Esq

Just to correct myself "We're announcing today that Quebec City and the province of Quebec have concluded a partnership where we will both contribute 50 per cent to the building of a multi-function amphitheatre, up to a maximum of $400 million." not 45%

The chinese just bought into BC encana. gas/

Just to clarify, are you calling me the 'left'? I didn't say harper was the one who came up with the names.. did he? I just find the premise of christening ships in the name of people who died while in service to be a little faux paux.

The municipality said they don't want changes to the gas tax rules. Quebec City and Quebec said they would fund it themselves -with 45% from the province and some from the city.. and the remainder? so that is about 180 billion from the province of quebec.. I'm not sure about the rest. It's like the federal government is trying to muzzle in on the arena for PR reasons but the province and muncipality won't have any of it.

Is this a bad joke? "Each of the seven people died in the line of duty." http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/02/10/17225016.html --- Can you imagine? Christening in the name of people who died while serving? Did they run out of heros after the first two?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2011/02/09/baffinland-nunavut-inuit-pond-inlet.html We see the same with cliffs with the chromite mines of northern ontario. Is it in Canada's interests to have all their metal resources owned by US companies? I find it concerning. When we have instances like US steel with renigging on contracts and barely if ever getting penalized for economic damages to Canada. we have another article with this title ArcelorMittal, partner nearing absolute control of Baffinland ‎ http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CE4QqQIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feconomictimes.indiatimes.com%2Fnews%2Finternational-business%2Farcelormittal-partner-nearing-absolute-control-of-baffinland%2Farticleshow%2F7450900.cms&ei=E_VTTd66Es6jtgei6PHBCQ&usg=AFQjCNHcPWnUQpn4sqffXH5oselxRZBpow&sig2=O2FLZ7BesJsJd-LNL0RvlQ Over half a billion tons of iron is a lot of iron. I don't know much about the company nor what to make of this http://www.arcelormittal.com/index.php?lang=en&page=241 * Lakshmi N. Mittal Chairman of the Board of Directors and CEO Non independent (Goldman Sachs and EADS. ) * Vanisha Mittal Bhatia (his daughter) Member of the Board of Directors Non independent * Narayanan Vaghul (Chairman of ICICI Bank Limited) Member of the Board of Directors Independent * Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. (WL Ross & Co. LLC, a merchant banking firm, a position that he has held since April 2000. Mr Ross is also the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of WLR Recovery Fund L.P., WLR Recovery Fund II L.P., Asia Recovery Fund, Asia Recovery Fund Co-Investment, Nippon Investment Partners and Absolute Recovery Hedge Fund. ) Member of the Board of Directors Independent * Lewis B. Kaden (Vice Chairman of Citigroup.) Member of the Board of Directors Lead Independent Director Independent * Suzanne Nimocks (McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm,) Member of the Board of Directors Independent * Jeannot Krecké (Luxemburg 2004 Minister of the Economy and Foreign Trade as well as Minister of Sport) Member of the Board of Directors Non independent * Antoine Spillmann (worked for leading investment banks in London from 1986 to 2000) Member of the Board of Directors Independent * H.R.H. Prince Guillaume de Luxembourg (duh) Member of the Board of Directors Independent Seem ameroeuro anyone know anything about the company? It is selling a lot higher in new york Shareprice Time Price D/D-1 Amsterdam 15:04 € 27.61 0.40% Brussels 15:04 € 27.61 0.40% Luxembourg 02/08 € 27.60 -1.80% Madrid 15:07 € 27.63 0.51% New York 9:09 $ 37.58 0.00% Paris 15:04 € 27.61 0.40% 2009, ArcelorMittal had sales of approximately $65.1 billion1, steel shipments of approximately 71 million tonnes and crude steel production of approximately 73 million tonnes.

So don't get back in line.

How would you describe it? Are people somehow barred by law from starting a communications company? I'm not aware they are. So in this respect, sure, there is a free market. Because they were willing to operate. Where is an example of a phone company that tried to set up shop and wasn't allowed to back then? Mobile phones? So why don't all those secondary ISP's get together and build their own secondary ISP backbone and loose bell or cable providers as their source? Then go back to their unlimited cap ways of life? What's missing? People have their internet? What is so poor about Canada's internet. Where are you getting this from? If you don't want to pay don't pay. Its not your god given right to have unlimited access to the internet. You just don't want to pay so you want the government to force them to keep their rates down because you are too lazy to start your own company and give lower prices. There is no blockage as to make this a monopoly, no one wants to risk the capital to compete, that is all there is to it. And you are purporting socialism.

I think they are called operating expenses. ----- WHat exactly are you looking for subsidies for? If 400,000 people can sign a petition why can they pitch the $1000 each to build the half billion in infrastructure? It is tax deductable right? How much do you pay in taxes that could be written off as venture capital? Or operating costs in a partnership? Oh but who would do that. Well there it is right there. YOu can't have it both ways so you'd rather just bully around the odd company you can get away with bullying cause you are too lazy to allow free market capitalism to function the way it is suppose to. Then you dis my crown corp, then you say no, the free market doesn't allow capital to be pooled to deter duopoly. I'm just saying you arn't willing to do it. Which one is it, do you support socialism or capitalism? "A satellite costs $300 million to build, launch and operate" http://www.satsig.net/ivsatcos.htm start reading.. there are plenty of options... in which way you go.

That is basically it right there, you don't want to use their line at their rate, pay for another one. Start your own company if you can provide a lower rate and provide quality of service. My source is from an academic institution - I think they have their own network connection. I'm not sure - there is a soft cap of a 2GB bandwidth, for shared used. The u/l d/l rate can be as fast as 100mbps per person. I'm really not all too familiar. I actually use only public internet or friends or families internet - I don't have internet at my home - which is my retreat more or less. I actually even went without water or electricity for around a month last summer. So start your own company. Upcharging - buy the higher package. Do you use that much every month - wouldn't it be better to pay for the premium plan? That is it right there. Is this a business line? What exactly are you doing that requires 60+GB of data or 2GB per day? OK, so pick the plan that suits your use. Is the entertainment worth that much? If not, maybe you should have a little bit of pong too.. who sets that value? What is the internet worth? How much is a ring worth, or a car, who sets that value - is it only as much as it costs to make? Who is suppose to set the overhead on that? Well effectively that is what you are doing when you are trying to regulate the bandwidth costs with UBB. Same stuff different pile. The government might be able to manage such a plan, can you?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/call-it-what-you-like-but-the-lse-tmx-deal-is-a-takeover/article1900063/ So it appears the TMX just became the biggest exchange in the world! Impressive. TMX is also known as TSE or The Toronto Stock Exchange. The London Stock Exchange appears to have merged with it, with the LSE having a majority of shares and the presidency. Really weird The news release from the TSE says.. NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN, INTO OR FROM AUSTRALIA OR JAPAN OR ANY OTHER JURISDICTION WHERE TO DO THE SAME WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE RELEVANT LAWS OF SUCH JURISDICTION Does this mean Canada is part of the European Common Market now?

At what bandwidth rate? It may be more of a quality of service issue for providers like rogers. They only have so much bandwidth at any given moment. The more people using it.. the slower it gets. Then streaming is a no go.. you get all chopped up.. then you have to d/l the thing in chunks.. etc.. It really depends on the price of the unlimited package. you don't want excess bandwidth charges just cut it off when the bandwidth limit is reached. You pay for 20 you get no more than 20. How much does a movie cost to buy new? $20 $10 -- how much is it to download with bandwidth. I'm so anti IP its not funny but I also understand the industry. People just like getting free stuff even if people are loosing money as a result. Its like having free donuts in Tim Hortons --- you can take them or pay for them. If you have the choice between the two what are you going to do? Sure people may not get paid at Timmies, but people won't complain about the free donuts, unless their pay check depends on it. Its not the same --- it is free to distribute... there are lots of free videos... I personally would be hard pressed to use up 20gb in one month. How many movies can you watch in a month 5? 6? How productive are you being with your time? I'm all for free market. Like I said, if the government can deliver a cheaper model - then make a crown corp to provide internet services to the public at a reduced rate, it is that simple.

How will we know if it doesn't go ahead tommorrow? or rather later today since it is now after midnight. If it goes ahead they could still say it didn't. letting them lie is just the first step of evil propaganda the second step is forcing them to lie. It has happened before, even in Canada.

I wouldn't, god might. As odd as it seems I think Families should have more right to practice than the state over families in their own regard. When it comes down to it, I personally don't agree with those options, and I think restraint in physical use of force is reasonable. However, it historically is not abnormal, and ethnicly also is deemed as acceptable in many cultures. The no harm clause is relatively recent (like the last 40 years), and even this is contraversial. The level of harm from "control" to abuse - is discretionary. I think that the point this becomes issued within your own society is generally when there is lasting harm - such as maiming. I personally don't suppot use of more than restraining force - in custodial relations - I think custody of adults is problematic at best - and I think the government is ill in some respects to applications of restraint to force plus 1 - it is a grey area. I'm generally in support of self defence - custodial situations with minors is something I havn't had to deal with all too much - I think with issues over an external acting force would be reasonable, however if the minor was causing the problem they may need to be restrained from the situation. I have had children been disruptive - and I think child psychology would best be researched here. It can be complex psychological situations. In regard to another parent using more force --- than I would. If a woman was being battered, - and risked life threatening injury or maiming yes I probably would intercede - likewise a child - judging this or having knowledge of this extent can be issued without practicle experience. It is largely an intuition situation. Overriding a countries laws - or religious practices is problematic, as some include mutilation as part of the practice. It is very complex, that is why I don't support interceding outside your own society. Self defence is one of the few instances where intersocietal interaction of a physical form need occur. It may be weird but you don't know what you are doing if you don't understand them. Non ethnocentrism when dealing with other cultures is important. I'm not into conquest and domination of others, I am more live and let live. Communication is of course there to better understand ... also offering other societies the chance to come into my own society is another option --- for example taking refugees, or negotiating an alternative... for example in afghanistan -- when dealing with the taliban you could say Taliban - there are two options - one you let the infidels and those that do not wish to practice Islam leave and come with us, and we let you live in peace. Or we take the infidels and those who do not wish to practice islam away and if you try to prevent us we will consider it an attack on ourselves. That type of situation. The world is full of demons. Material itself is a demon, goals are demons, emotions are demons but they are also the very essence of life. I can speak out while I have a voice. If the situation presents itself you need to take it at the situation. Power corrupts. Thing is I'm not out there to force my ways on others. Self defence is another issue. If you are going to do it, do it with a clear conscience. I believe in reason. My own. The majority ain't always right - also the majority ain't even the majority of people in parliament making the law, they are a minorty of the population in each riding in most cases. Why someplace else? can you point out a citizenship any canadian can just apply for and get straight up other than taliban? you type in free citizenship into google and look what you get http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=free+citizenship&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

Actually this is not the sole reason, but it gave me a more personal experience in being related to various projects, training and the oppourtunity experience a little of the CF first hand as a kid. Just a little. However the militaryesque of my brother and sister both in uniform still etched into my mind a lasting impression, even if the indepth characteristics wern't known. I was exposed to the existence of places like gagetown and greenwood. Likewise, many Canadians know someone in the military, as it is what 1 in 12 people? Still at all points of my life I've had atleast one exposure to the forces. Be it classmates, a friend, siblings, my dad, my grandfather, or even my personal experiences. Guess we have a different view. I consider Canada light weight, you consider Canada middle weight. Lets look at it this way. Canada population 30 some million.. size of military 100,000 or so --1 in 350 or so. Now lets look at some other countries. US, CHINA, EU(france,brtian, italy, germany, spain etc.. countries) RUSSIA then we have countries like sweden, israel, north korea, south korea, japan, saudi arabia Canada would be hard pressed to fight a border war with a large african state. Let alone the ivory coast. Cause no one else wants to. And what of the $50 billion dollar deficit and no invasion of Canada to be seen? Governments should be able to finance themself not extort funds from the public. For now and it is on the decline.. I had a CAF helicopter overfly my house. Let the banks fund humanitarian missions if they want them, or the public. The government of Canada's responsibility is to the Canadian people not swahili or afghanistan or haiti. That budget should go to Canada not 3rd world countries. IF they got ish, what is Canada gonna get from invading or occupying them. Once again no brainer. If the UN wants ISAF let them pay for it. It shouldn't come out of Canada's meager defence budget. Just like the g8 or g20, they want it split the bill. These billion dollar charities have lasting effect when you figure 20 million people paying 1 billion here and there Those are $50 bills out of Canadians pockets. paying 50 here and there really shouldn't be on Canadians backs. If Canadians wanted to pay $50's a year to deploy Canadians overseas on nation rebuilding then they should be doing that individually. -- Why should Canadians be paying $50 so foreign GO's can meet in Canada to talk about how they are going to give $50 more to help mums in africa. It ain't Canada. If they want to fund a $50 billion dollar program, let them raise the funds from their own private sources, not more taxes or debt. If you don't clue in Canadians have a per capita debt of about $100,000 likewise.. Canadians have a public debt perhaps approaching this same amount or $200,000 each. Someone has the money.. let them fund maternal health not the debt enslaved public. Let them fund afghanistan, let them fund the g20.. leave the extorted debt laden public alone. Let the people with money pay for this stuff. And guess what is Stephen Harper holding a personal debt load? What about the other heads of state that are getting free public meetings and transport.. what about the 100,000 people that met for the G20.. etc... NO I don't think they are.. they need to live the life. Let them put $50,000 down to pay for their own meeting if they want it, not the enslaved public. Lets see how much money is raised for the war that way. Leave Canada's defence budget to Canada. Tanks have been parachuted before. Its a movable cannon... you could even drop them in parts if you had a winch. Nuclear weapons are destructive to the ecosystem. It need not all be bombs, but nukes really wouldn't be too applicable for afghanistan. Water bombing runs might be better or acid. NO quite the opposite, I think getting a vaccum is a better solution. Sitting around afghanistan isn't solving a problem. It is basically just illegal war. It doesn't help Canada. Canada et al are suppose to be on their way out. The bottom line is, it won't help the long term development of Canada, it actually impaires Canada and wastes resources. People don't need a developed country to be "happy". It is just a different way of living, ask the old order mennonites. fact here is that, it is just cultural genocide. It ain't Canada, Canada shouldn't be engineering their society, that is foreign intervention and is immoral. I don't walk over to my neighbour and tell them how to raise their kids, it shouldn't be done at a national level either. You can give suggestions but going in there and handcuffing the guy then running his family ain't respectful. Why don't you pack your bags, I have as much right to the land as you. What am I suppose to plant a flag and suddenly be king. We know how this works. I don't need someone to tell me who ain't willing to shoot me to proove a point. Its illusionary and ego.. I'm not oblivious. God is rightful not man. We can cooperate or one of us can discuss it with god who knows maybe both. Without getting all quaky.. the bottom line here is that.. with or without Canada my right to self determination and use of land in a respectful way cannot be recognized as an alienable right. I can have respect for others formation of order but I am bound to my own best practice. Respect of the native inhabitants is something I see as reasonable. ----- Thing here is though, too bad. That is what Canada is saying. It works both ways. Being Canadian isn't a choice in Canada. Canadian citizenship cannot be self revoked. A Canadian cannot make themself stateless by Canadian Immigration law. The right of revoking rests with the government. The exclusion is in regard to a recognized foreign citizenship being substitute and even then the determination rests with the government.

This is way bigger than cost per giga byte. no need to tell the truth in news reporting http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crtc-plan-to-lift-ban-on-false-news-prompts-political-investigation/article1898147/ The same deal works for cellular phone charges... it in part is about the cost of improving new infrastructure. 1 $500 million dollar profit on 10 million people is about $50 profit a year from each subscriber. That isn't a tremendous upcharge. That works out to about $4-5 profit a month out of $60 or however much people are paying for internet these days.

Its actually very possible to communicate via radiowave.. it just isn't common, the energy inovled and resources. Think how far a radio transmission tower broadcasts.. they actually have nanotransmitters now that are very very small that do the same thing. You got to think of it in these terms. If you could have a nano device every 100 meters (10 per km) or a line the whole way, what is going to cost more?) What is more practicle, what has a smaller footprint? What is more interoperable? What is more cost effective? We know there will be changes to how the internet is delivered in coming days. You could even rig a make shift network to broadcast from car to car on the drive in.. along major highways, or from street road light to road light. These same systems could be used for monitoring and lots of other things, it is just the tip of the iceberg. Very cost effective, very simple you even have the ability to quantum entangle for security with this stuff - making it more secure than current transmission technologies. Not the same thing but here is an example: http://www.pdfcontent.com/data/500-meter-range-fm-transmitter-circuit.html/page/25 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lbytaVwslrIJ:www.technologyreview.com/Nanotech/19666/+nanotechnology+transmitter+distance&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&source=www.google.ca

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Conservatives+deny+CRTC+takeover+plan+critics+slam+partisan+hire/4239039/story.html Looks like Stephen Harper is manouvering to convince the CRTC to change its decision.

bushcheeny, your brilliance strikes again - you should move to Canada and pitch policy to me. But how would the British Defend the Alberta badlands from Kuwait? Are you implying Afghanistan is all about defence of the mohave? I'm always self representative in court.

This is crucial. Even the emergencies shouldn't count though. If you can't motivate the public in an emergency it likely isn't an emergency. Also there are no emergencies that would require huge capital inflows - that shouldn't be able to be obtained from donations. The government is able to print funds if it needs petty cash. There is about a 500 million cushion in simple 1% inflaiton of new money supply and credit - on an anual basis. The govenrment could draw on in an 'emergency'. Offering an insurance plan for emergencies is an even better way to finance for emergencies. No I disagree I think that in order to employ people there should be an ecnomic incentive, not simply employing people to have them work. This is why I think any government initiative to employ people should come from a program that creates economic incentive. In this regard that program should pay for itself. Otherwise there is no economic incentive to the employment - it is a loss. Meaning it is counter productive. Example case 1: people work and support themself and reap profit by private enterprise - win win. people do not work and do not support themself - loss people do not work and draw on public resources - loss loss people work and draw on public resources win loss people work through government program and support themselves win win. As you can see only two scenarios are win win. Why? If people in government can make long term programs why not people not in government, you are insulting the intelligence of the public, and purporting politicians to be more intelligent than the public? I don't think this is true. I choose to see it that the public is an upper level of the government. People contact their representatives to put in their wish list. It is also quite stupid to plan for energy needs 20 years from now due to technology turnover. It actually slows things down to look more than about 15 years into the future - that is the time frame it takes new technologies to become commonplace. (and this timespan is reducing to about 10 years in some industries - and will likely continue to shorten annually by a few weeks) The Social Party supports making public private corporations. This in effect turns crown corps into public controlled corporations, the government has a certain number of seats, the public has a certain number of board seats, and any private stock holders (that would be offered up to stakeholders) would have a certian number of seats. This puts extra measures on protecting the public. A bad government would do that. So I tend to agree those protections need to be there.

No it wouldn't require unanimous consent of the house. Where does this bullocks come from? The salaries act does not require unanimous consent. Whoever told you change to their salaries take unanimous consent is a liar or stupid. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-s-3/latest/rsc-1985-c-s-3.html

nothin worse for the government than an out of work lawyer. ends up costing more in the long run.

http://www.traveldrumheller.com/images/maps/canadian-badlands-map.jpg http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/bases/Suffield-eng.asp I think you may be missing the point that there is no reason to train on a desert as Canada would never be faced with that type of scenario. Plus the British are training there - where would they train if it weren't for Canada's sacrifices? What are the Canuks making your us troops look bad? This deal doesn't seem so bad. You mean Canadians stop training in the mojave desert and the US won't deploy US forces to Canada - it sounds pretty simple to me. Yes this sounds very good. Keep these great ideas coming bushcheney2004

why? It's probably undefended for the same reason as the mohave. take a look man. http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/BC/deserts.htm

Maybe it is a ploy to convince US forces training there that they are a special group of the american army. It might reduce the chance of friendly fire in combat conditions. Canada has a desert too. I don't want to say it, but training is not the same as deployment and I think we both know this. "I would have thought the mohave was better defended than that.. maybe america is getting old." http://static.gotsmile.net/images/2010/12/29/gamersmafia-its-a-trap.jpg_1293607996.jpg Also this training operation is a little redundant at this point.. lets see if they are still training there... Training is a little different from deployment though. Canada has a NATO airbase that is quite heavily used for training. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_Goose_Bay Also the British have been known to train in Alberta, including Prince Harry's unit. If I recall