yvestar

This is such a bogus argument. The American territories are connected to the USA. Much the same as Canadian territories to Canada. Their is very little difference between the two definitions except American territories cannot vote in federal elections. So I guess, Alaska and Hawaii are extra-stately dependencies that are not part of the American territory(mainland)? And what about the Arizona Territory? (I'm quoting below an American poster in another forum) The US has added to its territory through purchases, wars, negotiations, and outright confiscation of territory. The territories that comprise the 48 contiguous states today were not completely assimilated until 1912, when the Arizona Territory became the 48th state to be admitted to the union. IIRC, it takes 60,000 votes to apply for statehood, and without special allowances from Congress (as in D.C.), people in territories are citizens but they cannot vote in federal elections which pivot on statehood and provisions of the US Constitution. They can vote in local and territorial elections.

The territories were purchased by the Canadian government from the Hudson's Bay Company. It can be said they were annexed. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book...ionary&va=annex annex: to incorporate (a country or other territory) within the domain of a state Anyhow, it's irrelevant if they were annexed or not. The fact remains: the territories are not provincial and should not be granted the same political decision making power as the provinces. I'm not a big fan of US politics but they have it right this time when it comes to a territory and voting in federal politics. These territorial residents are full citizens (ie birth certificate, passport) of USA with the exception they cannot vote in federal elections. In order for the Canadian territories to receive a lot more money in the future to become provinces sooner, they must give something up in return.

They are US citizens. They are officially a part of the USA. They pay federal taxes. http://cefus.net/background/ These are not stand-alone colleges or univerisities. Big difference. It's not the only reason.

Respectfully, I disagree. I've indicated my reasons above. The territories are not provincial enough. Neither is any state in the USA.

The point is, the territories are not provinces.

It's not the point. The territories are not provinces, period. I never suggested any of this. In fact, I'm proposing the federal government give more money to the territories in exchange for federally disfranchising them. The more money the territories receive the faster they mature to become provinces. It's a plain and simple strategy to obtain provincial status quicker and it involves a lot of MONEY!

I'm suggesting that provinces can be fully represented at the federal level while the territories can be represented without any voting power at this level. You obviously misread the intent of my letter. In NO WAY do I make reference of the people living in the territories as to being children versus being adults. Please read my letter more carefully. Thanking you in advance. I am saying, a territory (not the people living in the territory) does not have the same maturity as the provinces do, therefore the former should not be given full rights in national decision-making.

In case you don't know North American history, it was non-natives who invaded this land. First Nations should have a significant means to preserve their culture by living in and maintaining reserves. Have you considered inflation or supply and demand forces? Even though I don't agree with wage regulating, isn't that what you are proposing? Would you like your wage to be capped? Does Klein the Conservative agree to government involvement in any wage regulating, including his own wage? So what. Write to him anyways and ask for an income tax cut.

Hawk, Setting aside political partisanship at the moment, First Nations free education is a very small portion of the total Canadian education system. Eliminating this would not have much effect. As for global reduction of tuition fees, who is going to pay for the rising cost and expansion of post-secondary overhead? In the last federal budget, the government has promised $13 Billion towards the military. With regards to taxes, if you feel so strongly about it, write to Klein and other MPPs and ask them to lower the provincial tax rate, since the Alberta Treasury has a surplus afterall. If you're an independant thinker, tell us how Klein should spend the surplus.

Tawasakm, Based on your description, the student turned taxpayer repays the fees using the amount exceeding a minimum tax. In other words, the student is repaying his fees and only paying a minimum tax or in other words, the student is theoretically not repaying his fees though paying full tax.

We'd lose Canadian sovereinty in the north if we dumped them entirely. Maybe a country like China or Russia would love to annex the territories. Though I doubt the USA would sit back and let it happen. The USA may end up annexing them instead.

I don't know if it makes any sense, but it's probably worth looking at. In this system, it appears the student is compensated for getting an education and owing more tax dollars to the government. The end result is their education is free or they pay less tax.

Hawk, If you haven't noticed, the Federal and Alberta governments have huge budget surpluses.

caesar, As so far, their seat in federal parliament is irrelevant: A non-voting seat would accomplish the same as their current single voting seat. They still get representation because they are allowed to speak their views in federal parliament. It would be much more wise for the Territories to give up their voting seat in exhange for a non-voting seat and a lot more money to expand their people and land infrastructure; resulting in becoming a province a lot quicker.

I think gender-biased pricing is mostly non-existant. If this were a true phenomenon then males should pay less in auto and life insurance while women paid the same as men. I'll gladly meet women half way in haircut and dry cleaning prices while they meet us half way so men pay less in auto and life insurance premiums. The politician who brought this up obviously did not thoroughly inform himself before suggesting this bill.

Dear ..., Re: Territories vs. Provinces, Elections Canada mock polling for underage voters The territories should only have non-voting seats in federal parliament since they are only baby-infants or toddlers in comparison to the adult and upper-teen level provinces. Though the 16-year age to vote is currently being considered in Canada, the territories still have not attained this level of maturity as they relate to the provinces. The territories do not have the mature infrastructure all provinces enjoy i.e. several cities, several hospitals, a university, a municipal police force. It would be much more advantageous for territories to receive much more money from Ottawa to build its people and land infrastructure as a result of foregoing their irrelevant voting seat in federal parliament in exchange for a non-voting seat. For your information, a country like the United States do not allow its territories a seat in its legislative buildings, period. Do Canadians allow their newborns, preschoolers, elementary students or junior high school students to vote in elections? The answer is no: simply because these children have not matured enough to make life-altering decisions for themselves and for the jurisdiction in question. A mock election for underage voters performed by Elections Canada during real elections at the same polling buildings, at the same time, is ideal and likely practical for encouraging these young citizens to be politically involved today and in the future. Re: Student Loans and Grants Most everyone is aware of the financial burden today’s students must carry after they graduate from post-secondary school. In light of the seriousness this exorbitant debt poses against students, I am proposing the following: Student financial assistance from the State would consist of half the monies in non-repayable grants and the other half in interest-free loans to be repaid in equal installments within 10 to 20 years following a 2-year grace period from graduation. A 2-year grace period from graduation would allow the student to find employment in their field of study in the event there is a recession on or about that time, while their credit rating would not be threatened if they were obligated to repay the loan immediately. The actual term in the 10 to 20 year repayment period would depend on the salary received from employment during this period: the repayment term will change as their salary changes. It is in the State’s best interest to educate its citizens in order to improve civilization and to better compete on a global basis. Therefore it is imperative that the State provides financial assistance in the form of grants and interest-free loans to ease the burden received by today’s students in exchange for increased future consumer consumption and societal achievements performed by the latter. Re: Gradual Tobacco Prohibition Tobacco prohibition does not involve criminalizing it. The likely best approach to eliminating and outlawing a health evil like tobacco is to wean people away from it. The weaning period would be 10 to 20 years while a timetable to do this weaning would be made law and educated to the people on a timely basis. Some weaning laws could possibly include: no smoking in the view or vicinity of a minor, no smoking in the public indoors and public outdoors, no smoking in the private indoor while a non-smoker is also in this indoor. Sincerely, Yves Villeneuve www.realdemocracycanada.com

Ah! I'm caught red-handed. I'm not in marketing but I definitely was trying to color the intent of this legislation.

I'm just making some light comments here: The definition of marriage is not being changed; it is being improved. My stance still remains where marriage has the theoretical right to a basic identity much like an individual theoretically has. In the desired advent of marriage differentiation... ...gays and lesbians would now enjoy homosexual marriages... ...while heterosexuals would further enjoy heterosexual marriages. Is anyone not interested in a logistic compromise to recognize the inherent dignity of two consenting adults (a marriage)?

knn, Good post. I'm not disputing your research but could you please reveal your source(hopefully it is a source for a broad base of issues) so that I may use it as a reference tool if the need arose in the future.

With all due respect, I'd agree with you partly if the term marriage belonged to a specific religion and the state did not use this term either. But this is not reality. The term marriage, is universally used by most religions and most states. No one should have exclusive rights to the word marriage anymore. Based on the information at the link below, you seem to have a libertarian view of this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

This is a very realistic assessment of the situation.

Marriage is an extension of two people. The marriage speaks on behalf of these two people. What's the point...you don't seem to understand the concept of marriage representing two individuals with common goals for getting married. I suppose you may say, as an individual, I represent my character and soul but marriage cannot because it is piece of paper. There is your essence: Marriage is piece of paper. The Charter does not allow it, period. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html The first words in the UN Charter of Rights Preamble is: the answer to your two first questions. Identifying a marriage for purpose of recognizing the dignity of two individuals could be seen as the inalienable right of both individuals. They don't call it the 'Gay Pride Parade' for nothing. I, like many, use the word 'marriage' to reference two individuals. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html PREAMBLE Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Then what you are saying is that marriages don't have equal rights. You are saying: not all marriages are entitled to the benefits of marriage. Yes these are some of the traits I'm referring to. The Charter does not allow this to happen. The issue I've brought up is: should a marriage be allowed to be identified at a bare minimum much like I'm identified as a male on my birth certificate? Is having an identity an inalienalble right? If yes, should it be protected under the Charter?

Marriage is nothing beyond a legal definition. A marriage can be distinguished using the basic traits of the individuals involved. Hence a natural flow as the Court described. Time to go to bed.

No its not a new entity, because they are not forming a legal relationship. A corporation is considered an entity. A religious institution is considered an entity. An unlimited or limited business partnership is an entity. They are all legal entities.