AlienB

I don't know but it would be a miracle for them to do it in two years based upon past time frames for policy delivery.

I think you are wrong, it is not "important" to our economy, it is a rape of our economy. The government shouldn't be borrowing money. It has borrowed money year after year after year, and that means more and more tax dollars go to pay debt instead of current year sources. What this means is a heavier tax burdeon for fewer services. It is downright an injustice to the public to be held under debt when a quarter of a trillion dollars and then some is taken from the public for private interests. Even with a incredibly harsh treatment in paying down the debt it would take 10 to 15 years to pay down. Under past government it will never be paid down, and half of GDP will continue going to private interests as more and more tax dollars go to the ultrarich bond holders. There is absolutely no benefit in bond issues. NONE. It is a public rape. If the government can't pay it needs to downsize, people were taxed to pay down the war debt in WWI, the continuation of income tax to fund private pet projects and pay the ultrarich is an abuse of the general public without just cause.

Russ the problem with halting bond payments is that they are owed. It is a contract, breaking contract that is done legally isn't exactly ethical or moral. While you can stop issuing new bonds, you can't stop honouring bonds that are due. The precedent is horrible.

Cheapskating. It has been a tradition since WWI to offer benefits to returning soldiers. This represents a policy change. While there are no contracted benefits some may have had the notion that benefits which have been given since WWI would continue to be given. While by letter of the written contract he may be right, as far as moral obligation to those who fight for Canada, one should expect that they are provided with benefits to help them integrate into civilian life when and if they so choose. I do think that it is a much less lucritive occupation without short term service benefits. It seems that fighting wars is not where the benefits are in the military you need your 20 years of service or however much to get a solid pension in the military. It is unfortunate that it is a cold turkey approach, and helmets to hardhats is the best the government has to offer soldiers on their future. I think just having the image of "we got nothing" is not so great. The government has had a traditional role in helping former soldiers involved in war time service. Now bear in mind lump sum benefits were given and others, it is not as if they got nothing.. some definately did. This they got nothing is another matter. If solidiers are unable to get private life insurance due to their occupation, you would think that a private life insurance fund could be made by the government. Or is the job so risky that the insurance plan would go bust. These are realities the government should face. Being a solider should not equate a life of hardship, now I havn't assessed this fully but is danger pay, which the US has gone about cutting for various overseas deployments the extent of benefits for wartime service? Why would reservists choose to serve in an overseas war as an option on the basis of no support if they are injured or killed. None the less, the current policy stance isn't healthy, but I don't expect the government to get something right going, they have really failed at that for so many other policies due to their hard line no nonsense, it isn't about making it right, its about our way or no way at all. Like look at this http://www.forces.ca/en/page/benefits-98 Notice PERSONAL SUPPORT The CF offers you and your family a wide variety of support programs and services, including: Family support centres (Military Family Resource Centres) Retail stores on CF bases (Canadian Forces Exchange System - CANEX) Financial planning services Financial assistance programs Counselling services Group term life insurance Comprehensive long term disability This is not an absence of supports. According to the website both life insurance and long term disability benefits exist. What this is really about most likely is that veteran's benefits check, and special veteran's supports after leaving. They all got them because they served, it is a policy change, that has to be recognized. My Grandfather served for a year or so at the end of WWII and he right up until cancer finally took him received medical and other benefits as a veteran. You can't say that people who served 4 years in Afghanistan had a drastically lessor service for Canada, aside from the fact it was a nonsense war that has caused so great damage and will continue to, for reasons of cultural control.

Don't fret... they budgeted 3.8 billion for a pipeline.. cost savings might be found Yeah this one doesn't make much sense, my guess would be keep towing the line but a couple bit spending items and Calgary becoming a new body of water. Overview No new taxes No increase in operational spending An operational plan, a fully funded capital plan and asavings plan. A new Fiscal Management Act that strengthens rules for saving, spending and borrowing, and sets the stage or Alberta to reduce its reliance on natural resource revenue. Operational Plan Operational expense is $36.4 billion – same as the 2012-13 forecast. Continued investment in core areas like health and education, support for municipalities and vulnerable Albertans. Alberta’s bitumen continues to sell for a larger discount to North American and global benchmark oil prices. The resulting decrease in bitumen royalties has led to an expected drop in resource revenue of $6.2 billion from the 2012 budget’s forecast for 2013-14. Savings Plan Annual legislated savings plan will see the province’s savings and endowment funds grow to $24 billion over the next three years. Starting in 2014-15, a portion of non-renewable resource revenue will be taken off the top of government revenue and put into savings. In 2014-15, the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund will retain 30 per cent of its income. By 2016-17, the fund will retain 100 per cent of its income. Capital Plan $5.2 billion invested in 2013-14 – $15 billion over the next three years. Major commitments include funding for:50 new schools and 70 modernizations, New facilities for six post-secondary educationinstitutions, Twinning of Highway 63, Stable MSI funding for municipalities - $2 billion over three years, and $2.1 billion for healthcare facilities. It doesn't make sense... they say they are saving the money.. .... I've seen conflicting reports that they are taking on debt.. it makes no sense to borrow money when you have it? Or are they borrowing for less than they are investing? None the less, it makes no sense. I'll leave you with this as I am off for a week or so BALANCED BUDGET AND SPENDING MANAGEMENT RULES Alberta’s new fiscal framework includes legislated rules on both balanced budgets and in‑year increases in operating expense . The purpose of the new Contingency Account is to cover any deficit in the province’s operational balance . Non‑renewable resource revenue set aside as savings under the savings policy will not be considered ‘operational’ revenue, and will not affect the operational balance . Nor will revenue or expense relating to capital (with the exceptions of revenue set aside for the servicing of capital debt and capital debt principal repayment) enter the calculation of the operational balance Do me a favour and make a post in federal if the US bombs syria while I am out of touch.

What does CP/CN have to do with this American Company that just laid off a third of its workforce and is already only putting one person on each train it runs... was it the head or feet they got rid of? You know bill gates is like owns 10% of CN what does he care about the health effect on Canadians? None the less, as the whistle blows... all I got to say maybe they are looking into this to 1. prevent law suits, 2. prevent government actually controlling compliance audits and safety checks like they do for trucks... cause rail insures its own safety.. actually it is quite odd in terms of government... the government doesn't profit from it but you have things like rail cops... fact is though what CN and CP or any other company does on their own isn't a standard... this american company didn't improve its safety it laid off staff...and Irving Oil is being sued. None the less it helps no one to play cleanup... we need to stop the accidents, not bury the bodies and throw some caustic soda on the toxic wastes.

I Russ, I'm for Inflationary print as part of a sound economic policy too, however, I'm not for advocating leaving bond holders high and dry that would be dishnourable at face value. What needs to be done is to divest the public debt 50/50 between the public and corporations. This works out to about 15 or 20,000 per person, plus about 300 billion for corporations to pay down (this amounts to about 10 years of all corproate taxes) Stop issuing bonds is important. Likewise transfering the debt from a public debt to private debt. Creating a death tax. Creating a $20,000 citizenship bond.. that is to gain citizenship you must pay down aboout 20k before eligibility for citizenship. Instituting a higher residence fee. eg. 2500 / year. or mroe. putting a money transfer fee for any capital transfered out of Canada eg. 15% of all capital transfers. (to be paid direct to debt paydown) increasing royalties, and taxing infrastructure at a higher value eg. pipelines and railways (which are federal property) All government spending needs to be cut to non deficit... based on revenue, not taxation except for essential servicse such as the RCMP and Canadian Military (and related Coast Gaurd etc..), and the Courts. All new public service hirers should be transfered to members of the military to double up on the value of having a civil service that can also act as military in time of need, except for highly skill positions that cannot be trained under officer training programs, eg. post secondary studies and officer entry as ROTC. the government need to put all crown lands up for sale to create a means of property tax revenue. the government also needs to end free trade and leave the WTO and put on tarrifs for all goods that can be made in Canada. Corporate taxes should be reduced on a 15 year schedule at 1% per year, and fees for essential services such as registries should be put in.. Fees for services should be implmented to ship all expenditures to fees, while the RCMP and military should be raised through a levy of the public with rebates of the fee for people who are members of miitia and meet annual training limits. The key is to remove expenditures and shift it all over to crown corps. Fact is none of it is needed it is madness to think the gov is spending 300 billion or more every year? On what? They are spending to spend. Massive spending reduction needs to happen first... inflationary print may be able to handle 50 billion or so a year.. but more than that would implode the economy. also safeguards for seniors need to be put in place. The key is to shift the public service and the military into only military. . That will take a few decades of transitioning. All new hirers need to be military. - Stop all new bond issues... not stop payment to bond holders. " Make it illegal for politicians to borrow money" Make it illegal to deficit spend too. "Term limits (one term) for all politicians at all levels of government." I'm not sure about this, however I would call for every citizen has one vote on all legislative decisions, creating a referendum process that isn't as costly by creating atm voting by creating voting stations in police stations, court houses and barracks. Make a death penalty for electoral fraud. And insure there are oversights and people can check their own vote online or via phone with their access codes like telephone and internet banking. Oh and convert police stations and court houses and barracks into banks too. I don't think there should be pensions other than an equal social security, pay them today when they leave the job give them the same benefits as everyone else. If they can't afford freedom 55 they are spending their money on the wrong things. fact is they make enough to contribute to a private pension plan they don't need more tax dollars they get paid too much already for lecturing each other with one liners. It is way too much money for what they do. 5.) Eliminate the income tax - Income tax should be replaced with debt paydown, service fees for optional service buy ins. However it will take about 15 years or perhaps longer to do this at about equal income tax levels. People should be able to pay their personal debt portion off earlier to remove the interest on that debt. Personally I don't think peoples private sales should be taxed. Although I understand that real estate can be a lucrative market since there is a certain amount of speculation. None the less I don't think government should be involved in taxing services or chattel property transfers. The government should tax imports and exports of capital not internal transfers. Unfortunately that won't happen because Canada is run by two mega parties with the occasional NDP government not federally as of yet though.. none the less... none of them will eliminate the debt because they don't care. People will find a reason to hate them in 5 or 10 years anyway and its someone elses problem. Other measures are to remove borders.. make residency a matter of paying the annual fee in advance... making a tourist fee rather than visas. Reforming criminal law, removing prisons and making northern work camps in their place eg. oil rigs. merchant marine (paid to remove dokey need on release and reduce recidivism by remove the need for crime such as theft or other low class crimes by having them have skills and money) as well making very serious crimes with intent 10 years or more in work camps.. funding the courts with "Criminal Fee that is criminals pay for the cost of policing and courts for life" or a portion of it. It is the whole way the system is working that isn't being managed to be fiscally sound.. they don't care they are still being bank rolled. It is about "doing the stuff" not about being financially prudent. They are just trying to keep things in the status quo even if it is broken to begin with., They don't care. Its all about victimizing people or rewarding people its not about making things right.

Actually you are wrong you are advocating for "middlemen" . Also your suppliers are foreign and the retail point is foreign. Those are capital flights and not in any Canadian interest. If Canadians do not refine and sell their own product they are slave laborers with no sovereignty. While export is great and importing products that can't be made in Canada is obvious... importing goods that could have been made in Canada with an unemployment rate of 7% (those looking for work as opposed to those who are not employed) is just not good economic policy. It makes sense to buy what you can't make yourself. Working for foreigners and being dependent on them is not advancing sovereignty Canada is worth trilions why the hell would you just give it away? It means less revenue and more taxes.. .that is it. Canada as a government at all three levels of governmental administration are in debt.. then you give the land away, and sell off the people to foreign corporations.. to sell foreign product.. it is economic idiocy.

BS Canada did fine without free trade after WWII.. your indicators are not direct indicators.. Canada could have traded with someone else.. AND THE US WOULD STILL NEED THE PRODUCT.. THEY'D BUY FROM CANADA ANYWAY.. and they wouldn't have easily have taken over the Canadian economy. Your chart is just lines not reality. If you don't know Canadian Oil Sands production ramped... that is why trade revenue increased.. that is all.. the difference is US got it for free. Canada would have made tons BECAUSE THE US NEEDS IT ANYWAY. The Federal Gov would have made tons off of US oil refiners. There would also have been more long term development of Canadian industry for manufacture and refining as a result of an absence of free trade. Its not if the economy develops it is HOW the economy develops and who controls it... guess what it wasn't in Canada's interest to do so. You are just showing yourself as out of touch by suggesting that a chart shows such a complex thing.

Is there a glass a day law? I would surmise many people who drink alcohol have more than one when they drink. Also I would question the adverse health effects of eating pot or wearing pot. I would say it was more environmentally friendly than synthetic production. Likewise some pot in a vapourizer could improve health as opposed to reduce it by stimulating brain activity. Ok if Canadians consume over 2 billion litres of beer per year alone... I think Canadian are drinking more than one a day. figuring perhaps 20 million Canadians are of legal drinking age.. that is 100 litres of beer (just beer) a year now lets add in the wine and hard liqour consumption amounts to get an average of "glasses per day... and I doubt this is a "even per day drinking" I am geussing some day are more than that. ok now add in 25 litres for each Canadian of drinking age. that is 100 litres of beer 25 litres of wine.. now lets check out hard liqour. Ok so that is the other 40%... ok so assuming 200 litres or so that is probably something like 750ml on aveage per day, now how much is a glass in ml... and I bet even if you are drinking 1 glass a day at dinner... I am guessing someone else is drinking the bottle. A large glass is 250ml so that is 3 glasses a day on average based on 20 million Canadians being of drinking age but I would geuss it is more like 4 or 5 glasses on average for every Canadian who drinks. which is a litre or more of alcohol a day...

I think that the list can be paraphrased as "dissenters of Tory Policy"

Pesonally I think if negligence in the policy can be found, and I think that there might be grounds for that, then yes the federal government would be one party, the other of course would be the company shiping the dangerous substance and not protecting the public while doing so. Gross Negligence causing bodily harm and death is a "criminal" charge, not a civil charge although restitution orders could come out of it. Frankly the way industry is run in Canada is just disgusting the level of public harm that is ignored. The tobacco industry, the pipeline industry, the transport industry, chemical manufacture industry, mining industries.. there are all killing Canadians. The government just opts to medicate the issue and bury the dead. That isn't good enough, imo. few What I recall about this is that the local community complained before this disaster, ti was an active issue, another coincidence. Personally I've requested the mainline moved to bypass the town I live in. It makes no sense to have the mainlines of raillines transporting dangerous goods go through the heart of populated centers. They should bypass populated areas and have depots outside of residential areas. Personally the trains which are going to go from 5 or so a day are due to shoot up to 7 or more if/when the ring of fire comes online. They are destroying my houses foundation, and they run 24/7 which means I get woken up atleast a few times each night for the late night after midnight train and the before dawn train, as they even in the middle of the night blow their horn every time they enter town. It is just stupid to have it coming into the heart of town. The fact there have been derailments around here... only increases the point that, no you don't need to run these things through populated areas or bodies of water where you have no ability to stop a spill. it is just stupid transport planning. It intentionally compromises safety for no reason other than history.. that the rail when it didn't transport lethal substances faciliitated growth of communities, now it is a gun to their heads. It is not safe. The lines profit, so why not force them to rebuild and write in some tax breaks to do that, allow it as an operating cost... the company looses nothing and people gain. Check this.. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/oil-deliveries-send-cn-to-record-revenue/article7618170/ It is a fact that oil production will continue to outpace pipeline capacity this means rail or ship are the only ways to ship in bulk.. what this means is oil deliveries by rail are bound to increase massively. The shipping containers used leak during derailment, it is a disaster waiting to happen. If they are getting so much more profit, damn why don't they divert the lines out of communities, and likewise establish more derailment response capacities, more security, and more track safety, and better tanker standards for ones that don't leak on accident. None the less... the money is there get them to fix the dangers. It is just corporatism contrary to the public good. Alberta is landlocked for the most part. They don't have the dough to build a pipeline through northern Sask, and Manitoba.. to an oil shipyard on the coast of hudson bay.. if its not that it is rail.. http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/31/oil-producers-eye-arctic-backup-plan-as-pipelines-face-uncertain-future/ Give first nations groups a royalty cut, hire them to do pipeline security while they hunt or whatever.. and be on with it, the Russians will love it. They are running out of oil within the next 10 years. Here is a bulk list of first nations that could be part of the hudson gateway Sayisi Dene FIrst Nation Fort Severn Hatchat Lake North Lands Barren Lands Black Lake Athabasca Chippeweya Beaver First Nation You know give them 51% profit on the line, and get the Canadian rangers and locals for on site security of sensitive environmental areas, water quality testing etc..

.I don't consider marijuana or any other non processed natural plant to be "criminal" afterall god made it. None the less I do think that not giving people informed consent on other drugs is an issue I think the government should regulate "serious" drugs more, register dealers and insure they have an adequette knowledge of those drugs and require them to be insured like doctors. As for pot no, its nothing you can't get out of a bottle of alchohol or a pack of cigarettes. What I was concerned about was the radiation held in cigarette out of all that, it was equal to 100x the amount of radiation people get. So 140rads for 1 year o smoking vs 1.4 for a normal year exposure. in mSv, which may have to do with the cancer issues. As 140 x 10 is 1400 rads and 30 years of smoking is close to the lethal radiation exposure limit at about 10,000 rads.I'm not sure how pot smokes up but it seems that its not how much tar that is the real issue, the problem may be how much radioactive particles are in it. None the less I'm not sure the amount of post, none the less, killing dealers is problematic, but i if they make manslaughter but don't have an intent to kill then I wouldn't think death would be the right sentence, however I would still consider it a 6 month to 5 year type issue if they were breaking the law and as a result killed someone. That is 6 month to 5 year in a labour camp in the north. Probably 6 month on first offence and 5 year or more if they went back to illegal activities. None the less the amount of focus on drug is problematic in some respect it fuels the rebel bad boy image. Part of the problem is open season health insurance provided by the state, if people had to declare their drug use, and lost their coverage if they lied about it, and they paid for it, I think more people would be honest about it, and more health insured drug rehab, treatment or education, or prescription based programs would exist or the issue. A lot of people really dont understand the effects of drugs, and that is the problem. 1. Realistic drug laws to fall in line with the realities of Drug Use in Canada, currently it is only fueling crime by making people criminals for acts that shouldn't be criminal, thus making people illegal and more prone to break the law because they are already leading an illegal lifestyle. mandatory education programs to legally buy drugs should exist, so that more people are exposed to materials and they are tested on that knolwedge to facilitate lawful purchase. points of sale monitored controlled substances so people who consume more drugs than is safe are both noted for instance purposes, and programs, as well as health monitoring for research statistic purposes and potential resale. The government should set a rate of sale which is seen as non lethal. There are some drugs that are serious health damagers, such as PCP, drugs with latent after effects and life long or terminal effects. Those are the drugs that need to be combated. Minor drugs such as Pot and MDMA, and Mushrooms are not so serious that limited controlled use with proper chemistry would create health risks. If drugs are managed properly and addiction is prevented recreational drugs should not be illegal. The seperation of lower schedule drugs from very serious drugs may prevent people from doing those more serious drugs rather than just lumping them in with the lightweigths. The current system supports a culutral gateway to substances abuse rather than substance management. Doctors prescribe drugs that if used properly have some adverse health effects but if used properly can be not seriouslly harmful or jepordizing to health. Their drug management systems are needed to create an alternative to the criminality of an act that over 50% of the population of Canada has partaken in. Frankly due to the means of the current justice system I cannot advocate for a forced death sentence, I can only support a death sentence with consent of the person being held, after a public process. Such as death in court. IMO if its not so serious to kill the person on the spot why kill them, if they are a danger later why arn't they a danger now. However I think hemlock is much better than a bullet because it is easier to manufacture. None the less for most current drug offences I think that the penalties are too heavy and it is just a wrong culture. It is doing more harm than good. People seem to be ignoring the ionizing radiation issue of tobacco. The 'way' some drugs are being used currently is just not the best way for health and safety of users. A good drug strategy should address that through harm reduction by still giving people access to the drugs but also the implements to reduce harm by offering implements that reduce the health dangers and they are many, but not often easily associated with common street dealers. The government should be offering safer drugs and safer methods of dosing. If we can remove ionizing radiation from grow ops,and we can implement tar free pot brands the health dangers to pot will drop. Likewise we need to do the same with tobacco. We are radiating people and that is what is increasing cancer rates, chemical additives and ionizing radiation. Pot doesn't contain even close to the amount of Radiation as tobacco. http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/radioactive-tobacco.2012-07-15 THC also opens up neural pathways that arn't often opened. Making the brain more active is good it makes humans more mentally active. An active mind is a healthy mind.

Derek MacKay is actually a trained lawyer. I was actually expecting Blaney to eventually be defence as he worked in the Veteran's Profolio. None the less perhaps he is being put in Public Safety due to Nicholson having served backup to Defence. My geuss is there was a black program in Veteran's tied into Public Safety. Oddly Van Loan and Findley were MacKay's stand in on Defence, I'm not sure if the Stand in Order has also changed there too. Nicholson was stand in for Public Safety, so if there was a switch I was expecting it would go there. Solicitor General is often seen as below the Attorney General in Rank federally, so really MacKay got probably the highest post possible in prestige aside from the Minister of FInance but his background is law not Finance. Putting a NON lawyer on public safety may have been intentional due to the illegal National Security and Police operations going on. Maybe not. Who knows maybe that is just how the cards fell. Essentially though there are only so many trained lawyers or law professionals. My geuss is, he doesn't trust fantino for a post like public safety. I could be wrong though, also he has a little bit of corruption scandal attached to him on the hospital deals. I'm not really sure why he moved Nicholson to defence. It seems he does have some background in the National Defence profolio dating to the 33rd Parliament. He is probably one of few people who were on during the Mulrooney years. None the less his stint there seemed short lived,

A better question might be, how many live in Ottawa for a chunk of the year? Real men would have just said. He is political and we don't want to involve partisan individuals, then exclude any card carrying astronaut. Lying about it is what punks would do, not real men. I can understand being partisan and petty for political reasons, but lying to the public about something not involving national security is completely not good government, it is corrupt government, and Canadians don't need no crooks. If they are lying about something as trivial as this, what else are they lying about that is serious.

Loyalty and allegiance does not equal subservience, it means exercise judgement for the benefit of. I think people don't understand the fullness of the oath. That it binds you to do right and work for the interest for, working for the interest of the monarchy does not negate or remove acting for the interest or benefit of other things such as yourself. It does not delegate how one must view or delegate how the monarchy ought to be in society to best fullfill its cause. It simply means you are acting pro bono in that regard. Any good person should be acting pro bono and pro socio regardless. If they arn't then I woulnd't want them part of my society, I wouldn't want them alive. If people are equals then in effect you must view yourself as a peer as if your sovereignty is absolute and self derived then to recognize someone elses supremecy it brings about equality of society and a basis or respect and goodwill.. It simply means that if your view of the monarch is good then you will do good, it is a mirror image of your virtue and values and the will to uphold those values. If the monarch is seen as perfection and right then if one is to be their fullest then they will seek to encapsulate those values and uphold those values. If there is something that does not seem right then it is ones duty to bring that to perfection and that is the basis of law to bring about right. The crown is the unity of Canadian society. As long as the crown acts dutifully for the benefit of all the people then society prospers. What does the oath mean to others here? And who here has taken it either officially or in private? Now bear in mind I wouldn't take the oath either because I don't agree with all the laws of Canada. However would adjust the oath to add in things like, that so as long as she acted in right and for good and righeousness and in accordance with justice and dignity and was lawful in following the laws of Canada as an equal. basically adding conditions to keep the peace and insure loyalty, that being that they fullfilled their duties, and they acted pro bono and pro socio, and upheld the law, that being in mind the constitution. Sadly I am of the impression that the Queen has allowed for laws which are unconstitutional to come into force, and until those laws are removed I could not take the oath because she is not ruling constitutionally. There are laws which violate human rights, and there are laws that unfairly deprive individuals of their property, freedoms and other rights. Until those things are upheld I could not support further destruction of civil liberties and protections, and further oppression of the people under unjust rule. Now I would loyalty further to uphold the constitution and assist the monarch if that was their intent. The fundamental is regardless of all words I feel the constitution is simply do right and assist society to do good. . In that respect I support my view of the institution of what a constitutional monarch is suppose to be, not the state to which the monarch exists as a condition of the environment and their personality. I can only aim to further bring into or support that as opposed to accept the status quo as a representation of a perversion of right.

She wears a hat in Canada not a crown. Also you will notice that she doesn't look the same on the more recent coins as on british money. Clearly not the Queen of England. but canada doesn't have identical laws to britain, nor does it have the same ettiquettes.

All politicians are not rude and petty just the a$$holes. Perhaps you are just prone to following the Conservative Party and so have become desensitized to that fact. Don't get me wrong I'm a fiscal conservative myself. Libertarian socially, so I'm pretty conservative. I just think maybe my standards are a little Jewish. Hopefully you can understand why I have some angst on this issue. Especially after the events of WWII. Hell some people, particularly web trolls, like rude and petty people. Hell there are people trying to drive people online to suicide, frustration and rage. You know all them politicos you follow probably could find a second job after they leave politics. The internet is still a thriving marketplace.

that's what wikipedia said. Are you suggesting someone is putting up false test depths, underestimating the Victoria, and overestimating the scorpene? Who would do that in English?

Sorry this isn't a parliamentary democracy, it is a constitutional monarchy. It is the constitution that determines those things not legislators. Your use of parliament is also errored, as you are probably referring to the commons not the parliament which is headed by the monarch, who has final say as the third part of parliament, and has veto on all law. IMO, I make my own decisions, parliament does not, the monarch does not. Legally though people in Canada, the monarch has final say. If you don't agree with that, you don't agree with canadian law.

Good politics doesn't involve being rude to people or lying to people. That is what crooks do.

I don't think so, authority does not lie with the people in Canada. The Monarch has final say on who holds posts in Canada. While BC has taken some steps to create a form of recall, it is pretty horendus needing a very large number of people to bring forth a recall. Also for referendum the legislature still has veto. All Mps, judges etc. have to pledge allegiance to the crown, and they serve at the pleasure of the crown. The people have no power in Canada to effect law. The closest thing is the commons which is in no way representative of the people, only a majority by mega parties that are about their agenda, not personal choices. It is just a stage show. No Canada isn't a republic, in no way is it a republic, even if you think that sounds nice and makes you feel better at the end of the day. Since 1982 you may have some sort of point.... for people born after 1982 in Canada, but they may represent a de facto lawless anarchy state without recognition of the Queen as the head of state. I think this will continue to be an issue as America erodes more and more Canadian sovereignty. I think there will be a serious question of the monarchy arise in 10 or 20 years... and perhaps again not long after that if so. I think though there is a majority of people in Canada who are ok with the monarchy.. it is just a question of how much sovereignty will be eroded, with joint policing, american owned economy, american veto on Canadian travel etc.. It is really the American influence that waters down the idea of a monarchy, likewise it is the american systems and media that make Canadians forget they live in a monarchy because their world concepts are formed on american foundations. To be honest though, Canada suffers a legislative bloat, legislatures make make work projects cause they can't fix the problems so they create new ones by disrupting the status quo with laws to manage society differently rather than accepting the common law. Look at it this way, how many laws were defined outside of court by the crown? How many laws were put into force without agreement by the commons? The crowns method of bringing about change of law is through court judgement.. people just don't see it that way. The crown acts on the advice of her councillors, .. there is some overlap but you should be able to separate the two. The Westminster tradition enables republican concepts of leadership, actually dictatorship housed under the leader of the majority party.. but this isn't any real republic or democracy it is rule by the largest faction and not by population but by majority in the most areas, not the entire state. This in essence is Canadian Democracy.. a form of Ochlocracy. None the less the part people must not forget to insure democracy is the free society part. People should not be bound by the majority so as to have their freedoms and personal liberties infringed. None the less the Crown is the judge of the representatives of democracy in principle and the system that encapsulates that. None the less... the Crowns judgement is human, not textual. IMO majority rule is good if everyone has a vote, rather than centralization of opinion in the hands of one person. Everyone doesn't have a vote on the issues so that is a problem. Likewise the majority doesn't respect freedom in many cases in Canada, so really Canada's constitution is not healthy. It is corrupted. That being yes the crown is important.. the continuance of Canada is an important concept. But no Canada is not a republic, it is suppose to be a free and democratic constitutional monarchy. republics have no assurances of freedom and even today places like the US are under threat of tyranny by institutional rule due to ignorance of their constitutional protections established to insure freedoms for Americans, rather than the mob rule of the majority.

Scorpene test depth is >300 metres (980 ft)

The family unit should come before the state in terms of decision making within the family unit, for minors. For adults it should be the individuals choice of who if anyone is to be their power of attorney. People should not be forced to a power of attorney. People who can communicate should not be deemed to be unsound solely because their response isn't deemed responsible or is contrary to the wishes of the party who wishes to violate the individuals choices for their own reasons. The Squid according to this report, the doctor put the kid in danger not the other way around. Who is right? It is a conflict of interest for the doctor to determine the merit of the procedure because they are applying values rather than performing a treatment. Doctors are not trained to be judges, they are trained to be doctors. There was a gaurdian that being the parents, so there was no need to turn to the state. The doctor was playing judge. But those parents wern't locked up for being insane, because in Canada you are suppose to have the ability to freely practice your religion. Just because you don't agree with or like that religion doesn't give you the right to say people arn't allowed to practice it. Frankly you have no Fing clue how life works, you don't have a "big picture view" that answers all the questions, so what the hell do you know? You are saying the world is static, reality is static.. really well there is no science to support that. You can say, but it works, the a bomb works so everything about science is true. Apples drop and keep dropping so we know that doing blood transfusions make operations safer. No sorry that is a leap. You know an apple fell, you don't know apples will keep falling. You hope apples keep falling. Science is not engineering, and there is no evidence reality is infinitely static on the contrary there continues to be changes to scientific laws, such as relativity,... well guess what science is probability and relativity isn't true of the modern model of quantum science. You have no clue you are just practicing another form of religion housed under a philosophy called science. There is no static reality... but it is static enough to look that way because your life is banal and methodic. Minds are not static, we have dreams and experiences that defy physics. It is guess work, bodies are different, it is not as simple as A=B, there is far more to human biology than thinking that A=B. The body is designed by God and so is optimized for the environment it is in. People die but no we shouldn't be violating peoples wishes. It is sad to think people could die because of bad parents choices but you know that happens.. people die from bad government decisions like Lake Megantic.. 40 people died because the government didn't protect people enough. People are dying overseas... people die. This life is about respect for people, not respect for bodies. There is nothing morally wrong for respecting someones choice for themself, and that choice resulting in their death. You can advise them, but you cannot morally force them to do things they do not wish to do in relation to themself. This has lawsuit written all over it. But they had no way of knowing it wasn't the right thing to do? Well they are never going to know, they are going to keep on guessing. I bet the doctor and judge didn't get 100% in their law school and medical school exams... I find it repulsive that people with sound moral choices for the well being of their child are rejected because they arn't based upon people's opinion of how the world works, which contradicts their own values. Medical science clearly isn't at a state of perfection and so should not be seen as an absolute basis for moral judgement.

I find it pathetic people put science before religion. Obviously you must be an atheist and don't understand reality, while people are entitled to their views athiests are missing a basis for their own existence, how can you have sound choices if you have no foundation.. more or less your foundation is totally based upon physical experiements. That is a narrow view, there is more to life than the physical world, people have minds and thoughts that do not dwell in the physical world, we have emotions,, experiences, and senses which are not matarial but spirtual and immaterial. You are the one without the full view. .. Well your experiments WERE WRONG... geuss what you are wrong.. your past is wrong why would another thing not be wrong.. you aren't sure you just think it might be, that isn't exactly law or solid belief that is guess work, how does that differ from your view of religion? Religion is about the world of the mind and spirit that which humans exist in, not a physical tangents. why do anything if there is no purpose or meaning. If not mental bias is exercised there would be no basis for anything. Life isn't all about biology. The mind is more important than the body. It is contrary to medical ethics to force treatment without informed consent. People in Canada are suppose to have freedom of conscience and belief. People are suppose to be able to refuse treatment if it is against their wishes. All laws forcing treatment is contrary to the Nuremburg Laws on Human Rights regarding inviolability of the human body, and Medical Ethics, as well as a violation of the Charter and Bill of Rights. Parents are suppose to be the mens of the minor until they reach age and majority. The courts to step in while those parents are not deemed mentally incapacitated reasonably is completely uncalled for and wrong. People should not be forced to a totalitarian world view where a cult of science rules life choices. It is wrong to without consent of someone to force treatment on them. No you are cracked because you think a thermometer provides rationality for how to act rather than your beliefs for how the world works. . I don't need a thermometer to know its hot or cold. People die all the time, there is more to life than this life and biology. The purpose of life is not simply to keep breathing, we do that anyway. Peoples beliefs for how they are to live their lives are more important than someone else saying they must live. People are suppose to be free and have the right to determine their own life. We don't need other people telling us how to live. Its our life not yours. My life is a prayer. It wasn't a life saving treatment, it increased the risk, read the article. I think I know you are guessing see the difference. I'll be happy when I'm gone you and your science has made earth a sh1tty place to live. It is a world without heart and rather a totalitarian greed driven field of stone and glass. We live how long we live. Violating peoples choice in their life to further your own isn't moral it is selfish and wrong. If I say I don't want medical treatment I mean it. It 110% is unethical to force medicine on people who don't want it. Your society is one without respect for individual choice, and I spit on that.