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.

Facts; Quebec - was occupied by the British in War France was occupied by the Germans in War Quebec was given over in surrender by the leadership of France Northern France was given over in surrender by the leadership of France The British put down rebellion in Quebec after the occupation. The Germans put down rebellion in France after the occupation. Quebec has about 50% of the population seeking freedom from the British. France gained their Freedom when France was liberated by the Free French, and other allies. Charles De Gualle was told never to come back to Canada after delivering a freedom for Quebec speech which was stated as a continuation of occupation of people who ought to be free from occupation and overlordship by a foreign power. Quebec still is not free but a super majority of Quebec Federal Ridings are in the hands of stated Quebec Sovereignists. Yet you state that Quebec is nothing like Occupied Nazi France? It is ignorance to say there are no similarities, and gross neglect of history. Especially if you attack someones use of their freedom of speech and belief, in what is suppose to be a constitutional right. How dare you attack someone for their beliefs. How dare you attack the constitution of Canada. That is what the Nazi's did and would do today. So you support the Nazis why not support the Constitution of Canada instead?

Indisputable facts demonstrating the crminality of Mr. Harper so you attack the person informing the people of the crime. Provide something to the argument at hand instead of nonsense.

False. Gambling is not stated in the constitution as a provincial jurisdiction - there fore it is reserved to federal powers. Legislation such as that in the Criminal code specifically deals with gaming and gambling in Canada. It specificly prohibits private betting of individuals in any way engaged in the business of betting. As a public administrator - he oversees the exercise the government and those people he appoints specifically police the industry of gaming, such as sports Canada and Industry Canada. Furthermore, he specifically was an agent at the Olympics and acted in a capacity as an agent of the Olympics. The law is the law. A friendly purchase of a lotto ticket isn't the deal, but it is what the person does and if they are legally allowed to buy the ticket. Harper was not legally exempt from the provision of the criminal code for betting on a sports event that the Federal Government funded operated and hired for. He bet on his own team, and it is illegal because he also oversees the administration and appointment of officials who directly administer betting laws in Canada. Exempt employee, owner, partner, officer or director of: • OLG retailer involved in the sale and redemption of OLG lottery products • OLG (Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation) • Interprovincial Lottery Corporation • Canadian lottery jurisdiction* • Key lottery Suppliers • AGCO (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) • Accountable Ministry (Ministry of Finance (effective July 8, 2009),* See the last one. Ministry of Government Services, Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Renewal (pre July 8, 2009) • Supplier of Independent Audit services • Supplier of Independent Advisory services • Supplier of Independent Security services ; and any and all of my (the Claimant’s) immediate family members (meaning spouse, children, parents or siblings) and other relatives residing with me (the Claimant) who are, or who at any time within the one year period prior to claiming the Prize have been, an OLG retailer, an employee of an OLG retailer involved in the sale and redemption of OLG lottery products or an employee of OLG; You are the nutbar here, defending a criminal and criminal acts in the highest echelons of government in Canada. You disgust me.

The Canadian government operates and regulates gambling in Canada. The PM is the head of that government. They are therefore not exempt from private betting provision due to being involved in the business of betting. So while you can try to spin this to reduce the fact that two people privately bet, this is not the case because of the position of authority the PM has in relation to the business of betting in Canada. This is akin to the CEO of lotto Ontario playing the lotto and winning. It is simply not legal and simply not ethical. Just because it was a case of beer and not a million dollars does not make this any different. It is still a violation of the law. And if again you say he is exempt due to the provision you are wrong because Canadian jurisdictions currently perform multiple roles in the provision of gamblinggoods and services, including licensing, managing, conducting, marketing, promoting,operating and regulating the activity, as well as garnering most of the profits. The PM is an agent and overseer of not only legislation of the business but in facilitation and operation of the business so the private bet exemption does not apply. The CCC exemption from criminal wrongdoing states: a private bet between individuals not engaged in any way in the business of betting In this instance both individuals would be culpable due to their direct authority in the business of betting. The fact they are individuals, or the question of private/public nature of the bet, does not provide for the exemption on grounds of their direct involvement in some way in the business of betting. The PM committed a criminal act. End of story.

There are ample examples that allowing bets or wagers on games you run without a license is illegal if it involve a prize of money or money's worth. Sorry but your precedent doesn't apply because Harper was involved in organization and funding of the games. He was an actor. This is the exact same reason why people who work for a company offering a prize cannot win the prize, or lotto company workers cannot win the lotto they administer. Fact is Harper had direct sway and financing through his workplace - he organized the games, and he took a bet on the games he was organizing - that is exactly what is illegal. He would need a license to offer accept any type of bet on games he was party to organizing and an employee or agent of. Sorry but it was illegal. This is not as simple as "took a bet with a friend". This is why playing poker for money with a bunch of friends is also illegal. A business including the olypmic games (a business) cannot organize gaming with prizes for people who arn't players without having a license. Just because there was only one person to bet does not take away the fact that Harper funded and organized the games. It is illegal. Not because he bet with someone but because he was an agent organizer of the games. Here is what Jewish Rabbi's say about gambling and sports betting: rabbis nevertheless are opposed to all gambling. In fact, the rabbis ruled that winning money at gambling, while not actual robbery, is close to it and therefore gambling debts cannot be collected through a Jewish court of law. In essence, the rabbis are opposed to gambling because it is unproductive as well as being akin to robbery, maintaining that all people should be engaged in activities that advance the welfare of mankind Why would Harper again turn his back on the Jews by doing such an unethical act. What you are missing here is this "Gambling or gaming, betting of money or valuables on, and often participation in, games of chance (some involving degrees of skill). In England and in the United States, gambling was not a common-law crime if conducted privately" press releases ain't private - the fact this was a public and mass publicized event is completely contrary to the nation of "private betting". You don't publicize and bring to the public sphere a private bet. The elements of the private bet fail to exist when this occurs. In the US betting on sports such as baseball, basketball, boxing, and football, is illegal in nearly all states. The PM does is not exempt in the provision due to the requirement not to be "engaged in any way in the business of betting" Unfortunately he as prime minister and organizer of the games and gambling laws and cabinet with and appointer of the attorney general IS, and the "any way involved" would not exempt him. He not only violated the law but grossly violated ethics codes of parliament.

As an organizer and participant he should not be allowed to "wager" on any ongoing event considering his position of authority. It is a gross violation of ethics, and would not be acceptable in any sport, for instance the CEO of the NHL to bet on games of the NHL.

It is also a crime in the US. The other end of the illegal gambling.

Someone who robs an old lady on the street and donates the proceeds to Breast Cancer awareness commits no less a crime. The fact he violated antigaming and gambling laws in atleast three ways and compromised his position as Prime Minister of Canada should not be ingored, a small crime is still a crime. How this effects the national consensus on people who commit violations of gambling law shoulnd't be overlooked. He essentially is supporting organized crime by his actions, and supporting gambling, something that has caused harm to many people. His actions should not be supported, and he should be charged with violation of gaming and gambling laws, he should also be kicked from his post of PM due to conflict of interest and ethics violations arising out of this escapade.

This is not being passed off as a "gift" but proceeds of a bet that had to do with winter games some people are claiming he funded and organized. The beer was won on a specific event within those games that he was in attendance of. And what of the billions of federal government funding? Did the PM have nothing to do with that?

the law states money or money's worth. Beer has a retail value. Also the government organized the games. Technically it would meet the definition of a disorderly gaming house.