Shwa

Then what's with the concept of a minimum wage? Like, duh. Minimum wage again. A "common wage" is it? Oh my. Who sets that again? And do they do it directly? Has it always been this way? Nope. So why is it now? I dunno. Could it be..."direct government management of profit distribution..." such as subsidies and bailouts? The government decides what is "fair" or did you miss the minumum wage point above? On top of that then, unions are also fair. Including public sector ones. I am glad we agree on this. What's your point in admitting you missed my point? That you don't have one? Thought so... No, I am not talking about monopolies I am talking about ripping people right off, having the freedom to use 'public' airwaves to convince people they need to fill their houses full of crap and call it a high standard of living and then using all this public infrastructure to transport their garbage and leave it up the publoc sector to clean up their mess. Including the financial messes they get in because their CEO's are greedy or worse. I don't quite understand this I suppose, could you elaborate? What specific public servants are you referring too? I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what you're referring to. CPCFTW said, "The true burden on society are public servants. These people pay taxes on their income which happens to be 100% funded by the taxes of everyone else." He/She is wrong and indicates He/She doesn't know what they are talking about.

When you can explain why you are such a big sucky baby sometimes. I mock all equally, especially whiney Ontarians. Now go get me some poutine and a bucket of draft and don't trip on the Jos. Louis on the way back.

Got one also...

Denis Coderre is a burden to the party and needs to leave. And take his taint with him.

I think the mail complaint of "the left" is the gross disparity of top salaries of corporations - that of the CEO and the base workers in the same corporation. Then there is the issue of profits and how those profits can be equitably shared. You are thinking that corporations somehow exist in a vacuum and this isn't so. They use public infrastructure, public resources, exist on public land. Etc. So an equitable share COULD mean a percentage point or two increase in taxes. Fair enough. But is the pay for these employees of a fair value in ratio to what the corporation earns in profit? They are also used to pay interest on loans to banks and investors. And after qualifying for special tax exemptions not available the general public. And they are forced to pay interest on loans to banks and investors, property taxes, etc. Collusion between corporations also inflates prices which infringe on the earning power of their employees and everyone else and degrades the standard of living. Oil and gas corporations are one example. Don't get me started on Microsoft... This has been put to rest. You cannot prove that public employees are 100% tax funded. If you think you can, cite your source. We should be thanking corporations that have CEO's making thousands the times of money that their employees make? We should thank them for their pollution that has to be dealt with by public sector employees? Etc. You are thinking that corporations somehow exist separately from the public sphere and this is - and never will be - the case. Where do the corporations get the money for all these new 40k per year hires? And where do the people come from? Ahhh... nooowwww I get it. Utopian. Utopian for top 15%; not-so-Utopian for the remaining 85%? Break out the soma...

Ah, but you see, injunctions are an interesting tool that can limit the effectiveness of any power wielded by government. Especially Constitutional challenges. As long as the Constitution remains as it is and the SC has the power to issue injunctions I believe we are safe from a true tyranny in government. And, considering that Prime Minister Harper - and the rest of the CPC - wishes to remain in power - I believe that they will not be so reckless and tear asunder what they have spent so much time, effort and money building up. Sure, they can't please everybody, me included, but I doubt they will be totally reckless. As "conservative" as they may be, they are still pretty much liberal.

Does Parliament control the Supreme Court and limit the power of the SC to issue injunctions? Just askin' ...

Bell TV pulls Sun News Network in fee dispute No doubt due to the left-wing bias of Bell Canada. Come on, admit it...

It would be devastating to the American St Lawrence Seaway too. So... why would they do that?

Well then, according to your own criteria, a legitimate majority thinks your idea blows. You should stop supporting such rubbish ideas because the majority has voted (in an way) and has settled the issue.

Excellent post! But it begs the question, why aren't the enemies of Israel targetting the "...vast network of piplines, wells, pumping stations..." and leaving the people out of it?

Take out a map of Alberta. Close your eyes, spin around three times, then place your finger on the map. See what electoral district you are pointing at, look up the member and there ya go.

The PEOPLE do have the right. It is all there in the Constitution. You can associate, congregate, protest and, if you have the right timing, get hundreds of thousands of people to storm Parliament Hill and occupy the Centre Block. Tunisiate the place. But good luck with that. For one, you have a small window of time to do it. No one will spend too much time outdoors in an Ottawa winter which runs from mid-October to the end of May. Plus, I mean Canada, it'll be hockey season right? Then they will have to contend with the dreaded 'Tulippers' who will be out in droves looking at the tulips and daffodils. Then comes the brief window in June before the Grand Celebrations of Canada Day will block off Parliament Hill to the Party Party. Then after that comes cottage time, like in the beer commercials and then the Back to School period, then the Autumn Colours in the Gatineaus... It can be a challenge, but do-able.

Nope. Maybe one day, but not now. What the LPC needs first - is a re-tooling of their philosophy to reflect the 21st century. Then they need someone who can go into Parliament, be aggressive and take a principled stand - fluently, in both official languages - based on the new philosophy of the centre. Did I say aggressive? Mr. Ignatieff was Caspar Milquetoast. The well-mannered, reflective intellects may be good for the backroom or some quaint ministry, but they just won't do as a party leader. What the LPC needs is as 'just watch me' attitude with a clear vision to what the future can hold.

Indeed she might have, how many PSAC members were charged? She might have had knowledge of the HRDC Boondoggle as well. A valuable asset to have in one's party, especially the opposition looking to sniff out scandal.

Get in line. That is the way the system works, the rules as it were. Because our system is first past the post and it is very democratic. The system is democratic in this election because winning candidates got the most votes in their riding, thus electing more members to Parliament, thus being able to select a member among them to lead the Government. Hope is free and I hope you enjoy a wealth of it. Why you are correlating FPTP with low voter turnout illustrates that you are not too familiar with our democratic system. Secondly, with FPTP, the government got a TRUE majority since they elected more members to parliament than all of the other parties combined. It is pretty simple really. Nope.

OK, so now prove that the CBC is not "objective" in their "reporting of Canadian politics." Go ahead, we'll wait while you try and dig stuff up.

Bummer man. You may wish to update your reading material; Kant perhaps?

CBC Ratings for January 10-16, 2011 Plenty of CBC shows in the top 10 for that week. Of course if you prefer the high intellectual and superior product like 'Cougar Town' or 'The Biggest Loser' maybe you have a point. Or perhaps you are a fan of 'Glee?' Didn't do so well that week.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=ele&dir=41ge&document=index〈=e

Where did I say that Premier McGuinty is soley responsible for the liberal stager (sic)? He hasn't helped, but solely responsible?? I dun think so...

Let me add: If the money is coming from a specific federal department, they sometimes have investigative units that might look into allegations in a quiet way. And, depending on how the business was registered - i.e. as a NFP under the province, you may want to check out that province's Attorney General's website for whistleblowing...

The 'organization' you want is Crown Attorney. Fraud is illegal and so is cooking the books. If you DON'T report it and it gets out, you are on the hook. And as you are telling the Crown Attorney, with your attorney in tow, you may wish to make your local MP aware of the situation and hand it off to them. Unless your MP is somehow involved...

Sounds reasonable, except the very last line, which I fixed for you.

Harris maybe. Not Mulroney, he was a Progressive Conservative. This new Conservative Party ate his old one...