RESP's - going to be tax deductible?

[jdobbin]

Wasn't particularly happy about it but Canadians did want a change, that is why we wound up with a different government. If the reason we are looking at an election is because it is the only way the Liberals can think of to get rid of Dion as leader, I am really not impressed with that.

The polls before the last election said that Canadians were perfectly happy to leave the Liberals in a minority situation. There was no big demand for change. The polls at the beginning of the election said that Liberals were headed for a majority. Not exactly an indication of people wanting change before the Tories brought them down.

Were it not for the announcement of the RCMP investigation and the drop of 10 points overnight, the Liberals would have likely won again.

Even now, the polls are usually within the margin of error for either a Liberal or Tory minority government.

If the government is brought down, people will still vote. I certainly didn't see the Tories punished for calling the last election that people didn't want.

[M.Dancer]

AS predicted, the Liberals did not bring down the government over the RESPs

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

The House of Commons has passed a confidence motion that gives the Conservative government spending authority — and guts a Liberal RESP bill.

MPs voted 124-87 today in favour of a ways-and-means motion to implement some provisions of the federal budget. Tory MPs supported the motion, while NDP and Bloc Quebecois members — and a handful of Liberals — opposed it.

If the gov't ever does fall....what will the liberals run on?

"We can stand up to Harper!"?

[scribblet]

Did you know that passing this bill contradicts Section 54 of our Constitution: "It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the governor general in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed."

So even though the speaker has ruled on it, it is still constitutionally wrong

[jdobbin]

Did you know that passing this bill contradicts Section 54 of our Constitution: "It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the governor general in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed."

So even though the speaker has ruled on it, it is still constitutionally wrong

Please cite your source.