segnosaur

I seem to notice you have missed a few parts of that particular article... ...Despite bin Laden’s comments about the organization and Khadr’s questionable activities in Pakistan, no charges have ever been laid against HCI and there has been no evidence that it was ever involved in terrorist activity. Still, Baird spokesman Rick Roth said in a statement that “officials have assured us that no taxpayer funds will be provided to Human Concern International.” And, the money isn't going to Human Concern International (HCI)... instead its going to Canadian Relief for Syria. This organization may work with HCI, but that does not mean that it is part of HCI.

I've heard of several accounts of people doing the same thing... - In one case the 'victim' was asked to send a scan of his passport... so he made up a fake one with the name "James T. Kirk" - I one attended a skeptics conference where they had 2 actors who actually took the emails between the scammer and victim and turned it into a stage play. Quite entertaining

I wouldn't necessarily call the people that they're targeting "dumb". A better word would be inexperienced. Your average grandmother who might fall for this type of scam may be an otherwise intelligent person, but with the internet you suddenly have a large group of people who are exposed to a new technology that can be complex/confusing to many.

I've received the same call a couple of times. (Not sure if its been the same group each time or if there are multiple groups using the same scam. Its amazing... even when I tell them I use Linux they don't seem to clue in. I use a different tack when dealing with them... I pretend like I'm playing along (even though I'm nowhere near my computer), telling them things like "I clicked on the link you wanted but my browser is giving a blank screen". Hopefully the more time of theirs I waste, the less time they have to bother the more innocent and gullible. A response I should try should they ever call again: - Oh, I have a virus? Will that affect all the naked pictures of your mother I have on my hard drive?

I seem to recall Canada granting the Kosovars it's full support in their bid for independence. Did that also include the northern Serbian region of it that would have prefered staying with Serbia? http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/99-74-kosovo-serbs-say-no-to-pristina First of all, keep in mind that the article you quoted referred to an unofficial referendum that was held in parts of Serbia. Furthermore, the article doesn't really specify what Canada's stance on Kosovo serbs who did not want to separate. Frankly, our isolation from the conflict probably meant that Canada never actually stated a position on that particular issue. However, even if Canada did state that Kosovo should remain "in tact", that would not necessarily make them wrong in claiming parts of Quebec could be/should be partitioned... it would just make them hypocritical over the Kosovo situation. Overlooking that trade between Québec and a couple of those provinces is relatively small... Well, I did pick provinces where the total trade was in the range of $1 billion/year or greater, and where Quebec held a very large surplus. So yes, the scale of trade between Quebec and Ontario is bigger than that between Quebec and B.C./Alberta/etc., but the trade surplus/deficit is large enough not to be ignored. Free trade is good. However, in the past we've seen Quebec benefit from certain protectionist measures (the most notable is their restrictions on out-of-province workers). Before we agree to any trade deals we'd have to make sure that all such barriers were removed. The problem that I see from the Separatist side is that they assume that all such agreements are a done deal... but it won't be anywhere as clean as they seem to think.

While you are right in that the term "Western Quebec" is a vague term that doesn't hold any exact political or territorial meaning, there are individual municipalities in the region who may not favor independence. And those areas do have defined (municipal) boarders and a government. And the fact that they are not "a people" is irrelevant, as the term "people" is a pretty vague term in itself. The majority of individuals may or may not prefer to be associated with Canada rather than an independent Quebec; it doesn't matter if they have a unique ethnic or cultural background. I doubt whether any Federalists are claiming that citizens of (for example) Gatineau should be forced to stay in Canada at gunpoint post-separation. However, the issue is whether there should be a mechanism in place to ensure the wishes of people in those areas is met (perhaps as a post-referendum referendum). As for your suggestion that people in Western Quebec would prefer not to be "marginalized" in a post-separation Canada: - Individuals in that area might also feel marginalized from a post-separation Quebec. Things like a stronger identification with Canada due to proximity with Ottawa, concerns that they may be treated differently than areas that had stronger separatist leanings, and language differences might make them even more marginalized than a post-independence Quebec. - Given the strong economic dependence of Western Quebec on Ontario and/or Ottawa, some individuals might feel that economic security trumps any sense of "marginalization" they might feel First of all, you are right in that Ontario does enjoy a substantial trade surplus with Quebec. However, Ontario is not the only province with which Quebec trades. Currently, Quebec enjoys a trade surplus (as of the mid-90s) with British Columbia, New Brunswick, Alberta, and Newfoundland. (See: http://publications.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/21-601-MIE/21-601-MIE2002058.pdf) Secondly, not sure if whatever figures you're looking at include Quebec workers employed in other provinces. In the National Capital region, there is an overwhelming number of Quebecers who are employed in the Ontario side (and relatively few Ontario workers who similarly work in Quebec.) Individuals crossing into Ontario to work would likely be hit by barriers. There aren't any rules for unilateral succession of a province in Canada, so we can't really say what's legal/illegal. What would likely happen is that the status of areas like Western or Northern Quebec would have to be negotiated over, and Quebec should not be surprised of the rest of Canada decides to play "hardball" over the issue.

Lets assume you're being honest and you really did have to put in 'extra hours' to compensate for the 'Rae Days'... - The important part of that particular phrase is "in my experience". Your "experience" may not be universal throughout the government. While I have never worked for the Ontario government, I have worked for the Federal government (which I assume will suffer through similar problems). In my experience, there were some employees that were extremely skilled/dedicated, some that were competent, and some that were completely inept. Any good cost cutting measures should affect the inept people more than the skilled/dedicated. Rae Days did not do that - Even if there are employees who are 'skilled/dedicated', there work may end up going to waste. I've seen multi-million dollar software products (in some cases staffed by very competent people) that ended up going nowhere because of management mistakes. Again, a decent cost-cutting process should eliminate those types of excesses (i.e. you'll never miss a project that had no use) rather than cutting everything.

This assumes that the government is actually wasting large sums of money, which may not be the case. Do you honestly believe that there was "no large sums of money wastes" at the time of Rae's leadership in Ontario? Any large organization will have such things happening. And the fact that the government did not collapse when a certain number of individuals were forced to take unpaid leave should more than demonstrate that government had people on the payroll that it did not need. If we could get by with every government employee taking 12 days off (around a 5% reduction in total work among those affected) why not just lay off 5% of the employees? (That way they not only save on salary, but also on secondary costs such as benefits, office space, etc.) You're right... I did falsely use the phrase having unpaid overtime forced on them (government employees) when I should have said "Forced time-off". However, that was a mistake in word choice, rather than in understanding what was meant by "Rae Days". (If you go back and look at my previous post, I commented on "not needing the labor", so from that context it should be clear that I was referring to time off rather than overtime.)

You're opposed to public service cuts then, even very modest ones? First of all, the problem with Rae Days is not that fiscal conservatives were against them (their opinion on them is pretty irrelevant since they would be unlikely to vote NDP anyways.) The problem is they would have alienated the left wing (the traditional supporters of the NDP/Liberals.) Secondly, even if someone was in favor of cuts, it does not mean that they would necessarily approve of "Rae Days". After all, whatever cuts are made, I would hope that they would be directed at "government waste". So, not only do back-office file clerks (some of whom may not have been needed at all) end up having unpaid overtime forced on them, but also (for example) Nurses, a profession where there are considerably more demands for resources.

This is not meant to defend Lise St-Denis or her defection from the NDP to Liberals. However, it should be pointed out that it is quite possible for a politician to hold some views that are contrary to the remainder of their party. Its quite possible that St-Denis opposed the NDPs policies regarding the Senate, but still preferred other elements of their platform (e.g. economic, environmental, social issues, etc.) Whether that's the case (or whether she is simply acting as an opportunist) is something that probably only be answered over time. Of course, if I were her, I wouldn't make any decisions to cross the floor until the issues of leadership had been figured out. (At the very least she could have made the claim about "I don't agree with the new leader".)

I don't think those really count as 'screw ups' as you stated in the thread title. The right of a member to cross the floor is well established in the Westminster Parliamentary system. And given the fact that the Conservatives have benefited from people crossing the floor, its kind of hard to criticize the liberals for it. At worst, they gain a member who may not get re-elected next election. At best, they can at least say "Look! the NDP was just a blip and people are coming back to us." Keep in mind that "protecting Canada and its Citizens" is a pretty broad term. Its possible that 2 people may both be acting in what they think is the best interest of the country, but still come down on different sides of the issue. Issues related to energy production are complex... environmental issues, short AND long term economic plans can and do conflict.

Well, first of all, the fact that you (nor likely anyone on this forum) were specifically asked does not invalidate the poll. Assuming proper protocols are in place, statistical sampling can be very accurate at reflecting what overall numbers are. Secondly, while technically it is impossible for an individual to know when we are "in a recession" (since its something that can really only be determined by looking at the economy after the end of the fiscal quarter), such polls still have value. After all, a negative view of the economy could end up being a "self fulfilling prophesy", as people decide to delay spending (and this possibly worsen economic conditions.)

First of all, pointing out overall "net profits" may be misleading if we don't have some sort of context. Is that $1 billion on $2 billion revenue? $10 billion revenue? I have to admit, I am a bit skeptical of the $1 billion profit claim made in the opinion pieces. After all, the parent company (Caterpillar) had a 3rd quarter net income of just over $1billion (and the overall company was much larger than their elector-motive subsidiary. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/business/caterpillar-profit-rises-44.html?_r=1 Another thing that must be considered: In order to be successful, a company must attempt to be proactive, planning for any future occurrences. If they are paying high salaries this year and their sales go in the toilet, they could be in serious trouble. The economy is volatile right now... being able to handle such a rough situation is necessary.

His proof is an editorial posted earlier in this thread which he read and which now qualifies him as an expert on the subject. You better read that link or you're nothing more than a troll to be ignored!! Yes, I did read the part in the editorial that claimed that the people were "overwhelmingly" college graduates/etc. But that doesn't mean the requirements of the job require such an education. If the workers there were doing high-tech design work or something of a similar nature they might command a higher salary. However, its possible that the majority of workers are merely assembly line workers and the company had "college graduate" as a requirement simply to thin out the collection of resumes that they were receiving.

First of all, I believe that the Sea King used by the president was manufactured years after the ones used by the Canadian forces. (I think the version the U.S. uses is from the mid-70s, whereas the one Canada uses were made in the 60s.) Secondly, Canada has been using our Sea Kings under fairly extreme conditions (landing on the deck of a ship over salt water, etc.) The U.S. helicopters used to move the president around were not subject to the same conditions. Thirdly, the Sea King is not the only helicopter used by the president. He also uses the VH60 "White Hawk" (a variation of the Black Hawk) that was made in the 80s. Lastly, they are actually planning on replacing the Sea Kings. They had actually decided on buying the EH101 (or the VH71 as it was known there) but because of the economy they've decided to re-do the bidding process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_One http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VXX

These 2 posts were basicaly saying the same thing so I will address them together.... - Pointing to the overall profits of a large company as proof of "greed" isn't necessarily fair. A company has the right to run its affairs as it sees fit, and no company should be forced to keep a part of its business open if it feels it is not in their best corporate interest - Pay cutbacks may seem unfair, but that's the nature of wages. A company can be in a situation where it overpays its employees; the fact that they were overpaid before doesn't mean their newly proposed wages are unfair, only that they've been decreased. - Even if general electric agreed to a larger contract, so what? Each company should run their own affairs as they see fit. If general electric can be competitive offering their employees higher wages, then hopefully they'll be successful enough to drive up the average salary of all people working in that manufacturing area - Everyone likes to jump in and blame 'corporate greed' as if corporations are some sort of anonymous entity. However, the fact is, CAT is owned by shareholders. Many of those shares are held by pension plans and individuals who are far from wealthy. By favoring the workers over 'corporate profits' you are in effect taking money from individuals who may be trying to save for their environment. (If you take a look at the Caterpillar stock prices, its not like their company value has been skyrocketing. Their stock value is roughly where it was a year earlier.) See: http://ca.advfn.com/p.php?pid=qkquote&symbol=NY^CAT

Just out of curiosity... Where exactly is your proof that the jobs lost in London truly are jobs of a technical nature that require college background (presumably in a technical field)?

Yes. I see... Assuming you're being honest (given the partisanship on this forum I have my doubts), does that mean that you think the federal government should always wait before implementing changes to the law lest some province challenges it? If Alberta doesn't like the federal budget, or Quebec doesn't like military purchases can they just launch lawsuits with no other purpose than to wreck havoc with the federal legislative process (even if such challenges have no chance in being effective)? Irrelevant. The issue was not the end result of the case. It was "should the government act on legislation prior to having a case resolved". Does it matter? When you brought it up, you didn't question why Alberta challenged it. Well, Alberta gave reasons why it was challenging the law (because registration of things like land already fell under provincial jurisdiction then firearms should too.) And given the split-decisions of some of the lower courts, at least some judges felt that their claim had merit. Quebec has not yet given any rational for challenging the law, and since (as others have stated in this forum) the federal government is supposedly the only legal "owner" of the information, its kind of hard to see how the Quebec government can be demanding the feds do something illegal. That's your opinion. Yup, that's why I actually said "in my opinion" in my earlier post. Hmmm... just wondering, by using the word "taxpayers" are you trying to evoke an emotional response (as in "don't let taxpayer money get wasted!") Why would it be surprising? Our medical records are not a matter of public record (even if our health care is "taxpayer funded".) It would depend on whatever fine print exists on the long gun registration form, but if there's any language that specifies "this information is to be owned by..." then anyone submitting their form could legally challenge having the information passed to the province.

Ummm... lets see... Its rather ironic that you would criticize the conservatives for scrapping the gun registry while Quebec has issued a court challenge. After all, Alberta also had a court challenge regarding the constitutionality of the registry when the registry began, yet the Liberal government of the day proceeded to set up the registry even though the final supreme court ruling would not come until the summer of 2000 (years after the first guns were licensed.) If it's bad for the conservatives to change a law when a province is challenging it, wasn't it also bad for the Liberals to also bring in a law when a province was challenging it? I'd also question exactly why Quebec is launching its challenge. The article didn't state what rational Quebec was using (indeed it said they were keeping the details for later). And others on the forum have pointed out that the "fine print" of the registry states that the data is owned by the feds (making transfer impossible/illegal). In my opinion, they aren't really counting on winning any sort of court challenge. Instead, its just crass politics. Their goal is either: - To make themselves look serious about 'gun control' (even though they know they'll loose any court case regarding the registry). They can at least say they tried. - They may be hoping that either the NDP or liberals might get back into power in the next election, and are just trying to keep the registry active until then. Of course, lets consider just what that would cost... it took approximately 3.5-4 years from the time Alberta announced it would challenge the registration until final decision by the supreme court. Assuming any Quebec challenge takes the same length of time, they are basically demanding the federal government maintain a $66 million/year registry (costing around $250 million total).

Seems like the conservatives aren't the only ones who have made a goof regarding gun registry ads. From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-ad-backfires-with-use-of-wrong-gun/article2252213/ The NDP are switching guns as they come out firing at the Tories. The party is mounting a billboard campaign in three cities this week attacking the Conservative government’s move to scrap the long-gun registry.... the image on the ad, provided Sunday to The Globe and Mail, displayed the wrong version of the gun – the outline of a Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle, which is already restricted in Canada, and will still have to be registered after the law changes. Not that I think its a big deal. Neither the conservative's actions on early claims of "eliminating the registry" or the NDP's use of the wrong gun are at best a distraction from the actual issue.

From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/gun-registrys-price-was-not-as-advertised/article1717453/ The source of this estimate of $4-million appears to be a badly written line in the RCMP’s 2010 evaluation of the Canadian Firearms Program: “ . . . the gun registration portion of the CFP has been determined, by independent sources, in terms of cost savings to the CFP, at a range of $1.195-$3.65 million for the initial year, and subsequent years will range from $1.57-$4.03 million. . ..” (Emphasis added.) The key phrase is cost savings. The RCMP, which took lead responsibility for the program in 2006, claims it is doing so more efficiently than its predecessors. Elsewhere in the report the RCMP puts the annual net cost of the Canadian Firearms Program for 2010-11 at $66.4-million. So, it looks like the cost of the firearm program was never $4million/year.

Of course since by law corporations are limited in the amount they can contribute I doubt they'd hold that much sway. Oil companies might actually have been brought, but considering they are a major employer within the Canadian economy (and probably familiar with the effects of certain regulations) their concerns shouldn't necessarily be ignored. (Not that they are the only ones the government should listen to.)

Once again... No, it is not a stupid question. It is relevant because many Canadians may have wanted to know whether Canada's stance on the war might have changed on indirect or direct evidence. (If you don't care, fine, but that doesn't mean that others wouldn't have had an interest in the answer.)

First of all, while it is true that Canada couldn't tell a priori what evidence would be found, that does not make such "speculation" worthless. After all, when you're dealing with something like weapons inspections, you basically have 2 "levels" of proof... direct and indirect. It would not be too difficult to state which "level" of proof that would be needed. If Chretien didn't want to answer the question, a more appropriate answer would have been to say something like "We'll make a determination based on the validity of the evidence". Secondly, how the U.S. "does its job" is not the issue, its how Canada would have responded to whatever evidence was brought up.

The difference is, there was (in theory) a chapter VII resolution put forward by the U.N. security council which required Iraq to not only be disarmed, but to comply with inspections. (Unfortunately, this resolution did not give any specific remedies for non-compliance.) On the other hand, there is no such resolution in force against the U.S. telling it to "disarm"(either from the U.N., or any significant body that would have it under its jurisdiction).