overthere

Ummm, I have been there twice, most recently 2 years ago and it is far more prosperous now than then. Larger too. That applies to India overall, not just Mumbai. Yes, me. I live nearby. The prevailing winds in Edmonton are from the west and south. Of course they occasionally come from any direction, but those are the prevailing ones. The only heavy industrial close to the city is in Strathcona County on the east side. You figure it out. The heavy industry at Fort Sask is too far away, and the prevailing winds there would also take it away from the city. Buy a map. You can also google 'winds in edmonton'. So far, no cancer in Edmonton caused by air quality links, eh?

One of the purposes of lowering the bank rate and now to lower the prime rate is to stimulate the housing market. In recent years the government(often through their policy instrument CMHC) have sought to slow down the housing market, with Vancouver and Toronto as specific targets. It will be interesting to see if CMHC comes out with revised regs on amortization periods, another useful tool.

You are obviously on the far right. Poor people are on the left and do not have cars, and don't need gasoline. I'll be the guy with the Molotov nametag filling beer bottles with gasoline at the pumps.

Hong Kong is one of the great financial cities of the world. But it appeals more to shoppers than resort types. It has great air connections to literally everywhere in Asia and beyond. Better yet, go to Bali. Cheap, safe, friendly people, good food, good shopping and very interesting culture. Did I mention it is cheap. You might even travel through Hong Kong.

There's going to be a problem telling the left from the right on the barricades. Lots of people on the left believe in selfish bourgeosie concepts like owning property. Lots of people on the right believe in commie plots like universal access to education and health care. Will identifying armbands be enough to distinguish your enemy or will we need facial tattoos as well?

Article? It is a website posted by a litigant in a case about water quality over 300 kms from Edmonton. Air? No. Edmonton? no. Where are your links indicating air quality in Edmonton being directly responsible for increased cancers. Post now or button up.

They don't shut down the airline, they just leave the revenue earners sitting idle while still costing money.

Dude, you ned to actually read the links. The first (Huffpost) actually says scienteists have no causual links between air quality and cancer. I don't even bother opening anything from the broken record and frequent pack of self serving bullshit that is The Tyee. And the SA article is about water quality in the oilsands, not air quality in Edmonton. Sorry about your acquaintance, but an anecdote means not much. Now post some actua information or move on. Thanks.

It will cost the airlines one or two days of revenue, which is a huge hit. And they still have lots of costs. They still have to pay for airline lease or credit costs, rent at jetways, and will have to still pay a lot of those wages. When your employer sends you home and you're nionized, you get paidf soemting. But the loss of revenue is big, they don';t make anything sitting on the ground.

Sorry, simply not true. Who can forget jackasses like Jason Moskovitz routinely being grossly ignorant to Oppostion MPs during the Chretien years? Cross Country checkup with call after carefullly screened call crapping on Reform? There are countless examples. And I never once heard a CBC reporter refer to it as "the Chretien Government". Of course, now they call it "The Harper Government" in an obvious attempt to make that a pejorative erm, which it is. Nope the CBC flatters those it thinks will butter their bread, and slams those who won't.

He'll do it if he wins a majority. After four years without CBC TV, people will have forgotten Road To Avonlea reruns. I'm talking about CBC TV, which has been in the ratings dumpster. Nobody is watching. Wouldn't you expect that if everybody loves CBC TV they'd turn it on once in a while? Perhaps you could read what I say, not invent it after the fact. Thanks. I agree that CBC Radio was a binding link in 1935. The Internet has smashed that. Nearly all the remote places it once reached have broadband internet and satellite TV. But it is actually quite popular in urban Canada, which is why I said the Tories would retain it. CBC radio is far cheaper to prop up than YV. What will be interesting will be the future of heavily subsidized Radio-Canada.

Not true. They probably do not need it, as events have demonstrated. CBC has been a vocal oppnenet of Harper from before he was PM, they recognize that his belt tightening ways threaten them. I don't think CBC really gives a shit about ideology, but they most certainly can recognize a threat to their tenured jobs. It serves them to support Harpers opponents. In the past, you have railed against how Harper has refused to engage the media, and that media in Canada certainly includes the CBC who maintain a large and vocal presence on Parliament Hill. Yet Harper has had 9 years including a majority without much but relentless daily hate from CBC. He has riled them mightily by not acknowledging their 'power' Perhaps he has simply assessed that their 'power' is less tangible than what they try to sell...... So, does he need CBC? Apparently not. He's done pretty well with their antipathy and full court attack. And that fact is very worrisome for CBC, as it should be. They know that they don't provide anything unique to Canadians despite countless billions of subsidy with the mandate to provide something special and unique to us. The evidence that they have failed miserably is in the ratings. Nobody is watching. People yammer on and on about 'save the CBC', but they don';t back up the yammering by actually watching the network. So, my (admittedly easy) prediction is that if the Tories win another majority, the hammer will fall on CBC TV. CBC radio will survive for now because they are cheap and people do listen to CBC radio.

Then you can easily find a link to support your claim regarding cancer and air quality in Edmonton. I'd be very surprised if you can find any of it. Aside from refinery row on the far eastern edge of Edmonton, there is no heavy industry in the city. There is plenty of it in Fort Saskatchewan which is well to the northeast of the city. However the prevailing winds are from the south and west, so industrial activity on the east and northeast means those industrial belts are perfectly placed to take any bad air away from Edmonton, not toward it.. I await your link.

No, they survive because they get a boatload of money from taxpayers every year.

6% of the Canadian GDP comes from energy related resources. That is all energy related: gas oil uranium renewables hydro etc. Looks like it occupies a wee corner of the overall basket. What hurts is that it generates a lot of export money, or used to. No problem, Ontario has a plan to invest in the resurrection of industry. They have all the tools they could possibly need: cheap energy, outstanding work force, low dollar, and a dynamic govt led by K Wynne. How can we lose?

No, that is not and has never been the primary motivation of the CBC. The primary motivation for them is their own survival. You cannot comapre the CBC to any 'serious credible corporation' because they lack a huge element found in the other networks: profit motive. That obliges other networks to deliver the demands of its customers, which are are not viewers. The main customers of CNN, CTV, NBC,CBS ABC etc are not viewers- they are advertisers. To get and retain those customers, the advertisers who pay millions, the TV network must deliver viewers reliably and in large numbers. The CBC does not have this pressure, evidence of this is their ongoing existence with abysmal numbers of viewers. They have failed continually in bringing large numbers of viewers to the screen. Their ratings are awful and have been since Canada was allowed to watch anything else. Only in a state sponsored network could this situation exist. So how does CBC manage to survive? By getting a huge dollop of subsidy from their owners, the shareholders. When the Liberals rule, there is little threat to the CBC. When the Torie rule, pencils and axes are sharpened. Gee, I wonder which one the CBC favours? The reasons are obvious.

Great idea. Then we could sell them for big money to small countries who cannot afford to defend themselves otherwise. We'll be like global suicide bombers: get away or we'll kill ourselves!!!! The bomb industry could bring all those juicy jobs back to Ontario!!!. UNtil China undercut us in the business, again. Darn. Do you have another plan?

OMG, 6 to 8 inches in NYC. Maybe Toronto could call out the army and send it south to help.

and it is rampant on the Prairies, whether or not his fiancee experiences it. Casual, overt and all too common. And it cuts both ways, which is not surprising.

Mumbai is unquestionably more prosperous than it was a generation ago.

He is a Hater of Freedom. Ban. Ban or the terrorist have won.

Another thread perhaps. We could call it The Final Solution.

Um, the West gained some new seats recently (as did ON) and is still way underrepresented. Quebec is still overrepresented, as is PEI. It's really hard to fix, there are conflicting laws that guarantee change is extremely difficult. The addition of seats in the West and ON was the best that could be done at this time. Gerrymandering? Pretty much, since there is such wide variance in representation by population in the Commons.

It's a modern conceit that humanity is anything but predatory. That does not mean all of us have to ignore reality or pretend otherwise. That's just a rationalization for 'assimilate or die'. Oh, and we absolutely do not require our other immigrants to assimilate. It may be in their financvial interest, but there is no requiremnt in multicultural Canada. Except for those dirty drunk Indians who just refuse to either get with the program or die. At this point, it looks like die will happen long before we can bludgeon them into agreement. That may be your hope, but it sure as f** is not my Canada. So lets summarize history in a few lines. 130 or so years of institutional paternalism, forced isolation to remote shitholes, generations of children taken from their families in a delibertae attempt to destroy their culture and lives and handouts have brought us to a situation where the native population is diseased, desperate, imprisoned, angry, dependent and poor in nearly every way imaginable. And you reckon it's all their fault. Oh well. What I see is a people not at the end, but at the very beginning of a new phase. It's a time of beginnings of self reliance, baby steps in self government, a new order in many ways. Personally, I don';t expect 600+ First Nations to suddenly be led by 600+ leaders on the level of Churchill or Gandhi. It's going to take a little time, and don't we owe them at least that much?

Before you can get to that exalted state, you need the guns. This is not some puzzling chicken vs egg situation. Oh, and both countries are major arms exporters. You're OK with that too.