groupeii

Well it can be.. comapanies and workers can make a joint contract to exchange their labour in a mutually agreeable form. Thing is people accept being paid in money. Employers get their money from banks who are entrusted in managing the governments money supply. Barter is a legal form of trade... and people can freely exchange as they would like. There are still potential taxes through capital gains taxation.

Alta4ever is a troll.

Free speech exists but so do criminals who make criminals of people speaking. The country is only as free as the courts and legislature. People of course can choose to be branded criminals by oppressive laws.. the people have that prerogative even in the face of draconic authoritarianism.

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/financial/financial_pay.html#lvts http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/about/history.html 1938, the Bank of Canada became publicly owned The US federal reserve is privately owned but certain of the boards seats are appointed by the president from an open pool, while other seats are from a closed pool. They arn't exactly the same.

It is general conversation, you don't like it leave.

By being made available to the public. Old money was under the Canadian Mint act new money is generally under the bank of canada act http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/B-2/ Basically banks are the major source of new circulation - people have to come to some point to get the money so the bank of canada become th issuer to the other banks... as most people have private bank accounts. There are other ways this could be done - the thing is though the bank of canada doesn't manage private bank accounts - thus the issue of circulation. You can buy direct from the mint.. but only certain places cash government cheques. It is true however that you can cash government cheques at any bank, even if you arn't a customer for free. http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache%3A8Nzzdsu2A3wJ%3Awww.fcac-acfc.gc.ca%2Feng%2Fpublications%2FCashingGovCheque%2FPDF%2FCashingGovCheque-eng.pdf+place+to+cash+gst+cheque+gc.ca&hl=en&gl=ca How do you propose people get their government money? However based on the information you can cash government cheques at the bank of canada - since it is a bank. Bank notes are just a type of cheque for a certain amount redeemable at banks which accept those notes. You can buy minted coins of gold and silver at the mint. You don't need money to do business with the government since each citizen who has a tax file has a balance with the government - and they can do business through this account - as long as you have funds in surplus.

That is how US money is made.. Canadian money is made by printing it at the mint, and putting it into circulation. Congress can still mint their own coinage.. but havn't done so since JFK's money was withdrawn from circulation after he was killed. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-52/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-52.html eagles are still made though their face value is a little off though.

Why not raise corporate taxes to 20% to raise the 6 billion instead of debt spending? What good is low taxes if you loose the money plus interest. Where is this money coming from Pakistan? Point being - wasn't the budget suppose to deal with the costs of running the government. What happened to the EI suprlus? Why not ask for the money from the countries participating - you know telling them that we actually don't have the money to host the meetings.. could you maybe pay for your own hotel room and bring in a platoon of your special forces and a few helicpters to take you to the nearest airport with your long range fighter jets parked etc... sorry no money either that or it is super7 motel for everyone. No one would suspect our meeting to take place at a super7.

Barack Obama reversed George Bush's gag on contraceptives a few days after taking office. This does not mean another motion cannot be raised.. when the liberals who wern't in Ottawa to vote have an opportunity to vote, if the issue were important enough. Unless of course they wern't there for a reason.

You are quite wrong, if you think that if Quebecers raised arms in resistance of overlordship of a foreign crown they would not be shot dead. The Canadian Government be it the war measures act, that during the October crisis did lead to deaths, and arbitrary arrest of close to 500 people, for being separatists, rather than committing crimes. During the resistance movement of yore after the British occupation at the same time of the Toronto rebellion, people were very much shot, and Quebecers very much persecuted and killed. You are saying that the Jews wern't persecuted simply for being Jewish. The Jews had been persecuted for years, and even now after the British gave back the land to establish part of the state of Israel, they are still being persecuted, although also persecutors. Quebec Sovereignty is no different in that it is subjected to a majority of foreign occupation, with a minority voice. In countries like Yugoslavia, and Russia those states broke up to provide for national autonomy, yet in Canada a lasting sentiment of Soviet lordship reigns in the form of the British conquest of the French and Indian war. Have your version of what an occupation means. Are people in Iraq or Afghanistan any less occupied because they have food. No, you're twisting the quality of life of those occupied, to their ability to have freedom and self determination; they are two different matters. Food banks aren't federally supported to full need. Dogs are still owned by their masters. The Quebeqois aren't dogs. And before you state Afghanistan and Iraq have elections both have been rigged by NATO presures on candidates or potential candidates, as well as limitations such as former Bathists being ineligible, or Taliban members being ineligible to run, thus denying full political choice, and free and fair elections that represent the democratic will. While the PQ is able to run in elections, they don't have the federated powers of succession exercisable and instead have been forced to a vote of populous which is contrary to the federated powers of other countries of right to self succession in most federated states, also note the confines of succession have been deligated by constitutional amendments that were not consented by the constituent party involved. What maternal care and allowing abortions? Sure I'm sure a lot of Quebec catholic's who don't support abortion were bombed by the conservatives towing the status quo instead of moving to ban abortions in Canada. Instead now they have put funding to allow for abortions in a province whose major religious group does not advocate for the practice. While a lot of your argument is intentionally asinine you raise some points. I would say though you are self indignant because you recognize only a narrow world view but claim to be pro federalist. You aren't. You support loss of paternity and pride - patria, you will fail. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - You are neglecting that it is against international law to occupy and change domestic laws within todays scope of international law. The continued occupation would be deemed contrary to the current standards of international law. The precedent of national autonomy or self designated succession from a federated body are all precedences around the world. While I am not advocating for civil war, I do beleive that individual and national autonomy should be supported, and if not the soveriegnty and self rule of the whole of Quebec, atleast a protion should be set aside to provide for a state such as Anticosti Island to begin with - as to not disrupt the status quo too much, but still allow for a gradual transition of a free Quebec that does not gravely disrupt Canada as a whole, which the succession of the province of Quebec might do. You have a movement in Quebec that espouses "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, sed dulcius pro patria vivere, et dulcissimum pro patria bibere. Ergo, bibamus pro salute patriae" Yet you attack it.

It actually might make more sense to have Northern Ontario join Manitoba. The same true of Northern Quebec, or just have Northern Quebec and Manitoba turned into territories. They were originally. Northern Ontario was part of the North West Territories the district of Keewatin and Patricia etc.. It would probably be better administered as a territory with more scope and local representation. Southern Ontario is all mostly within 2 or 3 hours of Toronto, so it ain't that much of a gap but northern ontario is 7+ hours up to 15 or more hours from Toronto by car. Even after 100 years still some areas only have a few hundred or thousand people in them. It might make sense administratively - but at the same time there are lots of developments that will hopefully be bringing in cash to the provinces coffers. The GTA is expanding regardless, it is all the way to Guelph and Kitchener in terms of service such as go transit that is around 1 hour surrounding toronto by car within the External GTA sphere now. That is about 1/4 of Soutern Ontario and reaches all the way to Niagra Falls. BUffalo is a sister city of the Greater Toronto Sphere. Eg. Have Ottawa join "Southern" Quebec or turned into a federal district that is connected to an enlarged Federal Algonkwin park. Turn everything north of the trans Canada into the territory of New Ontario A city state and "Federal Territories" version of Canada would work much better than a provincial model.

Did you live in Occupied France - if not how are your statements justified or educated? So you lived in France and are offended, or you have consulted French people who lived it? You know there are undernourished people in Quebec. But is this to say that lack of food equates a Nazi occupation - where are the Nazi's in Africa where 85% of the population is undernourished? Or the other 1 Billion starving people on the planet - suddenly the state of freedom is tied into availability of food? Why is Quebec unable to develop resources in most of Northern Quebec? The Conservatives drop bombs on Quebec all the time just because they are worded and policy driven doesn't make them any less explosive to the people! Are you denying that Quebec doesn't have a obligatory work service? Hello, work fare? The other obligatory work is in the form of 10-50+% taxes on their income - to fund Albertans who are so anti Canadian they spit on the Francophones and their culture. Too self indignant of an Anglo mentality that they won't even attempt to embrace an equal nation. Why would you want to pay someone to piss on your ancestors and your lifeblood. Why send your hard earned money to people who don't respect you or your freedom and self determination? There have been curfews in Quebec. This is a moot point. By having a foreign power occupy its land from a war of conquest and surrender of their power base contrary the wishes the people, and those people subjected to the laws of that foreign power. The right to self determination limited by being turned into a minority nation within another nation holding majority.

The recession is over... there have been not only tax increases but removal of programs and tax credits. The government's personal tax revenues have increased. Government spending is still at an all time high. The only taxes that haven't gone up are corporate taxes and GST (which is level), all other taxes have increased. With the introduction of HST in July taxes will increase dramatically on everything from Housing to Gas - and all those ebay purchases from the US just got 13% tax instead of the previous 7%.. hold on that is a 6% GST increase on gas, housing, and my purchases out of province. This isn't an absence of tax increases it is the highest tax increase I've experienced since GST! And this when the recession has ended, and stimulus spending has ended. Look, guess what, they are liers. Canadians aren't getting less taxes they are getting more and more. And the GST is being waved to dupe the stupid Canadians who think GST represents the totality of taxes.. it ain't. Personal income tax revenues have gone up. And guess what.. in 2008 per capita income decreased, while per capita tax revenues increase, in a year when corporate taxes were decreased. What does this mean - people made less and people paid more. The government is lying in a wasted way. Your conservative government is tax and spend in the worse way possible. Whether airline taxes, HST, increases to EI payroll taxes on the way.. the only thing they are reducing taxes to is corporations, and those aren't Canadians, those are largely foreign owned multinational companies. Even Canada's large companies such as brewing have been bought out, the list continues in so many ways, Nortel, the mining sector for steel and nickel, the forestry sector both US and foreign owned, manufacturing foreign owned, the tar sands increasingly foreign owned by the US and China, and others. Why is it that the Canadian government rejected the calls of the Canadian Executives Council to increase corporate taxes.. that is a pretty big business lobby, and what came of it, lower corporate taxes and 5 billion in corporate savings in Ontario via HST on the backs of working class Canadians and the poor. The Conservative government's preying on the stupidity of Canadians must end. Canadians deserve better. This is not an argument on what taxes are good taxes, but it is to dispute the claim that taxes arn't being increased.. they are being increased faster than any government since Brian Mulrooney, and before that it was before 1920. Your government emboldened has turned into Tax and Spend from a Spend (now that the surplus is gone) The years of surplus under the liberal government have been turned into reduce, abuse, our pile of loot. Well it is a junky government with lots of trash on it. It has written into Canada's history the legacy of debt increase accumulation in deficits for the next 5 years at least.. and this with more taxes, and more spending with less programs, and less civil servants. Even after the deficits the deficits plus interest for the last 100 years has to be paid.. if you had a credit card with half a trillion dollars on it due, would you keep spending recklessly? That ain't what a smart man would do. Mugging people for more money at gunpoint ain't the answer, and that is what the government is doing by increasing taxes. Canadians shouldn't support robbery at gun point. It isn't civil or the right thing for a government to do, it is what thugs and crooks do. Reducing the size of government should mean reducing the cost not turning it into a fascist state by accumulating more punitive taxes on all but the business class and redistributing that to businesses and development of private companies... private companies, your tax dollars are funding private companies and the banks!!!! This is what your government is doing... it is absurd.

It appears a problematic appointment to forstall parliamentary inquiry - where the military has not classified the documents - where people of the given security clearance ought to be granted need to know status. The issue is that Iacobucci is a conservative and thus cannot present his position unbiased, thus he should not be in that position, and whomever appointed him also grossly improperly exercised their duties. - or is he liberal but appointed to his senior position by Conservatives in a way that perhaps the PM really isn't non partisan.. or perhaps a liberal supreme court justice is conservative enough for a conservative PM to determine what information ought to be made public. Of course he as a lawyer would be violating his oath as a member of the bar to put the administration of justice into disrepute - and therefor it is highly problematic to allow a lawyer to censor documents on national security grounds when the administration of justice is concerned. It is a conflict of interest. Why are the courts concerned with national security? Doesn't CSIS and CSIR and the integrated national security unit deal with national security? Yet another "kangaroo court" created by the Tories to remove public insight into operations of a government that obviously must be breaking a whole bunch of laws "for national security" on unconstitutional grounds. Why cover it up and hide it, if it is legal? The contempt of parliament is highly unfortunate. Especially if this pertains to governmental process, as I cannot see why acknowledging torture practices would be a national security threat. It at worst would just cause public disgust and disrepute in the government and their agents - as ought to be, as torture is a war crime, and Canada should not support a government that commits war crimes in a war that doesn't pose a direct threat to Canada and a war that the majority of the public doesn't support participation in. A government that violates its own laws is not a good government, it is a corrupt government. It is highly unfortunate if our legislators don't have security clearance or need to know status, and are instead left in the dark to perform their duties in the Interest of Canadians. When they have that opportunity to represent democracy in an ever shrinking expanse of Canadian Parliamentary Operations. If our legislators are untrusted and left in the dark, how is a government of legislators any different but to be ignorant and in that case how is that responsible government. The government fails. An irresponsible government does not have the sanction of right to rule, it is an absence of the grounds for which rule of law under responsible government are founded on. Shall the government fall due to its inability to support the constitution or uphold the laws of Canada.

Friend and supporter --- AND breaker of Rabbinic laws.