunity to choose the party which the Bloc will never do outside of Quebec. Hence should not be considered a national party.