madmax

Ah yes, Conrad Black pays his debt.

I have noticed that all the previous posters here are of like minds. Where are the comments from open CPC supporters and their thoughts on the actions taken upon Conservative Senate Members? I really don't know the motivation behind these moves.

Exactly when did these people arrive in the United States?

He was right of Fidel Castro perhaps. Perhaps. But the only people who would describe Cotler as "right of centre" are people so far from the centre themselves they can no longer recognize where it stands. Hopefully I will remember this quote when Cotler crosses the floor

There is little doubt that the Liberals and the Conservatives botched this up. Conservatives shouldn't be crowing that legislation they believed needed to be renewed, got voted down, while their only defence in debate was to call Liberals Soft on Terror or Supporting Terrorists, or Implying Fear as the best thing they had to offer. Totally useless, which is why they won't go to the polls over this and it won't help them come campaign time. Harper has a tendency to do or say things that should be left for partisan shills and not the Prime Minister of Canada. He looks bad in this, and he didn't get what he wanted, when it was probably doable considering the true feeling within many Liberal MPs. The Liberals on the other hand have been ham fisted in trying to explain their decision to whip the vote. There could be legitimate reasons, but they haven't got them out clearly and should have done so before the vote. This more or less looks like, Harper is being stupid again, and Dion is deciding to not try to be reasonable with a polarizing politicizing Prime Minister. While there are good reasons provided for and against this legislation, it appears like outside supporters of the legislation were made to look CPC pawns more then justifyably concerned citizens that they were. Well, that's my rant for when things become polarized and parties are thinking more about themselves and scoring points, then the legislation and reasonable debate that is required before choosing whether or not to implement it.

Yes to the former. As to the latter, I have no idea how you are going to educate the Afghan Public. You would have a better chance teaching Canadian Forces all the different Afghan Languages. If Canadian Soldiers are seen as the source of aid and security and provisions. Part of the 3 block strategy, then they are supposed to be considered friendly. Unfortuneatly the confusion of the 3 block theory is that you are supposed fight one block, secure another and provide human aid in another, all the while being able to identify an enemy whom dresses little different from those you are helping. There are just as many problems with the strategy as with Afghans. On top of this, it appears most of the recent shootings are all the results of convoys. Very Vulnerable in assymetrical warfare and therefore more likely to use deadly force when feeling threatened by Afghan actions and responses. Afghans have been around foreign soldiers for nearly 30 years. We have to learn their ways faster, because they aren't going to figure out our ways anytime soon. Which brings me back to what is going to happen if Afghans are accepted in a lead role in convoy missions.

I understand what you are saying. However, with regards to Civilian Casualties reported here, it is only a bad story. But in Afghanistan, it is bad for the war effort. Of course for the soldier it is better to be a defendant than a corpse. But for the Afghans, their is a large portion of the population that lives by the code and therefore are obligated to extract "retribution" if that is their family member. And that is whether friendly or enemy. With regards to the PTO shafts, these tragedies don't result in someone else picking up arms to avenge the death. And it is rare to hear of these incidents outside the immediate local media. Hopefully, kids can be safety proofed and not put in unnecessary risk, or without proper instruction.

Nothing Under the conditions you proposed. No thanks. You are just picking winners and losers. There is room to haggle over that thought. Edit: Messed the quotations up a bit. Sure you will figure it out.

No one has commented on this, and I haven't come across any specific federal place that pays less than $10. It would appear to be a pretty safe proposal to set the minimum at $10.

Not all employers make a lot of profit. That is the problem. And what about the ones that make a hell of a lot of profit and pay minimum wage? Obviously if you abolished the minimum wage, alot more employers would make alot more in profit. There debate with the minimum wage is that it isn't market based, but needs based. Those employers whom are just getting by with minimum wage help are probably going to go tits up when the price of gas, oil, hydro, supplies, etc. increase. While there are solutions that no Province has choosen to try, the mere excuse that "not all employers make alot of profit" is a poor excuse.

I really don't care if poofy farted or gore left his lights on. If there is a problem, and it has to be fixed, then get down to business and do it. If the government hadn't changed aerosol cans, I would most likely still be putting CFCs into the air, and not using reclaimers on AC units.

Yeah, well I have a PROBLEM with your NAME. EVERY TIME I SEE IT I GET THIRSTY. THEN I HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE CANADIAN or BLUE. Never a poll on that. All kidding aside. Baylee rants and the difficulties in Afghanistan get sidelined on this forum just that fast. There is a problem with the number of Civilians being killed. It is important to find better ways. Perhaps the Afghans have one. But if you have ever read anything about them, who knows what's gonna happen. I was hoping to see responses from Weaponeer, Army Guy etc, to get their feedback on Afghans wanting to lead a Canadian Convoy with the intent to reduce civilian casualties.

Anybody else think so? The proof is in the proof and if you got good proof its proven.

Baloney it was a free vote. The Liberal Vote was whipped. If it was a free vote you would have seen a realistic split in the party for reason that there are good arguments on both sides for its continuance or its elimination. The CPC were for it, and the NDP against and Liberals are and were split on the matter. The vote was whipped.

You want to explain this?

The discussion of harder focuses on accidental killings of Afghan Civilians. Not understanding Afghan culture or actions has led to a number of shootings of Afghans by Canadian Forces whom feel threatened by their irrational actions. However, for Afghans they are normal. Today, I hear that the Afghans want to lead the Canadian convoys to try to prevent such actions. This could be a good move. I am not certain. I really can't comment on the level of training of the current Afghan forces. However, as I have said before in the other Afghan threads including this one. It is imperative for us to reduce civilian casualties. The commanders know this, Karzai knows this, and we know this. Getting it done and still providing security has proven to be a difficult task. There are political, internal problems within Afghanistan with regards to these accidental shootings, and there is the propoganda that the Taliban exploit from these unfortuneate decisions.

I just watched the vote. I didn't see a Liberal Vote with the government? Cotler Abstained, and if there was a Liberal whom voted with the government I didn't catch it. But I sure could here the jeers Garth Turner received when he voted against it. I am totally puzzled by this vote. I am puzzled by the opposition not going for a 3 year extension. I understand the NDP opposing it. They have opposed it since the beginning. But this is a Liberal Bill and even though there is a Sunset Clause, I would have expected certain Liberals to have voted for it. Ignatieff is showing party loyalty, but I still don't understand the need for a Whip on this vote?

Here here, pounds on tables and cheers loudly. The story you provide is Ironic.

Nice to have went through this before in the other thread . There are other ways to deal with wages, and another Province should try the Euro way such as Sask or if in Alberta or Ontario try an earned income tax credit. Just to put the focus more on Market and Bartering vs Fixed Legislation.

Excellent question. Do you know of any source that answers the question other than anecdotes? No unfortuneately I don't. Often when I pop a question like that someone here seems to find the info or a link, etc. But right now, I am open for an anecdote as well. Later.

No. They will just charge more for their goods. How much lower are the prices of an Alberta Walmart vs one in BC?

I have so much respect for him and the Ontario Liberal Party. Send him a message. He owes us $40,000 for his raise, that's not market driven, but legislated. This thread is about a Federal Minimum Wage. Please don't drag pocket lining Ontario MPs into this. That's an old debate isn't it? Been around this block thousands of times over 9 decades. There are other solutions, that are bargained or controlled through a revised tax structure. No Province or Federal Government has chosen to wade into those waters and one Province should look into these 3rd ways as many economists converge on these solutions. You make alot of assumptions here. I have known many a well educated person whom hit a transition period where the minimum wage or even Welfare was required. This is indeed poverty and working poor. That said, being educated gives a person a far better chance of exiting the lower working class and becoming a successful contributing member of the workforce and society.

You have argued your points well.

Not certain what one has to do with the other? As for the news article, it's a simply history lesson, with some inaccuracies, but no real surprises. Most people don't know alot of colonial history in Upper Canada. You probably didn't either.

Wouldn't lower health care costs offset a lot of this? My employer pays out $15,000 per employee per year for health insurance. Even after factoring in it's tax deductibility, that's $10,000 or so per employee per year that employers in Canada don't face. I don't think you can compare tax structures or tax reform, and health care costs. It is a separate topic. Yes there is a competitive advantage that corporations receive from our health care system. The fees your employer pays are steep and it is worse with large industries. But it is possible to restructure the tax system, as Geoff is suggesting, and that revenues and investments will stay in Canada. Who pays may change, but who benefits will also change. It would appear although others seem to disagree, that there would be an increase in productivity, which should lead to more growth investment and a larger tax base. (Correct me if I am wrong, its happened before).