Esq

thats not counting future dated bonds either -- last year was 250 billion alone. Spending cuts arn't the answer. You need to totally rearange these things. Governments spend as much money as they can get. Not what they need. The problem here is that you give them too much to begin with. The social party option of payfor and debt divulgence is the only working solution I've seen. http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/economicreform.htm

I digress, I think it is more about rolling out Afghanistan war technologies into Canada with as much legitimization as possible - and vice versa. The US is going to be leaving Afghanistan in 2017 if the current timeline goes ahead, they'll need to deploy all their excess war equipment somewhere. It'll be old by then, so maybe it'd make sense to give it to DHS. I'm not aware of the border issues. I do recall hearing 4 or so years about about the sensor system they planned on rolling out along the border, that fell off the map. I also don't believe that ony 100 or so km of the border are "protected". I know they have minuteman patrols in the west. I know they are flying drones along the border. I know they set up "speed traps" sometimes along the border. I'm also not convinced that this is a bilateral issues. 6000 some arrests occured from trafficing originating in Canada to the US. 6000 arrests is substantial. We know the technologies are being ramped up. Also I got hit with electrical problems in my car whenever I came within a few KM of the border - so I tend to think they have early scanning points already. Systems that can interfere with sensitive automotive electronics such as radar/xray etc.. The line now is that they want access to even more police files (that require freedom of information requests, and notification to the person they pertain to under privacy laws) and other "legal hurdles". They are attempting to side step these protections. Is Canada withholding information on terrorists? Is Canada even harbouring terrorists? This is absurd. If Canada was aware of terrorists, then you think maybe it would arrest them? The angles on this are absurd. What Canada must protect against is buying a lot of expensive US technology to do things that it is already doing, or doesn't need to do. Also 1. Depending on US technlogy 2. Having the US Navy and Army deployed to Canada - without a war.. are issues. Canada is not Japan, Korea or Germany. They should learn to keep their soilders in thier own country, not other peoples http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ifOoDNxos3wJ:www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101212-canada-us-defining-north-american-defense-perimeter+US+navy+perimeter+security+canada&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&source=www.google.ca

wrong. False dichotomy. Not all employees at schools are teachers. Not all day care Early Childhood development individuals need be teachers. Quite the contrary - teachers are usually taught to actually teach in elementary and secondary schools. Education is directed to those professions, not daycare. You simply arn't looking at it the right way. While educational activities are not out of the question - and some teachers may be suited for this - actually only in underserviced schools (and most schools are overfilled) would teachers potentially have additional time, and not all teachers would necisarily even be qualified. You are stating a false truth on early childhood education - it doesn't need to be synonymous with "teachers" or teachers unions at all. It is a form of daycare that might have educational benefits. Education is only one aspect, it is actually a form of social support. Education is still a big part of it, but "teacher" need not be the term, it could simply be program provider. Some areas would be suited for schools others would not. There are different needs in different communities - but substantial cost sharing can be achieved by nationalizing the umbrella. Including materials, oversight (re: red tape/beurocracy) all things that local schools boards have made worse in terms of funding in creating multiple administrations - creating tax overheads for the public. That isn't going to change, for political reasons, but that is the reality. Voluntary local assitance is good, but tax overheads arn't in the public interest for paper pushing. It is only when politics attempts to constrain liberties does politiking become required. We already have a very clear analysis of what is required in education systems. It is startling that these no brainer situations are so constrained by politics limiting expression. While it is true many people who are qualified to be teachers might get hired on by such a program ---- it need not be a requirement to be a teacher for early childhood development. You need to look at what the actual training programs are. for say a daycare provider, as opposed to a professional teacher. We might even be looking at simply subsidizing already existing private companies and insuring they meet certain criteria to qualify where they exist. Fact is the chances are slim such a program would be rolled, out. People don't care enough about children to attempt to prevent bad quality of care by negligent parents. and children don't vote, nor do they pay taxes, yet. Parents would rather have money in their pocket and a neglected child than no money in their pocket. They get support for the same stuff anyway in many cases, just through different streams. ISn't that what TV, videogames and the internet is for? I support such a program, but I'm also in tune with Canadian values.

Huge waste of tax dollars 6.5 million tax payer dollars to promote the Conservative Party. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-government-to-spend-65-million-to-promote-tax-cutting-record/article1893248/ "The 11-week campaign, called “Tax cuts … working for you,” will run until March 27 – right around the time an election would start if the Conservatives were defeated over the March budget. " This is such a blatant corrupt use of public funds. It is disgusting. Ironic "$4-million spent each year on the Tradespersons’ Tools Deduction" is less than the amount spent on the ads themselves.

Sounds like the legal system is working. (by that I mean they are probably making money from this) (why is the government paying themselves a "bad deal" for the government) the clear loosers here are the boss and employee. The real loss is wasted time. What was the employee fired over?

The rule of law. Give examples of contracts agreed to without funds being allocated by parliament in advance. How did the word referendum get into this? Actually the government does have power to propose policy changes and *gasp* legal changes. However more or less parliament is required in any responsible governance model. Canada is complex though because it is a Frankenstine state. Most of the courts are partisan appointments so adjudication of questions of law can also appear that way. What is so bad about the meech lake accord? * a recognition of Quebec as a "distinct society" - true. It has a seperate legal system. The application of civil code vs. common law is a distinction. Each throne/crown also is in sort a seperate society * a constitutional veto for Quebec and the other provinces - this is a good call. Canada is a federation after all. Each constituent member of that fedreation should be in agreement with any changes to the laws of the federation. * increased provincial powers with respect to immigration - good call. but mobility rights are in question - the issue of residency should be able to be determined on basis of legal qualification. Example someone who commits a provincial offence may be given a court order not to be in that province (restraining orders already limit the mobility rights of the charter), but may be applicable to other provinces - since provincial law may differ. I actually do support provincial immigration law - I think it is a good think to have. The territories however would be under federal jurisdiction and a place of last resort for individuals barred from provincial residence. I support the idea of exile in place of incarceration. Yes there would be additional safegaurds, like meeting with a case worker regularly like parole or a probation officer situation. Also an emphasis on restitution. A bar on provincial residence may also be set to elapse after a certain period of time. For example people likely ain't gonna escape from baffin island without a boat or plane. Plus Jobs for Baffin Islanders and more chance for development of the islands resources and offshore resources. Like what is going on on prince charles island? Can you believe these islands wern't even written about until after the 1930's Not many people realize canada has a bunch of islands that are great for development and perfect for penal colonies. http://www.commanderresources.com/i/maps/Baffin/Baffin-Island-Map.jpg like get some "terraforming" projects underway. Like food growing all nasa like with use of human waste to good purpose and other fun stuff in developing arability of colony areas. http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpe/environments/maps/detailed/islands/baffin.htm its not all bad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS8RZcKQwBA * extension and regulation of the right for a reasonable financial compensation to any province that chooses to opt out of any future federal programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction - I don't see how this is so bad. The reasonable part is the question. What is reasonable compensation? * provincial input in appointing senators and Supreme Court judges I think input in nominations should be there. Like anyone should be able to send nominations to the PM. - along with the reasons therein. Although it seems that the public would be vastly satisfied if these were opened up to a public vote - perhaps after a round of governmental questioning. The way I invision it would be. Individuals may self nominate for the position, or other individuals may nominate them. From the list of nominees input is given from major stakeholders in the government. Individuals that are "selected" could be called to the bar of the commons or senate for questioning. Likewise the GG or PM could also have sit ins with the various individuals and ask them relevant questions to guage their capacity for the post. But before these high level meetings.. the Advisory Council would vote on their top choices - - and those within the advisory council or their represenatives in the council could pitch their running for the seat. (Since everyone is able to be represented in the council.) These nomination periods might be a month or two in advance to the post being filled. (The advisory council acting as the gauge of public opinion since 1 vote = 1 vote in the council and every citizens has 1 vote they can keep or give to someone else) After the advisory council the short list would be reviewed. Parliament might have a vote on it. The PM would then send the nomination to the governor general for consent. I don't see what was so bad about meech lake?

Actually most of the money this university makes isn't from tuitions. Less than half is tuition the other is called the basic grant can you look and this and tell me why the tuition is going up at this insitution? http://www.secretariat.uwaterloo.ca/20100601budget.pdf Like what are these academic development funds and the quality improvement funds Why are we paying for this stuff? http://www.analysis.uwaterloo.ca/docs/Accountability/InterimAccountabilityAgreement.pdf There are budgeted expenditures to "get results" Like why is $2,255,000 being paid to "report" this is absurd. or rather Quality Improvement Fund $8,772,000 what is this fund? SEE: http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2959969 http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2011/01/c6748.html $100,000 price tag http://www.saultthisweek.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2958614 ontario is up $1000 the national average on tuition rates: http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/750442

No its cheaper just to wave the finger and sue the bastards for fraud and misrepresentation. you know stuff like this http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2009/06/former-lockheed-martin-engineer-calls-fraud-on-f22-stealth.html http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2010/02/f-35-behind-schedule-and-has-cost-over.html Funny how this top of the line aircraft is "not as technologically sophistocated" as an aircraft designed in the mid to late 1990's. 15 years ago. real cutting edge. good aircraft yes. misrepresentation in the sale and contract side definately. however thing is budgets need to be approved by parliament. you can't just spend the publics money without permission that is illegal. then we have this hot off the press " http://isurfhopkins.com/local-news/9704-new-military-productions-at-ge-whitfield-reinforces-support.html?tmpl=component " Then you have to ask if studies have been conducted in Canada for effect of noise of the engine? has canada done these studies in the air bases surrounding the proposed f35 sites in Quebec and Alberta? (or just how far away someone can hear these taking off.. like would someone hear them take off in Russia? How can you defend against accoustic detection tracking or accoustic warning systems going all the way back to the invaders homeland? Or other systems to provider early warning of intercept? Apparently the government already said where these planes would be positioned and serviced. That is really strong national defence from the conservative government - but maybe its another lie... understand this is just a proposal... proposal.. canada has not yet legally agreed to purchase these things.. paraliament hasn't approved it and likely wont. the budget has not been approved and will not be approved by the current parliament as far as I can tell -- in regards to the f35.. it is a no go in Canada. If Lockheed thinks it has, it is mistaken and that would be due to lies by people who don't have the authority to approve items not approved in the budget. The PM doesn't have the ability to set the budget of Canada and approve it themself. That is what parliament does = it approves the spending allocations, much like the US congress --- the PM has no ability to spend tax dollars without approval of parliament. The CF sends their wish list, the government looks over it, sees what it is good with, then sends that to parliament.. once parliament approves it - then it is good. That critical third step does not seem likely, actually it pretty much is dead in the water. It isn't suited for arctic operations - where the bulk of Canadian operations are due. - It costs more to maintain. and it is already outdated. and won't be delivered for atleast another 5 years. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/therell-be-no-stealth-in-touting-the-f-35/article1875031/ It is absurd Stephen Harper would enter a contract dedicating tax payer dollars without parliament approving the contract. It is contempt of parliament. This would be more than sufficient to impeach - or in Canada as it is called a non confidence vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-confidence_motion Much like the recent secret perimiter security agreement. Done withhout parliamentary insight or consent. Its far past time to joist.

better other people than no one. group care costs less than individual care. Some families actually need both parents working to make ends meat, and thats without quality time. Obviouslly Diane Finley doesn't know what it is like to come from a poor working class family. Some parents are plain neglectful or come from the school of hard love. This doesn't prepare children for life. Early Childhood development years are some of the most important... and some young children don't have parents to raise them. Perhaps if Diane Finley had an alternative to neglect it might be reasonable. If I have the choice between paying someone direct to stay at home or paying someone to raise 5 children the 5 child option is a better deal for my dollar. Having 5 neglected children does no one any good. That means 4 of 5 people are working instead of 5 of 5 people not. Child care is a better option for Canadians. Just paying people to have kids turns them into a commodity. Child support doesn't raise kids. This is a public issue though, but some parents just suck at being parents. I'm talking neglect not abuse in itself. Some parents really dont have a clue or have bad social values, or neglect to prepare their children for life. There ought to be more social insight to preparing children for life, and some parents don't do, or don't know how to do that. It doesn't take a genious to pump out a kid. This of course isn't forced care, but it does provide time. I think this is impotant for urban areas - with high population density where poverty is pervasive. It may only be feasable as an extension of the education system though in rural areas. - but I think this is an urban issue, not a rural one. Both could benefit though - but there are private day care providers. The bottom line is ... who isn't getting it that needs it. It is a bad bullet to bite, but those are the facts. This isn't forced day care, so the whole "children being raised by other people" arguent is nonsense. Don't do it if you don't want it. But poor people can't pay for private daycare. and they can't afford to stay at home either. and even if they are there they may not have anything to provide for their children, maybe not even a nutritious diet. Then what do you have a cost inflated children's aid? Who is taking care of the child then? Maybe Diane Finley doesn't understand poverty. Maybe you can take away her bank accounts and paycheck from the government, give her $600 a month to support herself and her children - including her living area, and her food, all her bills, clothing and goods for her children etc.. in vancover, toronto halifax or montreal, give her 4 children to raise and see what she has to say about national childcare. You can't get ahead very easily with 4 children no job and no education. Its not about choices that were made, it is about choices that are now available. Keeping people locked in poverty is good for no one. (It is a provincial issue in my opinion though)

Was Canada in Germany? It didn't have an occupation zone like France, Britain and the United States did it? What happened in cyprus? What is yugoslavia? Right right --- this is a tough one to answer. Never. Or well maybe that is a fog of war and propaganda. I've heard various stories on this and the actions canada did or didn't take. This is a problematic conflict. Maybe you can give the answer on this? Canada was a support force, support force, Yugoslavia as a whole could have pummled Canada if they were neighbours. Canada is a light weight military with its strucutre for the last 20 or 30 years. Force yes, world leading force no. Don't disallusion yourself. While Canada is capable of being fiersome the approaches taken do not provide for that. My father was in the Navy I'm well aware of canada's military even their aircraft carrier. I'm well aware of Canada's military history. My grandfather father and brother have all been associated with the military in some way. This is what if. It would get as much funding as it was given. The purchases seem to be in part frivilous and based on what expensive US equipment is needed to be purchased. I don't see much more in it than that. I don't see why you would put all your eggs into a large lift aircraft unless unless you also wanted a tank or two somewhere .. but in a domestic sense why not just buy a 100 tanks and spread them out across the country? and forget about the heavy lift? Now canada has a few tanks? and a few planes? that's not going to stop an army, sorry. It is sad. Riot control maybe but why even bother? I'd rather have tanks you can parachute than tanks that need a plane to land them. You arn't going to have an airfeild in a real war. It will be support forces.. fact is I'd rather bomb the hell out of the enemy than fight them on the ground in a real war. I'm not into occupation I'd rather lay waste. a small force ain't gonna do anything in a real war unless it manages to take out a comand structure, real countries arn't going to have their command centralized in a lightly defended area next to an airfield that can be taken easily. There is a certain amout of what if here.. that cameras would have to be rolling for.. however I'm much more in belief of level them and see if anything is moving than send in people and occupy the people. Who cares about the people if you kill anything with a gun who cares about who is in countrol. It will be by mutual consent if everyone with a gun is dead. sure there. there were good and bad guys on both sides just like now. Insurgent warfare is playing to guerilla demands and is a waste of money. Crush them and let them opt to keep rebuilding or be peaceful. They arn't going anywhere with a destoryed nation. Threat removed. well atleast we agree on one thing, it was a bad idea. I didn't imply that but I'll let that go. would you blame me if I said a clock? So let them do it? Go democracy of the citizens of that country. They would have built themselves back up just fine on their own. Japanese and germans are like that, resourceful. The russians right the russians. Who knows there were alternatives the choice taken in history is not the only choice, it is the only choice that is available now. You are entitled to your view. I can't comment on what I don't see, only what I hear about. Maybe more of them should be here to explain, or is that in black lines on a page. I'm not medically eligible. Hey I dunno what command is doing. I don't know what is pulling the strings, NATO command, the queen, the govenror general the PM the cheif of defence, the commander in field, the masons, illuminati, black nobles, al qaeda, elvis presley - I really don't know. It is easy for an arm chair general to say, you pathetic weenies, I woul of had iran russia and china under my power after 10 years with the power of NATO behind me... lets get real here, I just see 10 years in afghanistan to be a form of failure by design. I have a higher view of NATO than they have done over the last 10 years. This wasn't a war, ISAF (international security assistance force) not (INTERNATIONAL KILLERS OF THE OTHER GUYS FORCE) IKOTOGF. It is just a weak mission, and I don't like it. I'm more the type that would think killing anything that moves with guns is a more effective strategy doing it in a month and calling it a day. I don't believe anyone, not even myself. I'm right now. You may ask what basis I have, and that is simply to promote the best option from all information, not just one piece of information. Every posibility is no posibility. why did they write them that way you might ask. Like I said failure by design. I'm not brought to militancy over other peoples sovreignty. I beleive in self destination. I think our own backyard and frontyard and house need fixing so its not me to go and say other people have it all wrong. The country I'm forced to live in doesn't have it right, so why should I go with a gun to someones head forcing them to change their way, when the gun would be better served by pointing it to my forced fellow country mans head. That just isn't applicable that is why I feel democracy and deliberation and communication is essential to peace. Setting up the standard of militant enforcement of rule isn't going to deradicalize it is going to kill people that feel strongly about something. Canada ain't perfect. Afghanistan is one of the things that makes it imperfect. We can see I'm not the one handing out medals, but if I was I'd probably be looking for another war and another mission to hand them out to. I don't have the information to indicate to me that it is a wise war. That is the bottom line here. I was in opposition to the war from very early on. I had my own opinion for what happened with 911 and havn't touted the media line from day one for very strong reasons. That is having supposed inside knowledge at the time with what had occured. It is nonsense talk to have anyone support me in that opinion it just paints me as a crazy, the bottom line is I was taking very close note in the days leading up to 911 and the time leading up to the invasion. I was someone who took a demonstrative position to the war. Not because Canadian soilders were wrong, but because Canada was wrong. Not supporting a war is not the same as not supporting people as humans. Not supporting a nation for its choices to wage war against another nation is a consciencous objection. I'm not proud of it, and I'm not in defence of it. I am in support of human rights for all people, but I beleive in self determination of society. I beleive in the right to remove onesself from society (or found your own society or state)-- even if Canadian law doesn't allow it. I pursued those options the bottom line is I can only do what I feel is right in exercising what I think is right. If that includes criticising a war I don't agree in, and am forced to be a member of the soceity perpetuating it... I'll clearly voice my opinion I'm not in support of it, even if a majority of people are. The majority is not me. I am an individual forced to be a member of a society from their perspective. That is not freedom. You can opt to fight a war half way across the world, that is your choice. I just don't think it should be a national war if it isn't required for Canadian defence. I havn't been convinced.

I took a tour of parliament/ peace tower in grade 7 or 8 and signed the peace tower guest book. Good trip. I think it was grade 7. I've had dreams about both CSIR and the supreme court.. not sure if it is real. actually http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca/index-eng.html .. but it is always csir when I think about it for some reason.

I'll have to wait and see if anything enters the public domain from the RCC. This has been ongoing for a while. Specific things i have heard are 'preventing' individuals from entering or leaving north america. Clearly a contradiction of Canadian law. Canada and the US are not as integrated as the EU. EU individuals can work in any EU country without a need for a visa. They also have no internal borders.The US would never reciprocate this to Canada. The relationship is not the same. The porous border is only for the elites, not for the common people. Removing common peoples rights for more access for the elites is contrary to what I support. I believe in the people as a whole not the uberclass exclusive. It goes back to the common rights of man. You arn't stopped through 3 levels of screening every time you come back from a trip like myself I suppose. I don't think this has anything to do with taxes. I disagree completely. They should be insuring people entering Canada are not a risk to Canadians, and that Canadians are allowed into the country. Public safety is a concern, while you can turn away foreign public safety risks, you need to take Canadian public safety risks even if it means quarentine. canadian being a canadian, foreign being someone not from Canada. I think we should have open access with safegaurds... honestly I don't beleive in government, I think it is a mechanism to remove rights. It is fine to protect people, and it is fine to organize society, but infringing on private individuals business or rights is totally contradictory to good government. That is part of the problem here, both states support the limitation of private persons. I do support a strong immigration system based on public safety principles, and economic protections. But I also beleive in visa free travel, and the right of anyone to employment should someone choose to employ them. I don't like nationalism getting in the way of business, but I support nationalism as a protection in protecting nations. Canadian resources are Canadian - it should be Canadians divying up and deciding how those are used. Likewise it is canadian owned land, people need to pay property taxes to the canadian public, administered by the government. These are principles I support. Most everything else should be left to business. I cherish a rebith of british north america as opposed to bilateralism. Once upon a time north america was free in mobility, we can thank the natives for that more or less I think if we just went back to 1760 or so everything would be ok. In this sense I support a commonwealth premise. But heavily support regional control of resources to those who live in those areas on a permanent basis. Especially when use of those resouces effect or change the living environment. These provisional controls are vital to peace and good order of soceity. People need to be protected from exploitations while not surrendering their liberties.

Then why is this being reported as rennovations to parliament --- shouldn't this be corrected in the press from misrepresentation?

I bet you couldn't. 5 bucks. gonna put your money where your mouth is Moonlight Graham? I could picture a National Film Board of Canada flic on this '101 ways to burn down the Parliament Buildings' we open with a friendly bet taken between two people.. scene 1 man with cigarette nonsuspiciously (but obviously up to something) walks around entrance to parliament building with a nearly finished cigarette... man throws cigarette at parliaent wall and runs down the hill frantically looking over his shoulder form time to time. mounty in dress gives man strange look and scratches his head ---- scene two man in hallway on tour pulls out plastic can of gasoline and starts splashing the floor .... can is empty and just before he lights his match two security gaurds grab the man on either side of his body and start to escort him out of the building.. short court scene 1 year later... the next attempt.... aided by neo-quebec seperatists.. a new plan is hatched.. and so on... of course there would also be lots of alchohol and marijuana in the film... and quebec seperatists... eventually it would succeed but it would be the whitehouse accidentally when one falls unconcious from liquour and drug enduced stupour.. wakes up in the white house thinking it is really parliament... but but it is really his own house......... and he is on acid. perfect. the queen being his dog won't work so maybe it can be .. actually can't type that here. I need to start screen writing. just got another scene in mind this one is the quebec caucus scrambling for a lighter (of cours the chasing of lucien bouchard as a source of flamability wont fly.. ... (you got to picture gille going hand over hand with other members of the block fighting for a lighter then chasing bouchard through parliament to understand the scene. (bouchard has a wooden leg) --- maybe it could be laden with explosives or required to light a bunch of fireworks wired in the upper chamber.. also I have this cool scene for bouchard that is reminisent of that one flying circus british navy scene. something like really really bad taste... sorry. also the sliping on the gasoline by a leader of the opposition probably won't be volunteered. attempt 73 got to be a straight jacket in this scene. maybe just him hoping out of the back of an ambulance before the next attempt. another scene harper somehow starts spitting fireballs at the hosue of commons as its doors are nailed shut while the rest of parliament is left inside... this done by plot 97 that slowly turns harper into a reptile breathing fire through secret gene therapy slipped into his morning coffee by the conspirator bettor who gets a job at the pmo. cameo with dalton mcguinty holding a small kiten saying "you too" (I like dalton btw) govenor general in superman suit driving back to pad to watch movies with harper as a diversion from blowing more giant fireballs and alighting the commons --- ok I think I'm loosing my creativity. /end. a cryptic ending the voice of god "EVEN BETTER THAN FIRE." then barrak walks out from behind the black screen. to the front. (record scratch might be ok for a sound effect also) Nothing seen or heard actually happened, it is all your imagination. then the men in black amensia device is brought out ---- flash it leaves room for a sequel too. I could see the soundtrack also -- I wonder how much it would cost to license will smiths here come the men in black as an endor BUT here is the catch cut mixed with o'canada and god save the queen. also the comic scene from one more time by daft punk.

I'm listening live now........ ....en francais premierment je suis tres concerne je pense c'est toute agreable... de tout l'agrement. "U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC)" A “Beyond the Border Working Group” composed of representatives from both governments will be established to implement and oversee work on the action plan. this sounds a lot like what William Ashley's post was at the begining of this thread. http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/95/e7/631bb42f4aff8d3c8ec59dabdbbf.pdf

It is pretty clear they are trying to impede net streaming because it infringes on their business markets, where providers arn't controlled by them, and are superior to their own service. Meaning rogers cable tv business caputs. Bells satalite tv business caputs. That is what this is really about. Take rogers as an example: net profit $1.26 billion CAD of this how much is via cable? -- 2.5 million customers 1 in 15 or so canadians. high definition television, video on demand, interactive television and enhanced television all these can be done online - by other providers. And for less. This is part of the reason for "increased" charges for streaming. That arn't representative to the cost of streaming but rather lost profits by loosing the business to their otherwise monopoly on service provision. Example if you have an online movie streamer, why buy from pay per view? just a classic point. Also the internationality renders the CTRC somewhat redundant with US streaming or foreign streaming from other countries. Where there is no "net censorship.. yet" Net neutrility and government regulation of media (canadian content) and rights payments IP enforcement etc.. all become problematic. Good for canada in general but very bad for IP in canada -- effectively forcing socialization of artists - and astranging canada from international IP law. Services like youtube paying royalties out are an example of the future.. people will be paying royalties as a fraction of what they use to get. and no one will buy anything. It basically would reduce bell and rogers simply to infrastructure providers - but heavily regulated information providers. their only profit cut is in the bandwidth itself once this happens and the "actual cost" doesn't cut it. even though a margin above it is effectively their profit margin. but other countries have other laws in effect - or the US is a leader in media Canada simply can't compete and there goes the profit and arts in Canada. It isn't new but there is a gradual transitioning --- it isn't in full effect now but people should be aware of the migration and its effects in 10 years from now. cell? internet? It is a house of cards - then it opens up the whole broadcaster/infrastructure problems.. but this is happening. then there is the problem of monopolization... this sorta exists.. then the "how much is enough" if they have to undercut other providers. They have to port their service to the net... but not everyone has the net.. and if for less... it is a question of overall profits declining.. and little else.. and long term control -- as they have to negotiate for the rights.. and Canadians don't hold the rights.. so US companies can put out their own content at their prices.. then it goes back to content ownership and rogers and bell don't have a lot of prime ownership of the american market.. that I'm aware of.. things like universal studies, sony/bmi, microsoft, google etc.. those are the companies that will kick bell and rogers buts in 10 years if these things are liberalized. and those arn't canadian companies. Other than tech companies rogers and bell are big hitters in the canadian economy their loss to US companies streaming from the US is not negligible. #7. BCE Inc. (Bell Canada Entreprise phone services such as voip also make free long distance and local calling the future norm. chances are IPV6 devices with dedicated ips will be the future of video comunications replacing phones before vr kicks in. Oh and once content is liberalized people will be guided by their knowledge of the existence like search engines.... if the content providers are american all you will see is american - it ain't that clear cut but it is leading.

Don't encourage him! Next thing you know we'd have steam powered diamond drills drilling to the center of the earth as a preventative defence. Or why not rock pipelines? Hmm just drill huge tunnels at a level that will produce steam but not boil oil? or processsing vats by geothermal energy and pressure just by a maze of pressure/heat levels for processing of petrochemicals deep underground? We could bread a race of people called morlocks too. Hmm think of the potentials. that is crack science though...

Tuition rates are up... here at this institution 6% for Canadians and 3% for international students. Residence rates are also set to increase by 3%. This is a trend that is going on. This with a dollar that is up to the USD. If tuition is $3000 for a term a 5% tuition rate works out to a $150 increase - this in turn gets passed on to the government that funds 80% of this money. etc... Tuition is still low compared to the US.. however you got to wonder why the rates are going up...? Are peoples disposable incomes going up? It seems difficult to stop such a trend with food costs housing costs and now education costs all on the rise... what is the student to do.. more loans?

This is a false dichotomy or rather simply false. The federal debt is about 15000-20000 per capita (although this is due to rise about 25% from 2006 to whenever the conservatives stop deficit spending.) Last I checked about 250 billion dollars was deficit spent over this period (that is subtraction of surpluses, and over spending - including funding allocated for future periods such as through bonds with future return dates) (potentially more than 250 billion actually). You could see this figure right to perhaps $25000 to $30,000. The provincial debt varies by province. The municipal debt varies by municipality. (I should note that the stiulus plan was only about 1/3rd of the debt that was lumped onto municipalities and provinces (those that acutally didn't have money to spend but had to spend to get the federal money - in otherwords the 50 billion in action plan dollars resulted in 100 billion to the provinces and municipalities in potential debt (adding 100 billion or less in debt to provinces.. and I think almost all provinces are in debt..) Actionplan resulted in an additional $4000 in debt for everyone. If you put that in terms of employing even 1 in 32 people 30% of the unemployed works out $130,000 for each person. For 100% of the unemployed or 10% it works out to salaries of around $40,000 for every unemployed person in Canada. This of course didn't happen and this wealth was concentrated. and some small projects happened, that I havn't seen the result of. That is all there is to it. there is the problem however of the rate of aboriginal increase to non aboriginal increase in treaty payment ratio. So if canada's non aboriginal population increases faster than the aboriginal population the treaty obligation decreases on a per capita basis. This is why attacking the debt sooner rather than later is important --- debt that can't be paid off like in the US becomes redundant and systematic. It is vital to remove the debt now.. then end deficit spending and bond and t note issuing to make Canada debt free and fiscally responsible - something governments since the turn of the last century havn't been able to get a grasp on. It is colouring -- we can borrow your money or we can take your money? Well if you have to take more money to borrow it, why don't you just take it in the first place? But why take it if you can make it. That is the problem.. governemt over the last 100 years have been theives. We need makers not takers. Thieves and petty thugs. We need responsible government not corrupt government. No Tax is good tax. (It is true it could be up to 100,000 + but for the federal forum we ought to stick to generalized and federal debt not nostaligic debt) It could be ben up above 100k though, but this isn't by birth.. since only nationality and citizenship are involved.. not residence (that is provincial and (and municipal - but municipalities are provincial incorporations - provinces are crowns thus persons and debt holders) An emerging problem is though that Canada no longer recognizes british subject status. Making the original treaties issued. The treaties are actually inert with the current federal government. This obtained via two questions to CIC on commonwealth citizenship and british subject status. Since neither of these are seen as tied to a "country". In this respect Canadians are not british subjects. - even if they are commonwealth citizens - this a completely contradictory stance to the notion of commonwealth citizenship as a replacement for british subject status. The governments current view however seems illegal and contradictory. For instance Enfranchisement simply removed all distinctions between the legal rights and liabilities of Indians and those of other British subjects." But british subjects are no longer a seperate legal class in terms of being tied to a country. "A country is a geographical region considered to be the physical territory of a sovereign state" Yet british subject status no longer is seen as tied to a country. Essentially the federal government doesn't see treaty as sovereign between two soveregin states.. that is the view of the current government and jason kenney. Essentially all treaty has been supra vires upsurped by the federal government and the sovereignties have been subverted. Meaning treaty is just a show as far as the current federal government is concerned not legal.

It has gotten out of hand first 250 million a year now an additional 5 billion. You could build a massive massive complex for these costs.. .no "building should cost 5 billion for upkeep it is rediciulous. http://www.montrealgazette.com/Renovations+crumbling+Parliament+critical+Fraser+says/4222249/story.html They can build a new world trade center for less than that. It is so absurd. Some upkeep is reasonable... but this is an absurd amount. They have whole forts maintained for far less than this. Take this for instance http://www.toronto.ca/culture/museums/fort-york.htm "The Fort York Foundation is a non-profit, registered charitable organization created with the mandate to support capital renewal at Fort York with the specific goal to raise $6 million from the private sector for the proposed new Visitor Centre." Meanwhile.. parliament -- lets spend over 5 billion dollars on upkeeping this building...? sounds fishy to me. If you are going to modernize why not build a whole new building and keep the historic building as is. at a cost of 5 billion it is soooo absurd. Take into account an equivolent 1 year of upkeep bought the nortel campus complex - which is a corporate headquarters and research complex. Yet billions on this.. so many buildings and land could be bought for this price, and services shifted. It is way super inflated.

The artificial lights we use should not have 490 to 505 nanometers band ranges especially those closer to the 505 band.

Chances are you guys probably don't really even need light bulbs. It takes a little getting use to but artificial light actually causes stupidity or rather brain issues. --- 1. it leads to production of amygloidal deposits - this in turn can lead to alzheimers or brain deteriation 2. Artificial light contributes to screwed up circadian rythyms that can lead to cortisol increases - that leads to hippocampus degredation. Leading to memory problems. Expose yourself to as little artificial light as possible, it is good for your health. (get your sunshine though - vitamin d is good for you - there is that whole killer sun issue developing though) Really a flashlight or candle will probably be fine for 99% of your light requirements - when there isn't sunshine outside. Your eyes will even adjust to seeing better with less light.

Ok so what stealth fighters are there? OK now how are you going to detect a stealth fighter anyway? If you can't detect it? False dichotomy? Also you having a sense of difficulty due to your ability to know how, isn't difficulty I experience, it is difficulty you experience. Try to be objective between the two differences. http://info-pollution.com/false.htm Your argument seems to be adherant to not even bother with defence because you can't defend against something you can't detect. Totally making the purchases redundant. Instead - perhaps investing $16 billion dollars to mine the center of the earth with a giant explosive with the threat of detonating it if Canada is attacked is more prudent. Maybe if Canada picks a spot with lots of gold it could self finance. If Canada can manage 100km / month it could maybe have delivery before the f35 was due. 6378 km of rock works out to about 64 months. A little over 5 years. Can you believe the deepest mine in the world is only said to be 4km deep. the bottom line is I don't believe in stealth. I think all technologies can be detected at some point. When you get beyond that point there is a level of redundancy.

Flaherety seems to have stated this for the budget: -No new spending -Tax cuts for corporations -female retiries who didn't work would be eligible for CPP. (more than just the current adjustments for stay at home moms if this is anything but giving what people already have). - the government is willing to build Quebec an arena (but this is illegal to do so with funds that are available - so new funds need to be created - but no new spending... mmh?) That is the budget as far as I can tell. This equals: 1. Liberals not gonna take it. 2. NDP may be offended at this "promise of nothing new" 3. Well its not the 5 billion the Bloc wants unless it is a really really nice arena. (from this government though anything is possible in terms of spending on an arena - g20, olympics, a quarter of the senators, afghanistan - real sports - those combined might even add up to the 5 billion quebec is asking for. Call it Arena Canada. Anything can happen at this point based on past actions by the various parties... but the election is still a long way off because of the recess until mid March (not a prorouge --- "a recess") 3 month "recesses" are normal for parliament for whatever unknown reason - you know 3 months off every half year plus stat holidays. Even though it appears even the local MP here is in Ottawa when you try to get ahold of them at the consituentcy office. That would put the election somethime in late april or early May.... None the less ... 1 and a half months is a long long long time in bearing with the government - in terms of peoples short term memories. So much can change in that time, especially with the opposition silenced in parliament that whole time. Even with the "take note" for Egypt (I would rather have a take note for "PERIMITER SECURITY" since this is tomorrow Friday and is an initiative apparently to change immigration rules, allow the US military and federal police agencies to investigate Canadians and operate in Canada, and share even more information even on "suspected situations", things like police contacts and access to police files on this side of the border, example for police investigations, even if no charges result - as a means to "deter and prevent mobility of people in and out of Canada. This is a serious issue when it in anyway allows US officials to prevent Canadians from returning to Canada or likewise prevents Canadians from leaving Canada - even if they arn't entering the US. I'm still baffled by the notion of having a parliamentary session when parliament is in recess -- this constitutionality really baffles me. Makes those 20 days where games actually occur that much more entertaining. One thing gets me though - with no new spending I geuss the f35 deal is dead in the dirt.