Esq

bear in mind oil is bought in US dollars... and it is Canada major market.. a lower dolalr means more return on oil on conversion.

In addition to selected tax credits/deductions, they need to emphasize specific sectors of employment, as well as corporate benefits like medical, and post secondary training benefits - that might otherwise fall into the government cost burden. Corporate taxes should not be reduced but instead benefits should be given until the deficit is removed and responsible fiscally prudent management of finances is assured. the $750000000000 of debt needs to be removed, and this will take drastic measures. I really like the SP plan to do rapid paydown and budget restructuring to provide for a balanced budget, and a goal of $50000000000-$100000000000 of debt paydown per year as a goal. This provides for the debt to be removed in about 8 to 15 years. The Conservatives instead have huge earmarks going to the United States, and that money doesn't stay in Canada. Likewise they don't support quantitative easing, and this could reduce the debt by $10 billion or more per year in this climate. Also a high dollar means - a high debt, since debt in Canadian dollars, appreciatees with the Canadian dollar. .62 vs 1.10 is a 50% difference in the value of the debt. This means that since 0.62 dollar you could say that the public debt has more than doubled. Rapid printing inceasing the overall money supply by about 50 billion per year will allow the dollar to deflate - while paying down the debt. This will also insulate and stengthen the Canadian economy. The Conservatives seem to have the opposite in mind, allowing slow appreciation, interest rate movement upward, and about 5% increase in federal debt each year - more than the grown rate, almost double the actual growth rate. Lowering Corporate taxes at the same time, while good - will not be good overall, until the other criteria for sound economic policy are met 1. a non deficit yeilding federal budget 2. a short to mid term -10 to 20 year paydown of the debt. (9 to 14 years is ideal for future needs) 3. promotion for employment growth 4. increased growth rate in non core locations (non urban growth) 5. diversification of economic support - centered on domestic needs and major export markets with low supply.

An example here would be to leave the rate the same but put the funds directly to debt reduction once the deficit is paid off. Since that deficit most likely represents corporate profits.

This would be good if they actually had a working plan to pay off the debt. Unforunately their "Reduction in corporate taxes" with continued many multibillion dollar deficits, just adds hidden costs. They need to actually balanced the books before they reduce taxes. A general tax increase should be passed up until that point by giving selective tax credits/deductions - for specific things like capital investments and hiring of personnel. Once the defifict is paid down actually tax reductions can be made. However corporate taxes should only represent the actual cost of managing and offseting corporation within Canada - that is for services provided to corporations on a basis of cost to the government, and corporate savings by service provision by the government. All income taxes should be removed, but corporate taxes need to pay down the debt since it has largely been racked up - at their profit.

It really gets me that these polls are established based on the "leader" of the party. The whole notion is dictatorial. It be nice to see a party composed of representatives that form a policy by consulting with their riding associations. Instead we get parties that tell their ridings who their leaders are, and leaders who are selected from a corporate board. So much for populism, and representative democracy.

The military should determine what is required for operational requirements. Other than this the paintjob means nothing. It could be flamingo pink with roses all over it, and at least may actually save tax payers money as a result.

No it doesn't. There are penalties, but those penalties do not remove their other rights. The judge sets out a sentence - it is unconstitutional to include cruel and unusual punishment in that sentence.

I think it is digusting that you are advocating cruel and unusual punishment as acceptable. What someone does shouldn't effect their rights under law. Someone who is convicted of something regardless of whether they did it or not, is still entitled to the same rights as anyone else under the law. Just because you don't think so makes you just as bad as anyone else torturing another person. Torture is a far worse crime than murder.

How do they know this?

Forgot the NDP http://www.ndp.ca/vision/social-policy

This is largely identity. NDP does not = left NDP = NDP LIBERAL does not = left LIZBERAL = LIBERAL http://www.liberal.ca/issues/ CONSERVATIVES does not = left CONSERVATIVE. http://www.conservative.ca/policy/ etc.. The fact is that it is more demographically aligend on class basis. NDP = WORKING CLASS BLUE COLLAR (UNIONIST/LABOUR/ SOCIAL DEMOCRATS) (http://www.ndp.ca/vision/social-policy) LIBERAL = WORKING CLASS WHITE COLLAR (MIXED PUBLIC / PRIVATE / STATISTS) CONSERVATIVE = CORPORATE (LARGELY CORPORATIST / FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN DEMOCRAST / ALBERTANS/ DISESTABLISHMENT) The left right axis is difficult to really place except on some issues. It is difficult to lay down an issue and say the right or left side of it. There are different groups even within the parties on issues. Catholic liberals still may not support medicare to support abortion while other liberals might. The same is true of Conservatives, some corporatist conserviates might see raising a mentally deficient child as a tax burden, or uneconomical if it didn't suit their industry, as it might create a tax burden, and so abortion of medically defective children might be acceptable, while religious extremists, (even though the first born child used to be sacrificed until the refusal), might say abortion is killing, and even though killing in government sanctioned things like capital punishement and war are ok, still government sanctioned murder of a child may not, for whatever reason, even though it isn't explicitly stated as a law of God as to differentiate the different acts, in English. The whole Jewish issue is another matter, as God sanctioned the genocide of the edomites, including children.. The bottom line is that there are people with different opinions under the overall banner. So this left right issue is totally irrelevant, as it is more or less - a policy position basis - and what one would actually do, not just what they say they will do.

Well it clearly doensn't conform to Article II, Section I, Clause 4

Yes all this time harper could be holding elections for his nominations.. BUT HE ISN'T .. .what this means is that it is all a political game to pry feeble minds, not to bring about electoral change. He could already do this. But he isn't.. so it isn't his motivation.. it is what lies inbetween that is his motivation, clear.y

He can have an election to decide the nomination (Harper doesn't appoint, he nominates, but unless there is a disqualification for some reason the GG is suppose to approve it) The point is, there is no law barring an election for stephen Harpers nomination candidate.

If you want elected senators easy.. the PM sets up an election since they are "the person who choses" All this we'll change the senate stuff is BS.. Stephen Harper could elect each senator he puts in if he wanted, simply by determining the position by running an election in the area where the seat is vacant. Instead he is hyper legalizing it, and making it an ongoing political issue for the mentally challenged. The same goes for judges and even the governor general.. the PM just needs to decide by having an election. But Stephen harper is not what he seems.. he is using it as a political issue, not to actually have elected officials.. he can already do that. But he isn't.

And no this doesn't mean that you can't have elected officals, but removing the old system is a form of treason.

All this non elected governor general stuff, therefor they shoulnd't have any duties is absurd. Judges the highest legal body arn't even elected, but like the Governor General are political appointments. Senators likewise. The post is a termed appointment for a reason.

The simple answer is yes. The Governor General is the fount of honour in Canada as representative of the Monarch. While there is not much wrong with giving a citation giving an official honour is very taboo. It is make believe. Although I could see how it might have merits, it should be through the governor general, if it in any way exists. Much like recommendations are received for military awards.

Where is he living right now... Ontario.

How many years was Ignatieff out of Canada? Guess who's not a Albertan?

That is 30 or more years of 50 years in Ontario...

Also take into account where he has lived for the last 10 years. Where he has spent most of his time most of his life.. most of it is.. Ontario.

Saipan do you more strongly identify with your formative years as your identify of who you are than your adult years? Both, niether? Apply this same thing to Harper having been born and raised in Toronto. Do you think he is more of a person who is Ontarian, or Albertan? If so why?

It is also funny that Mr. Harper wanted to be a foreign diplomat representing Canada abroad yet he is critical of Michael Ignatieff for being outside of Canada for so long? Jealousy?

Just a few comments: The Early life of Stephen Harper: --------------------------------------- Birthplace — Toronto, Ontario, Canada Education: Northlea Public School (Toronto) John G. Althouse Middle School (Toronto) Richview Collegiate Institute (Toronto) University of Toronto (Toronto) (Young Liberals) (dropped out after two months) Harper then moves to Calgary and starts working for Imperial Oil... I think it is pretty clear Stephen Harper is as Stephen Harper does. I bet he cried when he dropped out. I think to Understand Stephen Harper you must understand what led him to leave University after two months and start working for Imperial Oil. Harper spent his formative years in Toronto, not Alberta. Whatever happened in those two months was extreme in forming Stephen Harpers future.. so the story goes.