shortlived

If the government was as committed to making Canada more like America as pundits say this wouldn't even be an issue they'd just stop recognizing dual nationality all together and make a internment Camp on Anticosti Island These moves just appear as a means to take pressure of people finding out who backed the terrorism. Remember Harper saying "I didn't know him, we never met before, I didn't ask for his number, the number bank account transfers weren't from me, I didn't send him the message when to launch the attack. I was with my wife, and these 8 RCMP officers the whole time I swear, come on guys you'll back me up right?" when than Algerian gas plant stuff heated up when they started saying Canadians helped coordinate it. Clearly the government will wise up and start sending brown people instead of white people over to do their dirty work. Its all part of the Harper Government Enlightenment. Clearly the Harper Government praising Israeli ethics has turned the Harper Government into the new Hezbollah of the West, under the auspice of Mossad operational parameters. It is as easy to see as glass on a sunny day. The clear give away is that he commented to the press. He doesn't even do that for events that happen in Canada. Something was making him nervous... so nervous he wouldn't get through an Israeli airport.

money will just go from one place to another... however it should be recognized the GDP is about perhas 250 million while government expenditures are about 450 million. Obviously some cost savings would be created. Essentially the government spends about $10,000 per person, while the PPP per capita is about $10,000... obviously the question would simply be can 50 million of new income be generated and 150 million of costs reduced? or something like that? The real barrier is that americans fuel corruption and money laundering there and amount to 75% of the tourism there. More or less the US will loose and Canada will win from it so the US will prevent it from happening. Afterall the use US dollars not british pounds. Take a look at thefinancial services sector there, who it services, and who makes money from it. Note their revenues exceed their expenditures meaning they can run a surplus.. With some efficiency savings ontop of that they would likely benefit from it. While Canada would have to average out service provision for an additional 45,000 people, however their income level is such they would not greatly contribute on a basis of income, but territorially as well as on a business and banking sector side of things Canada would benefit. The real problem is the Monroe doctrine.

I would take a small island in the Caribean over Florida. There is 9 months of winter where my house is at. flight return is easily priced at about $500 First off a modernization plan to lower the cost of living would need to be implemented. sustainable aquaculture -- eg. hydrofoils... desalination facilities etc.. drip irrigation local produce/greenhouses ect.. to lower food costs and create basic essentials. An absence of deep water ports does not entail that goods could not be shipped but rather things such as ferry craft able to act as intermitten cargos would need to be utilized. aquatic fertalizers paired with poutlry farming which could be done with elevated coops could both produce energy, and fertilizer.. since the base calcium of eggs would lower the natural sea based aquiculture fertilizer. Methane from the coups could be used as a natural gas heating source. http://holdren.com/m...e/operation.php The big drawback on TCI is the cost of living but by implementing desalination... greenwater intermitten cargo ferry's and some basic drip irrigation farming .. the islands costs would drop and it would be a mroe attractive vacation point. The self sustaining element would need to be driven, and this could be part of the trade off, supplying the island with infrastructure as part of it joining confederation. Human and Animal Waste could be night soilized and used in offshore farming barges or multilevel "grow houses that would utilize natural sunlight but be very high and ventelated to capture methane via sequestration which could then be used for other purposes. The chickens themselves could live on fish wastes (skin etc.. and flys so no need for animal foodstock.

If I was Brazeau I would continue to sit as an independent indefinately. See how fast he was dropped from Caucus. Without the details even being public on what actually happened. They are basically just saying what he did was wrong... even before the case starts... they are basically assuming him guilty. If these allegations were against the PM you think he would resign as PM and leave caucus and cabinet?

Minumum wage is still regulated provincially. "Under the Constitution of Canada, the responsibility for enacting and enforcing labour laws, including minimum wages in Canada, rests with the ten provinces" TCI would not join Federation as a Territory they have their own culture. Territorial status is just a backdrop to the days of Ruperts land and no people. Techincally the territories should be made full fledge provinces too.

When did that happen circa 2007 "The Ambassador Bridge now hires off duty Windsor Police officers and has a permanent armed, private security force which patrols the bridge 24 hours every day. "The agency that oversees the Ambassador Bridge is spending an unsustainable $50,000 a week on private security." Circa 2012 "In the first two threats, the tunnel and bridge were closed for as long as five hours, causing massive traffic backups while they, along with FBI agents, U.S. Customs officers and private security guards," Where is your evidence there is not private security, it seems you are just spouting nonsense on a poorly researched topic. Do send info on when private security ended on the bridge?

You should learn first Metric has been the official measurement in the US since before it was the official system in Canada, even before Canada... " 1866, Congress authorized the use of the metric system[3] and supplied each state with a set of standard metric weights and measures. In 1875, the United States solidified its commitment to the development of the internationally recognized metric system by becoming one of the original seventeen signatory nations to the Metre Convention or the Treaty of the Metre."

US customs enjoys offending people. The guy was absolutely no risk to the US, the denial was BS. The real issue is that a Canadian beat Americans, that is all there is to it. Any excuse to put down someone who beats Americans in some way. Americans are jealous beyond compare. They can't be trusted, they'll skin you and damage you without a second heart consideration. Normally non moral turpitude issues are only considered for perhaps up to 5 years. This was just malice. It is "their country" of course but my experiences with customs have only created hate and contempt. I've gotten along quite well with americans and would never intentionally break criminal law in another country, regardless of it being the US. Yet customs refuses entry because of "refusal of entry" without valid grounds, on suspicion. Because there has ever been suspicion, I cannot enter the US without a visa it is nonsense considering the grounds of suspicion were completely false and not based on fact. Essentially CBP just indiscirminately politically pick and choose who can enter the US. They don't have to let you in, even though Canadians are suppose to have B1/B2 status by treaty. Just remember treaty means nothing to the US. America can't be trusted. Never depend on America. They will stab you when it matters most.

Oh I thought it was because it was privately owned (by an American) and making billions for the owner, and that they had their own bridge security rather than federal agents.

1. If there are no immigrant terrorists other than a waste of money and paper what is the deal? Yes my gosh the conservatives wasting paper? Look at the debt this ain't knew why not address the fact they have been debt spending for 7 years at the highest rate in Canadian history instead? 2. Will immigrants be offended to loose their citizenship if they shoot at the military or blow stuff up? Are all those immigrants who blow up governments stuff and random people going to not vote conservative anymore? Cause you know they must have loved the Conservative Party's platform before the loss of citizenship for commiting mass murder and terrorizing the public? Hell why come over here for citizenship just to go overseas again to wage war? Was the 5-7 years waiting for citizenship part of the great plan to get down to those attacks... 7 years of planning? and somehow Canadian citizenship as a dual national is the golden peice of pie that will allow one to succeed at their attack? yes it is stupid, but it hasn't stopped the US from doing this for commiting a crime - no terrorism required.

Yes. I think there should be a make a move execption. The whole, can I kiss you thing is so gay, but legally required. Takes the spontaneous romance away. First the no sleeping BJ's for married couples, now people being all cool with no moves. WTF? As soon as that, no or don't is out though, it should be game over. But come on, give the guy a chance. Canada needs more people (in northern areas) You know the inuit solved this social issue themselves by basically making a make a move exception socially. Now going around touching peoples boobs you don't know (not in a night club) is a completely different issue... but needing to ask to kiss someone who is over at your place for a invite to your house under a potential date, study date or otherwise... no man there should be a make a move exception. Now penetrating out of no where with any body part is another issue I suppose, but a kiss or touch.. .NO WAY. totally acceptable at a home invite with someone of the opposite sex. Now forcing yourself on someone and not stopping under a protest that is another issue. The assault/sexual assault aspect should only occur upon a clear signal that it is unwanted behaviour.. not that it is unknown if it is wanted in a private non professional or institutional setting. Someones house is definately private. Although even the public aspect should be contextualized to courting behaviour. Fact is it is part of courting behaviour and should not be criminalized it is at common law. Although I don't know the specifics of this situation so I can't specifically apply it to the situation as I don't really have any details on what transpired if anything. NYE for instance I kissed like 3 random girls(young adults) or something like that including one on the lips.. it wasn't too sexual though more just friendly.. none the less I don't think I commited a crime. Now if the girl said no don't kiss me, and I kissed them it would be issued, but without a sign of protest to the action I think it is very acceptable. Same with the no don't touch my boob, no don't put your arm around me. No don't stroke my leg, no don't try to massage me etc... there should be a clear protest before a sexual assault charge occurs under specific circumstances. The protest and unwantedness of the act should be known. I think people want romance and love, and it is not by default unacceptable, on the contrary at default it should be acceptable because people do not require contracts for relationships. Note after one of the girls pinched my nipple/sqeuezed my chest while rubbing me over after a shot of absinthe, I also did the same to her.. she was not pleased but none the less after she indicated not to squeeze her booby I stopped. I did not feel it was a crime though.. since she intitiated the touching. It wasn't very sexual though, but I think she did think it sexual. None the less I did not persist to make contact with her after she had that second thought. I think there are contexts in which the behaviour is not criminal on point of contact. I think that the persistene and clear ignorance of the action as unwanted is where the crime of both assault and sexual assault should come into play. Although random contacts does violate the public space concept... but in certain context I think the availability of contact for courtship or leisure is at common law. Not all environments are the same, but alone at some guys house is definatly in the make a move realm. Now there are professional exceptions, eg. you can't make a move on someone you are employing as it is sexual harassment (I know for Brazeau he seems according to Jade Harper disregard this one) I think there are common law exceptions within the make a move context. People who don't know each other and people who do know each other plays into it.

Or what about a new ceremonial post.. Crown Senate Appointer. Cause all them execs probably have more important things to do. They could instead appoint the appointer, then the appointer would appoint. You know the clerk of the senate for instance might be able to be recorder and "appointer" they could determine it on being clearly spoken, having a clear grasp of an official language, and being able to travel 3 times a year to the senate or was it 1 time every 3 years? Perahaps we can just skip the 8 year terms completely and just have an alternative jury duty each week. With a free flight there and back for the appearance, and group home for the jurors. What is another million or so for a large complex on parliament hill to house the senate jurors, with the 50+ million renovations each year ongoing. You know you could build it next to the crumbling walls so they don't need to be propped up every year for 50 million dollars. You could build a rock wall with the bricks or something to keep protestors off the hill.. and save security time setting up barricades. Think progressive! Keep them away from alchohol for the week and a sober second thought is assured!

It basically amounts to indictable offence. infamous crime = Law, historical (of a person) deprived of all or some citizens' rights as a consequence of conviction for a serious crime. It is technically impossible under the charter.

IF THEY WANT IT YES! It will be mutually beneificial. Province in the Caribean, WIN. TOURISM TO THE ISLAND WIN! There is absolutely no reason not to. They get a strong dollar at minimum costs.... they would likely also benefit from increased business activity. Althogh the term "join federation" should be used instead of unilateral annexation. There could be two caribanas in Canada! The economic inputs under Canadian industry to the region will be beneifical. It might be good to get the UK's position on it though. It seems rare that the Queen of the UK actually stepped in an revoked self representative government over corruption.. yet nothing here in Canada? Its self rule was revoked over " a "high probability of systemic corruption or other serious dishonesty" I don't get it... how is Canada still self ruling?

Just so you know Citizenship is just a way of controlling people. It isn't really much of a benefit over residence. The system is totally corrupt and politically charged anyway. As for 5 years of service..... that really isn't much 20 years deserves something for sure. one term in actually doesn't really show much loyalty now two terms that is another issue.. people give their entire life to service. Citizenship is just a form of cattle anyway. If they are out there killing Canadian forces it either demostrates an extremely corrupt government or someone who doesn't really represent Canadian values. The issue with revoking citizenship though for only dual citizens seems biased. I do think there should be roughly equivolent treatment.. but I do think there should be two classes of Ctizienship. Initial naturalization and "equalized naturalization which would come into effect after in this case a certain amount of financial input or volunteerism, and activity. 5 years is quite insignifigant though. Not to make your contributions seem little 5 years is better than no years of course. Little kids each year have volunteer activities, they take part in propaganda to learn "the current canadian values" in highschool they put in some hours of community service. Then they work in many cases.. this is oh 12+ years of indoctrination of Canadian values. Not all Canadians born in Canada stay in Canada after birth though. But this two classes of Canadians based on naturalization or not is very American -- re felonies.. naturalized americans who commit felonies can loose their citizenship.. this is the inching in factor.. first terrorist then serious criminals. It can be seen a mile away... just like all these inching in on crime.. now mentally ill people "at the time of the crime" will be kept in psych wards even after doctors feel they have rehabilitated. Or the reviews will come every 3 years instead of every year? Because we want to keep them insitutionalized longer even if they have rehabilitated. I think we need to look at recidivism rates on mental illness crimes for this. These " victims can keep them in jail longer" aspect is just representing a sick society, that wants to ruin peoples lives instead of healing society. Those rejects who want vengence by keeping people in jail don't deserve their own freedom, it is a perverse justice concept.. .depriving freedom is not a social value that should be supported if it doesn't equate into making society function better. Peoples own evil psychological issues are issues they should deal with. Someone being in jail or not means very little, if a doctor feels they won't recommit what is the Fing issue? Note I opted to renounce my citizenship.. and you know what, it wasn't legally possible in Canada, cause you have to be a citizen of another country to renounce your citizenship. That is probably why they are only doing it for dual nationals. Also I do have another "citizenship" commonwealth citizenship, but Canada doesn't officially recognize British Subject status anymore, and the UK no longer allows reversion of citizenship to British Citizenship from when they changed their own British Nationality Act. Due to international convetion Canada is not allowed to support statelessness. And they arn't willing to recognize self recognized soverignty of an individual who claims microstate status. (not only because it is wierd but they want to control people, they don't support individual freedom from the machinations of mega nationstates.) The point here is, it is likely less so a dual nationality issue and more of a Sole citizenship is not all to possible for Canada to revoke... due to the statelessness issue. They would actually sort of revert to british subject status, and the commonwealth nations are trying to exinct the Queens control and reciprocation of subject status and replace it with parliamentary nationality/citizenship which parliament exercises authority rather than the monarch, even with an oath of allegiance still inclued, it is problematic to say the least due to the national non recognition of british subject status, or subject status to a monarch itself at law, so the oath of allegiance is a ceremonial concept since the ministires themselves don't recotnize subject status. (especially in Canada) The point being, I don' t think it is a he ain't Canadian factor, or a we don't want you anymore cause you are brown, I think it is a well we'd get rid of Khadr too but he was born here and we arn't allowed to make the DP's that is too jewish. Ok the Jewish factor probably isn't there for the propaganda.. but it is legal issue not that law has ever prevented the CPC from making new "rules" that violate the convetions. Frankly some blond Canadian probably isn't from Pakistan. So this as a response to north Africa just doesn't line up. Note this little fact about young Khadr " would often quote Captain Haddock from " How Al Qaeda like is freaken TINTIN? He shot muslims in the desert for crying out loud. Haddoc was a drunk too, muslims don't drink. His childhood idol was a narcotics smugler for crying out loud

Its happened to me on a beach in Mexico, some older dued grabed for my crotch and seemed incline to get into my pants. It was weird but I wouldn't send the guy to court over it. I just stepped back and looked at the guy then left. Now if he got into my pants I'd punch him but that is another issue completely. I wasn't gay, he was atleast bisexual. I applaud people who go after it... the world is to anal and restrictive making love far more complex than it should be. In native culture a woman going into a guys tent alone indicate she wants to get it on... in muslim culture she could be raped legally. In Canadian culture touching a boob gets you nine months of court appearances (if you don't plead guilty) $10,000 or more in legal bills and a potential 3 month sentance or year of probation? Huh? It is absurd. If you've ever been in a court case the response is NOT justice. It is a waste of time and money that doesn't even attempt to solve the social isssue instead it creates an even greater social divide that is life long and irreperable.. Now habitually doing this, hence sexual harassment is another issue completely but a move at your OWN house, alone with some chick who went over to your house. Kids have sex under those contexts. Now saying no and ending it there fine.. but based on what I don't know.. it seems politically motivated, and abuse of assault (which indicated unwanted use of force - that is intent of violence to cause harm) as well as an intent to sexually violate... and it seems clear brazeau probably could have raped her if he wasn't being monitored he is a freaken BLACK BELT and not likely weaker than the chick he touched. Now GIRL.. is something else do you have something to indicate that it was a MINOR involved in the incident.. that would be a different angle.. but not weird in native culture by any means. Brazeau is a black belt a simple assault charge does not indicate attempted violence. The assault charge just seems lumped in.. and the sexual part just seems like the part of body touched. Who is the "girl" you indicated. There is apublication ban on who she is do you have information on her background? I do beleive this website is technically hosted in the US?

Read linkys Canada's Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault, ' Let me guess you are going to say he isn't transvestite either. Also I'm not greatly upset information requests on the department of national defence are going unanswered. I think there should be godsmacked and a stern reply. Information either doesn't exist or is classified or above secrecy, file again in 50-100 years. This response does not indicate information exists, but if it did exist you would not have access to it. Please apply to work at DND or CSIS or other agency which has access to canada's secrets for more insight. Thankyou for asking. Sorry, Please try again. Of course the government could take the free for all aproach... in addition to your request for information we are giving you an RPG and a set of keys to a brand new leased leopard II! Call 1 416-777-5555 for more info, skill testing question may apply.

Can we not agree that some acts that would be considered terrorist acts are good? You know like blowing up a building to get at people you don't like? Or destabilizing a corrupt government? If the conservatives are so pro Zionist then how can they hate terrorism? Ben Guiron was a terrorist, he was the lifeblood of early Israel. The US has drones that are randomly blowing up people, apparently even US citizens (but often just random Pakistani villagers). I think if doing tit for tat, the conservatives can't be serious that all terrorism is bad, otherwise they just look like they are ignorant and conflicted. Now firing on CF personnel, offensively, not in self defence is another matter completely, but terrorism, I thought this was one of those, who are your terrorizing issues. Apparently if it is Muslims being terrorized its not terrorism, only maybe war crimes if you loose the war against NATO.

Things don't need to be elected to be respected. This is the same of the Governor General, the Queen and judges. Fact is there are lots of appointed positions. I think a good first step would be creating the new body, before thinking about removing organs that allowed continuance of state for 125 years and more. Nothing wrong with starting a new body.. but why step into the unknown if you don't need to. Those sorts of social experiments should only be done when there is a need rather than a fancy. Just stop paying. I don't think Stephen Harper would put himself on dialysis without a need so why put Canada on dialysis? His actions seem to just say, I made really bad picks, we better change this up after I'm gone. THE RIGHT MOVE would be to make a new legislative chamber that is proportional representation. and another that is elected fully by number of votes without ridings involved. JUST STOP PAYING MPS FROM TAX PAYER FUNDS UNTIL THE DEBT IS GONE AND THERE IS A SURPLUS. Paying them to put Canadians in debt is just absurd.

Parliament should pay for itself, plain and simple. Leave the tax payer funds out of it, aside from donations and tourist shop purchases. If they can't raise money to run their own business how can they be expected to run Canada?

Sounds like he just made a move and was rejected. These are "summary" charges. Not even a hybrid assault charge, this sounds very minor. They weren't indictable charges so conviction would not lead to senate ejection. This is pretty much an interpersonal dispute and extremely minor. "He touched someone who didn't want to be touched" is what the charges amount to. Not what I would call "serious" if it was ongoing, and of the harassing sort it would be serious but a one time move at his house? get real.. unless there is actual information describing some heinous ongoing this is just someone who didn't like what he did but not something others havn't dealt with without charges being laid. I would even say the expense of the court process will likely be totally disproportional to what actually occurred. This stated only seeing the charges and no information on what happened, since the charges and his court appearance seem like a bigger event than the "Crime".

I've known a lot of absolute geniuses who have smoked pot working as technical researchers developing cutting edge technologies. Since well over 50% of Canadians have smoked pot, you can't claim they are only the failures. Quite the contrary in highschool I was part of a special technology program and the people who smoked pot weren't stupid dumb, they were smart adaptable thinkers. Likewise Ive known successful business people who smoked pot, the bottom line here is, it is all about lifestyle. Being a lazy pot head is a stereotype, you can smoke pot and not be immobilized by it, quite the contrary many people socially smoke pot to enhance their social life and be MORE active, not less. Like alchohol it removes inhibitions and allows people to approach the thought process from a different angle. Fact is you don't need to smoke pot to be lazy, plenty of people are lazy and don't smoke pot.

They are pretty minor charges. Its not like it is rape and aggravated assault. This pretty much amounts to touching someone like on the but or boobs in his house. Why did she go to his house in the first place? None the less more info is waited on to see exactly what the charges are over. This is made more complex due to the publication ban. Feels like all details aren't going to be public, which is problematic when it involves an MP. Also to clarify "Brazeau gave an address in Maniwaki, Que., as his home" the issue here is some people don't get people have more than one property or place of residence, what is so hard to understand here. Millions of Canadian students live this reality when they are in school. Meanwhile lots of elites have multiple residences scattered throughout the world, what don't you understand? The Queen has a handful of homes herself.

Buying the public with ads instead of paying into the party coffers of Harperite cronyism, but why? Oh right there is an election in what 3 years? Clock is ticking. Must deliver something other than broken promises or is it simply acknolwedged that no one is going to elect them to go past the decade mark... 14 years in office is a long time for any government. 2006-2020 is a hell of a long run when you already have more than half the senate, and will have all the supreme court seats, most federal officers and commissions etc... etc... I think for being perhaps only 30% of the voting population or about 15% of the population that is a lot of power for such a small minority of the citenzenship. This type of projection is very strange to see though 2012/04/02 5 Conservative 139 1 Liberal 43 NDP120 That was a long time ago though. Although the other new element is cell phone voting online.... with elections Canada proposing "online voting"? On the topic though.. they have to deliver otherwise it is a broken promise only corrupt party members will like.

Regardless of how easy it is to love Media. It is obvious the guy ain't meeting the residency standards in PEI. The problem however exists apparently that the senate has not defined the requirements for primary residency except some vague concept. This is further issued by having people expected to attend the senate and meetings, while providing for a residence in Ottawa. How is someone expected to spend the majority of their time in both PEI and Ottawa? That is a lot of flight costs or other travel costs tact on top if people are expected to fly back and forth every week. One would think that residency would mean that when the senate is not in session they would be expected to be centered and residing in their home province. But from what i can tell Duffy was not residing primarily in PEI, but even I am only at my home for 3 months a year approx. But it is my primary residence, and place I tend to stay longest in a year. One however has to question provinces ability to define the constitutional requirements of senators as it should be the senate that sets the "definition" of primary residency as they are suppose to run their own house in leui of a letters patent clarifying the issue or constitutional ratification at a council of state (provinces and federation) Techinically one can set anywhere as their primary residency. Also no one is required to have only one residence. This is why duffy can vote in Ontario elections, however he also can likely vote in municipal elections in PEI. It is only made quite problematic in tying in property class to enfranchisement in the democratic system but that is how it is done. He has the property class in PEI, I think the lay concept here though he would not pass the test.. but for legal persons and people who get how it is suppose to work.. who cares it is a non issue. He seleated his property in PEI as his primary residence that is all that it requires. The senate needs to get off its az and define this junk instead of using it as a political weapon ... the senate internal economy should have vetted this stuff in advance and clearly notified people of a minimum stay requirement. but really it is only the senate that can define this short of a constitutional clarification or letters patent... or one could argue court clarification. The province itself should not have the power to define the requirements of residency for the purpose of residency in the senate. It should be based on the 1867 definition of residency not the 2012 or 1957 or whatever eg. (5) "He shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed;" It does not say he shall be "a resident" Also it is currious how in Quebec only owning property is required rather than actually being resident. (6) In the Case of Quebec he shall have his Real Property Qualification in the Electoral Division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that Division. "If he ceases to be qualified in respect of Property or of Residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in respect of Residence by reason only of his residing at the Seat of the Government of Canada while holding an Office under that Government requiring his Presence there." It seems pretty clear that 31(5) says well if yuo are away in Ottawa you don't loose your seat. Now what is considered an office.. though is being a senator not an office? If so is being on a committee? What qualifies? It seems "crown officers perhaps such as members of the executive council (governor in council, ministers etc..) could be deemed officers... but senators and other MPs are "legislators" I'm not sure they are also officers. It is clear that governors and lt. governors are officers. Likewise there were also county lt's etc.. however if executive council members were also officers... this is made more complex... as Commons MPs wern't even suppose to sit in executive council in 1867. Office of the crown... or discharging an "office" seems the intent here.. so what would that entail? What has Duffy been doing in Ottawa? What I would wonder is, membership in a a senate committee an office? I think this issue would be made negligible if Duffy was a appointed as a minister without portfolio. and given duties to discharge. Senator Cools would seem to incline committees are not offices http://www.parl.gc.c...-12-14-e.htm#39 However an absence of the term "sole residence" in the province they represent seems problematic. As multiple residences are posible.