overthere

They are not 'our' refineries, and once it comes out of the ground it is not our oil either. We don't get to pick whjere it is refined. The oil in the big line perhaps heading east won't be refined in Ontario anyway, it will via to Montreal and New Brunswick. I have zero faith any of that will happen. Our usual practice will likely prevail: delay for years or decades, fight over pennies, fight over Quebec, partisan battles in Ottawa, Quite likely the people that pay for it(hint, not a CDN govt) will pack their bags with the capital and say.... later maybe.

Fasth started the game and played poorly. Scrivens was not better. He has not played well so far this year. I don't feel sorry for him, Fasth or the Oilers. The goalies both need to demonstrate they are NHL starters, and neither has done it yet. The OIlers-MacTavish- need to demonstrate they have sufficent wits to recognize and obtain quality players. Haven't done that yet, in spades. They started last year at 4-14 and were effectively eliminated by November. That may happen earlier this year, they have shown less than nothing so far.

They are not 'subsidized'. all what gas stations are franchisees? I agree the price is out of their retail control. If one chain goes rogue and drops wholesale prices, the franchisee does not eat the loss, they are sold the fuel at a lesser price to maintain a slim margin.

I already knew I was right, this has been noted several times before when Toronto has Olympic bid aspirations. Oh, and the track may comply, but I wonder if the IOC will be interested in having flagship Track and Field events at a place with such a small spectator capacity?

Getting ugly already after getting humilliated by the Kings last night. The team obviously has no idea at all how to play any form of team defence, a big problem when you rarely have the puck. Eakins needs to get his house in Edmonton on the market before it snows and buyers evaporate.

It is only a loss leader for the store if it is privately owned, and I very much doubt that privately owned stores would sell gas at all if they did not make something on it.. Shell -one example- extracts, refines, distributes and retails gasoline- vertically integrated. They can retain profit at all or any level of that stream, including retail outlets that they may own. By the time it gets to their pump, Shell has already made plenty. Oh, and reasons oil companies like to franchise their retail operations is a) theyll have contract language that forces stations to take instructions on gas pricing and b ) the station franchisor takes liability for any environmental problems like underground tanks.

The Federal govt made no statement. The CPC is not even mentioned in the article. Baird agrees with you on the Uber program, as a private citizen sick of waiting for a cab. Perhaps that is what you hate. Maybe you did not realize that Baird has no jurisdiction over Ottawa taxi rules? Yes, that must be it.

Would you oblige the oil companies- who own the oil, not us- to sell their product domestically? At what price?

Not one federal govt in the history of the country has ever done this or ever would. A 'high level line assessment' is an oxymoron too.

The total budget is around $300 billion per year. A couple billion either way is not material- except politically. I'll give you an example from corporate life. Our division target was an annual profit of $3.2 million. All year we were asked by the big boss:'how much are we going to make'? For about the first nine months our answer was "$3.2 million". At about nine months our answer changed to "how much would you like to make?" since we knew achieving the presumed target was certain. We could comfortably manipulate revenue and expenses to get to anywhere between $2 and $ 4 million. The boss might have other reasons to come up with something other than the exact target. And he did. The roomful of monkeys in Ottawa have a lot of tools at their disposal. They always have had that and you can always expect it to be taken for a walk when needed. Don't be surprised if there is a surprise coming.

In reality, it makes no difference at all in the parliamentary system we enjoy if the government controls 35 votes or 39 or 19 via Cabinet. If they have a majority they control all their caucus via the PMO or at minimum control enough of it to ensure there is never a vote of non-confidence. There is no requirement under party or Parliamentary rules for Cabinet members to vote with the government, but you are correct that it is traditional. Exceptions have been made for 'votes of conscience' such as the death penalty abolition. Complete baloney. Your beloved Chretien -just one example- had complete control of the legislative agenda and his own caucus. And he certainly exercised that control on both. It really has little to do with the brand of the ruling party, it's the nature of our system. I know it would shorten your day considerably, but instead of rants against Harper your rage might be better directed against the structure of government we have had for nearly 150 years. I'm just thinking of your health. Could we take a moment to remember Bev Desjarlais? Thank you. alth here.

Saw The Judge this weekend. The acting is terrific, it is hard to go wrong with people like Robert Downey ,Robert Duvall and others. The plot is a bit trite though and you know how it will work out early. Worth seeing, though perhaps wait for it on Netflix or cable.

shifting the goalposts are we Wally? cybercoma noted that " in Chrétien's case was fill his pockets and his friends' pockets with money." I noticed you never addressed that one. Name the circumstances where Harper stole your money.

But here is the reality of the actual world we live in. Corporations employ people , not governments. General Motors or anybody would not invest billions in plants in, say North Korea because they know their cash is forfeit at any time at whim of govt. General Motors will invest in Canada or France or Mexico because they know that it is very unlikely that those countries will steal their money. They won't dramatically change whatever deal they made at the start. Security. Return on investment. In return, decent jobs and tax revenue. Its a reasonable gamble for both sides and one party has to tie up billions, the other side has to promise to respect the terms that brought the billions. Canada made that very deal with automakers, and made another deal (AutoPact which begat NAFTA) with another govt(s) and it served Ontario/Canada for several decades. If you want to enjoy that fat social contract we enjoy in one of the better places to live on the planet- yes, you do have to give to get. Nobody but nobody invests monster bucks without some security.

selective Chretien? Martin has less time, give him a break buddy. where did Harper line his pockets?

The Liberals got three majorities in the 90s while bypassing many election promises that turned out to be outright lies. Some biggies too: GST, free trade. 'balanced budgets'. I'll admit they never promised to give away $200 million of our money to Liberal friendly ad agencies and themselves. How would you measure those broken promises?

Yep, Chretien got away with a few swindles, personal and party.

Every Cabinet is whipped and required to vote for whatever agenda is presented. By the bye, this has been true since 1867 in this country. Normally every govt MP is also whipped since free votes are very rare, and so are the MPs of other parties required to follow orders on legislative votes I wish people here would stop pretending otherwise. Nothing has changed. The PMO has control over legislation and the number of Ministers makes no difference whatsoever. The number of MPs does make a difference, obviously.

Executive? The executive branch in a majority govt is the PMO with input from Cabinet. In a minority, there may not be an executive branch other than a shaky Cabinet. A majority in our parliamentary system is absolute rule. It seems counterintuitive, but it has worked so far.

nobody is held to account for shooting off their faces, as long as it is criticism . The libs don't want to do anything rash like presenting a coherent policy for fear it will be stolen. It has always been open season on the government, you of all people know that! One exception was Sheila Copps rashly promising to quit over the GST. She quit three years later, knowing she could run again and win her riding. So, no harm done from her side.

To be fair, it's a game played by everybody in Opposition. You don't have to actually do anything, and can say more or less what you please because you have no power and no need to back your words with actions. The Liberals have had a couple of anomalies. Trudeau has said little and what he has said has not floated well. He can win a minority, maybe a majority, with little more than a zipped lip and a weekly trim. He risks more with speaking than with silence or the occasional platitude. The other anomaly was Chretien, who spoke constantly with a majority, but was proud of doing little as PM.

Coyne devotes much, much more of his time to hammering Harper and the Cons than he has beating on Trudeau. I don't think it is because he likes or dislikes either man. It's more that Trudeau has had so very little to say. That in itself witll bring attention. Slowly but surely though, he may have to stand up on his hind legs and walk like a man as an election nears. Some of his first forays, including this one, have not been promising. His handlers may have to shut him up again and ensure he never speaks without a script unless he absolutely must.

Agree with much of that. Yakupov looks like he is working harder this year. I suspect the motivation is to get himself onto a better team by showing some effort. I feel sorry for Justin Schultz. He could have signed with any team and chose the Oilers. Oops. A core problem of course is their lack of team defence. Eakins has taken them backwards. Crappy teams like Calgary have done very well by playing defence first, and letting the offence come from pressuring the other team or trapping as necessary. New Jersey has done it forever. All successful teams can play solid team defence, and the Oilers of the 1980s played it well in the playoffs. When teams press/forecheck Edmonton, they just wilt and crumble. It was obvious in the latter half of both games so far, a carryover from last year. I predict a horrible start again and he'll be gone by Xmas. And we start over with one of MacTavish/Lowe pals. Fasth and Scrivens are unproven goalies at this level. Neither has any much of a resume of work in the NHL

Certainly possible. Involving yourself in this context means not being a follower of hardcore Islam. Were the people who died in the World Trade Center or other subsequent acts of terror involved in the region? Do the vast majority people who live in the region who only wish to live their lives in peace deserve to die in your world?

Blankets are very good for wrapping up sawn off heads