Bryan

If the abuse happened, no. If it didn't, they absolutely should shut up. There have been far too many cases of peoples' lives being ruined by false accusations. Accusations of racism should be dealt with in a similar fashion.

That's a very different position than what I responded to: Now you're just rationalizing why the opportunity was taken away.

No they're not. It's an idiotic myth.

It's absurd to think of extracting people's money from them by force as those people borrowing from the govt.

Historical context is irrelevant. The student today did nothing to the great-great grandparents of the other student.

The scholarships are not being allowed as the deceased originally requested. The opportunity that he was making for that specific demographic is no longer there.

I definitely disagree with you there. There's not much that is less democratic than taking people's money from them.

A democratic society should be able to vote directly on tax measures too, Too often, the parties give really vague (if not misleading) promises at campaign time, only to blindside the electorate with something that was not what they voted for. We had a law like that in Manitoba. Increasing the sales tax required a referendum. During the last campaign, the NDP explicitly promised not to raise the PST. They called the idea preposterous. Upon winning, and knowing that no one wanted the tax increase, they immediately changed the law so that they no longer needed permission to raise taxes. Then they increased the PST. Stuff like that is the REASON the law was enacted. Stuff like that is why tax increases should require a direct vote on the actual bill being proposed.

It's about time that a University handled an issue like this with that level of maturity. Far too often, the accused is immediately suspended on just an unfounded accusation. The made the police deal with it, the police did not find her claim credible, so that's it -- she's not allowed to go bad mouthing the guy. She gets protected from being called a liar in public too. That's how it should be.

It was automatically an obvious scam when they called me. Even if CRA did operate in that manner, the really poor use of english, the horrible phone connection, and the person on the other end's complete inability to tell me anything about my supposed file were all dead giveaways. I had fun torturing the guy by making him give me information rather than answering any of his questions, but yeah, you'd have to be of diminished capacity to fall for it -- it's a weak scam. The sad thing is, there are enough people who are of diminished capacity that these a-holes are stealing some people's ID and or cash. That they trick some people into answering questions I guess I understand, but that they actually get people to send them money is astounding. They ask people to go and buy GIFT CARDS, and to send those in. Who thinks that a government agency would do that?

It's patently insane that a person's opportunities today are being taken away because a judge is taken into account things that happened to other people generations ago. Activist judges like this need to be removed from the bench.

She wasn't wrong. It's the right thing to do even if nobody else is smart enough to understand that.

That's one of their worst purposes -- interfering with the function of departments and legitimate human resources initiatives. Dead weight employees hide behind the union, and the union time and time again will go to bat for someone who should have been fired long ago.

It's long past time to get rid of public service unions altogether. They're just legalized extortion of the taxpayers.

People said the same things about Agassi and Sampras. Before that, Borg and Connors. Others too, I'm sure (Graf, Navratilova....)

Managing quotes is a lot easier with it off. ...apparently not so much if you're using Chrome though...

I'm sure they would have found something to complain about, but balancing the budget and cutting spending was specifically what the CPC was calling for prior to the budget's release. They wouldn't complain if it happened, but they probably would claim to have influenced the about-face.

I just calculated what my benefit would be here: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/tool-outil/ccb-ace-en.html According to the calculator, the benefit is a lot less than the numbers the LPC are touting. With the UCCB gone, income splitting gone, fitness and arts credits gone, for us it's a fairly significant tax increase.

It wasn't Facebook posts, it was linked articles, but I still agree with the sentiment. According to the Financial Post, it's NOT taxed: http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/family-finance/federal-budget-2016-promises-to-help-middle-class-wallets-while-targeting-wealthy-canadians-a-classic-soak-the-roach-scheme

No, that's why I asked the question -- random Facebook feed posts that I'm not finding now.

It does if you have even a little bit of fiscal acumen, and are actually being honest. That's an amazingly fast recovery, especially considering they did it while also cutting taxes, continuing to strengthen social spending, and increasing government revenues.

Wait... is the new Child benefit taxable? I know the Liberals initially promised it would not be, but I've read two articles now that say it is. If it is taxed, and the credits that offset that (like income splitting and child sport credit) are gone... then for many families this would end up being a tax increase wrapped up in a shit sandwich.

No, it was not OK that the Liberals and NDP who held the majority of the seats in the house rejected Flaherty's Nov 2008 fiscal update (after two consecutive surpluses) and instead demanded a substantial increase in spending. It's also not oK, that even though they finally agreed on an amount they would support, that they still complained that it was not enough. Thankfully, once Harper got a majority, he erased that deficit in record time.

The deficit is THREE TIMES bigger than what was promised.

Trudeau Sr.