# Politics in 2016



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2015)

I thought it appropriate to begin a new topic, about *Canadian* politics in 2016, with a column about the Trudeau Government's "reach" and "grasp" (lots of the former, not too much of the latter) by Jeffrey Simpson. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/reality-checks-await-for-ambitious-liberals/article27954558/


> Reality checks await for ambitious Liberals
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Some Liberal promises, unrealistic though they might be, will be hard to ignore. The country was tired of Prime Minister Harper's _incrementalism_ and perceived penny pinching, and the _boutique tax cuts_ that were too carefully (seemingly narrowly) defined; it wanted big, _grand_, visionary promises ... whether it wants to pay for them is quite another matter.

My suspicion is that the "honeymoon" will last until the budget is brought down. The _Sun_ chain of newspapers never was "on board," nor were most of the _Globe and Mail_ and _National Post_; the TV networks, from whence Canadians get most of what passes for information are still in the thrall of the telegenic and available prime minister and of cabinet ministers who still talks too much about issues that are not part of their area of responsibility. My guess is that post budget even the TV networks, which are very weak on analysis, will stop slow the cheerleading.

For my part: I'm still inclined to give Prime Minister Justin Trudeau the benefit of the doubt_*s*_ ... but there are many doubts and they are growing in size and number, day-by-day.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Dec 2015)

Personally do not think that Trudeau is the brains behind this government. He is the front person. While senior PS do provide the expertise, a body of unelected Liberal old school are pulling Trudeau's strings.

An example would be Trudeau's letters to his Ministers. I do not see him even coming up with the idea, let alone the direction. He signed the letters though, as he was told to do. Understand that a leader may formulate an intent and someone drafts the executables.

IMHO.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Dec 2015)

totally agree, JT has the brand name ans is quite malleable, the look on his face when confronted with the realities in Paris. Likely these events made him even more dependent on his "unofficial advisors". I have no doubt he was genuine in his desire to help the Syrians and enjoyed handing out stuff to them. But a real leader has to step back from that and allow his people to conduct those tasks and focus on the leadership side.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Dec 2015)

Frankly, if we want to have a serious discussion about this government, its priorities and goals we should be making this a discussion about Gerald Butts and whoever else in the Liberal cabal that can be identified. The Young Dauphin is merely the front, watching him is like determining the direction of the Muppitt Show by watching Kermit the Frog, rather than understanding the vision of Jim Henson.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Dec 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> An example would be Trudeau's letters to his Ministers. I do not see him even coming up with the idea, let alone the direction. He signed the letters though, as he was told to do. Understand that a leader may formulate an intent and someone drafts the executables.
> 
> IMHO.



You do know that mandate letters are the norm in our system right?  That all of the last government's ministers also received them right?

What was different is that they were made public.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Young Dauphin



You realize that title was reserved for the heir apparent of the crown of France.  Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister now, not the leader of the third place party, so you need to get a new nickname for your favorite _bête noire_.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Dec 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You realize that title was reserved for the heir apparent of the crown of France.  Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister now, not the leader of the third place party, so you need to get a new nickname for your favorite _bête noire_.



The Sun King?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Dec 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The Sun King?




Ooooooo. I like that and I'm going to use it. :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Frankly, if we want to have a serious discussion about this government, its priorities and goals we should be making this a discussion about Gerald Butts and whoever else in the Liberal cabal that can be identified. The Young Dauphin is merely the front, watching him is like determining the direction of the Muppitt Show by watching Kermit the Frog, rather than understanding the vision of Jim Henson.




You are watching a political machine in action ... it is not unlike the one which was in control for the past nine years, except that the management is, for now, at least, much more dispersed.

Prime Minister Harper had two problems that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau does not face:

     1. An abundance (in politics two is too many) of _conservative_ crackpots wanting to push the party out of the policy _centre_, the _mushy middle_; and

     2. A need to drag his party's two factions (PCs and Reform) into something like a cohesive whole.

Management of the Trudeau regime may, almost certainly will become more and more centralized as some ministers screw up or step on one another's toes. Mr Butts and Ms Telford are not all that much different, in either substance or style, from what went before.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Dec 2015)

PPCLI Guy: 





> You do know that mandate letters are the norm in our system right?  That all of the last government's ministers also received them right?



Yes, I received mandate letters from the Bde Comd on appointment a couple of times.


> What was different is that they were made public.



Made public was a PR exercise for obvious reasons. 

Do you really think the PM gave intent, direction or was the finished product presented for signature?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Dec 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> PPCLI Guy:
> Yes, I received mandate letters from the Bde Comd on appointment a couple of times.



Do you really think the Bde Comd wrote the mandate letter you received (BTW, I have never heard of a Brigade level mandate letter before...), or do you think he passed on his intent to a Staff Officer who prepared it for his or her review?



> Made public was a PR exercise for obvious reasons.



Or a firm belief in the principle of transparency.


----------



## Altair (31 Dec 2015)

The 2016 speculation and feelings based statements thread seems to be going just as planned.

The truthiness of 2016 thread.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or a firm belief in the principle of transparency.



The content of the letters read like a campaign speech, and a mirror of the Liberal campaign from the election. If Trudeau actually wrote like that, he's clearly a political robot from another dimension. The link to "transparency" is dubious at best.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The content of the letters read like a campaign speech, and a mirror of the Liberal campaign from the election. If Trudeau actually wrote like that, he's clearly a political robot from another dimension. The link to "transparency" is dubious at best.



Compared to all the other mandate letters you have read?

Oh that's right, no other letters have ever been publicly released......

I think perhaps it is time for me to leave this so-called discussion to the foam-at-the mouthers of both political stripes.


----------



## Altair (31 Dec 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Compared to all the other mandate letters you have read?
> 
> Oh that's right, no other letters have ever been publicly released......
> 
> I think perhaps it is time for me to leave this so-called discussion to the foam-at-the mouthers of both political stripes.


It's very rare that actual discussions happen in politics threads.


----------



## ballz (31 Dec 2015)

I am not a fan of PM Trudeau, I don't trust his ability to lead or his ability to use his head and create good policy, but I'm still waiting for him to actually do all kinds of stupid before I hop all over it. The electoral reform, for example, is one of those things worth chastising him over. But the Conservative-supporters on this site are starting to drive me much more batshit insane than PM Trudeau.

Who cares about his mandate letters? Who cares if they were a PR stunt or genuine? It's like the CO's first speech to the troops on his first Battalion parade after the Change of Command. It is a lot of PR and also genuine at the same time usually, but it doesn't mean s**t and no one really takes it all word-for-word until he gets his feet under him and starts to actually command and see the problems / strengths / weaknesses he has to deal with and consider before making decisions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2015)

Mandate letters from e.g. the PM to ministers, or from CEOs to regional VPs or from Boards of Directors to COOs/managers, are pretty much standard practice and, in my (limited) experience pretty generic ~ mostly "motherhood" with a few good management platitudes thrown in for effect.

In business what counts are the conversations with e.g. the VP Sales regarding the head office's expectation for your region or, perhaps, from one particular member of the executive committee to the new general manager expressing the Board's wishes on one or two specific issues. In th case of ministers the _*politics*_ will be found in very few, very unofficial notes from the PMO to ministers' (political) chiefs of staff.

These are the first ministerial mandate letters I have ever seen, but they "ring true," to me ... which is worth  :2c:

Transparency is never a bad thing ... but you remember what the road to hell is paved with, don't you?  :nod:


----------



## Infanteer (31 Dec 2015)

So far, in a thread where E.R. Campbell posted an article, there has been 14 posts that have merely been insults and accusations hurled at politicians and between members themselves.

Again proves why the Politics forum of Army.ca needs a firewall.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Dec 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So far, in a thread where E.R. Campbell posted an article, there has been 14 posts that have merely been insults and accusations hurled at politicians and between members themselves.



My bad.  This thread speaks to my lesser angels.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> I think perhaps it is time for me to leave this so-called discussion to the foam-at-the mouthers of both political stripes.




 :ditto: ... back to "listening watch."


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I think perhaps it is time for me to leave this so-called discussion to the foam-at-the mouthers of both political stripes.



I guess I forgot to check "Must agree with PPCLI Guy" to gain access here. If you're going to continue to look down on people having a (relatively) calm discussion, you probably should just not post in this area, as it clearly offends your delicate sensibilities.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Dec 2015)

Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 13:09:32


> Yes, I received mandate letters from the Bde Comd on appointment a couple of times


.


> Quote from PPCLI Guy: Do you really think the Bde Comd wrote the mandate letter you received (BTW, I have never heard of a Brigade level mandate letter before...), or do you think he passed on his intent to a Staff Officer who prepared it for his or her review?




In case you did not read my original post, repeat





> Understand that a leader may formulate an intent and someone drafts the executables.
> 
> IMHO.




Never heard of a Bde level mandate letter? What is it now called when the Div Comd passes his intent to the Bde Comd and the Bde Comd to the CO's?

I made what I thought was a polite a comment on the current PM and you feel that you must damn the comment and the writer and others who do not follow your beliefs.

P.S. _Happy_ New Year.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Dec 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 13:09:32.
> 
> 
> I made what I thought was a polite a comment on the current PM and you feel that you must damn the comment and the writer and others who do not follow your beliefs.
> ...



I am not sure how I damned you, other than disagreeing with your point.  If offence was taken, I apologise - none was intended, or even offered.

As to Brigade mandate letters, I can see where you are going with this one.  I have seen a large number of directives from commanders at various levels.  They have been called "Command Philosophy", Left and Right of Arc", Commander's Visualization" etc - I suppose that they are, in some ways, "mandates", although I prefer to think of then as Commander's Intent.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Dec 2015)

Thanks for the reply with the info.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Dec 2015)

Even an ardent Liberal, Warren Kinsella, is against the Trudeau plan for electoral reform. If his Liberal base thinks its out to lunch, how can anyone support this?

http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/12/ten-reasons-why-its-wrong-to-change-our-electoral-system-in-the-way-the-change-is-being-proposed/



> Ten reasons why it’s wrong to change our electoral system in the way the change is being proposed
> December 30th, 2015, 11:03 am
> 
> I was on a CTV panel when the Speech from the Throne was read out.  This part wasn’t a surprise, but I was surprised the Liberals were doubling down on it:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The Sun King?



That's Pierre  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Mandate letters from e.g. the PM to ministers, or from CEOs to regional VPs or from Boards of Directors to COOs/managers, are pretty much standard practice and, in my (limited) experience pretty generic ~ mostly "motherhood" with a few good management platitudes thrown in for effect.
> 
> In business what counts are the conversations with e.g. the VP Sales regarding the head office's expectation for your region or, perhaps, from one particular member of the executive committee to the new general manager expressing the Board's wishes on one or two specific issues. In th case of ministers the _*politics*_ will be found in very few, very unofficial notes from the PMO to ministers' (political) chiefs of staff.
> 
> ...



One would think that previous Mandate Letters didn't vary much from the current series of publicly-released letters...  :nod:

There is nothing nefarious with the letters -- sometimes they are just letters formalizing what a Minister's responsibilities to Government are...really.

What will be interesting to see is how the current Government's theme of "openness and transparency" will carry through to discussions/discourse on electoral reform.  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Rocky Mountains (4 Jan 2016)

Seamus O'Regan is a drunk.  No big deal but he was especially uncharitable with Rob Ford.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberal-mp-seamus-oregan-checks-wellness-program-seeking-212609074.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jan 2016)

"So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."

(from Federalist No. 10)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Seamus O'Regan is a drunk.  No big deal but he was especially uncharitable with Rob Ford.
> 
> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberal-mp-seamus-oregan-checks-wellness-program-seeking-212609074.html



Guess he was seeing himself and projecting self-loathing.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Jan 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Guess he was seeing himself and projecting self-loathing.



 Are we talking about Rocky Mountains here?

Just Saying.


----------



## CougarKing (7 Jan 2016)

So they're willing to spend however much in legal fees against the US government itself?

Yahoo News



> *TransCanada sues U.S. over Keystone XL rejection, seeks damages*
> [Reuters]
> By Nia Williams and Roberta Rampton
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (7 Jan 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> So they're willing to spend however much in legal fees against the US government itself?
> 
> Yahoo News



Millions in legal fees could translate into billions in compensation so...


----------



## Canuck_Jock (11 Jan 2016)

Aye, I admit it, I accidentally read the Toronto Red Star. Gotta stop it, not good at all for my blood pressure.  

Anyhow, I think Canadian journalism has sunk to a new low...or has it? 

It seems Mt Salutin would like Canada to revert to Year 0; no kultur, no history, no politics that aren't of the extreme left. Apparently, the last PM was way to 'militaristic' (pssst, looking from across the Atlantic, I think Tony Bliar was more right wing than SH) and Canada also has a post-imperial hangover with the monarchy.

So, is this article drivel written by a smarmy liberal gobshite, or an erudite expression of contemporary Canadian thought?  I await an answer with trepidation....



Canada, the country that nationalism side-swiped: Salutin
As the last federal election showed, the real strength of Canadian nationalism might be its relative weakness.

I write as a Canadian nationalist. Along with others, I’ve done what I could to build a national sense here: culturally, politically, economically. We excavated and created heroes and celebrated resistance to imperial forces, British or American. I won’t say we failed but success was limited. That truncated level of success may be an asset now. The weakness of our nationalism could even be its strength. I say this in light of the last election, and the global refugee crisis.

In terms of typical nationalist reactions to the Mideast refugee crisis, it’s as though we’re running in the opposite direction from the rest of the west. Not xenophobic and restrictive, like the UK, U.S., Hungary et al. Yet our contrary, tolerant, welcoming reaction is seen here as nationalist.
The Anglo-Irish scholar, Benedict Anderson, who died last month aged 78, wrote a book on nationalism with a title that can rearrange your sense of reality: Imagined Communities. Unlike religious identities, which are ancient, he said, national identities are recent and modern. But they imagine they’re ancient and discover roots of all sorts to prove it. Then people live and willingly die based on their passionate identification with those imaginary communities.

Anderson felt this could be for good or ill. He knew it had ugly potential on the racism spectrum. But he wrote at a time (1983) when nationalism was also used to mobilize people against domination — as, say, nationalism in Vietnam built resistance to colonialism. Since this nationalism thing couldn’t be “patented,” it was “available for pirating” in numerous versions.

That included Canada which pirated a pretty modest form. Margaret Atwood, for instance, proved Canada existed by proving it had its own literature which was proved by a common (and highly minimalist) theme: Survival. Pierre Berton tried to show we not only had a history to be proud of, but it was also “colourful” versus dull — just like other nations.

These efforts had effects and still do (Oh look, Justin Bieber won a People’s Choice award). They won some victories outside the cultural realm but tended to fall short economically and politically, in battles like Canada-U.S. free trade.

Here’s where it starts to get paradoxical. Stephen Harper, during his reign, tried to become the voice of Canadian nationalism in the traditional, exclusivist sense. He promoted militarism, including symbols like the Highway of Heroes, and shopworn imperial imagery like the Royal Family. He promoted undercurrents of xenophobia, nativism and racism in his policies toward immigrants and especially refugees, who were despicably treated. These became overcurrents during the election, with his attacks on Muslim headgear, the “barbaric cultural practices” snitch line and revocable citizenship.

What’s fascinating is that Justin Trudeau didn’t oppose him by declaring he was anti-nationalist, as you’d have to in, say, Serbia or Hungary. He fought back as a Canadian nationalist, defining it in terms of tolerance or even, the glory of diversity — a sharp rebuttal to most contemporary nationalism. It also had weird echoes. Justin’s dad, Pierre, rejected Quebec nationalism as parochial but embraced Canadian nationalism as a way to fight it. When he ran against Tory leader Joe Clark in 1979, Trudeau père scorned Clark’s notion that Canada was just a “community of communities,” for being wishy-washy and contentless.

Yet that’s essentially what his son endorsed. Now picture Harper: beaten not only by the son of his most reviled Canadian predecessor; but by the son’s embrace of the vision of Harper’s most loathed Conservative antecedent, Joe Clark. It’s beyond Shakespearean. Who says we don’t have a colourful history?
If we’d been more successful in creating a robust, conventional Canadian nationalism, who knows — the country mightn’t have as handily beaten back the nasty nativism cultivated by Harper. It could have provided unintended grist for his mill. So the real strength of Canadian nationalism might turn out to be its relative weakness. We’re the land that nationalism side-swiped. Lucky us.

In his book, Benedict Anderson quoted Walter Benjamin’s passage on the angel of history — based on a Paul Klee print. The angel stands looking backward sadly as history’s failures and disasters pile up at his feet. So, as history’s wind blows him into the future, he can’t see, behind him, the progress that may be about to arrive. You could call it, back to the future, in a literal sense.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jan 2016)

Here is a link to that article. Canuck_Jock: please see this which is the advice of a lawyer to help us to help the site owner stay on the right side of the Copyright Act.


----------



## Canuck_Jock (11 Jan 2016)

ER Campbell: thanks for the top tip!


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 Jan 2016)

Red Star said:
			
		

> Here’s where it starts to get paradoxical. Stephen Harper, during his reign, tried to become the voice of Canadian nationalism in the traditional, exclusivist sense. He promoted militarism, including symbols like the Highway of Heroes, and shopworn imperial imagery like the Royal Family. He promoted undercurrents of xenophobia, nativism and racism in his policies toward immigrants and especially refugees, who were despicably treated. These became overcurrents during the election, with his attacks on Muslim headgear, the “barbaric cultural practices” snitch line and revocable citizenship.



That's the Lefty narrative - not to be confused with the truth.  Canadian participation in The Afghan War was start by the Liberals and ended by the Conservatives.  The Highway of Heroes was named by the Liberal government of Ontario following popular demand.  I am not sure how imagery of the Queen, our head of state is any more Conservative than Liberal, at least by anything they actually say.  Racism toward immigrants?  The Conservatives let in a lot more non-European immigrants than the Liberals ever did albeit for economic reasons rather than some imagined touchy-feely charitable reason.  Also the Muslim headgear restriction was almost universally supported by Canadians.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Jan 2016)

Now THIS is pretty rich. I agree and think that the full report should be released (we shouldn't have done this deal in the first place) but do the Conservatives think Canadians are utter pylons? That we'll forget the last 12 months?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-press-liberal-government-to-justify-saudi-arms-deal/article28125150/recommendi/



> Mr. Clement acknowledges that the Conservatives are asking for information they refused to release while in office under Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
> 
> But he says the new leadership of the Conservative Party feels differently.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Now THIS is pretty rich. I agree and think that the full report should be released (we shouldn't have done this deal in the first place) but do the Conservatives think Canadians are utter pylons? That we'll forget the last 12 months?
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-press-liberal-government-to-justify-saudi-arms-deal/article28125150/recommendi/



Just doing their job ..... Opposing.  You remember.


----------



## MARS (12 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Now THIS is pretty rich. I agree and think that the full report should be released (we shouldn't have done this deal in the first place) but do the Conservatives think Canadians are utter pylons? That we'll forget the last 12 months?



Agreed.  I can't imagine what polling data they might have found that suggested this is a good idea.  bizarre.

Sure, they are in Opposition, but why not just let the LPC twist in the wind on it?  "Too soon" would be my take on this strategy.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 Jan 2016)

What are we - Americans who abandon their allies?  Mind you, with the Saudis, we are never really sure which side they are on.  It bothers my conscience nary a bit whether people are killed with the aid of Canadian, American, Russian or French low-tech vehicles.  They are just as dead.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jan 2016)

Message for the CPC:


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Now THIS is pretty rich. I agree and think that the full report should be released (we shouldn't have done this deal in the first place) but do the Conservatives think Canadians are utter pylons? That we'll forget the last 12 months?
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-press-liberal-government-to-justify-saudi-arms-deal/article28125150/recommendi/
> 
> ...


A pretty refreshingly frank (if more than a bit hypocritical) dig by Tony Clement towards the former skipper of the ship -- "hey, you must have us confused with those OTHER Tories that just left!"

#eatingtheirownalready   :facepalm:


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jan 2016)

The CPC are secretive, which in itself is no secret.  Should the Opposition be holding the new government to a CPC standard or a LPC standard?


----------



## Remius (13 Jan 2016)

Heard Tony Clement on As It Happens.    ???  Not sure what the game plan is here.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> What are we - Americans who abandon their allies?  Mind you, with the Saudis, we are never really sure which side they are on.  It bothers my conscience nary a bit whether people are killed with the aid of Canadian, American, Russian or French low-tech vehicles.  They are just as dead.



Right but remember we're apparently in the game of trying to defeat ISIS. There's quite a bit of evidence out there that the Saudis armed and trained them, and are STILL heavily involved. Obviously our LAVs won't be going that route, but should we be selling weapons to a country that is actively supporting the other side in a war we're in?

Not to mention that the LAVs will most likely be used to quell internal opposition and uprisings in neighbouring countries (Canadian vehicles were used in Bahrain in 2011). 

This puts us in a very awkward position if and when the House of Saud collapses. It also guarantees whoever replaces them will not be very friendly towards Canada.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Jan 2016)

We are Westerners- in that part of the world, that puts us in an awkward position, no matter what.

I am super fine with selling arms to the Saudis (or anyone else from that part of the world) that wants them. The jobs building those vehicles might as well go to London. If not , they will go to Paris. Or Moscow.

It is fun watching the Liberals twist in the wind over this, however.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> That's the Lefty narrative - not to be confused with the truth.  Canadian participation in The Afghan War was start by the Liberals and ended by the Conservatives.  The Highway of Heroes was named by the Liberal government of Ontario following popular demand.  I am not sure how imagery of the Queen, our head of state is any more Conservative than Liberal, at least by anything they actually say.  Racism toward immigrants?  The Conservatives let in a lot more non-European immigrants than the Liberals ever did albeit for economic reasons rather than some imagined touchy-feely charitable reason.  Also the Muslim headgear restriction was almost universally supported by Canadians.



And as an interesting twist, in the January 11 dead tree edition of the Natinal post, there is a small article on CPC polling for tax cuts prior to the election. Evidently, support for these cuts was fairly high (up to 70% for some cuts) that the CPC was confident that that issue would be firmly in their hands. Since tax cuts and increasing savings vehicles is not on our horizon any time soon (and any smoke and mirrors will certainly be overwhelmed by the effects of tax and fee increases to pay for "Climate Change"), I'll see if I can find an e version to post, just for the record. (Harper had polls backing his tax cuts. Mark Kennedy, National Post Jan 11 2016 page A4)


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> We are Westerners- in that part of the world, that puts us in an awkward position, no matter what.
> 
> I am super fine with selling arms to the Saudis (or anyone else from that part of the world) that wants them. The jobs building those vehicles might as well go to London. If not , they will go to Paris. Or Moscow.
> 
> It is fun watching the Liberals twist in the wind over this, however.




I agree with all three of your points ...

But, regarding the last one: we should let the media take the pot shots, as they are already doing. It is unseemly, to say the least, hypocritical in reality, for Tony Clement to be taking the shots he has, given that he and Rona Ambrose and much of the CPC front bench were ministers in the Harper government.

I repeat ...


----------



## Remius (13 Jan 2016)

Plus, the story is now turned into a story about their hypocrisy.  This was a bad call.  Best they just let it die and leave it be.  Or let the NDP handle the criticism.


----------



## Altair (13 Jan 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Plus, the story is now turned into a story about their hypocrisy.  This was a bad call.  Best they just let it die and leave it be.  Or let the NDP handle the criticism.


The NDP? What, and lose the votes of the workers around London?

I really don't see any party running hard o this one.


----------



## Remius (13 Jan 2016)

They've already asked for the report.  The CPC can let them deal with whatever fall out they suffer rather than have teh CPC beat itself up with their own hands.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Right but remember we're apparently in the game of trying to defeat ISIS. There's quite a bit of evidence out there that *the Saudis *armed and trained them, and are STILL heavily involved. Obviously our LAVs won't be going that route, but should we be selling weapons to a country that is actively supporting the other side in a war we're in?
> 
> Not to mention that the LAVs will most likely be used to quell internal opposition and uprisings in neighbouring countries (Canadian vehicles were used in Bahrain in 2011).
> 
> This puts us in a very awkward position if and when the House of Saud collapses. It also guarantees whoever replaces them will not be very friendly towards Canada.



Is it "the" Saudis or is it just Saudis?

As you imply the House of Saud is under a great deal of internal pressure.  In fact the Saudi National Guard is a separate army from the Saudi Army.  It is more of a Household Brigade (I believe) loyal to the House of Saud - or at least some factions therein.

Any way you slice it, it is an unholy mess over there and any choices we make are going to mean that we get dirty.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2016)

Selling guns to bad people who will use them to kill other bad people who then might, in turn, want to buy some more guns from us is good business ... money in Canadian workers' pockets and lots of (local) blood in the sand over there ...

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                                                ... what's not to like?


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Selling guns to bad people who will use them to kill other bad people who then might, in turn, want to buy some more guns from us is good business ... money in Canadian workers' pockets and lots of (local) blood in the sand over there ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're assuming that any and all opposition to the governments in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain will be made up of "bad people." This simply isn't the case. There are secular nationalist movements in both countries. All we are doing by arming their oppressive governments is guaranteeing whoever comes after the House of Saud will be anti-Western, making it more likely that whatever comes after the House of Saud will Islamist in nature.

Selling weapons to a government that is still supporting ISIS isn't good business. Not sure how you see it that way. Canadian Forces are in harms way combating ISIS. Equipping their trainers and suppliers with LAVs hardly seems like a sensible approach...or am I crazy? 



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is it "the" Saudis or is it just Saudis?
> 
> As you imply the House of Saud is under a great deal of internal pressure.  In fact the Saudi National Guard is a separate army from the Saudi Army.  It is more of a Household Brigade (I believe) loyal to the House of Saud - or at least some factions therein.
> 
> Any way you slice it, it is an unholy mess over there and any choices we make are going to mean that we get dirty.



Yes the SANG is the force most often used to quell internal dissent, which makes it very likely our LAVs will be used much the same way they were used in 2011 in Bahrain, to machine gun unarmed protesters who are hoping to liberalize their society, and maybe even democratize. The stuff the US ostensibly invaded Iraq for.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jan 2016)

Kilo, I am happy to concede that there are a few good people in the region ... Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon make up _*all*_ of my list. None of the others are, even remotely, in our "friends" column and only a very few, if any, might be in the "not to bad" column.

All the rest, beginning with Iran and Saudi Arabia, equally, deserve whatever we can send them ...


----------



## Altair (13 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Kilo, I am happy to concede that there are a few good people in the region ... Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon make up _*all*_ of my list. None of the others are, even remotely, in our "friends" column and only a very few, if any, might be in the "not to bad" column.
> 
> All the rest, beginning with Iran and Saudi Arabia, equally, deserve whatever we can send them ...


Not even sure if Egypt deserves to be one that list...


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Kilo, I am happy to concede that there are a few good people in the region ... Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon make up _*all*_ of my list. None of the others are, even remotely, in our "friends" column and only a very few, if any, might be in the "not to bad" column.
> 
> All the rest, beginning with Iran and Saudi Arabia, equally, deserve whatever we can send them ...



I think it's a mistake to treat these nations as homogeneous entities. When you say Egypt is on your "good list" are you referring to the current military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected regime (as distasteful as the Muslim Brotherhood might be to us, they won the election)? Or are you referring to the burgeoning secular democratic movement that would probably not serve Western interests as well as the military government?

By allowing and encouraging the military to take power, we're only ensuring that the Muslim Brotherhood (those that the survive the mass executions) will be even more radicalised. 

As for for suggesting we should just bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia in their entirety, again, who are you referring to? Their governments? Their people? A significant number of Iranians want democratic reform, and under President Khatami that seemed likely. Khatami aided the US in its invasion of Afghanistan with HUMINT, and was pressing for liberalization in Iran. That ended when Iran was included in the "axis of evil" of speech. Treating these countries as enemies rather than engaging never helps our interests in the long run.


----------



## Altair (13 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think it's a mistake to treat these nations as homogeneous entities. When you say Egypt is on your "good list" are you referring to the current military dictatorship that overthrew a democratically elected regime (as distasteful as the Muslim Brotherhood might be to us, they won the election)? Or are you referring to the burgeoning secular democratic movement that would probably not serve Western interests as well as the military government?
> 
> By allowing and encouraging the military to take power, we're only ensuring that the Muslim Brotherhood (those that the survive the mass executions) will be even more radicalised.
> 
> As for for suggesting we should just bomb Iran and Saudi Arabia in their entirety, again, who are you referring to? Their governments? Their people? A significant number of Iranians want democratic reform, and under President Khatami that seemed likely. Khatami aided the US in its invasion of Afghanistan with HUMINT, and was pressing for liberalization in Iran. That ended when Iran was included in the "axis of evil" of speech. Treating these countries as enemies rather than engaging never helps our interests in the long run.


you inadvertently hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph.

Where was that secular democratic movement when there was a free election in Egypt? Overwhelmed by the Muslim brotherhood who then went on to drag the country towards their fanatical ideas.

If the Saudi royals fell, don't kid yourself on who would take over. Secular movements all over the region get overwhelmed by the fanatics no matter how the government falls. In Syria isil and al nusra run wild, what's left of the moderates being bombed and blown to pieces. In Egypt, when people are given a choice they don't pick the moderates, they go for the Muslim brotherhood who are closet isil. Tunisia might be the only place where moderates actually got into power.

So our choices are hardline human right abusing strongmen or hardcore Islamists. Moderates don't factor in.


----------



## shootemup604 (13 Jan 2016)

In Saudi, the military, national guard, and police are three different entities that act as checks and balances on each other (or rather, their respective princes-in-charge).  It's a stretch, but for comparison think of how (in theory) our executive/legislative/judicial branches are checks and balances on each other (we all know that the SCC trumps everything).


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Kilo, I am happy to concede that there are a few good people in the region ... Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon make up _*all*_ of my list. None of the others are, even remotely, in our "friends" column and only a very few, if any, might be in the "not to bad" column.
> 
> All the rest, beginning with Iran and Saudi Arabia, equally, deserve whatever we can send them ...



And in the spirit of "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"   - here was the geopolitical situation in the region circa 3800 years ago  [



> Genesis 18:16-33New International Version (NIV)
> 
> Abraham Pleads for Sodom
> 16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.[a] 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Selling guns to bad people who will use them to kill other bad people who then might, in turn, want to buy some more guns from us is good business ... money in Canadian workers' pockets and lots of (local) blood in the sand over there ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## Loachman (13 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... what's not to like?



Other than that she's an anti-gun nutbar, nothing at all.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jan 2016)

Who cares?  It's pleasurable to see the politicians on both sides and the unions displaying how easily their principles and positions are jettisoned in the name of self-interest.


----------



## Kilo_302 (14 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> you inadvertently hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph.
> 
> Where was that secular democratic movement when there was a free election in Egypt? Overwhelmed by the Muslim brotherhood who then went on to drag the country towards their fanatical ideas.
> 
> ...



That wasn't inadvertant . I agree that the "fanatics" will overtake the secularists as they always do historically. But let's pause for a moment to reflect on why that is. Historically, the West has chosen to support secular and theocratic dictators who will support our aims in the region. Why have we been dealing with Shahs in Iran since 1979? Because we overthrew a democratically elected secular leader in the 50s. The Saudi royal family is only in power because of Western support, same with the Egyptian military.

You've said our choices are "hardline human right abusing strongmen or hardcore Islamists." Well, that's only accurate in that that's what we've always chosen. Hardcore Islamists were preferable to us during the Cold War because it was a guarantee they wouldn't be friendly to the Soviets. We COULD choose to support democratic and secular movements, but that's assuming that we would want that in the first place. We don't, because it wouldn't serve our purposes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> That wasn't inadvertant . I agree that the "fanatics" will overtake the secularists as they always do historically. But let's pause for a moment to reflect on why that is. Historically, the West has chosen to support secular and theocratic dictators who will support our aims in the region. Why have we been dealing with Shahs in Iran since 1979? Because we overthrew a democratically elected secular leader in the 50s. The Saudi royal family is only in power because of Western support, same with the Egyptian military.
> 
> You've said our choices are "hardline human right abusing strongmen or hardcore Islamists." Well, that's only accurate in that that's what we've always chosen. Hardcore Islamists were preferable to us during the Cold War because it was a guarantee they wouldn't be friendly to the Soviets. We COULD choose to support _democratic and secular movements_, but that's assuming that we would want that in the first place. We don't, because it wouldn't serve our purposes.




Are there any ... any, at least with any kind of credibility or staying power?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> That wasn't inadvertant . I agree that the "fanatics" will overtake the secularists as they always do historically. But let's pause for a moment to reflect on why that is. Historically, the West has chosen to support secular and theocratic dictators who will support our aims in the region. Why have we been dealing with Shahs in Iran since 1979? Because we overthrew a democratically elected secular leader in the 50s. The Saudi royal family is only in power because of Western support, same with the Egyptian military.
> 
> You've said our choices are "hardline human right abusing strongmen or hardcore Islamists." Well, that's only accurate in that that's what we've always chosen. Hardcore Islamists were preferable to us during the Cold War because it was a guarantee they wouldn't be friendly to the Soviets. We COULD choose to support democratic and secular movements, but that's assuming that we would want that in the first place. _We don't, because it wouldn't serve our purposes.
> _



Now I think you're pretending to be a cynical _hyper-realist_. In fact, in my opinion, a real "democratic and secular" government in any Arab state would serve our purposes very nicely ... I just don't think that the conditions are right for anything like that.


----------



## Kilo_302 (14 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Now I think you're pretending to be a cynical _hyper-realist_. In fact, in my opinion, a real "democratic and secular" government in any Arab state would serve our purposes very nicely ... I just don't think that the conditions are right for anything like that.



I should clarify, that't not what I think we should be doing, that was from the point of view of the realists that run our FP.

We had a democratic and secular regime in Persian Iran in the 50s. The only problem was they wanted to control their own resources (shock horror!). Now the Cold War is over, but judging how we (the West broadly) treat democracies who won't play ball on our terms, I don't think a democratic and secular regime in the Middle East WOULD serve our purposes (again from the perspective of those who call the shots).

Democracy means the people get a say. Given the last 15 years, I think many people might call for an immediate ejection of Western forces, and for the state to exercise sovereignty over its resources. This doesn't jive with what we want, but it would be reasonable position in a democratic and secular country.

I agree that conditions aren't ripe for democracy in many or any of the countries we've been talking about. But take Egypt for example. The Muslim Brotherhood won an election, fair and square but instead of accepting it, we put the military right back into power. We could have dealt with them as a government, and it would have had a moderating effect on their policies. Sure it would have taken time, but isn't that preferable to the mass executions by the Army driving them back underground where they will resort to violence to get their point across?

Similarly, by helping the Saudi royal family maintain its grip on power, all we're guaranteeing is whatever comes after them will be hostile to the West, and extremely reactionary.

Our strategy has brought nothing but more extremism, largely in reaction to the incredibly corrupt and ruthless regimes we put in power. Jack Layton was called "Taliban Jack" for suggesting we deal with the Taliban. Well guess what we're doing right now? It takes patience, but diplomacy will usually have a better outcome than military action.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I should clarify, that't not what I think we should be doing, that was from the point of view of the realists that run our FP.
> 
> We had a democratic and secular regime in Persian Iran in the 50s. The only problem was they wanted to control their own resources (shock horror!). Now the Cold War is over, but judging how we (the West broadly) treat democracies who won't play ball on our terms, I don't think a democratic and secular regime in the Middle East WOULD serve our purposes (again from the perspective of those who call the shots).
> 
> ...




 :goodpost:

You'll notice, I hope, Kilo, that I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument, I'm just trying to knock some of the rough edges off your notions ... or however than analogy is supposed to work.

The Anglo-American engineered coup in Iran in 1953 was a blunder and it has coloured policies ~ ours, theirs, Russia's ~ ever since, generally for the worse, especially to the degree that we learned the wrong lessons.

But, even if Mohammad Mosaddegh had been left in peace, even if the Iranians had been allowed to make their own, sovereign decisions about their own, sovereign resources, little ~ nothing in my estimation ~ would have changed on the _social_ front. The Shia~Sunni split would still have worsened, the Wahhabi (and it's cousins) influence would still have grown and spread like a cancer; and so on ... both secularism and the sorts of foundations that are needed for a real democracy to take root were_ never_ present in most of what is now the _Islamic Crescent_; that is one of the reasons, in my opinion, why islam took such easy root there ~ it offered something much more coherent than the systems in place 1,500, 1,000, 500 years ago and, in parts of Africa, right now.

It took us centuries ~ arguably since, say, 1265 ~ to "fertilize" the social ground well enough for democracy to take root and flourish. Why one earth should we expect any other culture to do it in significantly less time?

__________

Anyway ... keep at it, Kilo ~ you're not making many friends here but that shouldn't bother you too much. I, obviously, don't have you on  :ignore: ~ I don't ignore people because I diasgree with them; I ignore them because either:

     1. They cannot make a cogent argument; or

     2. Their opinions are odious.


----------



## Kilo_302 (14 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> You'll notice, I hope, Kilo, that I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument, I'm just trying to knock some of the rough edges off your notions ... or however than analogy is supposed to work.
> 
> ...



Agreed. Although one could make a case that the process could be sped up given the working examples around the world (although I'm also cognizant of the fact that this line of thinking is partially what got us into Iraq in the first place). The West did the "hard work" of forming liberal democracies, perhaps if we weren't so focused on immediate gratification in the region at large we could foster similar movements there.



> Anyway ... keep at it, Kilo ~ you're not making many friends here but that shouldn't bother you too much. I, obviously, don't have you on  :ignore: ~ I don't ignore people because I diasgree with them; I ignore them because either:
> 
> 1. They cannot make a cogent argument; or
> 
> 2. Their opinions are odious.



Well if my inbox is any indication, I've made a _few _friends here, and have received a few words of encouragement. 

It seems you and I agree on many things, but I appreciate that we also disagree on others and keep it quite civil with very little effort. Cheers.


----------



## Altair (14 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Agreed. Although one could make a case that the process could be sped up given the working examples around the world (although I'm also cognizant of the fact that this line of thinking is partially what got us into Iraq in the first place). The West did the "hard work" of forming liberal democracies, perhaps if we weren't so focused on immediate gratification in the region at large we could foster similar movements there.
> 
> Well if my inbox is any indication, I've made a _few _friends here, and have received a few words of encouragement.
> 
> It seems you and I agree on many things, but I appreciate that we also disagree on others and keep it quite civil with very little effort. Cheers.


It's odd, my inbox is full of those who agree with my Liberal views but don't ever post in the politics section.

It appears the CPC supporters here can be a little intimidating.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well if my inbox is any indication, I've made a _few _friends here, and have received a few words of encouragement.





			
				Altair said:
			
		

> It's odd, my inbox is full of those who agree with my Liberal views but don't ever post in the politics section.
> 
> It appears the CPC supporters here can be a little intimidating.




You two should get a room. :grouphug:


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2016)

And in the "There are no good options / Enemy of my Enemy" file:

This commentary in the Telegraph from 



> It's time to abandon our obsession with Syrian 'moderates'
> 
> Many of the groups who are willing to fight Isil over Assad are deeply nasty. In the short term, we must accept that – and work with them anyway
> 
> ...



J. Singh-Sohal is a writer and communications specialist who has served as a British Army Public Affairs Officer in the Middle East.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12099530/Its-time-to-abandon-our-obsession-with-Syrian-moderates.html

I can't agree more with the position.  The stratagem has ancient roots and it works.  The "what-comes-next" concern needs to be relegated to "crossing-that-bridge-when-we-get-there".  

I don't assume that stability can be achieved and that nirvana will arrive -  Sheep and Lions will not be lying down anytime soon.

Churchill worked with Uncle Joe, Tito and the Greek Communists not because he liked their world view but solely because they degraded Hitler and Mussolini and helped to achieve his war aims.

Cleaning up the mess afterwards, in Churchill's terms, putting the Communists back in their place, began in Greece from 1944 to 1949.


----------



## Kilo_302 (14 Jan 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> It's odd, my inbox is full of those who agree with my Liberal views but don't ever post in the politics section.
> 
> It appears the CPC supporters here can be a little intimidating.



I just need to make it clear I'M not a Liberal  ;D. 

So no room, sorry Recceguy.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> We had a democratic and secular regime in Persian Iran in the 50s. The only problem was they wanted to control their own resources (shock horror!). Now the Cold War is over, but judging how we (the West broadly) treat democracies who won't play ball on our terms, I don't think a democratic and secular regime in the Middle East WOULD serve our purposes (again from the perspective of those who call the shots).



And the Nazis were democratically elected?  Despite the fact that both are okay with you, I am not sure who is more racist, the Nazis or the Muslim Brotherhood.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> And the Nazis were democratically elected?  Despite the fact that both are okay with you, I am not sure who is more racist, the Nazis or the Muslim Brotherhood.



Are you asking if the Nazis were elected? That's what the question mark would indicate.

Are you suggesting I am "okay" with the Nazis? 

Are you also comparing the Nazis to the Muslim Brotherhood?


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> And the Nazis were democratically elected?  Despite the fact that both are okay with you, I am not sure who is more racist, the Nazis or the Muslim Brotherhood.



The use of elections to gain entrance to the halls of power is hardly a new idea; I recall hearing the phrase "One man, one vote, once" used in the context of post colonial African regimes "electing" their new governments and promptly sinking into dictatorships. And Communist nations made/make a huge show of holding elections, even though everyone knows the outcome long before the writ is dropped.

Since the agenda of both Socialists and Radical Islamists is to seize and hold power at all costs, there is no surprise at all that the National Socialist German Worker's Party gained entry through elections, or the Muslim Brotherhoods worked long and hard to become contenders in post Arab Spring elections. Gaining power through the ballot box and slamming the door firmly shut behind you is a lot simpler than storming the halls of power, and the illusion of legitimacy disarms opponents for a crucial period of time while the Socialists or Radicals enact their changes to election laws/suspend the constitution or whatever they use to get to the finish line.

As for racism/xenophobia, this is an age old phenomena affecting humans everywhere (the Han Chinese are probably just as racist as any pre civil rights era Southerner, and examining the published writings and recorded speeches of various African American "community leaders", they are probably just as if not more racist than those same pre civil rights Southerners.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2016)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has appointed David MacNaughton as ambassador to the US. This is a good, smart move on his part and I commend him for making a good choice.

The Americans will be pleased to have an ambassador who is a close political _confidante_ of the PM, and we, looking at Mr MacNaughton's résumé, may be assured that he will know how to best present Canada's case to the White House, the Congress, and the American people.

Good move, Prime Minister.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (16 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> 1. Are you asking if the Nazis were elected? That's what the question mark would indicate.
> 
> 2. Are you suggesting I am "okay" with the Nazis?
> 
> 3. Are you also comparing the Nazis to the Muslim Brotherhood?



1. The Nazis were democratically elected.

2. You were the one that said Elected Racist = Legitimate

3. Nazis and Muslim Brotherhood?  One and the same.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jan 2016)

There is a broader lesson to be drawn.

The Germans were one of the most progressive, cultured, intellectual peoples in Europe.  Until they weren't.

The trouble is seeing what is coming, and averting it.  You have some people sounding warnings, and others denigrating fear-mongering.  If the non-alarmists are correct, they are still obligated to treat the Chicken Littles respectfully and to address the concerns rationally and systematically - unless they (the non-alarmists) are prepared to roll the dice that extremists won't ascend.


----------



## Altair (19 Jan 2016)

A little bit from those other guys.

If 50 percent plus 1 one good enough to break up the county it's good enough for leader to stay on I suppose.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-mulcair-sets-the-ndp-leadership-bar-well-below-the-norm



> Thomas Mulcair wants to stay on as leader of the NDP and says he won’t resign. He says it’s up to NDP members to decide his fate, as they will … sort of … at an automatic leadership review in April.
> 
> In striving to hang onto his job he’s presenting his party with a ticklish puzzle: Mulcair suggests that all he needs to keep hanging his coat in the leader’s office is a vote of 50%-plus-one at the review. That might seem awfully low: Cheri DiNovo, who isn’t even an MP but has made it her goal in life to get rid of Mulcair — say’s it’s “absurd.” But what’s the party to do? Official NDP policy holds that Quebec should be allowed to break up Canada on a vote of 50%-plus-one. Are DiNovo and her supporters going to argue the NDP rates a higher standard than the country they seek to govern?
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Jan 2016)

The NDP are accustomed to low election percentages.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2016)

Another challenge for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: "*Quebec mayors opposed to Energy East pipeline, warn of environmental risk*," says the headline in the _Globe and Mail_. Montreal Mayor (and Liberal heavyweight) Denis Coderre and mayors representing 82 municipalities with a total populations of about 3.9 million have come out formally and firmly against the Energy East pipeline proposal about which Prime Minister Trudeau's ministers have spoken favourably.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Jan 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Another challenge for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: "*Quebec mayors opposed to Energy East pipeline, warn of environmental risk*," says the headline in the _Globe and Mail_. Montreal Mayor (and Liberal heavyweight) Denis Coderre and mayors representing 82 municipalities with a total populations of about 3.9 million have come out formally and firmly against the Energy East pipeline proposal about which Prime Minister Trudeau's ministers have spoken favourably.



Oh ok, let's continue to send crude by train then   ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

How many of those municipalities are affected by the route? I'm willing to bet not many.


----------



## GAP (21 Jan 2016)

Their opposition is based on how much infrastructure money flows their way.....enough $$, and they can live with it.

They can and will be bought.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How many of those municipalities are affected by the route? I'm willing to bet not many.



Take a look at the national rail system and I am sure that you are wrong.  Just have a look at how many of those West/East routes converge in Montreal or pass through Levis/Quebec City.  Look at the numerous communities in Ontario that these lines pass through from the Manitoba border to North Bay.  The Prairies have pulled up many of their various smaller lines, leaving very few lines to transport oil, and they all pass through some major municipalities.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Take a look at the national rail system and I am sure that you are wrong.  Just have a look at how many of those West/East routes converge in Montreal or pass through Levis/Quebec City.  Look at the numerous communities in Ontario that these lines pass through from the Manitoba border to North Bay.  The Prairies have pulled up many of their various smaller lines, leaving very few lines to transport oil, and they all pass through some major municipalities.



Good point if the argument is that in the absence of the pipeline all that oil will continue to be transported through Montreal (not so much Quebec - wrong side of the river) by rail, just like Lac Megantic.

Conversely if new pipelines were constructed they could bypass major urban concentrations and be built with containments.

Same situation on the Left Coast and across the US border.

Here are all the oil pipelines in North America.  It is noteworthy the number of existing border crossings.







Here are all the pipelines for all commodities






And here are the railroads






There are already a myriad points of leakage to defeat any particular policy obstruction.  And under current rules there is nothing to prevent Canada building a pipeline terminus a mile from the border and then shipping it by rail to another terminus built by the American's a mile inside their border to connect to their oil pipeline network.

And to complete the picture, here are the global oil tanker routes:






While apparently we can't ship from the West Coast or the East Coast because of the threat that tankers present, we are quite willing to have foreign tankers registered in Liberia deliver oil to Valero in Quebec, Suncor in Montreal and Irving in Saint John, not to mention Chevron's refinery in Burnaby.  






And we can't do a thing about the stream of tankers moving down our West Coast to deliver international oil by the Great Circle Route to the US West Coast - starting in Seattle.






As GAP says: money.  To which I would add : jobs.  The environment be blowed.

If Trudeau wants to make a splash he would buy Christie a pair of Refineries at tide water, one at Prince Rupert and one in Port Hardy, and a fleet of Coast Guard vessels (built in Vancouver) to create the undefined and undefinable "World Class" environmental response that she uses to beat every proposal into the ground.

A pox on all their houses.   >


----------



## McG (21 Jan 2016)

What about a pipeline to Churchill?


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Jan 2016)

It appears the anti-oil crowd has been successful once again. Can't go west, can't go east, can't go south. Churchill seems like a logical spot to me. Of course the FN bands across the top of Sask and MB will have something to say about the matter.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2016)

Maybe its time for the oil companies to talk turkey with the NIMBY's.

I have heard estimates that isolating our oil from foreign markets could be costing a maximum of $2 billion/day in lost revenues (i.e. not being able to sell at the higher prices on the global market), although this was at there time oil was at it's $100/bbl height. If it was $2 billion/day, then we are talking a yearly amount of new wealth equal to the national debt.

Whatever the number, it is considerable, and Canadians should be told in no uncertain terms that preventing oil extraction and export costs the Canadian economy "x". For Canadians who are expecting government services or handouts, there is "x" less revenue to draw on. For investors looking to create new jobs and wealth, there is "x" less available in the investment pool. For governments addicted to overspending, there is "x" less taxable income.

This is the sort of issue that a Kevin O'Leary can expound on, because the current political class isn't capable.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Take a look at the national rail system and I am sure that you are wrong.  Just have a look at how many of those West/East routes converge in Montreal or pass through Levis/Quebec City.  Look at the numerous communities in Ontario that these lines pass through from the Manitoba border to North Bay.  The Prairies have pulled up many of their various smaller lines, leaving very few lines to transport oil, and they all pass through some major municipalities.



I meant more of the pipeline, George. I know rail would move through a lot of their cities, and if they were given those 2 COAs, they'd pick pipeline everyday of the week.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2016)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Oh ok, let's continue to send crude by train then   ;D





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How many of those municipalities are affected by the route? I'm willing to bet not many.


Funny you should mention that.  It would be interesting to see how much wage and tax revenue said communities get from, oh, I don't know, railways & associated businesses.  And what would happen to said $ if a pipeline went in, reducing traffic to said railways.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I meant more of the pipeline, George. I know rail would move through a lot of their cities, and if they were given those 2 COAs, they'd pick pipeline everyday of the week.


Unless it would mean fewer net jobs in the places in question?

Just throwing another motivating factor into the mix ...


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny you should mention that.  It would be interesting to see how much wage and tax revenue said communities get from, oh, I don't know, railways & associated businesses.  And what would happen to said $ if a pipeline went in, reducing traffic to said railways.
> Unless it would mean fewer net jobs in the places in question?
> 
> Just throwing another motivating factor into the mix ...



Now there's a curious thought worth investigating.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Jan 2016)

One big flaming derailment near/in a metropolitan  area and the "pipelines are evil" mantra may subside somewhat.

I am truly surprised, given Lac Megantic...


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> One big flaming derailment near/in a metropolitan  area and the "pipelines are evil" mantra may subside somewhat.
> 
> I am truly surprised, given Lac Megantic...


And have we heard any significant calls from Lac Megantic (community or community leaders) to get rid of the railway?  Not to improve how the train works, but to get rid of the tracks and corporate presence?  I stand corrected:  a municipal official has said (anonymously) the mayor wants a bypass around the town core.  _(Thanks George W. for that)_

After all, there's still pesticide plants in India after this.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny you should mention that.  It would be interesting to see how much wage and tax revenue said communities get from, oh, I don't know, railways & associated businesses.  And what would happen to said $ if a pipeline went in, reducing traffic to said railways.
> Unless it would mean fewer net jobs in the places in question?
> 
> Just throwing another motivating factor into the mix ...



I think that would depend on whether the pipeline capacity is there to remove reliance on rail and move more oil, faster and cheaper, or if there will be more oil pushed on rail as production ramps up.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And have we heard any significant calls from Lac Megantic (community or community leaders) to get rid of the railway?  Not to improve how the train works, but to get rid of the tracks and corporate presence?
> :crickets:



Yes.  They have demanded that the tracks be removed from the town and moved elsewhere.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> One big flaming derailment near/in a metropolitan  area and the "pipelines are evil" mantra may subside somewhat.
> 
> I am truly surprised, given Lac Megantic...



A little fun with numbers based on this article.

Quebec wants to generate more revenue by selling more electricity into the States.  They are asking the Yanks to pony up for a new 1090 MW transmission line.

A 1090 MW transmission line would require something like 1000 wind turbines of 4 MW capacity each to match the proposed hydro plant - and it wouldn't be as regular.

According to this Financial Post article of Nov 2014 Quebec sells that electricity for about 3 cents per kWh.  It was producing it for about 6 cents per kWh from hydro sources.  

In other words it was generating foreign revenue but taxing its citizens to make that foreign money.  

Wind energy was even worse. It was costing about 12.5 cents per kWh to produce it.

The reason for the the low selling price?  Shale oil.   And that was when oil was at $100 per barrel.

Now, at $30 per barrel?

A barrel of oil contains roughly 6 GJ of energy.  At $30 per barrel that is $5 per GJ.

One GJ is equivalent to 277 kWh. 

So, at $5 per GJ and 277 kWh per GJ, oil is currently selling at 1.2 1.8 cents per kWH.

Oil selling at 1.2 1.8 cents per kWh.
Electricity selling at 3 cents per kWh.
Hydro electricity costing 6 cents per kWh to generate to make 3 cents.
Wind electricity costing 12.5 cents per kWh to generate to make 3 cents. 

Bugger the principles.  It is, as always, about the dollar.

Quebec is treating Alberta exactly the same way it treated Newfoundland.  It doesn't want the competition.

And neither does Ontario - who also exports taxpayer subsidized electricity.

Edit: Maths error corrected.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And neither does Ontario - who also exports taxpayer subsidized electricity.



Ah! Yes.  Ontario.  Exports electricity at a low rate of return and then turns around and imports it at a high rate.  Brilliant economists in Ontario.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes.  They have demanded that the tracks be removed from the town and moved elsewhere.


Thanks for that - I stand corrected.

That said, I'm still generally sticking to the "big rail" theory as one rationale for rejecting the pipeline, given how much money they pump into some economies.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jan 2016)

I'm not doubting the "big rail" theory when I suggest the "competition" theory.  In both instances it is about dollars and how to get them.


----------



## McG (27 Jan 2016)

All can try to have their bit of influence here:  http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/prebudget-prebudgetaire/index-en.html


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> All can try to have their bit of influence here:  http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/prebudget-prebudgetaire/index-en.html



Whole lot of loaded questions in the online submission, they already know what they want to do, "consultations" is lip service to actually caring.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jan 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> All can try to have their bit of influence here:  http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/prebudget-prebudgetaire/index-en.html



No mention of Veterans spending.


----------



## McG (27 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Whole lot of loaded questions in the online submission, they already know what they want to do, "consultations" is lip service to actually caring.


Yeah.  Use the email option.  You get more flexibility in what you say, and they do not get the option to shape your message to their intended end state.


----------



## Remius (29 Jan 2016)

Meanwhile...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/alberta-may-be-eligible-for-federal-relief-morneau-acknowledges-1.2757377

Wondering if this is a way *to attempt * to calm Alberta down?


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jan 2016)

Personally.

No.  It wouldn't.

I don't like or want charity.  Particularly when it is only getting my own money back.  

And it is not likely to be more than a pittance compared to what we were making.  The primary point of charity is to make the donors feel good about themselves.

Not a billion 250,000,000 dollars of federal money.

Try this instead.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/121712/post-1413447.html#msg1413447


----------



## Remius (29 Jan 2016)

But I bet the Premier there will be happy to put her hand out and take/ask for it.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jan 2016)

You are probably right.  And will likely shorten the life of her government in consequence.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2016)

If they base the payment on per capita, they better get on with it.

Alberta is bleeding people like lemmings on the march.


----------



## GAP (29 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If they base the payment on per capita, they better get on with it.
> 
> Alberta is bleeding people like lemmings on the march.



And there is a census this year, so the numbers for the next decade will change.....


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

If Alberta is getting equalization payments, then who is "giving" the equalization payments. It was pretty straightforward in the past; Quebec and the Atlantic provinces were essentially able to tax Alberta, the Ontario joined in under the Liberals.

You shold be able to see the gap in logic, if everyone is "getting" equalization payments......


----------



## QV (29 Jan 2016)

Alberta is not a recipient of equalization payments.  I think that process comes up for review every three years, so Alberta is still paying the East for now....IIRC.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jan 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> Alberta is not a recipient of equalization payments.  I think that process comes up for review every three years, so Alberta is still paying the East for now....IIRC.



I believe I saw that referenced just recently in a press report.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jan 2016)

Equalization transfers are just a way of compensating provinces for perceived imbalances in revenue-raising potential.  In principle, there is no reason the program can't pay some money to every province.

Someone should put the bug in the ear of all the premiers that they should all be receiving some money from Ottawa in view of the weak economy.  That should make the next first ministers conference more interesting.


----------



## stealthylizard (30 Jan 2016)

Equalization is funded by general taxation.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Yeah.  Use the email option.  You get more flexibility in what you say, and they do not get the option to shape your message to their intended end state.


 :nod:  The more the merrier.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jan 2016)

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> Equalization is funded by general taxation.




Funny thing.  Revenues come from places with money.  Places with no money don't generate revenues.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Feb 2016)

As if no one could have predicted that selling off an important asset like this (to anyone, never mind selling it to the Saudis) would result in revenue loss. Trudeau is FAR from perfect, and I'm no Liberal supporter, but our last government was painfully short-sighted. Or, more likely, they didn't actually have Canadian interests at heart. I'm willing to bet that a close examination of this deal would reveal some very shady shit. There is simply NO way it could ever be justified, not ideologically and not fiscally. 


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-farmers-return-canadian-wheat-board-1.3448604?__vfz=tc%3D1kTSNeJJdK-


----------



## Brasidas (16 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> You are probably right.  And will likely shorten the life of her government in consequence.



Anyone remember ralphbucks before an election?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (16 Feb 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As if no one could have predicted that selling off an important asset like this (to anyone, never mind selling it to the Saudis) would result in revenue loss. Trudeau is FAR from perfect, and I'm no Liberal supporter, but our last government was painfully short-sighted. Or, more likely, they didn't actually have Canadian interests at heart. I'm willing to bet that a close examination of this deal would reveal some very shady crap. There is simply NO way it could ever be justified, not ideologically and not fiscally.



The Canadian Wheat Board was a Bolshevik joke that in no way operated in the interest of grain farmers.  It was started during WWII to make sure farmers weren't paid too much money for their grain and for some reason wasn't ended like all other war measures.  The Wheat Board played a marketing game every year by withholding enough grain from export to ensure there was a local surplus to keep the price of grain depressed for the benefit of livestock feeders.

If farmers decided they didn't like getting paid half what they could get across the border, the Liberal government sent them to jail.  Interesting how our economic criminals were not bankers or corporate executives but dirt farmers.  One thing that could never be explained was how if the Wheat Board was such a good idea, why did it only apply to the three prairie provinces?  You do notice the total lack of orange and red squares on the electoral map of farm country on the prairies.  I think we just had a referendum on the Wheat Board last fall.


----------



## Bearpaw (16 Feb 2016)

The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 in response to a demand by farmers and the provincial governments of the prairie provinces to counter-act the Nash combine of the wheat pools.  The Nash Combine was investigated by the US government in the 1930's resulting in some serious convictions.  Aspects of the competition act were suspended for the creation of the CWB. 

My father presented a brief on some of these aspects to a Royal Commision in the 1960's.

Bearpaw


----------



## QV (16 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Funny thing.  Revenues come from places with money.  Places with no money don't generate revenues.



Quebec is set to receive 10 billion in equalization this coming year, Ontario is set to receive 2 billion.
Alberta's economy is terrible yet Alberta will get zero equalization this coming year.  

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Alberta

Energy East is frought with opposition due in part to environmental issues raised by critics while tons of raw sewage is dumped into waterways by those same critics. BC Premier Christi Clark is suggesting building a power grid to Alberta to sell energy to Albertans but Alberta can't get pipelines to the west coast to get Alberta's oil to markets.  It's easy to see how Albertans could feel mistreated by the rest of Canada.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2016)

Apparently the wheat board restoration thing is being pushed by "more than 50 farmers".  Wow.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (17 Feb 2016)

Bearpaw said:
			
		

> The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1935 in response to a demand by farmers and the provincial governments of the prairie provinces to counter-act the Nash combine of the wheat pools.  The Nash Combine was investigated by the US government in the 1930's resulting in some serious convictions.  Aspects of the competition act were suspended for the creation of the CWB.



Membership was made compulsory for Western Canadian farmers in 1943 via the War Measures Act.

I don't think anyone cares whether or not there is a wheat board.  I think what drove people nuts was that at some points a farmer could get twice as much delivering to a US elevator as little as a few miles away but would go to jail if he did.  If it was such a good idea, why was it compulsory?  The reason for big price discrepancy was that sales were pooled for a crop year with every sale getting the same price.  While considered fair by wheat board supporters, it was grossly unfair to farmers who had the ability and inclination to time the marketing of their own grain.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Feb 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> Quebec is set to receive 10 billion in equalization this coming year, Ontario is set to receive 2 billion.
> Alberta's economy is terrible yet Alberta will get zero equalization this coming year.
> 
> http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Alberta
> ...



QV

I get the emotion and I share it but we need to be careful not to create enemies out of friends just because some folks with inflated opinions of themselves purport to speak for others.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/121712/post-1418157.html#msg1418157

The West has friends in Quebec and the Maritimes.  Many of them have been working in the patch.

The spivs in suits playing identity politics should be ignored as indicators of ground truths.  Unfortunately the same bunch are the ones making the decisions.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Feb 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Apparently the wheat board restoration thing is being pushed by "more than 50 farmers".  Wow.



Right so it's preferable in your mind to have a foreign government own Canadian food supply chain assets? Or are you just reflexively supporting something "because Harper did it?" I thought Conservatives were supposed to be "for the farmers." What an ideologically bankrupt fraud Harper foisted on Conservative Canadians, and they bought it.

Considering how the government just decided to sell the CWB off, well below market prices, without any consultation with Canadians or Canadian farmers suggests to me this deal was rotten from the get go.

The Liberals should reverse the decision, on basis of the fact that it will bring Canada more revenue, and restore a crucial facet of Canadian sovereignty, ie controlling the means of our own food production. Bolshevism indeed  :

http://www.producer.com/2016/02/producer-meeting-calls-for-cwb-return/



> A group of producers hopes to reverse a decision made nearly five years ago: the termination of the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly on wheat and export barley sales.
> 
> A former CWB director and other board supporters met Feb. 10 in Swan River, Man., where more than 50 producers called on the federal government to re-establish the CWB single desk.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Feb 2016)

Farmers should be able to sell their grain to whomever they want without the fear of going to jail. That's called a free market, something the CWB never was.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (18 Feb 2016)

It doesn't matter if Saudi Arabians have anything to do with the wheat board.  If they have something profitable to offer, farmers will deal with them, if not they won't.  How hard is that?  Most of the farmers I know deal with a newer grain co-op, not the old de-cooped Wheat Pools.  If the co-op makes money trading grain, the farmers make the profit.  If someone has a better deal, they would go for the better deal.  If you look at an electoral map of the prairies, every single farm constituency voted Conservative.  In the rest of Canada most of the farm constituencies voted Conservative.  I think a clear message has been sent - keep the Bolsheviks away from the farms.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2016)

Lighten up on the Bolsheviks Rocky Mountain.

Kilo is running in good company with the likes of the well known British moderate, Jeremy Corbyn.

Kilo, there is a reason the Dutch went into Banking and Tulips rather than worrying about trying to grow their own bread.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (18 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Kilo is running in good company with the likes of the well known British moderate, Jeremy Corbyn.



Moderate Jeremy Corbyn?  Are there 2 Jeremy Corbyns?


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Feb 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Moderate Jeremy Corbyn?  Are there 2 Jeremy Corbyns?



ROTFL.  Touche.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Lighten up on the Bolsheviks Rocky Mountain.
> 
> Kilo is running in good company with the likes of the well known British moderate, Jeremy Corbyn.
> 
> Kilo, there is a reason the Dutch went into Banking and Tulips rather than worrying about trying to grow their own bread.



So believing that Canada should control its own food production means I am a Bolshevist. 

You and Rocky Mountain have cited "free markets" in this discussion. Perhaps you can explain how it's better for a Saudi government owned "company" to essentially control Canadian grain production than it is for our own farmers, or even our own government. Are you so against Canadian nationalization that you would prefer a foreign government to own the CWB? You really are an ideological contortionist.

You're both really out to lunch here. If you believe that Harper's government had any fealty to "free markets" or any ideology beyond self-interest, you've been had. This deal made exactly zero sense when it was made, from a fiscal point of view (we have lost billions on it), from an ideological point of view (a foreign government owning the CWB isn't exactly "free market") nor from a farmer's point of view ( they are getting less money for their product).


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ROTFL.  Touche.



Excellent contributions all around  :.  If I'm a Bolshevist, there are definitely a few Fascists running around here.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2016)

To be correctly political, a government mandated wheat pool is a *feature* of the Fascist Corporate State. FDR and the New Dealers were quite enamoured of the Fascists and many New Deal initiatives, including NRA industrial cartels were explicitly modelled on Italian Fascist practices.

You're welcome.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So believing that Canada should control its own food production means I am a Bolshevist.
> 
> You and Rocky Mountain have cited "free markets" in this discussion. Perhaps you can explain how it's better for a Saudi government owned "company" to essentially control Canadian grain production than it is for our own farmers, or even our own government. Are you so against Canadian nationalization that you would prefer a foreign government to own the CWB? You really are an ideological contortionist.
> 
> You're both really out to lunch here. If you believe that Harper's government had any fealty to "free markets" or any ideology beyond self-interest, you've been had. This deal made exactly zero sense when it was made, from a fiscal point of view (we have lost billions on it), from an ideological point of view (a foreign government owning the CWB isn't exactly "free market") nor from a farmer's point of view ( they are getting less money for their product).



Sorry Kilo.  You are not a Bolshevist.  You are whatever you wish to call yourself.  I don't care about labels. Sometimes I find myself in total accord with centralization and sometimes not.  Generally speaking I am inclined to give the world free rein and worry about accommodating it personally.

And also I have not yet used the words "free market".  Because I agree.  All markets are creatures of the players.  There are big players and little players.  And they constantly come and go.  I haven't heard much of the Medici recently - who, by the way, got their start in the grain market in Florence.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> To be correctly political, a government mandated wheat pool is a *feature* of the Fascist Corporate State. FDR and the New Dealers were quite enamoured of the Fascists and many New Deal initiatives, including NRA industrial cartels were explicitly modelled on Italian Fascist practices.
> 
> You're welcome.



Well there's a misreading of history if I ever saw one. Seatbelts are government mandated, does that make them fascist too? Just ridiculous.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Feb 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So believing that Canada should control its own food production means I am a Bolshevist.
> 
> You and Rocky Mountain have cited "free markets" in this discussion. Perhaps you can explain how it's better for a Saudi government owned "company" to essentially control Canadian grain production than it is for our own farmers, or even our own government. Are you so against Canadian nationalization that you would prefer a foreign government to own the CWB? You really are an ideological contortionist.
> 
> You're both really out to lunch here. If you believe that Harper's government had any fealty to "free markets" or any ideology beyond self-interest, you've been had. This deal made exactly zero sense when it was made, from a fiscal point of view (we have lost billions on it), from an ideological point of view (a foreign government owning the CWB isn't exactly "free market") nor from a farmer's point of view ( they are getting less money for their product).



They are also trying to build a grain terminal in North Vancouver as well, they are looking at securing their major food source for the future and Canada is safe and reliable and far from the troubles.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Feb 2016)

>Right so it's preferable in your mind to have a foreign government own Canadian food supply chain assets?

Preferable compared to what?  Foreign governments and companies own plenty of things in Canada, and Canadian-based companies own plenty of things abroad.  Stop concern trolling and substantiate a point - if you have one.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Feb 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You and Rocky Mountain have cited "free markets" in this discussion. _Perhaps you can explain how it's better for a Saudi government owned "company" _to essentially control Canadian grain production than it is for our own farmers, or even our own government.



Actually, its a little more complicated than that. What happened is that two companies bought a majority holding of the CWB. One company,  Bunge Canada, which originally started out in Holland but now has its world HQ in the U.S., partnered with  SALIC Canada, which is a subsidiary of the Saudi Agricultural and Livestock Investment Company (SALIC). These two companies bought a 50.1 % majority share in the new company, now called G3. 

The other 49.9 % of the company is part of a Farmers Trust and administered through the Farmer Equity Plan announced by the CWB in 2013. 

For more information about the Bunge-SALIC deal go to this link: https://www.realagriculture.com/2015/04/g3-bunge-salic-canada-buys-cwb/


----------



## Altair (23 Feb 2016)

So the army.ca day of rage is march 22nd.

Budget starting point is a deficit of 18.4 billion .

Probably only going to get bigger. Still, if we get things like free university and veterans support I will turn a blind eye to it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> ... if we get things like *free university* and *veterans support* I will turn a blind eye to it.


In the first budget?  Pretty optimistic ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> So the army.ca day of rage is march 22nd.
> 
> Budget starting point is a deficit of 18.4 billion .
> 
> Probably only going to get bigger. Still, if we get things like free university and veterans support I will turn a blind eye to it.



As I said some time ago:



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The only OECD country (besides Canada, and I question the current numbers) that currently runs a surplus is Norway.  I do not understand our fetish surrounding deficits.
> 
> Our central government debt to GDP (depending on which source you use) hovers around 30%, which is enviable.  The overall government debt (includes provinces) to GDP ratio is less encouraging, at around 93% - up from 76% in 2008 - but it is trending down, and nowhere near the US level of 123%.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Feb 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> As I said some time ago:
> 
> 
> > If deficit spending on things like infrastructure increase GDP (and hence the indebtedness ratio) then I have no issues with the idea - deficits for "entitlements" that do not have a positive impact on GDP - not so much.




Obviously I cannot comment until after we see the spending programme, but the _leading (political) indicators_ seem, to me, to point to entitlements rather than to *useful* infrastructure.

Further, I'm not persuaded, not even by columnists in _The Economist_ and the _Financial Times_, that _stimulus_ spending, even very carefully focused stimulus spending, is the answer to Canada's current economic problems. I doubt that some borrowing to fund long term infrastructure maintenance (where provincial and local governments cannot or will not spend, themselves) will do any harm, but I'm not convinced we will see much of that, and even if we do we will have just put some _lipstick_ on irresponsible provincial pigs.

I _suspect_ that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau will please no one enough and will only manage to frighten Bay Street even more.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Feb 2016)

I am nearly certain that the 30 billion deficit figure will balloon to 40 billion at some point in this government's mandate as they try, desperately, to keep all the promises that they made.

All of it- 100 percent- will have to be cut by some future government, when that GDP to deficit ratio starts to get well and truly out of hand. And it will have to be paid back, which means even less money for program spending.

People never learn.


----------



## Baz (23 Feb 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am nearly certain that the 30 billion deficit figure will balloon to 40 billion at some point in this government's mandate as they try, desperately, to keep all the promises that they made.
> 
> All of it- 100 percent- will have to be cut by some future government, when that GDP to deficit ratio starts to get well and truly out of hand. And it will have to be paid back, which means even less money for program spending.
> 
> People never learn.



I as well am not a fan of deficit spending; however, I think your quote is not quite correct.

By some measures, Canada's Federal National debt compared to GDP is actually not bad compared to other countries (that does not make it a good thing).  It is actually hard to compare because there are so many ways to measure it: net public debt vs gross debt (which includes inter federal government liabilities, like when they borrow from EI), internal vs external debt, public debt vs national debt, federal debt vs all government debt.

However, so much of the net public federal debt is to Canadian Financial Institutions (mainly mutual funds and banks), that there is a huge hidden pressure to keep that number high.  Although it's hard to really find actual number unless you dig through endless Treasury documnets, I'll use http://www.taxpayer.com/media/Who%20Ownes%20Canadas%20Debt.pdf as a simplification.  By that measure 72% of all of government gross debt s to Canadian financial institutions, and just for simplicity let's say half of it is to mutuals (which I think is about right).  Those institutions want to get good performance out of their investments, so...

One example is the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Teachers%27_Pension_Plan which keeps comming up becuase it "is one of the world’s largest institutional investors."  It has incredible influence on how all levels of government manage debt.

So, the quote "it will have to be paid back" isn't fully true (from my point of view unfortunately, to a certain extent).  It's unlikely any of it will ever be meaningfully paid pack.  However, if we could hold deficit spending (I prefer a programmed value of 0 deficit and 0 surplus, and then borrow for emergencies and apply any surplus to the debt; by the way, that also means get rid of the March spending sprees), then given we have been running consistently with inflation since the 40s (with some blips) the overall effect would shrink.  But it's exactly those institutions desire for their investments to perform that will keep governments from not outruling deficit spending all together.

So, on one side you have powerfull business ineterests that want to lend money to the government "safe bet," and on the other you have Joe average that doesn't really understand how the money flows, but likes is new roads, lower taxes, better hospitals and schools... it is natural that it balances at a position to satisfy both.  It never gets corrected because Joe average doesn't understand that somewhere around 10% of his salary is going straight to large corporations via the method of servicing the public debt interest.

Joe average also doesn't understand that literally most of the money he makes off of performance of his investments, primarily RRSPs becuase Joe average can't afford and doesn't understand much else, is also coming straight out of his own tax base.  But the institutions get their service fees in moving it around, which keeps lots of bean counters employed, and keeps the shareholders happy.  Who are themselves Mr Joe upper-middle class...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (23 Feb 2016)

GDP - $1.5 trillion
Stimulus spending promised $ 10 billion
7/10th of 1 %
$285 per capita

That will stimulate nothing.  I suspect that much of Trudeau's infrastructure spending will be social infrastructure that will come with future costs that will make us poorer.  He has done an elephant dump on pipelines.  There are 4 pipelines, each valued at $10 - 15 billion, proposed.  They will cost the government nothing and bring in hundreds of billions in future revenue.  All he has to do is get out of the way.

I thought the whole problem with Canada's economy was high oil prices and Dutch disease.  Why hasn't the economy rebounded from low oil prices and a low dollar?  It is because the Canadian economy is so bound up in a socialist quagmire and government indecision that nothing is happening.  It's Ontario's turn at bat and they're striking out.


----------



## Kilo_302 (23 Feb 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> GDP - $1.5 trillion
> Stimulus spending promised $ 10 billion
> 7/10th of 1 %
> $285 per capita
> ...



Did you expect a shattered manufacturing sector to just restart within a year of the oil crash? Do you believe in unicorns? 

"Socialist quagmire?" Canada has been privatizing, selling off and liberalizing assets for decades. The state has been retreating before supposedly "free-market" forces. All those things conservatives have been calling for have been happening. Canadian society is the least "socialist" it's been since World War 2. 

"Why hasn't the Canadian economy rebounded?" you ask. It might have something to do with the fact that good paying jobs that allow people to buy homes and cars and send their kids to university are becoming more of a rarity. A lot of those jobs are the manufacturing ones you referred to above. But guess what? It would have required socialism to keep them here, in the form of opposition to NAFTA. 

Socialism would also address the problem of Canadian corporations sitting on $670 billion of dead money, which is directly affecting levels of R & D investment, employment growth and overall economic growth. This dead money has doubled since 2005 when it was at $300 billion.

By any definition, most of Canada's major economic policies have been moving to the right for decades. You're defining yourself has being off the charts right-wing if you think our current system bears any semblance to socialism whatsoever. It's no where near a rational position.


----------



## Altair (23 Feb 2016)

It's nice to have the gang back and talking. 

About serious stuff now, not petty silly stuff like before.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> So the army.ca day of rage is march 22nd.
> 
> Budget starting point is a deficit of 18.4 billion .
> 
> Probably only going to get bigger. Still, if we get things like free university and veterans support I will turn a blind eye to it.



Free university to who? The students?

Who pays for this?


----------



## larry Strong (23 Feb 2016)

About that dead money...."it wasn’t long before Carney changed his mind. Dead money, he said the following spring, is “dead no longer. Resurrected.” If only he would pass the word to some of his acolytes."

Posted with the usual caveats...

*Andrew Coyne: Criticisms that corporations are sitting on piles of ‘dead’ money should be put to rest*

http://business.financialpost.com/financial-post-magazine/canada-dead-money-myth



> The phrase “dead money” is one of Mark Carney’s parting gifts to the country. It was in a speech to the Canadian Auto Workers two years ago that the then-governor of the Bank of Canada famously took aim at corporate Canada, accusing it of hoarding billions of dollars in cash that could more profitably be invested.
> 
> How he knew this was as much a mystery as how the corporations themselves could have been so blind to their own self-interest. Still, the governor had no doubt. If corporations could not find useful ways to invest the funds, he said, “give it to shareholders and they’ll figure it out.”
> 
> ...




Cheers
Larry


----------



## Altair (23 Feb 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Free university to who? The students?
> 
> Who pays for this?


for veterans.

It was a election promise so we shall see.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (23 Feb 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Free university to who? The students?
> 
> Who pays for this?



I would actually be in favour of sponsored education in professions identified as "vital" or "in need" such as medicine, engineering, the trades, etc as a means of getting people into important trades that we are short of in the country. However, free education for everyone to me is a waste of money... you want that coveted degree in Irish Studies? You pay for your own trip up Mazelows hierarchy of needs....


----------



## dimsum (23 Feb 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I would actually be in favour of sponsored education in professions identified as "vital" or "in need" such as medicine, engineering, the trades, etc as a means of getting people into important trades that we are short of in the country. However, free education for everyone to me is a waste of money... you want that coveted degree in Irish Studies? You pay for your own trip up Mazelows hierarchy of needs....



Agreed.  I missed the election promise of a GI Bill (essentially) but I'd be in favour of one that was targeted to the studies you mentioned.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> for veterans.
> 
> It was a election promise so we shall see.



Its called UTPNCM, or CEOTP if you want a ring to knock. University =/= getting a job after graduation. I'd rather a beefed up retraining package for everyone, not just 3B releases.

I sincerely hope you're not betting on money coming our way, they got the votes, and have already clearly stated they're not boosting the defense budget (mile wide, inch deep support) despite pushing more people into theatre.

Then again, with $40B deficit running, they can afford to pay VRs from BMQ to go to university, its not their money, its our children and grandchildren's problem, right?


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2016)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> About that dead money...."it wasn’t long before Carney changed his mind. Dead money, he said the following spring, is “dead no longer. Resurrected.” If only he would pass the word to some of his acolytes."
> 
> Posted with the usual caveats...
> 
> ...



Of course nations that _do_ try to tax corporate cash tend to find that both corporations and cash tend to leave. Apple has perhaps the most visible dragons hoard of @ $35 billion, which it must keep offshore to protect it from the huge tax bite of Uncle Sam. While $35 billion over the life of Apple may seem impressive, the Ontario Liberals alone created over $100 billion in debt in just over 10 years, so destruction is certainly faster and easier than creation. If some pre budget speculation is correct, then Gerald Butts' plans would consume the entire Apple cash reserve in less than two years....


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Feb 2016)

If they want to FRP again, I'd give it some serious consideration.


----------



## Altair (23 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I sincerely hope you're not betting on money coming our way, they got the votes, and have already clearly stated they're not boosting the defense budget (mile wide, inch deep support) despite pushing more people into theatre.
> 
> Then again, with $40B deficit running, they can afford to pay VRs from BMQ to go to university, its not their money, its our children and grandchildren's problem, right?


I would imagine one would need to finish their initial contract at least


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I would imagine one would need to finish their initial contract at least.



Who knows. Like the rest of the election promises, plenty of flash, no full costing or substance.


----------



## Altair (23 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Who knows. Like the rest of the election promises, plenty of flash, no full costing or substance.


A step in the right direction regardless.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> A step in the right direction regardless.



Empty promises and platitudes is what the Tories were accused of towards veterans, but the Liberals doing it is "a step in the right direction"?

Pardon me, but if they really gave two $%$#s, they'd have had legislation tabled when the Commons opened, or a giant announcement for funding like the billions we dumped into the climate lobby in Paris. They could have dropped the appeals against Maj Brauer, like they did on every other major pending litigation, but didn't.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Feb 2016)

The deficit is simply the difference between revenues on one side and spending plus deficit financing costs on the other, in which the former is the lesser.  Given the economic situation, it is plausible that the deficit is partly driven by another slump in revenues.  The alarming claim I encountered in one article is that the forecast doesn't include much of the new spending the Liberals want to do.

I suppose if the federal government wants to give money to provinces for education, the provinces won't say no.  I don't think VA or DND are high on the list of people with their hands out.

This government and its supporters are basically advancing an idea that was popular back in the '60s and '70s - run a small deficit indefinitely in lockstep with economic growth and monetary inflation.  This includes - and seems to have mostly been meant for - borrowing to finance regular program spending (ie. like borrowing to buy groceries, except unless your salary increases predictably, you have an unlimited line of credit, and you can print your own money, you can't do it indefinitely).

I suppose that if the Conservatives won, they'd be looking at a deficit (revenue-driven) also; and, if they'd won a majority, they might be more relaxed about balancing the budget.  But overall, this much is likely: the Conservative would be trying to keep that deficit small or engineer a surplus; the Liberals don't really care and said as much during the election - they aren't even trying.

And a restatement of something I've already written here ad nauseum: neither austerity nor stimulus should shift economic growth in Canada much (by theory); neither austerity (1997) nor stimulus (2009) has shifted economic growth in Canada much (in practice).  Even those too confused to understand that only a minor fraction of the proposed Liberal deficits is supposed to support investment-grade infrastructure should realize that the borrowing the Liberals plan to do is mainly to allow them to restore and expand "soft" spending to reward supporting constituencies.

Federal Team Liberal has borrowed heavily from ON Team Liberal.  If they had good ideas, we'd have seen them already.  We haven't, so the prudent conclusion is they don't.  The government will basically conduct a one-sided election campaign until the next federal election, vesting its faith in "the commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself" - except that they have to be able to fulfill the commitment.  No ideas; no growth.


----------



## Altair (24 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Empty promises and platitudes is what the Tories were accused of towards veterans, but the Liberals doing it is "a step in the right direction"?
> 
> Pardon me, but if they really gave two $%$#s, they'd have had legislation tabled when the Commons opened, or a giant announcement for funding like the billions we dumped into the climate lobby in Paris. They could have dropped the appeals against Maj Brauer, like they did on every other major pending litigation, but didn't.


Keep your powder dry till the budget mate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Feb 2016)

Tony Keller, the _Globe and Mail_'s editorial page editor (and, therefore, in the eyes of many a right wing, "free market" fanatic and, in the eyes of a few, a Liberal shill), writes something with which I fully agree:

     "... The theory, which a growing number of economists support, is that sound infrastructure investments can deliver long-term benefits for the economy, increasing efficiency, raising productivity and improving everyone’s quality of life.

      It’s an idea I strongly agree with – in theory. But out here in the messy real world, I have one nagging worry, and you should too. Governments are good at spending money, but they’re not always good at spending it well. And unless
      infrastructure money is well spent, the notion of an economic boost doesn’t compute."

There's still four weeks until we can dissect the "whats," "_whys_" and "wherefores" in the Morneau-Trudeau fiscal plan but I will be looking for signs of "sound infrastructure investments" that can "deliver long-term benefits for the economy, increasing efficiency, [and] raising productivity." (I left out "improving everyone’s quality of life" because I'm not sure how to measure that, although I'm sure _Liberals_ just _know_ what's good and bad in that department ~ know with the kind of certainty that only those on the political left can have about that sort of thing.)

Any bets on how much "sound" and "productive" spending I'm going to find?


----------



## Altair (24 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Tony Keller, the _Globe and Mail_'s editorial page editor (and, therefore, in the eyes of many a right wing, "free market" fanatic and, in the eyes of a few, a Liberal shill), writes something with which I fully agree:
> 
> "... The theory, which a growing number of economists support, is that sound infrastructure investments can deliver long-term benefits for the economy, increasing efficiency, raising productivity and improving everyone’s quality of life.
> 
> ...


Truly hard to say.

What I'm hearing is that a lot of those sound productive projects are not shovel ready and might not be for another year or so.

I suspect a lot of money will be going into the in unsexy maintenance of the system, replacing old buses and the like.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Truly hard to say.
> 
> What I'm hearing is that a lot of those sound productive projects are not shovel ready and might not be for another year or so.
> 
> I suspect a lot of money will be going into the in unsexy maintenance of the system, replacing old buses and the like.




"Unsexy maintenance" is, almost always, _productive_, unless you are, for example, maintaining a system well after the end of its economic life cycle. But (and there's always a but, isn't there?) the "unsexy maintenance" should have been part of the original life cycle costed plan for the system, so _you seem to be suggesting_ that Ottawa will just pick up spending that is, rightfully, the responsibility of, say, Queen's Park or even a local transit commission. If the feds make "infrastructure investments" in, say, public transit, in, say again, Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax, but not in,say, Calgary, Saskatoon and Owen Sound, then it's going to look a lot like partisan political favouratism, and just about the only things political parties do worse than "picking winners," which they almost never get right, is "playing favourites," which always goes wrong.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Feb 2016)

Replacing old buses is great.  Building new passenger rail lines leads to perpetual future losses.  I'm not sure that passengers can afford operating costs much less any recovery of capital cost.


----------



## Altair (24 Feb 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Replacing old buses is great.  Building new passenger rail lines leads to perpetual future losses.  I'm not sure that passengers can afford operating costs much less any recovery of capital cost.


I was actually thinking earlier that someone might want to swing this as the perfect time to build that high speed rail link between quebec city and Windsor that is always talked about and never built.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Feb 2016)

Tell you what.  We'll let you trial the Bombardier prototype here in Alberta between Calgary and Edmonton.  We're a little short of cash right now but lots of willing hands available.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> "Unsexy maintenance" is, almost always, _productive_, unless you are, for example, maintaining a system well after the end of its economic life cycle. But (and there's always a but, isn't there?) the "unsexy maintenance" should have been part of the original life cycle costed plan for the system, so _you seem to be suggesting_ that Ottawa will just pick up spending that is, rightfully, the responsibility of, say, Queen's Park or even a local transit commission. If the feds make "infrastructure investments" in, say, public transit, in, say again, Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Halifax, but not in,say, Calgary, Saskatoon and Owen Sound, then it's going to look a lot like partisan political favouratism, and just about the only things political parties do worse than "picking winners," which they almost never get right, is "playing favourites," which always goes wrong.



I'm going to blame "Mr Dithers" for this one, since he essentially broke the unwritten rule that Federal money pays for Federal things, and started offering Federal money for municipal things in order to buy votes for the LPC (much good it did him then). We are now in an era of "Tin Cup" federalism, where provinces and municipalities stand on the boulevard by intersections with their tin cups out hoping to get a few coins tossed in from Ottawa.

This of course fuels two dangerous trends; local governments are encouraged to spend beyond their means, and push spending towards things that are uneconomic and outside of their purview on the promise that Ottawa will pick up the tab, and;

local levels of government are less accountable, since their funding is no longer tired to their tax base.

However milking voters in the hinterlands to pay for vote rich constituencies is an old and well practiced technique, so I doubt I'll see the end of it through any sort of controlled drawdown of spending or rollback of State power.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Feb 2016)

Maintaining things we already have doesn't get us ahead; it just keeps us from backsliding.  Bus replacement isn't an investment; it's preservation of status quo.  Something serving new routes might be an investment, provided the ridership is large enough.

Replacing a four-lane bridge with another four-lane bridge is not an investment.  Upgrading to more than four lanes is an investment.

For anything to qualify as an investment, it has to be new or an improvement over something it is replacing (enough of an improvement to pay for any additional cost above that of a straight replacement).


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2016)

The problem, Brad, is you can parse these things into finer increments.

If my new buses are more fuel efficient or can carry more passengers, that might be enough of an improvement to be considered a positive investment.

A four lane bridge which is built using more modern techniques so I pay less over the projected lifetime for maintenance could be considered a positive investment, or a new 4 lane bridge at a different point which reduces transit time from point A to point B will also qualify.

In these cases, the metrics are increased productivity (i.e. doing the same things with less input cost or getting greater output for the same inputs).

Sadly, of course, the "infrastructure" that _will_ be built will consist of Performing Arts Centers, hockey arenas and transferring federal funds to pay for things which should be paid for out of the municipal or provincial tax bases instead. And you hardly need a crystal ball to see where lm Canada a lot of this money will be spent.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Maintaining things we already have doesn't get us ahead; it just keeps us from backsliding.  Bus replacement isn't an investment; it's preservation of status quo.  Something serving new routes might be an investment, provided the ridership is large enough.
> 
> Replacing a four-lane bridge with another four-lane bridge is not an investment.  Upgrading to more than four lanes is an investment.
> 
> For anything to qualify as an investment, it has to be new or an improvement over something it is replacing (enough of an improvement to pay for any additional cost above that of a straight replacement).



Replacing a four lane bridge with another four lane bridge before it falls down may not be an investment.  Trade continues unimpeded and profits continue to flow.

Replacing a four lane bridge with another four lane bridge AFTER it falls down IS an investment.  Trade ceased,  business stopped and profits stopped.  It required new money to recreate the opportunity.

So, from the government's perspective it is far better to let bridges fail and build new ones than it is to build replacements while the original is still standing.  No?


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Keep your powder dry till the budget mate.


So you will concede they could have done something if it was a priority, and that you're hoping the budget isn't a let down?

Hope isn't a valid COA.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2016)

The Financial Post casts a huge shadow over anyone who was thinking that "revenue neutrality" or even common sense was in any way behind "carbon tax" proposals. They are (and like most of us knew) and always were a poorly disguised tax grab. The Liberals (both Federal and Provincial) and the governments of Quebec and Alberta are the biggest offenders, simply because they lack the discipline to cut spending to reflect available revenues. Billions of dollars could be saved by simply eliminating overlapping programs both within their own jurisdictions and between jurisdictions, so it is not like this is rocket science.....

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-the-great-green-carbon-tax-grab



> Terence Corcoran: The great green carbon tax grab
> 
> Republish
> Reprint
> ...



and

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/the-liberals-fiscal-anchors-cannot-hold-against-a-drift-to-more-spending



> The Liberals’ ‘fiscal anchors’ cannot hold against a drift to more spending
> 
> Republish
> Reprint
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2016)

We just had a big carbon tax removed.  The price of oil dropped from 100 dollars a barrel to 30 dollars a barrel.  At 100 dollars a barrel the world continued to hum along.  How many governments are now looking at that vacated "tax room"?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I was actually thinking earlier that someone might want to swing this as the perfect time to build that high speed rail link between quebec city and Windsor that is always talked about and never built.



Already back on the table.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2016)

PM Trudeau and his associates are having a great deal of fun repealing Conservative initiatives.  I can't help but wonder if they have thoroughly considered the implications of the replacement legislation.

From citizenship, to marijuana, to F35s, to ISIL, to refugees, to deficits, to pipelines, to natives,  I get a strong sense of "reorganization by hand-grenade": the practice of throwing a hand-grenade into a room, slamming the door shut, waiting for the bang and then opening the door after the moaning has stopped so as to sort out the pieces.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Feb 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Already back on the table.


Why am I getting a visual of the Spingfield to Shelbyville monorail?


----------



## cavalryman (25 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> PM Trudeau and his associates are having a great deal of fun repealing Conservative initiatives.  I can't help but wonder if they have thoroughly considered the implications of the replacement legislation.
> 
> From citizenship, to marijuana, to F35s, to ISIL, to refugees, to deficits, to pipelines, to natives,  I get a strong sense of "reorganization by hand-grenade": the practice of throwing a hand-grenade into a room, slamming the door shut, waiting for the bang and then opening the door after the moaning has stopped so as to sort out the pieces.


Could it be that the CPC ads were right?  Not ready?  [


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Feb 2016)

This was never about policy or principles.

This was always about getting the keys to the exchequer back where they belong: in Ontario.  Especially seeing as how Ottawa had a much better credit rating.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Feb 2016)

The federal government does seem to be going through a phase in which its highest priority is to pull the noses of Conservatives and Conservative supporters.

All the uncertainty and consultation and delay, meanwhile, is a great help to the economy.  Businesses and corporations like nothing more than an inconsistent present and unpredictable future.  They are ever so eager to spend whatever assets they might be sitting on when they don't know what is going to happen next.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Feb 2016)

I am not seeing much difference at the frontlines so far, other than a delay in everything and constant frantic requests for info. But to be fair that is par for the course when a brand new government comes in.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Feb 2016)

I don't know if anyone here noticed much, but the BC government has been pulling in a bunch of jobless Conservatives.  This should reduce the temptation to finger point at the AB NDP or federal Liberals for importing their own share of party hacks.

Next we'll see if any of these people, of any political stripe, is capable of improving circumstances where they landed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Feb 2016)

Sometimes a headline can make you laugh.

Liberal fiscal plans less transparent than under Harper, Kevin Page says


----------



## Altair (27 Feb 2016)

Hey, good news!

http://poll.forumresearch.com/m/post/2460/trudeaus-popularity-stays-high

LPC 49

CPC 32

NDP 10

GRN 5

BQ 3



If the NDP doesn't chose a new leader they deserve to continue to tank as a federal party.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Feb 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> If the NDP doesn't chose a new leader they deserve to continue to tank as a federal party.



They'll tank if they choose any of the leftists nutjobs that are clamouring for Muclair's head. Their only hope as a viable party is a Layton-esque centrist. Considering Trudeau has swan-dived out of the mushy middle, its ripe for the taking.


----------



## Altair (27 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They'll tank if they choose any of the leftists nutjobs that are clamouring for Muclair's head. Their only hope as a viable party is a Layton-esque centrist. Considering Trudeau has swan-dived out of the mushy middle, its ripe for the taking.


They need a much better campaigner


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Feb 2016)

I see that partly as a party failing. They do not resonate outside Quebec or union strongholds. They burned the Quebec bridge by supporting the niqab despite strong dissent from their base. Had they chosen to side with Harper, we'd have a Tory minority government right now, Liberals would have swept Atlantic but been in gunfights for every Quebec seat.


----------



## Altair (28 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I see that partly as a party failing. They do not resonate outside Quebec or union strongholds. They burned the Quebec bridge by supporting the niqab despite strong dissent from their base. Had they chosen to side with Harper, we'd have a Tory minority government right now, Liberals would have swept Atlantic but been in gunfights for every Quebec seat.


I don't know if you saw that guy live, but I went to his rally and the man is wooden as it comes.

He came to town and was talking about all the work he would do to help a specific sector of the economy...

Problem was, that sector was half a country away. Trudeau and harper came to town and spoke about local projects and local industries.  It takes what, a 30 minute brief on the plane/bus to get up to date on where you're talking? Couldn't even do that. I don't like Harper(surprise) but I give credit where credit is due, he can talk to a crowd. Trudeau can as well.

Mulcair is either boring, or in the case of the first debate, creepy. He's a creature of a bygone era, great in the HoC where 9 out of 10 Canadians will never see what he does outside of 15 second clips, and terrible on the campaign trail when 9 out of 10 Canadians tune in briefly to try to care about their goverment.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't know if you saw that guy live, but I went to his rally and the man is wooden as it comes.
> 
> He came to town and was talking about all the work he would do to help a specific sector of the economy...
> 
> ...



Kind of sad in a way. My personal observation of both Harper and the Young Dauphin are 1800 from the media portrayals (Harper is actually much warmer in person, while the Young Dauphin essentially telephoned in a speech then quickly left). Mulcair comes across in the Media as a pretty smart guy policy wise, and campaign ads really are much like looking at a Big Mac on television: carefully posed and lighted.

Still hope to find an opportunity to see Mr Mulcair in person, just to get that reality check.


----------



## Kilo_302 (1 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They'll tank if they choose any of the leftists nutjobs that are clamouring for Muclair's head. Their only hope as a viable party is a Layton-esque centrist. Considering Trudeau has swan-dived out of the mushy middle, its ripe for the taking.



Leftist nutjobs? Define please. You understand that many of their policies are in practice in places like Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc etc and are quite successful. Are you then by definition a right-wing nut job?


----------



## Remius (1 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Leftist nutjobs? Define please. You understand that many of their policies are in practice in places like Sweden, Norway, Denmark etc etc and are quite successful. Are you then by definition a right-wing nut job?



You realise that he is talking about the leftist nutjobs that reside in the party and want Mulcair gone in order to push the party back to it's leftist roots.  Leap Manifesto types come to mind...


----------



## Kilo_302 (1 Mar 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> You realise that he is talking about the leftist nutjobs that reside in the party and want Mulcair gone in order to push the party back to it's leftist roots.  Leap Manifesto types come to mind...



Right the content in the Leap Manifesto is left of the Liberal Party, which is solidly center, center right. I don't see any truly radical ideas in the Leap Manifesto (worker rule etc) that justifies a label of nutjobs. It's wholly capitalist in fact. The left-wing of the NDP is closer to a Roosevelt style "New Dealer", or Bernie Sanders. These are not "nutjob" ideas. If we're defining them as such, "austerity" could be called the same thing.


----------



## Remius (1 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Right the content in the Leap Manifesto is left of the Liberal Party, which is solidly center, center right. I don't see any truly radical ideas in the Leap Manifesto (worker rule etc) that justifies a label of nutjobs. It's wholly capitalist in fact. The left-wing of the NDP is closer to a Roosevelt style "New Dealer", or Bernie Sanders. These are not "nutjob" ideas. If we're defining them as such, "austerity" could be called the same thing.



take a closer look.  They want to end all trade deals, end capitalism and essentially try to create some sort of Utopia with no plan on how to actually pay for it?  They want to end large scale farming in favour of organic locally grown stuff?  Tax coprorations and essentially gut the military? Upheave teh economy witha  greater emphasis on low carbon things like teaching, caregiving and public interest journalism?  Yeah, that will pay the bill...

A lot of that helped tank Mulcair despite him trying to avoid talk like that.

Right.  No nutjobs there...


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Mar 2016)

It confirms them to be naïve and probably financially secure enough to be able to think like that to begin with. The rest of us have bills to pay, which means working at the jobs we have for as long as we can keep them.  I don't think they are nutjobs, I think they are selfish hypocrites but they deserve a political voice. As one person once said somewhere on these boards, the best way to deal with the left is to facilitate an extreme left takeover, for it will be both temporary and monumentally bloody.


----------



## Kilo_302 (1 Mar 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> It confirms them to be naïve and probably financially secure enough to be able to think like that to begin with. The rest of us have bills to pay, which means working at the jobs we have for as long as we can keep them.  I don't think they are nutjobs, I think they are selfish hypocrites but they deserve a political voice. As one person once said somewhere on these boards, the best way to deal with the left is to facilitate an extreme left takeover, for it will be both temporary and monumentally bloody.



Right and a large part of the Leap Manifesto is keeping jobs in Canada, and improving the CPP so when you retire you don't have to work at Wal Mart. These people aren't selfish, they are suggesting we even the playing field for a majority of Canadians. To my mind, the definition of selfish is corporations and the wealthiest 1% refusing to pay their share and threatening to move capital and jobs overseas if they don't get their way. 

If you want to compete with workers making a dollar a day in emerging markets, see jobs continue to move overseas and see a rise in precarious labour and retirement poverty, by all means, support the prevailing system. This is exactly where we're going. You to ask yourself about the reason things are getting harder, not easier. Who's doing well right now, and who is having a tougher time?


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Mar 2016)

> Right the content in the Leap Manifesto is left of the Liberal Party, which is solidly center, center right.



Kilo, you're awesome!  You come up with some of the funniest stuff!  :rofl:

If you push the Liberals too far over to the right, you'll squeeze out the Cons and they'll squirt out around the back and pop up on the left and turn your Dippers into Canada's centrist party! ;D

You should do stand up in Vegas!

G2G


----------



## ballz (1 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Right and a large part of the Leap Manifesto is keeping jobs in Canada, and improving the CPP so when you retire you don't have to work at Wal Mart. These people aren't selfish, they are suggesting we even the playing field for a majority of Canadians. To my mind, the definition of selfish is corporations and the wealthiest 1% refusing to pay their share and threatening to move capital and jobs overseas if they don't get their way.



What is "their share" exactly? The last I saw, higher income earners pay far more of a "share" than those not earning as much. They are paying their share and then some.

When you go a road trip with friends, do you figure out who makes the most money and demand that person pays more for the gas / hotel rooms?



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> see jobs continue to move overseas



I didn't realize that jobs were moving overseas because employers think they aren't paying enough money to the government for things like C.P.P. for their employees.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Mar 2016)

>If you want to compete with workers making a dollar a day in emerging markets, see jobs continue to move overseas and see a rise in precarious labour and retirement poverty, by all means, support the prevailing system. 

In the big picture and over the long term, I want to see workers in emerging markets make more than a dollar a day.  For that to happen, I have to accept some job offshoring and stagnant wage growth in Canada.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2016)

I'm actually curious Kilo. Do you have mutual funds? An RRSP, RESP or TFSA?

What would you do if you discovered that the managers of the fund, or the business which the fund invested in are making less than they could, or are in fact deliberately following business practices which reduce the profits of the companies and returns to the shareholders (mutual fund unit holders)? Don't forget a great many people in Canada depend on the returns of their mutual fund investments in order to pay for future expenses, finance their or their children's education or have comfortable retirements.

If you believe they are failing their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, then you would probably turn your righteous wrath upon the companies and mutual fund managers.

So of course they will do whatever they can to leave high tax/high regulatory environments that restrict their ability to make a profit for their shareholders and owners. More taxes mean less money to invest in new products and services, and indeed less money to carry out even basic O&M just to keep in operation, much less hire new workers. And since the CPP is invested in many of these companies in the same manner as a mutual fund, they also have many of the same incentives as the management companies who deal in mutual funds: http://www.cppib.com/en/what-we-do/our-investments.html

Of course, the CPP, US Social Security and most Western government retirement funds do have one advantage over private management firms like Trimark or Fidelity: they are also Ponzi schemes which use current taxpayer contributions to pay current retirees, either directly like the US, or to top up returns like we do.

So unless you are going to divest yourself of all investments (including CPP) and only live on what taxpayer monies the government is willing to give to you for your vote, then you really should pay attention to how things work in the real world.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Mar 2016)

> ‘Canada failed terribly, the provinces failed terribly,’ Chiefs disappointed after climate talks with PM, Premiers
> March 3, 2016 by Brandi Morin



http://aptn.ca/news/2016/03/03/canada-failed-terribly-the-provinces-failed-terribly-chiefs-disappointed-after-climate-talks-with-pm-premiers/



> Provinces oppose Trudeau's carbon floor-price proposal
> SHAWN MCCARTHY AND IAN BAILEY
> VANCOUVER — The Globe and Mail
> Published Wednesday, Mar. 02, 2016 12:52PM EST
> Last updated Thursday, Mar. 03, 2016 7:39AM EST



https://www.google.ca/search?q=premiers+reject+carbon+tax&oq=premiers+reject+carbon+tax&aqs=chrome..69i57.9291j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=premiers+reject+carbon+tax&tbm=nws

And now a little ditty from Lighthouse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTDzDviQvDo

PS:  Anybody taking book on which comes first?

A  Just watch me.
B  Fuddle Duddle
C  The Flying Finger


----------



## Jed (3 Mar 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> GDP - $1.5 trillion
> Stimulus spending promised $ 10 billion
> 7/10th of 1 %
> $285 per capita
> ...




If I had the slow clap meme I would put it here.  [


----------



## McG (3 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> PS:  Anybody taking book on which comes first?
> 
> A  Just watch me.
> B  Fuddle Duddle
> C  The Flying Finger


It appears "we will do this my way after a colaberative negotiated process or I will force you to do it my way."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-price-cap-and-trade-first-ministers-meeting-vancouver-1.3473524


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Mar 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> It appears "we will do this my way after a colaberative negotiated process or I will force you to do it my way."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-price-cap-and-trade-first-ministers-meeting-vancouver-1.3473524



It's unfortunate.



> Canada may already be carbon neutral, so why are we keeping it a secret?



http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/canada-may-already-be-carbon-neutral-so-why-are-we-keeping-it-a-secret

I'm guessing that the reason is two-fold.

There is no opportunity in "The Earth Abides".

There is money to be had from scared people.


----------



## Altair (3 Mar 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> If I had the slow clap meme I would put it here.  [


The economy was suffering from dutch disease if your name was Thomas mulcair.

Don't think anyone else was buying what he was selling.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Mar 2016)

>It appears "we will do this my way after a colaberative negotiated process or I will force you to do it my way."

Basic progressivism.  No surprises there for me.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> It appears "we will do this my way after a colaberative negotiated process or I will force you to do it my way."
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carbon-price-cap-and-trade-first-ministers-meeting-vancouver-1.3473524


A.k.a., "don't _MAKE_ me do it!"


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Mar 2016)

In case you missed the announcement three days ago, the PM is on 60 Minutes on Sunday


----------



## CougarKing (6 Mar 2016)

CBC video: Trudeau tells humorous story about meeting Rona Ambrose in grad. school

Sigh... what a difference 10 years makes. Back then Rona Ambrose was Harper's Environmental Minister while Trudeau was merely a grad. student.  :


----------



## GAP (7 Mar 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> In case you missed the announcement three days ago, the PM is on 60 Minutes on Sunday



It was just a puff piece.....meh


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Mar 2016)

Puffing smoke, you know where.


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

Interesting article that I fully agree with

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/to-win-again-conservatives-must-tap-into-hope-not-anger/article29072811/


> Canada works best when there’s vigorous political competition. That’s why the conversation Canadian conservatives have been having of late, at the Manning Centre Conference in Ottawa, in Alberta and among Ontario Progressive Conservatives at their convention on the weekend, is important.
> 
> A glance at conservatives south of the border should make everyone here recognize how poorly voters are served when political parties fall to fractiousness and infighting.
> 
> ...



I doubt this will happen by next election, most Conservatives I meet are still just angry,angry people and for some reason believe that most people are angry along with them. 

Hint. Looking at JTs poll numbers, sitting in the high 40s and his approval numbers currently in the 60s, not a lot of people are angry. But they still come across that way. 

They may need to find their own sunny ways leader. Again not likely to happen before 2019.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Mar 2016)

Angry, or passionate? 2 completely different emotions that can easily be spun by people with an agenda to fit their outcome. There are a lot of angry Conservatives, but I find they're the same number as the angry Liberal/Dippers.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Mar 2016)

I must say that I didn't detect much "happiness" amongst Trudeau's supporters during the recent election.  In fact they seemed to be positively angry.  Or was that just anger at not being allowed to be happy?


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I must say that I didn't detect much "happiness" amongst Trudeau's supporters during the recent election.  In fact they seemed to be positively angry.  Or was that just anger at not being allowed to be happy?


Angry at harper and the CPC maybe. Not exactly something that could be used to draw support 





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Angry, or passionate? 2 completely different emotions that can easily be spun by people with an agenda to fit their outcome. There are a lot of angry Conservatives, but I find they're the same number as the angry Liberal/Dippers.


very true. Angry rank and file in all parties, even more on the net.

However, there is a problem when that anger is present at the top levels of a party,including the party leader.i don't think anyone can say that the ndp or CPC ran positive passionate campaigns. 

The attack ads were not a message of hope. The hijab issue was not brought up in a positive manner. The raging of 10 years of harper mismanagement wasn't positive either.

In the end, the passionate negativity doesn't do well when most of the country isn't angry.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Angry at harper and the CPC maybe. Not exactly something that could be used to draw support very true. Angry rank and file in all parties, even more on the net.
> 
> However, there is a problem when that anger is present at the top levels of a party,including the party leader.i don't think anyone can say that the ndp or CPC ran positive passionate campaigns.
> 
> ...



You've bought hook, line and sinker what the media was selling about Harper being angry. I don't think I've ever seen him flustered, or angry. He also certainly didn't call someone a piece of shit in the House of Commons, like another "positive" party leader....

Your 10 years of "mismanagement" is a red herring. However, everything that's wrong with the country is Harper's fault, and now the Liberals are here on their white horse to save us from this evil. Evil like a memorial for Afghanistan, or for our Victoria Cross winners. That sort of evil Harper plot just won't do.


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You've bought hook, line and sinker what the media was selling about Harper being angry. I don't think I've ever seen him flustered, or angry. He also certainly didn't call someone a piece of crap in the House of Commons, like another "positive" party leader....
> 
> Your 10 years of "mismanagement" is a red herring. However, everything that's wrong with the country is Harper's fault, and now the Liberals are here on their white horse to save us from this evil. Evil like a memorial for Afghanistan, or for our Victoria Cross winners. That sort of evil Harper plot just won't do.


That was the line Thomas mulcair was using, not a argument I was making. Although I could have made that more clear.

Harper angry? No. He wasn't. But can you say with a straight face that he ran a positive campaign?  

When most of the country is feeling optimistic and hopeful, running a negative campaign as the CPC and to a lesser extent, the NDP did is a great miscalculation of the electorate. 

And come 2019, if the country is in the same mood and the CPC pick a Jason Kenney it will be clear they didn't learn a thing from the 2015 election.

A lot of CPC supporters seem very angry at the trudeau goverment and for some reason think that most of Canada thinks the same way as they do. Like living in a echo chamber, I'm not sure if they realize trudeau is doing rather well right now.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if they realize trudeau is doing rather well right now.



Considering he hasn't actually done anything, I'm not sure how you define "well".


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Considering he hasn't actually done anything, I'm not sure how you define "well".


I didn't say great or perfect, I said well.

Nobody is up in arms about anything he has or hasn't done, no gaffes, high approval ratings.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I didn't say great or perfect, I said well.
> 
> Nobody is up in arms about anything he has or hasn't done, no gaffes, high approval ratings.



Just because the media isn't saying anything doesn't mean people are happy with him.

And once more, for clarity, polls are useless and a crutch for those that can't research for themselves. Quoting them means nothing.

:micdrop:


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just because the media isn't saying anything doesn't mean people are happy with him.
> 
> And once more, for clarity, polls are useless and a crutch for those that can't research for themselves. Quoting them means nothing.
> 
> :micdrop:


The media is saying a lot. The media isn't following the honeymoon period.

I would ask how you would judge the public mood on trudeau, but I have no faith that you would offer anything but a snide remark based on truthiness.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just because the media isn't saying anything doesn't mean people are happy with him.
> 
> And once more, for clarity, polls are useless and a crutch for those that can't research for themselves. Quoting them means nothing.
> 
> :micdrop:



icks up mic, wipes off saliva:

Over 60% of Canadians voted for a party other than the Conservatives. The NDP and the Liberals were hard to tell apart in the last election, in fact the NDP ran to the right of the Liberals by rejecting temporary deficit spending, a central tenet of Keynesian economics. 3.5% of Canadians voted for the Green Party. 

So we have approximately 65% of Canadians agreeing that climate change is an issue, that science needs to play a part in public policy, that xenophobia and racism based fears are largely unfounded (the Conservatives cynically tried to make Muslims an election issue), that universal healthcare ought to remain untouched, that refugees deserve healthcare while awaiting being processed, the list goes on. 

I personally am not a fan of the Liberal Party or Trudeau for that matter, even if he has pleasantly surprised me in a couple areas. But I can accept as reality that most Canadians like him, the world seems to love him and he hasn't made any major mistakes yet.

And yes, polls can be wrong. But if you think most Canadians agree with your views you're living on another planet. This forum represents a significant departure from what most Canadians consider mainstream Canadian values, I have to break it to you. 

You're living in a different world.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Mar 2016)

60% of the voting population rejected Trudeau as well. You can't just trot out that statistic to constantly try to hammer the Conservatives.

Climate change shouldn't be political. Patrick Brown announced he supports a small carbon price model that is revenue neutral and isn't just a slush fund. Polar shift in party policy. What do the Liberals do? Try to make political hay out of their opposition changing their mind. That's not coming together to make our world a better place, that's negative politics that the Tories are vilified for. Let's all remember which party ran national TV ads stating their opponents were going to put troops on the streets of Toronto with guns.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2016)

:



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> icks up mic, wipes off saliva:



You may want to visit a medical center and get a rabies shot.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Over 60% of Canadians voted for a party other than the Conservatives. The NDP and the Liberals were hard to tell apart in the last election, in fact the NDP ran to the right of the Liberals by rejecting temporary deficit spending, a central tenet of Keynesian economics. 3.5% of Canadians voted for the Green Party.
> 
> So we have approximately 65% of Canadians agreeing that climate change is an issue, that science needs to play a part in public policy, that xenophobia and racism based fears are largely unfounded (the Conservatives cynically tried to make Muslims an election issue), that universal healthcare ought to remain untouched, that refugees deserve healthcare while awaiting being processed, the list goes on.



There you go, throwing around statistics to cover your point of view.  Meanwhile only 43% of Canadians actually voted in support of the Lieberals.  Does that not mean that less than 43% of Canadians actually believe in all that Climate Change Propaganda, opening the flood gates to migrants, shortening the wait time to become a Canadian Citizen, that giving migrants healthcare that no other Canadians are entitled to is the thing to do, that Union Leaders and First Nations Chiefs do not have to make their wages public, and other cases where "Transparency" has been overturned by the Liberal Government. and so so much more?



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I personally am not a fan of the Liberal Party or Trudeau for that matter, even if he has pleasantly surprised me in a couple areas. But I can accept as reality that most Canadians like him, the world seems to love him and he hasn't made any major mistakes yet.
> 
> And yes, polls can be wrong. But if you think most Canadians agree with your views you're living on another planet. This forum represents a significant departure from what most Canadians consider mainstream Canadian values, I have to break it to you.
> 
> You're living in a different world.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but many Canadians are living in that "different world" that you seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with your views  are living in.  You can see them in many FaceBook pages.   You can see reports in major media outlets and on internet sites that show many finding fault with the Liberal Government of Justin Trudeau.  Parliamentary reporters like Brian Lilley and David Akin have not always been complementary towards Trudeau.  So, if you are under the impression that over 60% of Canadians are Trudeau lovers and enjoying Sunni Days because it is 2016, I might suggest it is you who is living on another planet.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Mar 2016)

A drum circle is happy and optimistic, but I wouldn't follow its recommendations and exhortations.

"Angry" is widely misused where "cautious" and "skeptical" and other words would properly fit.  I'm not an angry person, except where suffering fools is concerned (I can't bring myself to do that).  Against that, I suppose most progressives are tone deaf to the anger emanating from their own ranks on a daily basis in the news and social media.

Where do you suppose you will experience more anger and filth and crime?  At a TEA activist rally, or an Occupy site?


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> You may want to visit a medical center and get a rabies shot.
> 
> ...



The NDP, Green Party all accept that climate is a serious issue and that humans are the cause. So no, it does not mean less than 43% of Canadians believe "climate change propaganda" and everything else, because these parties all had the _same or very similar stances on these issues._ The Conservative Party was the outlier on most issues discussed during the campaign. Just as you are the outlier when it comes to widely held views in Canada. I am also an outlier on the opposite end of the spectrum. I've probably read just as many pieces that are critical of Trudeau as you, but from a leftist point of view. The difference between you and I is that I recognize my views don't represent the mainstream. 

You'll notice that big business has not yet begun the exodus out of Canada. Do you know why that is? It's because they recognize the Liberal Party will be much the same as the Conservatives when it comes being friendly to corporate interests, but without provoking a socialist or neo-fascist backlash we're seeing the US. There is no vast panic across Canada that Trudeau is going to embark on some socialist crusade, in fact a lot of business leaders welcome him as a return to good old fashioned centrist Canada. He's predictable and stable, just like Chretien and Mulroney before him. Business leaders don't give a shit how terrified of Muslims you are George, and they're calling the shots.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2016)

Sorry Kilo....but I find your stats very flawed; but if you want to live with that delusion, I will not suffer you any further discourse.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry Kilo....but I find your stats very flawed; but if you want to live with that delusion, I will not suffer you any further discourse.



There are objective truths in the world. Which stats are flawed? The 2015 election results? The math does not lie. A clear majority of Canadians rejected the Conservativr position on a myriad of issues. I will repeat, the NDP and Liberal parties have extremely similar positions on most major issues. It therefore follows that the clear majority of Canadians agree on most major issues. This shouldn't be terribly hard to follow...


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 60% of the voting population rejected Trudeau as well. You can't just trot out that statistic to constantly try to hammer the Conservatives.
> 
> Climate change shouldn't be political. Patrick Brown announced he supports a small carbon price model that is revenue neutral and isn't just a slush fund. Polar shift in party policy. What do the Liberals do? Try to make political hay out of their opposition changing their mind. That's not coming together to make our world a better place, that's negative politics that the Tories are vilified for. Let's all remember which party ran national TV ads stating their opponents were going to put troops on the streets of Toronto with guns.


I guess I'll just never forget the conservatives playing identity politics and trying to make a barbaric practices hotline. 5, 10, 15 years from now I'll drag that one out.

Or I'll accept that different leaders have different policies and as a result will do things differently.

I don't know yet. 





			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The NDP, Green Party all accept that climate is a serious issue and that humans are the cause. So no, it does not mean less than 43% of Canadians believe "climate change propaganda" and everything else, because these parties all had the _same or very similar stances on these issues._ The Conservative Party was the outlier on most issues discussed during the campaign. Just as you are the outlier when it comes to widely held views in Canada. I am also an outlier on the opposite end of the spectrum. I've probably read just as many pieces that are critical of Trudeau as you, but from a leftist point of view. The difference between you and I is that I recognize my views don't represent the mainstream.
> 
> You'll notice that big business has not yet begun the exodus out of Canada. Do you know why that is? It's because they recognize the Liberal Party will be much the same as the Conservatives when it comes being friendly to corporate interests, but without provoking a socialist or neo-fascist backlash we're seeing the US. There is no vast panic across Canada that Trudeau is going to embark on some socialist crusade, in fact a lot of business leaders welcome him as a return to good old fashioned centrist Canada. He's predictable and stable, just like Chretien and Mulroney before him. Business leaders don't give a crap how terrified of Muslims you are George, and they're calling the shots.


Best to leave him be Kilo.

If he believes it's best to read into the comments on Facebook pages and news comments section as opposed to pollsters who have this down to a science, who might not be perfect but are the best way to gauge politicians support that I know of, just leave him to it.

I will say this though. I remember a lot of those CPC supporters on Facebook saying that the pollsters were wrong, it was a liberal conspiracy from the left wing media party, that Canada would never elect another trudeau, the silent majority would turn up on Oct 19th, that the liberals had dropped seats in the last 4 elections and this would be the 5th...

We all know how that turned out.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Mar 2016)

Putting people into cabinet based on race and gender quotas instead of best person for the job isn't identity politics? We must have completely different definitions again. Those in glass houses and all that...


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Putting people into cabinet based on race and gender quotas



Because this is the first time that ever happened.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Because this is the first time that ever happened.


First time it was bragged about as the proper way to do things.


----------



## jmt18325 (10 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> First time it was bragged about as the proper way to do things.



It was really no different than the bragging about regional or ethnic representation.  I'm not sure what the problem is with adding gender to the mix.  It's not like most people that become MPs aren't capable, or especially the people that were selected.


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> First time it was bragged about as the proper way to do things.



Women represent 51% of the population. They do not however represent 51% of business leaders or politicians. There are only two possible reasons for this. Either they aren't skilled, intelligent or inclined to fill these rolls, or there is a legacy of sexism that still exists.

I think most people agree that the latter is the reality. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with Trudeau making half his cabinet (which consists of elected MPs anyway) female.

The only people who seem to have a problem with this are religious fundamentalists who are terrified of women, or white men who somehow think affirmative action makes them victims...and are also terrified of women. 

Which one are you Puckchaser?


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It was really no different than the bragging about regional or ethnic representation.  I'm not sure what the problem is with adding gender to the mix.  It's not like most people that become MPs aren't capable, or especially the people that were selected.



Gotcha. Don't pick the best person, pick based on a quota of whatever flavour of the day people feel are under represented. Next Cabinet will have someone from the Queer Transgendered Two-spirited Pakistani group who self identifies as a battleship. Why? Because its 2016 and we still can't see past people's race and gender.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2016)

Don't forget that many of these women are not ministers, but Cabinet Secretaries, who have have far less pay or responsibility than Ministers.

Because 2016!


----------



## MARS (10 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Women represent 51% of the population. They do not however represent 51% of business leaders or politicians.


I think you will find this is far, far more wide-spread than just those two sectors of the work force





			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The only people who seem to have a problem with this are religious fundamentalists who are terrified of women, or white men who somehow think affirmative action makes them victims...and are also terrified of women.



Again, I don't think this is restricted to religious fundamentalists or white men only...this is something that happens across many (most? all?) cultures, races and countries, regardless of their political system, religious beliefs, etc.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Mar 2016)

So, Kilo, what should we do about the 117,000 women nurses who are 'unfairly' holding more nursing positions in Canada than they are entitled to by gender proportion? 

In 2010, there were 268,000 registered nurses and 96% of them were women (251,000 women, 17,000 men). (Ref: https://www.cna-aiic.ca/~/media/cna/page-content/pdf-en/2010_rn_snapshot_e.pdf )

Should we actually let the gender overage of 117,000 women nurses be reduced through regular attrition and only hire male nurses for the next 13 to 16 years until we have gender parity in the nursing profession?

G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The NDP, Green Party all accept that climate is a serious issue and that humans are the cause. So no, it does not mean less than 43% of Canadians believe "climate change propaganda" and everything else, because these parties all had the _same or very similar stances on these issues._ The Conservative Party was the outlier on most issues discussed during the campaign. Just as you are the outlier when it comes to widely held views in Canada. I am also an outlier on the opposite end of the spectrum. I've probably read just as many pieces that are critical of Trudeau as you, but from a leftist point of view. The difference between you and I is that I recognize my views don't represent the mainstream.
> 
> You'll notice that big business has not yet begun the exodus out of Canada. Do you know why that is? It's because they recognize the Liberal Party will be much the same as the Conservatives when it comes being friendly to corporate interests, but without provoking a socialist or neo-fascist backlash we're seeing the US. There is no vast panic across Canada that Trudeau is going to embark on some socialist crusade, in fact a lot of business leaders welcome him as a return to good old fashioned centrist Canada. He's predictable and stable, just like Chretien and Mulroney before him. Business leaders don't give a shit how terrified of Muslims you are George, and they're calling the shots.



How big is your ass that you can yank these personal opinions out all the time and try, falsely and unsuccessfully, to pass them off as the will of the people.

The election was held in November. Big corporations do not do thing like move, lock, stock and barrel on a whim. You, personally, have no idea what any corporation in Canada is planning based on Trudeau. 

As far as the part in orange, you're likely right. Trudeau is the same as Chretien of Adscam and Sidewinder and Mulroney taking $225,000 from Schreiber. Both worked for Power Corporation before becoming Prime Minister and after, as did Trudeau Sr. I expect Trudeau Jr will also find work with them. So yeah, I can see, at least some corporations calling the shots, albeit behind the scenes.

I've had my usual fill for now. Make sure you clean off the mike and put it away properly.


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How big is your *** that you can yank these personal opinions out all the time and try, falsely and unsuccessfully, to pass them off as the will of the people.
> 
> The election was held in November. Big corporations do not do thing like move, lock, stock and barrel on a whim. You, personally, have no idea what any corporation in Canada is planning based on Trudeau.
> 
> ...



Well, I observe conditions in the past, such as business policies and conditions when Paul Martin reduced the corporate tax by 6 points in 3 years (many of his advisers are working with Trudeau). Then I take those observations, combined with Trudeau's policies which include maintaining the very low corporate tax rate of 15%, the fact that Bill Morneau is former chair of the CD Howe Institute (a conservative and pro-business think tank) and a very successful business man with close ties to Bay Street, the fact that there are such close ties between the Liberal Party and Bay Street in general, the fact there is a revolving door between the corporate world and politics, and make what I would say is a very reasonable judgement. 

Finally, as we've seen, there hasn't been a panic among the business community in Canada, no flurry of fear-mongering business editorials from anyone but The Toronto Sun (the Sun is so far from the center of corporate and political power in Canada no one of "importance" takes them seriously anyway) so yes I am quite confident that it's big business as usual in Canada.  

But do tell us, what are your Facebook friends saying? Above you said that many people aren't happy with Trudeau. What are you basing this on? I sure hope it's not "your personal opinion that you're trying to pass off as the will of the people". Boy, you would sure have egg on your face then, wouldn't you?


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So, Kilo, what should we do about the 117,000 women nurses who are 'unfairly' holding more nursing positions in Canada than they are entitled to by gender proportion?
> 
> In 2010, there were 268,000 registered nurses and 96% of them were women (251,000 women, 17,000 men). (Ref: https://www.cna-aiic.ca/~/media/cna/page-content/pdf-en/2010_rn_snapshot_e.pdf )
> 
> ...



Surely you understand the barriers to women in politics and business are of a different nature than the "barriers" to men in nursing.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Mar 2016)

Please enlighten us as to how so?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Mar 2016)

The "barriers" - both ways - are essentially "I don't care to do that".

In many fields of endeavour, the complaint is simply, "I don't care to do that, but I am outraged that not enough other women care to.  Fix it somehow."

Corporations are not likely to pack up as long as additional costs can be passed through.  The government can adopt a populist pose of sticking it to Big Business, while quietly peddling some favours to Big Business and ensuring above all that the structure of the "stick it" provisions do not prevent costs from flowing through to purchasers.  Pretending that corporations will "pay their fare share" is a fool's errand: shareholders/owners, employees, and customers pay.


----------



## YZT580 (11 Mar 2016)

MARS said:
			
		

> I think you will find this is far, far more wide-spread than just those two sectors of the work force
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think this is restricted to religious fundamentalists or white men only...this is something that happens across many (most? all?) cultures, races and countries, regardless of their political system, religious beliefs, etc.



Including Hillary Clinton's own office.  And I am absolutely certain that she is neither a religious fundamentalist or a white man although she has demonstrated that she has the b***s to be one.  Your personal prejudices are coming to the forefront and destroying your argument


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

I wish I had just said barbaric practices hotline.


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The only people who seem to have a problem with this are religious fundamentalists who are terrified of women, or white men who somehow think affirmative action makes them victims...and are also terrified of women.



Classic social justice warrior trolling. "The only people who have a problem with this are bigots, you must be a bigot if you disagree."

I personally have no problems with Trudeau ensuring half his cabinet are women, he can make them all women for all I care. He is the leader of his party and that's his prerogative. As long as nothing is legislated that forces political party leaders and businesses to make choices based on Trudeau and Kilo's arrogant "because 2015" mentality, he can fill his boots.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Classic social justice warrior trolling. "The only people who have a problem with this are bigots, you must be a bigot if you disagree."
> 
> I personally have no problems with Trudeau ensuring half his cabinet are women, he can make them all women for all I care. He is the leader of his party and that's his prerogative. As long as nothing is legislated that forces political party leaders and businesses to make choices based on Trudeau and Kilo's arrogant "because 2015" mentality, he can fill his boots.



I am surprised he didn't bring out the "Racist" card..............................Opps!  He did.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The only people who seem to have a problem with this are religious fundamentalists who are terrified of women, or white men who somehow think affirmative action makes them victims...and are also terrified of women.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2016)

*Things That Make You Go Hmmmmmm.*

POTUS and the PM had their world wide media lovefest yesterday.

1) The CAD dropped in value;

2) Every stock exchange in North America had dropped by the end of trading;

3) Oil dropped again, by a fair amount historically; and,

The only bright note is that gold shot up significantly.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Mar 2016)

And Canada sold off the last of it's gold reserves this week.

https://www.biznews.com/gold/2016/03/11/canada-sells-gold-reserves-browns-bottom-repeat/

Article at link.

*Canada sells off gold reserves – a ‘Brown’s Bottom’ repeat?*

This is a fascinating article for anyone with an interest in the yellow metal. The Canadian government has sold off all its official gold holdings, bucking the trend of central banks as net buyers since 2010. And author David Chapman wonders if this move will become known as ‘Poloz’s Bottom’, named after Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz. The bank says the reason for selling off the assets are so it can diversify assets, the same reason English Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave in 1999. The moment caused policy change and become known as ‘Brown’s Bottom’, given that since 2000 gold outperformed numerous assets, returning 335 percent versus 36 percent for the S&P 500. Chapman says Canada, as England did, will more than likely regret this decision. – Stuart Lowman


----------



## ballz (11 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> *Things That Make You Go Hmmmmmm.*
> 
> POTUS and the PM had their world wide media lovefest yesterday.



4) Stephen Harper was accused bringing Canada too close to the US, but Justin Trudeau is now being praised for a "renewed friendship with the US," as if during Stephen Harper's tenure the criticism was that he wasn't working with the US enough....

I couldn't help but notice that one yesterday during all the glamour. Obama and Trudeau are a terrible combination for celebritism, thank god they won't be in office at the same time for very long... The invitation list to the state dinner looked much more like it was for the Oscars than a serious political event. All the world's a stage, indeed...


----------



## Loachman (11 Mar 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> The invitation list to the state dinner



Unless I am mistaken, the principle guest(s) at a state dinner have to be heads of states.

Has Justin presumed to claim that position from Her Royal Majesty?


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Mar 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> And Canada sold off the last of it's gold reserves this week.



Evil Harper was buying a bunch of gold reserves, so they had to do the opposite.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Unless I am mistaken, the principle guest(s) at a state dinner have to be heads of states.
> 
> Has Justin presumed to claim that position from Her Royal Majesty?


It's not a "official" state dinner.


----------



## Rick Goebel (11 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> It's not a "official" state dinner.



From https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog  "Later in the evening, the President and the First Lady will host a State Dinner in honor of Prime Minister Trudeau in the East Room."

How is this not "official"?


----------



## Remius (11 Mar 2016)

People are getting hung up over the term.  It is HOSTED by the head of state.  But can be in honour of heads of state or heads of government.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Mar 2016)

Actually, US government sites indicate that they can be held in honour of heads of  State OR Heads of government.

Trudeau qualifies on the second count.

We should not try to foist our Canadian perspective on Americans. In Canada, State dinners are held by the GG for other Head of states, while the dinners held by the PM for either Heads of states or heads of government are called Formal dinner.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Mar 2016)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> From https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog  "Later in the evening, the President and the First Lady will host a State Dinner in honor of Prime Minister Trudeau in the East Room."
> 
> How is this not "official"?



Why does it matter? Clearly, PM Trudeau, aside from the technicality of our governmental system, is the head of state. If it was Harper it'd be the liberals complaining about this. It's irrelevant...


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> From https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog  "Later in the evening, the President and the First Lady will host a State Dinner in honor of Prime Minister Trudeau in the East Room."
> 
> How is this not "official"?


https://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/08/official-visit-vs-state-visit-state-dinner-vs-just-dinner-our-handy-primer/



> When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives in Washington tomorrow, he’ll begin an official visit, not a state visit. When he and Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau have dinner at the White House Thursday night, they’ll be honoured with a state dinner.
> 
> The visit is official, not state, because Trudeau is a head of government, not a head of state. But, over the years, the nomenclature for state dinners has evolved to avoid the distinction between the role of head of state — a largely ceremonial, less political role in many countries — but maintain the diplomatic allure of the state dinner.
> 
> ...



Happy?


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> It's not a "official" state dinner.



So you are questioning the President's advisers?


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So you are questioning the President's advisers?


https://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/08/official-visit-vs-state-visit-state-dinner-vs-just-dinner-our-handy-primer/


> When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives in Washington tomorrow, he’ll begin an official visit, not a state visit. When he and Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau have dinner at the White House Thursday night, they’ll be honoured with a state dinner.
> 
> The visit is official, not state, because Trudeau is a head of government, not a head of state. But, over the years, the nomenclature for state dinners has evolved to avoid the distinction between the role of head of state — a largely ceremonial, less political role in many countries — but maintain the diplomatic allure of the state dinner.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2016)

The best thing about the whole thing was CBC's coverage. I thought Peter Mansbridge was going to cream his jeans with his over the top fawning of the PM. Also how they are trying style Sophie as the First Lady and gushing about her designer cloths and jewelry. At least the PM is getting what CBC was payed for.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2016)

Thank you Altair for admitting your mistake.



> “They call it a state dinner. That you can call a state dinner because it’s their designation,”


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> https://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/08/official-visit-vs-state-visit-state-dinner-vs-just-dinner-our-handy-primer/



Who cares what the dinner and visit were called. Move along, nothing to see here.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Thank you Altair for admitting your mistake.


meh. Head of state is the queen technically, but he'll,  if David Cameron gets a state dinner, so can trudeau I guess.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The best thing about the whole thing was CBC's coverage. I thought Peter Mansbridge was going to cream his jeans with his over the top fawning of the PM. Also how they are trying style Sophie as the First Lady and gushing about her designer cloths and jewelry. At least the PM is getting what CBC was payed for.



First thought that came to mind is that she must live in one of those outrageous bright purple or pink houses found in Quebec or the North Shore of New Brunswick.  

Now hearkening back to the Harper years, wasn't the media all up in arms over Harper cozening up to the US?


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Who cares what the dinner and visit were called. Move along, nothing to see here.


Loachman, George Wallace and Rick goebel


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Loachman, George Wallace and Rick goebel



Every mixture needs a catalyst. Don't forget yourself and your stir spoon. :stirpot:


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Every mixture needs a catalyst. Don't forget yourself and your stir spoon. :stirpot:


well, if someone frames it as trudeau taking the role of head of state from the Queen. ..

Let's face it, you weren't going to defend him.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> well, if someone frames it as trudeau taking the role of head of state from the Queen. ..
> 
> Let's face it, you weren't going to defend him.



 :

Who needs to defend him?  There is no need to.  The Americans call it a "State Dinner" and that is all there is to it.  IT IS THEIR DINNER and they can call it what they want.  They also don't include the letter "u" in many of the same words that we use, not nor do they put anything other than "STOP" on those red octagonal signs at street corners.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Who needs to defend him?  There is no need to.  The Americans call it a "State Dinner" and that is all there is to it.  IT IS THEIR DINNER and they can call it what they want.  They also don't include the letter "u" in many of the same words that we use, not do they put anything other than "STOP" on those red octagonal signs at street corners.


I thought that was obvious as well, however it was framed as a justin trudeau doing something he shouldn't


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> well, if someone frames it as trudeau taking the role of head of state from the Queen. ..
> 
> Let's face it, you weren't going to defend him.



And why would I. It's an even stupider discussion than what's already going on here.

Men's Christmas Dinner, Soldiers Appreciation Dinner, Soldier's Holiday Dinner, State Dinner, Head of State, who gives a fuck. Sit down, eat your rubber chicken and move on.

Everyone should just drop this right now and quit wasting bandwidth.


----------



## Scott (11 Mar 2016)

No shit.

Fun police here.

Everyone can quit with the semantics about the fucking picnic.

Staff


----------



## Kilo_302 (11 Mar 2016)

I don't get it. A few posts ago, the discussion was centred around the fact that many Canadians (including a lot of the media) were unhappy with Trudeau. 

Now it seems a lot of you can't get over how much adulation he's receiving.

The common thread here  seems to be no one can accept that the majority of Canadians (including our media) like him. He reflects (rightly or wrongly) what Canadians want to see in our government. Harper did too, but for far fewer people. 

Again, there's very little daylight between the NDP, the Liberals and the Green Party compared to the Conservatives (as they were under Harper) and the rest of Canada. So this is just a return to normalcy.

I'm in full agreement that this dinner thing is pure spectacle over substance. But for a lot of Canadians, this is a celebration of the end of the Harper years. Canada is returning to its normal place in the world. Most Canadians were extremely embarrassed by our stance on climate change under Harper, so it's no coincidence that the one thing of substance to come out of this visit was a joint announcement on climate action.

Face it, Harper was disliked around the world as much as he was disliked at home. And I'm saying this as someone who also dislikes Trudeau.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Mar 2016)

I was waiting for Dinnergate to settle down so Kilo would let me know why male nurses being under-represented was okay, but women in business and politics wasn't.

op:

G2G


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2016)

Harper had the balls to send Canadians to kill terrorists and freedom-haters. Trudeau wants to cuckold them.

I just read the Canadian government through the RCMP is now "forgiving" Canadian citizens who traveled to Syria & Iraq and partook in the orgy of rape and murder there if they say sorry and promise not to do it again.

Canadians are in for an awesome surprise.


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Harper had the balls to send Canadians to kill terrorists and freedom-haters. Trudeau wants to cuckold them.
> 
> I just read the Canadian government through the RCMP is now "forgiving" Canadian citizens who traveled to Syria & Iraq and partook in the orgy of rape and murder there if they say sorry and promise not to do it again.
> 
> Canadians are in for an awesome surprise.


Source? Not seeing this anywhere


----------



## larry Strong (11 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Source? Not seeing this anywhere


 Posted in accordance with .......
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/08/rcmp-not-charging-jihadis-who-say-sorry

*RCMP not charging jihadis who say 'sorry'*  



> The RCMP is focusing on "direct interventions" with the dozens of known jihadis on Canadian soil, instead of laying charges, Commissioner Bob Paulson has revealed.
> 
> CSIS director Michel Coulombe told a Senate committee on Monday there are currently 60 Canadians known to have returned home from going abroad to participate in terrorist activities. Their activities range from engaging in paramilitary exercises to providing logistical support to receiving jihadist education and training. On top of this, there are another 180 Canadians who remain abroad for such purposes and could eventually return home.
> 
> ...





Cheers
Larry


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Posted in accordance with .......
> http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/08/rcmp-not-charging-jihadis-who-say-sorry
> 
> *RCMP not charging jihadis who say 'sorry'*
> ...


weird. Seems like the liberals want charges to be laid? I'm confused.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Mar 2016)

You should be, Altair.  Minister Goodale could help the situation by stating, "they will be charged."   He's a senior enough Cabinet member and seasoned politician to know the difference between the words he used, and a clear statement that they will be charged.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I don't get it. A few posts ago, the discussion was centred around the fact that many Canadians (including a lot of the media) were unhappy with Trudeau.
> 
> Now it seems a lot of you can't get over how much adulation he's receiving.
> 
> ...



You better research outside your shell. When Harper left he received tons of adulation and respect for the job he did, from around the world. Governments and media. The only people happy to see him go were here in Canada, and maybe Putin. 

And quit saying _MOST_ Canadians like Trudeau. It's simply not true. 39.8% ≠ most. As well, polls only say what you want them to say, they should not be mistaken for proof\ truth.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Mar 2016)

Maybe this doesn't quite fit in this thread, but I'm starting to see a common theme. Stephen Harper was vilified in the media for his stance on the issues of the day. Justin Trudeau is not called to account on his stance on the issues of today, but to his popular culture references and appeal. We've elected the Kim Kardashian of the North.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Source? Not seeing this anywhere



I'm Sorry.  Don't you bother to read other posts than your own?

http://army.ca/forums/threads/81276/post-1422552.html#msg1422552


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Don't forget that many of these women are not ministers, but Cabinet Secretaries, who have have far less pay or responsibility than Ministers.



That's not in any way true.  Under the way the system was structured, some of them would have been called Ministers of State before.  They are not any longer, as the Liberals changed the rules.  All cabinet ministers are considered to be equal.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Gotcha. Don't pick the best person



A capable person can easily be found even with certain restrictions.  There has never been a cabinet made without some kind of caveat.


----------



## jmt18325 (11 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> *Things That Make You Go Hmmmmmm.*
> 
> POTUS and the PM had their world wide media lovefest yesterday.
> 
> ...



How about today?


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I'm Sorry.  Don't you bother to read other posts than your own?
> 
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/81276/post-1422552.html#msg1422552


Someone responded earlier without needing to be a dick, thanks though.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Someone responded earlier without needing to be a dick, thanks though.



It was no need to be a dick to ask for a source when it has been posted on this site for 24 hours.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's not in any way absolutely true.  Under the way the system was structured, some of them would have been called Ministers of State before.  They are not any longer, as the Liberals changed the rules.  All cabinet ministers are considered to be equal.



FTFY. You know, because 2016!

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/05/one-third-of-women-in-trudeaus-cabinet-are-actually-ministers-of-state/

[qyote]
*One third of women in Trudeau’s cabinet are actually ministers of state*
By Elizabeth Thompson | Nov 5, 2015 9:56 pm | 16 comments |  Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on 

One third of the women named to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Cabinet aren’t full ministers and could earn less than their colleagues, iPolitics has learned.

According to orders in council adopted during Trudeau’s first cabinet meeting, five members of his cabinet are actually ministers of state, although the OIC calls for them to be called ministers: Kirsty Duncan (Science), Marie-Claude Bibeau (Francophonie), Patricia Hajdu (Status of Women), Carla Qualtrough (Sport and Persons with Disabilities) and Bardish Chagger (Small Business and Tourism).
UPDATE: Trudeau’s office vows to fix gender gap in cabinet salaries

Bibeau was also sworn in Wednesday as minister responsible for international development. The Liberals have yet to clarify whether that makes her a full minister as well and reduces the proportion of female ministers of state to one quarter of the women in cabinet.
None of the men in Trudeau’s cabinet are ministers of state.

While a cabinet minister earns $80,100 above and beyond the basic MPs salary of $167,400, the parliamentary pay scale calls for a minister of state to earn only $60,000 on top of their MPs salary. While they receive many of the other perks a cabinet minister receives such as a car and driver, they are not legally among those authorized to sign orders in council and usually have to answer to a more senior minister.

According to the orders in council, Duncan and Chagger are to assist “the Minister of Industry” – presumably Navdeep Bains who was sworn in Wednesday as Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Bibeau is to assist Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion. Hajdu and Qualtrough will answer to Canadian Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly.

But while the orders in council state clearly that they are only ministers of state – not full ministers – nowhere is that mentioned on the prime minister’s website or in the package given out to reporters Wednesday. All are described simply as ministers.

Liberal Party officials say they don’t consider there is any difference between those who have been legally designated as ministers of state and their colleagues.

“We really do consider them full ministers and it has to do with technicalities around the bureaucracy and legalese and things like that but they are, in our minds, full ministers,” said one official who agreed to speak on background.

The official said he was told they would get the same compensation as other ministers but couldn’t explain how ministers of state could be paid the same as ministers when the statute that governs the pay of everyone from the prime minister to caucus chairs says they are supposed to earn $20,000 a year less.

“Like their colleagues, they are full members of Cabinet, will receive benefits commensurate with the benefits and supports to their other Cabinet colleagues, and will lead on a number of the government’s priorities,” according to the departmental response shared with iPolitics. “This approach to their appointment ensures they have access to departmental support, as new organizations are not being created.”
Trudeau made history Wednesday by making good on his promise to ensure that women made up half of his cabinet. Asked after the swearing in ceremony why it was so important to him to have gender equity in his cabinet, Trudeau was blunt.

“Because it’s 2015.”

Trudeau’s decision to make gender a factor in who sits around the cabinet table sparked debate as well as criticism from those who felt that merit should be the only determining factor.

However, it was praised Wednesday by groups like Equal Voice, which said the 50/50 balance was a powerful symbol of commitment to having an equal number of men and women in decision making roles.

“Equal Voice applauds our new federal cabinet,” National Chair Lynne Hamilton said in a statement. “We are very pleased to see 15 very qualified women taking leadership roles in our government and look forward to working with them.”
[/quote]


----------



## Altair (11 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It was no need to be a dick to ask for a source when it has been posted on this site for 24 hours.


Sorry if I don't have time to read every bloody thread.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Sorry if I don't have time to read every bloody thread.



Stop being such a "DICKHEAD".

The novelty has worn off quite some time ago.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Mar 2016)

Relax.  With luck, the next US president will be a Texan, and another Canadian PM will have a chance to piss on his rug.


----------



## Altair (12 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Stop being such a "fool".
> 
> The novelty has worn off quite some time ago.


 I have never put anyone on my ignore list. Congratulations.

At least topics will stay on points instead of being derailed by our bickering


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe this doesn't quite fit in this thread, but I'm starting to see a common theme. Stephen Harper was vilified in the media for his stance on the issues of the day. Justin Trudeau is not called to account on his stance on the issues of today, but to his popular culture references and appeal.[size=14pt] We've elected the Kim Kardashian of the North.



SNIPER ROUND.

I don't dislike Trudeau because he is P.E.T.'s son, or because he is a Liberal.  Or because of his hair.

What I dislike the MOST about him is what MOST Canadians (IMO) do like about him; the _surface, superficial stuff that carries no actual weight_ when it comes to what makes a person the right person to lead a country IMO.  Comments on his looks, grown women making air-headed comments on news stories about him like they are 16 and he is the football team captain who just won the local high school championship game.  How they are bedazzled by nicely matched clothing, posed pictures, and a smile and can't see past any of that.  All that empty headed "Teen Magazine" bullshit.  

:boke:

I dislike how empty-headed, shallow and easily swayed the (as some claim) majority of Canadians appear to be, because they voted on the political future of their country the same way they would vote for the graduating Class King or Queen when they were in grade fuckin' 12; a shallow popularity contest.

Anyone who thinks none of that happened, at all, guess what?  You're probably one of the people I'm talking about.   :-*

One example of empty-headed meaningless nonsense.   :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:


----------



## YZT580 (12 Mar 2016)

Anyone who thinks none of that happened, at all, guess what?  You're probably one of the people I'm talking about.   :-*

Sadly, my friend, you have just taken 4 years of poli-sci and condensed it into a single sentence.  Similar comments were heard when PET was campaigning and then again following his marriage to Margaret.  If one were to scan the archives of the Star you would find a half page front page photo of Pierre diving into a pool as if that were the most important story of the day so  nothing has changed.  Unemployment is up, the treasury is empty, the provinces are once again feuding (east against west),  but hey, everything is ok, our leader says so and he has such a nice smile.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> SNIPER ROUND.
> 
> I don't dislike Trudeau because he is P.E.T.'s son, or because he is a Liberal.  Or because of his hair.
> 
> ...



That is amazing.  How did you do that ?  You just hit the nail on the head...

Give yourself a mic drop and walk away, you just won the arugment.


----------



## blacktriangle (12 Mar 2016)

Totally agree with EITS.

A telling moment was Trudeau's recent trip to Washington. The media couldn't resist talking about what kind of outfits and shoes his wife was wearing. As if that has ANY relevance to the issues facing our nation. 

Justin and his wife are a socialite couple. I'm sure they are nice people, but give me a break. He should be attending dinner parties in Wesmount or Outremont. Instead, he's leading our country. 

WTF over. Canadians get what they deserve.


----------



## jmt18325 (13 Mar 2016)

I think the above are examples of why Conservatives lost the election.  Optics matter.  The Trudeau's are popular.  That doesn't mean that Justin is unfit to govern.  Watching him answer questions at American University put to bed any lingering doubts I may have had about his intellect.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Mar 2016)

With that logic, Kayne West should be the Democratic nominee for the election in the US. Until Canadians support substance in their politicians, we'll get people like Cheryl Gallant and Justin Trudeau elected.


----------



## jmt18325 (13 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With that logic, Kayne West should be the Democratic nominee for the election in the US. Until Canadians support substance in their politicians, we'll get people like Cheryl Gallant and Justin Trudeau elected.



This is the same logic as the rest of the posts.  Trudeau is popular.  He's also performing in a way that most Canadians are happy with.  Popularity does not preclude substance.  Most Canadians (based on the polls, not the feelings of Conservative supporters) feel that he's doing the job that he was put there to do, and that he's doing it well.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Mar 2016)

What performance? Every news article I've seen is about what his wife wore, or the snappy one liner he came up with. Not his stance on softwood lumber, not a response to the Toronto 18 terrorist who was released only to die fighting for ISIS in Syria, not his position (or lack there of) on pipeline projects to support Alberta. I could go on, but I'm sure the sheer amount of serious topics he's avoided by riding the state dinner love in would hit some sort of post length limit on these fine forums. Sure, sticking your head in the sand and pretending everything is fine might work for you, but we should have real leadership on real issues, not photo ops and presidential bromances.

Even his ministers can't go 5 minutes without blaming something on Harper, and claim they'll fix it "soon, just trust us". It's like a shady used car salesman telling me I don't need to see a vehicle history report, just trust him it's good to go.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Mar 2016)

As I said before, one happy day down the road he'll be caught (politically speaking) humping the neighbours wife, after smoking meth with pre-teens.  With maybe a dead hooked or two buried in the back yard too.  The voter pitchforks will come out and he'll be run out of town and the new guy/gal will come in to save the day.  (at which point the cycle will reset and repeat)


----------



## jmt18325 (13 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As I said before, one happy day down the road he'll be caught (politically speaking) humping the neighbours wife, after smoking meth with pre-teens.  With maybe a dead hooked or two buried in the back yard too.  The voter pitchforks will come out and he'll be run out of town and the new guy/gal will come in to save the day.  (at which point the cycle will reset and repeat)



You're most likely right.  At this point in the cycle though, many of the complaints ring hollow with most people.


----------



## jmt18325 (13 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What performance?



There were several deals signed.  The fact that he was even there was performance on its own, considering he's the first in twenty years.  You reading articles about dresses really has bearing on very little.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Mar 2016)

Oh you mean the reannounced cross border pre screening deal that the Tories negotiated? Great work team Trudeau.


----------



## Altair (13 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I think the above are examples of why Conservatives lost the election.  Optics matter.  The Trudeau's are popular.  That doesn't mean that Justin is unfit to govern.  Watching him answer questions at American University put to bed any lingering doubts I may have had about his intellect.


Yup. 

And all the petty snipping going on won't change the fact that he's popular. 

I wonder when people are going to discover that the very things they despise about trudeau are the very things that people elected him for.

Hopefully not before 2019


----------



## jmt18325 (13 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Oh you mean the reannounced cross border pre screening deal that the Tories negotiated? Great work team Trudeau.



The deal that Harper wasn't able to get done?  Yeah, that deal.

There were also deals in other areas, such as methane emissions.

Beyond that - the premiers are talking to Ottawa, and things are getting done on files from climate change to infrastructure.  The new ISIS strategy has been praised by our allies.  The Prime Minister of Canada talks to the press and the people, for the first time in a decade.    

Harper didn't get invited to Washington - by either party.  Trudeau is quickly becoming the statesman that Conservatives never thought he had in him.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There were also deals in other areas, such as methane emissions.



I suppose if that means less bullsh!t coming out of Ottawa, then I'll give you that one.


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> things are getting done on files from climate change to infrastructure.



Great, well I guess there will be no excuses if my free education doesn't materialize. Ditto for the pensions promised to my wounded buddies.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> won't change the fact that he's popular.



The issue is not _that_ he is popular, it is _why_ he is popular.



> I wonder when people are going to discover that the very things they despise about trudeau are the very things that people elected him for.



I think many of us 'discovered' it on and after election night;  and as I tried to explain, 'the very things people elected him for' are my actual concerns.  Nice hair, charming, "not Harper", all the superficial things.  We (Canada) elected a party and leader based on the same criteria high schools select prom kings and queens.  



> Hopefully not before 2019



I fear Canada will not see thru the superficial regardless of what happens, and because of that I fear more for where this country will be in 2019 and beyond.  Not many things embarrass me as a Canadian for being 'a Canadian';  this however is one of them.  Is this really what we've let ourselves become as a country?


----------



## GR66 (13 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What performance? Every news article I've seen is about what his wife wore, or the snappy one liner he came up with. Not his stance on softwood lumber, not a response to the Toronto 18 terrorist who was released only to die fighting for ISIS in Syria, not his position (or lack there of) on pipeline projects to support Alberta. I could go on, but I'm sure the sheer amount of serious topics he's avoided by riding the state dinner love in would hit some sort of post length limit on these fine forums. Sure, sticking your head in the sand and pretending everything is fine might work for you, but we should have real leadership on real issues, not photo ops and presidential bromances.
> 
> Even his ministers can't go 5 minutes without blaming something on Harper, and claim they'll fix it "soon, just trust us". It's like a shady used car salesman telling me I don't need to see a vehicle history report, just trust him it's good to go.



Curious about the highlighted bit.  I hadn't heard that before and a quick Google search didn't find anything.  Do you have a reference?


----------



## ballz (13 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I wonder when people are going to discover that the very things they despise about trudeau are the very things that people elected him for.



We all realize that, it's why he is despised so much. Elected by people vote based on what CBC tells. All this biased media coverage by CBC will assure he wins again in 2019. "Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of people are even dumber than that!" - George Carlin.



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I suppose if that means less bullsh!t coming out of Ottawa, then I'll give you that one.



Sorry, but its only the evil oil & gas industry that needs to reduce methane. The industries that produce far more methane gas, such as farming and politics, get a get out of jail free card... Another Trudeau splitting the country apart at the seams.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Mar 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Curious about the highlighted bit.  I hadn't heard that before and a quick Google search didn't find anything.  Do you have a reference?


Here's something to start from - you can find more Googling "Ali Dirie Toronto Syria".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Mar 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Curious about the highlighted bit.  I hadn't heard that before and a quick Google search didn't find anything.  Do you have a reference?



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-18-member-convicted-in-canadian-plot-dies-fighting-in-syria-reports


----------



## George Wallace (13 Mar 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Curious about the highlighted bit.  I hadn't heard that before and a quick Google search didn't find anything.  Do you have a reference?



It is not hard to find.  All you have to do is look.  For those to lazy to look, here is only one of the reports:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/toronto-18-member-ali-mohamed-dirie-reportedly-died-in-syria-1.1868119

10 seconds is all it took.


[Edit:  And LOOK, three of us in all that time found YOU three different references.]


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Mar 2016)

Thanks guys, I don't see highlights on Tapatalk and it's a lazy Sunday kinda day.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> With that logic, Kayne West should be the Democratic nominee for the election in the US. Until Canadians support substance in their politicians, we'll get people like Cheryl Gallant and Justin Trudeau elected.



Too true. Far too few Canadians (or anyone else, for that matter) seem to have heard of Frédéric Bastiat, but we will all be feeling the effects of opportunity costs ("The Parable of the Broken Windows") down the road. Of course, because people are not aware of concepts like opportunity costs, compound interest and so on, they will be easily fooled into believing the problem isn't crony capitalism, regulatory failure, high taxation, debt overhang or overspending, but the blame is to be found elsewhere (how many people still believe that George W Bush is responsible for the high unemployment and sluggish performance of the US economy in 2016, for example?) Look for a chorus of "it's all Harper's fault" in 2019....


----------



## Altair (13 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The issue is not _that_ he is popular, it is _why_ he is popular.
> 
> I think many of us 'discovered' it on and after election night;  and as I tried to explain, 'the very things people elected him for' are my actual concerns.  Nice hair, charming, "not Harper", all the superficial things.  We (Canada) elected a party and leader based on the same criteria high schools select prom kings and queens.
> 
> I fear Canada will not see thru the superficial regardless of what happens, and because of that I fear more for where this country will be in 2019 and beyond.  Not many things embarrass me as a Canadian for being 'a Canadian';  this however is one of them.  Is this really what we've let ourselves become as a country?


I don't see why one hates trudeau in this. Does he force the news to like him? Does he force people to see his superficial characteristics?  It's not like the man hasn't put out policy, worked hard on the campaign trail, survived months of negative advertising. 

Is there a segment of the population that voted for him because he looks like a Disney prince? Ya. How does he control that though? Cut his face till he looks like the Joker? Shows up to debates in a burka?

You don't like him because of things he cannot control, like his looks and the media. He's the physical manifestation of everything you don't like about superficial people. And don't like him for that if you want, but it would make more sense to dislike him for things he does or doesn't do, not for his genetic makeup.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Mar 2016)

If he talked more about issues than "sunny ways" and "real change", he'd come across far more intelligent. Every time there's something serious going on, he says "We'll have a plan soon", and then runs to the brain trust to think for him. When he shoots from the hip and makes actual decisions, they aren't grounded in reality and fail (25k refugees by Christmas, CF-18s pulled out now, legalize pot right away, only modest $10B deficit). 

Its very clear to everyone but you and JMT that Trudeau is the Manchurian Candidate (1962 or 2004 version). He's a face with a good backstory that the media can like, and that's not his fault. His fault is that he doesn't realize he's being used by the Liberal brain trust, and his strings get pulled on a daily basis.


----------



## Altair (13 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If he talked more about issues than "sunny ways" and "real change", he'd come across far more intelligent. Every time there's something serious going on, he says "We'll have a plan soon", and then runs to the brain trust to think for him. When he shoots from the hip and makes actual decisions, they aren't grounded in reality and fail (25k refugees by Christmas, CF-18s pulled out now, legalize pot right away, only modest $10B deficit).
> 
> Its very clear to everyone but you and JMT that Trudeau is the Manchurian Candidate (1962 or 2004 version). He's a face with a good backstory that the media can like, and that's not his fault. His fault is that he doesn't realize he's being used by the Liberal brain trust, and his strings get pulled on a daily basis.


Lol, I love how you trot this out every time when it's impossible to prove in your case and impossible to disprove in my case.

How about we stick to the issues instead?


----------



## jmt18325 (13 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If he talked more about issues than "sunny ways" and "real change", he'd come across far more intelligent.



He does talk about far more than that.  If you're not listening, you won't hear it.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> How about we stick to the issues instead?



Like, amongst other issues, awaiting Kilo's answer on this?



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Kilo_302 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 ???


----------



## Altair (13 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Like, amongst other issues, awaiting Kilo's answer on this?
> 
> Please enlighten us as to how so?
> 
> ...


Yeah, sure. Don't get what he's going on about on that one, I'll leave it to him.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Lol, I love how you trot this out every time when it's impossible to prove in your case and impossible to disprove in my case.
> 
> How about we stick to the issues instead?



Careful. You've been guilty of the same in the past.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Lol, I love how you trot this out every time when it's impossible to prove in your case and impossible to disprove in my case.
> 
> How about we stick to the issues instead?



I'm still waiting for you to prove Trudeau is actually a leader of substance, other than taking populist stances to attract better polling numbers (which you like to trot out whenever you can't dispute a point on issues).

I'm also curious: Do you like Trudeau, or just dislike Harper?


----------



## Altair (13 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Careful. You've been guilty of the same in the past.


I'm sure we all have.

Still, I'll call it out when I see it, and I'll accept it when I'm called out doing it.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm still waiting for you to prove Trudeau is actually a leader of substance, other than taking populist stances to attract better polling numbers (which you like to trot out whenever you can't dispute a point on issues).
> 
> I'm also curious: Do you like Trudeau, or just dislike Harper?


 both.

As for being a leader of substance, I would point to the climate file as one where he is making progress. 

He has also appointed good people into key positions (except john maccallum,  hate that guy). 

The CF 18s vs special forces training has been a bit of a fumble, but I would say that he handled the Syrian refugees in good fashion. 25 000 new people into canada without any major incidents, no mass movement of soldiers to make room,nothing has blown up. Took longer to do, but it has been without any major drama.

Come budget time we shall see more of what the plan is on the economic front.

However, nothing he has done to date suggests he is a terrible leader or that he is in over his head. More of a caretaker goverment than anything else.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Mar 2016)

He's made absolutely no progress on the climate file other than dumping money into climate change "funds" and paying for $1M delegation to hang out in Paris. His intent is to move the yardsticks AGAIN in relation to carbon levels. You can't achieve goals if you constantly change what those goals are. All parties are guilty of this, but only one campaigned on "real change". "Real Change" would be saying "we're committed to this goal, and our party will work to achieve and surpass it prior to the deadline".

OP IMPACT hasn't been a fumble, its been a gongshow born out of a purely political promise to remove CF-18s from "combat". However, OP IMPACT pers now have ROE that apparently allow them to shoot first, so hasn't Trudeau pushed us further towards ground engagement despite his promise of a more "Canadian approach"? If Canadian he means warfighting, he's right on the mark.

His Syrian refugee handling was another purely political promise, a game of oneupmanship designed to garner votes. There was no reason to make an arbitrary number, or arbitrary (and unattainable deadline). There was no reason why we needed to bring that many, that fast, other than to win votes. We're already a world leader in Syrian refugee resettlement. Also think of the CAF members who deployed to support this refugee surge, when just streamlining the existing processes and removing the cap would have been completely sufficient.

As for the budget, his platform was supposed to be fully costed. Fully costed means we should know exactly what the budget will be, and with a sub $10B deficit. Add 20% to that deficit figure because Alberta is still getting hit hard with low oil prices, and we should be right around $12B if it was actually fully costed. It wasn't. Morneau is talking about $20-$30B deficits, but even he has no idea. Confidence level dropping.

Caretaker government? He's got in with a chainsaw and is swinging at any bill or law signed since 2006. He doesn't have an issues stance other than "we'll reverse everything the Tories did".


----------



## Altair (13 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's made absolutely no progress on the climate file other than dumping money into climate change "funds" and paying for $1M delegation to hang out in Paris. His intent is to move the yardsticks AGAIN in relation to carbon levels. You can't achieve goals if you constantly change what those goals are. All parties are guilty of this, but only one campaigned on "real change". "Real Change" would be saying "we're committed to this goal, and our party will work to achieve and surpass it prior to the deadline".
> 
> OP IMPACT hasn't been a fumble, its been a gongshow born out of a purely political promise to remove CF-18s from "combat". However, OP IMPACT pers now have ROE that apparently allow them to shoot first, so hasn't Trudeau pushed us further towards ground engagement despite his promise of a more "Canadian approach"? If Canadian he means warfighting, he's right on the mark.
> 
> ...


If you're complaining about allowing members to fire first then I don't even know what to say. Weren't you the one making him out to be a dove? Regardless, our allies are happy, Canadians seem satisfied, so whatever. Don't think Trudeau cares about what Altair or puckchaser thinks.

The budget deficit is 12 billion,plus 6 billion for contingancy funds that may or may not be used, and 10 billion in infrastructure. Not insane. 

As for climate, I'll agree to disagree.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's made absolutely no progress on the climate file other than ...
> 
> OP IMPACT hasn't been a fumble, its been a gongshow ...
> 
> ...




I think it's important to recall that, as with most governments in their first year or so in office, this one is still in campaign mode. 

Remember that he was elected, _mainly I think_, because we, Canadians in general, were tired of Stephen Harper and it was time to "throw the rascals out," even if they weren't really "rascals" (for a change) and even if we didn't have many really fundamental disagreements with most of Prime Minister Harper's polices ... we have, quite unthinkingly, adopted the notion of eight year "terms" and Harper had been there for nine, so ...  :dunno:

This government, at the very centre, PMO and, thanks to an act of almost unparalleled chutzpah, maybe the PCO, too, ran a remarkable campaign. They ~ Butts/Telford/Trudeau ~ were a really, really good campaign team and they liked doing it; they're good at it; they plan, _I suspect_, to keep doing it for as long as the polls allow ~ and those polls continue to show that most (over 50% of) Canadians like Prime Minister Trudeau and approve of what he's doing (even if they have no f'ing idea at all about what it is that he's doing ... or not). Campaigning is easier than governing, and it's more fun, too. But, _my guess_ is that there is a dawn, the cold light of which will come as an unpleasant shock to Justin (Sunny Ways) Trudeau.


----------



## Altair (13 Mar 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think it's important to recall that, as with most governments in their first year or so in office, this one is still in campaign mode.
> 
> Remember that he was elected, _mainly I think_, because we, Canadians in general, were tired of Stephen Harper and it was time to "throw the rascals out," even if they weren't really "rascals" (for a change) and even if we didn't have many really fundamental disagreements with most of Prime Minister Harper's polices ... we have, quite unthinkingly, adopted the notion of eight year "terms" and Harper had been there for nine, so ...  :dunno:
> 
> This government, at the very centre, PMO and, thanks to an act of almost unparalleled chutzpah, maybe the PCO, too, ran a remarkable campaign. They ~ Butts/Telford/Trudeau ~ were a really, really good campaign team and they liked doing it; they're good at it; they plan, _I suspect_, to keep doing it for as long as the polls allow ~ and those polls continue to show that most (over 50% of) Canadians like Prime Minister Trudeau and approve of what he's doing (even if they have no f'ing idea at all about what it is that he's doing ... or not). Campaigning is easier than governing, and it's more fun, too. But, _my guess_ is that there is a dawn, the cold light of which will come as an unpleasant shock to Justin (Sunny Ways) Trudeau.


polls aren't to be believed
Go check out Facebook comments.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> polls aren't to be believed
> Go check out Facebook comments.



 [

Where is Kilo and his "statistics"?  

Polls after all, are nothing more than "statistics".


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Mar 2016)

There isn't really much to be upset about yet.

The government's achievements to date have mostly been in the "small gestures to pull Harper's nose" category; we don't know what the  '16/'17 budget balance forecast will be (and based on a recent article by Stephen Gordon, '15/'16 might actually end up in surplus); TPP hasn't been dumped outright; the foreign "talking to others" and "deals" to date have mostly been inconclusive and amount in most cases to being agreements to propose agendas for meetings to establish frameworks for negotiating agreements; and the domestic equivalent of the same is mostly photo ops and the customary demands from premiers to hand over more money and stay out of their business.

It looks good to people who think a statement of intentions is a plan, or that "dialog" is an end in itself.

Campaigning and statecraft are two distinct skills.  Not every effective campaigner is competent at statecraft, and people who might be good at statecraft rarely get to prove it if they are ineffective campaigners.  The inside team of this government is good at campaigning, so that's what they are doing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> If you're complaining about allowing members to fire first then I don't even know what to say. Weren't you the one making him out to be a dove? Regardless, our allies are happy, Canadians seem satisfied, so whatever. Don't think Trudeau cares about what Altair or puckchaser thinks.
> 
> The budget deficit is 12 billion,plus 6 billion for contingancy funds that may or may not be used, and 10 billion in infrastructure. Not insane.
> 
> As for climate, I'll agree to disagree.



Will you please, please read, and understand, what is posted before you go off. The first paragraph is ranting rhetoric because you failed to read what was said before you attacked. The only thing that makes sense is the last sentence. "Don't think Trudeau cares about what Altair or puckchaser thinks."

On that point, you're right. He doesn't care what any of us think. All he cares about is that he has four free years to do whatever he, and his puppet masters, want to do.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> If you're complaining about allowing members to fire first then I don't even know what to say. Weren't you the one making him out to be a dove?



Its no where near complaining, its far better ROE than I would have expected out of him. What I'm pointing out (I'll clarify since you missed it), is the fallacy of removing CF-18s from combat to move to a more humanitarian/non-combat role, but allowing the advise/assist force to be allowed to eliminate threats in their AOR. His reasoning was completely political as stated, and if there was another reasoning (we can't afford to fly 30 year old fighters in combat anymore, totally acceptable), then he should have stated it. It would have been far easier for him to explain that we've run the CF-18s ragged, than saying "I'm pulling them because I said I would, deal with it".


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2016)

The entire MO of Gerald Butts and co was summed up when people suggested that selecting a cabinet on merit rather than pack an arbitrary number of Ministers of State in so you can say there is 50% mld/female representation:

"Because 2015"

That sentence tells everyone that there is no desire to justify, explain or debate the issue, they wanted to shut down any debate and expected the media to follow suit (which the major Canadian media meekly did; it was the Rebel which broke the story).

So expect that the same "answer" will be trotted out if/when anyone has the audacity to challenge statements coming from the new, improved government.

As I have explained in the economic threads, Canadians will be easily hoodwinked because few of them know and understand concepts like opportunity costs and compound interest, so the future will be sluggish overall growth punctuated with a few bubbles where Liberal cronys are able to siphon off your tax dollars. No one will "know" the cause of this, and of course any umber of convenient excuses will be trotted out (including "Blame Harper", which I expect to hear a lot of in 2019).

Frédéric Bastiat explained it all in his 1850 essay _Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas_.

http://bastiat.org/fr/cqovecqonvp.html for those who want to read it in the original French.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Essays_on_Political_Economy/That_Which_Is_Seen,_and_That_Which_Is_Not_Seen for the English translation


----------



## jmt18325 (13 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The entire MO of Gerald Butts and co was summed up when people suggested that selecting a cabinet on merit rather than pack an arbitrary number of Ministers of State in so you can say there is 50% mld/female representation:



There are no ministers of state in the Trudeau government.  There are fewer ministers than in the Harper, Martin, or Chretien government.  Your theories don't really fly in the face of reality.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There are no ministers of state in the Trudeau government.  There are fewer ministers than in the Harper, Martin, or Chretien government.  Your theories don't really fly in the face of reality.



Your "reality" perhaps?  ???

Orders in Council  PC2015-1225 through PC2015-1229 would indicate that you are wrong, jmt18325.



> 2015-1229	2015-11-04			PMO
> Act	Ministries and Ministers of State Act
> Subject	Order Assigning the Honourable Marie-Claude Bibeau to assist the Minister of Foreign Affairs
> Precis	Order assigning the Honourable MARIE-CLAUDE BIBEAU, a *Minister of State* to be styled Minister of La Francophonie, to assist the Minister of Foreign Affairs, effective November 4, 2015.





> 2015-1228	2015-11-04			PMO
> Act	Ministries and Ministers of State Act
> Subject	Order Assigning the Honourable Patricia A. Hajdu to assist the Minister of Canadian Heritage
> Precis	Order assigning the Honourable PATRICIA A. HAJDU, a *Minister of State* to be styled Minister of Status of Women, to assist the Minister of Canadian Heritage, effective November 4, 2015.





> 2015-1227	2015-11-04			PMO
> Act	Ministries and Ministers of State Act
> Subject	Order Assigning the Honourable Carla Qualtrough to assist the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Employment and Social Development
> Precis	Order assigning the Honourable CARLA QUALTROUGH, a *Minister of State* to be styled Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, to assist the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Employment and Social Development, effective November 4, 2015.





> 2015-1226	2015-11-04			PMO
> Act	Ministries and Ministers of State Act
> Subject	Order Assigning the Honourable Bardish Chagger to assist the Minister of Industry
> Precis	Order assigning the Honourable BARDISH CHAGGER, a *Minister of State* to be styled Minister of Small Business and Tourism, to assist the Minister of Industry, effective November 4, 2015.





> 2015-1225	2015-11-04			PMO
> Act	Ministries and Ministers of State Act
> Subject	Order Assigning the Honourable Kirsty Duncan to assist the Minister of Industry
> Precis	Order assigning the Honourable KIRSTY DUNCAN, a *Minister of State* to be styled Minister of Science, to assist the Minister of Industry, effective November 4, 2015.




Perhaps you are thinking of some other Commonwealth Government that "has no Ministers of State?"  :dunno:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Altair (13 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Will you please, please read, and understand, what is posted before you go off. The first paragraph is ranting rhetoric because you failed to read what was said before you attacked. The only thing that makes sense is the last sentence. "Don't think Trudeau cares about what Altair or puckchaser thinks."
> that point, you're right. He doesn't care what any of us think. All he cares about is that he has four free years to do whatever he, and his puppet masters, want to do.


argumentum ad ignorantiam


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its no where near complaining, its far better ROE than I would have expected out of him. What I'm pointing out (I'll clarify since you missed it), is the fallacy of removing CF-18s from combat to move to a more humanitarian/non-combat role, but allowing the advise/assist force to be allowed to eliminate threats in their AOR. His reasoning was completely political as stated, and if there was another reasoning (we can't afford to fly 30 year old fighters in combat anymore, totally acceptable), then he should have stated it. It would have been far easier for him to explain that we've run the CF-18s ragged, than saying "I'm pulling them because I said I would, deal with it".


he has repeatedly said that he don't feel dropping bombs is the best solution to solve the problem that is isil.

He has repeatedly said that training local ground forces to take the ground isil holds is the best way to defeat isil. To that end he said he would expand the training mission and recall the fighters. In order to protect themselves( and avoid any blue helmet like scenarios ) he has allowed out SFs the ability to shoot first when the situation warrants. Not because, yay combat, but because he wants them to be safe and return home to their families.

No doublespeak, no contradiction, just good Ole common sense. 

He doesn't believe in the bombing mission to solve the problem. He has said this many times. And looking at the quagmire that is syria, with isil, the assad regime, turkey, Russia,  rebel groups, Hezbollah, Iran and the Kurds,  I cannot say I blame him.

He has stated on multiple occasions that training local forces to take the fight to isil is more effective than bombing. 

The only question he has not answered is why not do both.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Your "reality" perhaps?  ???



It helps to verify things first:

When asked to clarify the discrepancy Friday morning, a senior government source speaking on background told CBC News that what was presented to the public on Wednesday is, in fact, what's real: all 30 are full ministers.

Some of the Treasury Board statutes pertaining to cabinet roles, however, have to be changed to give all these roles full ministerial status and salaries, retroactive to Wednesday.

Those changes can't just happen overnight, the source said, but will happen pretty quickly.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-cabinet-fine-print-women-junior-ministers-1.3307122

There are no junior ministers in the Trudeau government.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It helps to verify things first:
> 
> When asked to clarify the discrepancy Friday morning, a senior government source speaking on background told CBC News that what was presented to the public on Wednesday is, in fact, what's real: all 30 are full ministers.
> 
> ...



You're avoiding the whole point with your strawman.

Never mind what they are called. They were appointed on gender, colour and race.

They were not appointed by merit.

When you don't appoint by merit, you don't have the most qualified people in the slot, unless by sheer luck.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> argumentum ad ignorantiam



I'm far from ignorant on the subject my learned colleague.

If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true. However, if a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

The point being, that some here have a large tendency of throwing out statements as gospel when they can't be proven. Things like 
'The vast majority of Canadians love and support the PM.' 

Polls don't count. They are manipulated, questions are worded for a desired result and the people polled can be selected on whatever way you want the poll to lean toward. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Besides, it's a cheap shot to call me ignorant when it was you that didn't understand what was written and then replied with your broadside against it, but in reality agreeing with exactly what was said.

Calling me ignorant is the weakest type of deflection to draw attention away from your own ignorance or, perhaps, a total lack of comprehension.


----------



## Altair (14 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm far from ignorant on the subject my learned colleague.
> 
> If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true. However, if a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
> 
> ...


You are not ignorant.

But you cannot prove that Trudeau controlled by puppet masters and I cannot disprove that he is being run by puppet masters.

At least when I point to polls I am using some form of evidence, however flawed polls may be.( even ERC sited the polls)

When you and puckchaser say he is being run by puppet masters and that he is the Manchurian Candidate,  you cannot point to any solid evidence other than your feelings towards it. Unless you are in his inner circle and know something everyone else doesnt

Thus you are in fact arguing from a position of ignorance. You cannot know what you are saying is true or false but are trying to pass it off as fact.

argumentum ad ignorantiam


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Mar 2016)

This thread is the written epitome of :deadhorse:

Both of the sides in this thread are so entrenched in their beliefs that the simple idea of inner judgment and contemplation of ones own political beliefs is impossible. 

Its not about politics in 2016 anymore its about a few members smashing their always right attitudes into each other repeatedly and expecting different results each time, isn't that the definition of something ?


----------



## Altair (14 Mar 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This thread is the written epitome of :deadhorse:
> 
> Both of the sides in this thread are so entrenched in their beliefs that the simple idea of inner judgment and contemplation of ones own political beliefs is impossible.
> 
> Its not about politics in 2016 anymore its about a few members smashing their always right attitudes into each other repeatedly and expecting different results each time, isn't that the definition of something ?


Killing time before March 22nd.

Then I can imagine this place getting really civil and polite, with calm insightful points from both sides on the pros and cons of the budget.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its no where near complaining, its far better ROE than I would have expected out of him.



AFAIK, ROE and/or ROE cards haven't actually changed...


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Mar 2016)

jmt, a spokesperson can say all they want, however, until the Governor-in-Council sets forth an Order, the "last order holds" so, until an OIC is approved formally changing the status of the five Minsters of State as approved by the GIC on 4 November, the revision of Ministerial status is not in play.

To say that there are just a few Treasury Board regulations (which itself is an incorrect statement) to make this happen indicates that you do not know how the actual specifics of Government work.  TB does not approve OICs, only the Governor-in-Council can.

The most important issue in all of this particular sub-thread is at *what pay level will the current Ministers of State receive, once they are formally re-approved as Ministers? If they receive the same incremental salary as the current Minsters, then your contention that they are 'full' Ministers will be correct.  However, if they retain the lesser salary for their re-defined Mimiaterial duties, then name notwithstanding, they are still a junior Ministet, advising a senior Minister as Miniaters of State did in the past.

You can keep an eye out on the PCO's OIC link I provided earlier to see when the Ministers previously approved as Minister of State become Ministers.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

*_spelling_


----------



## Journeyman (14 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There are no junior ministers in the Trudeau government.



*Just stop.*

You were talking out of your butt.  Good2Golf provided facts* showing you were wrong.

Man up.  Accept it.  Move on.  :not-again:


* Facts:  something _painfully_  absent from this, and several other, political threads -- relying instead on :deadhorse:     :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> He has repeatedly said that training local ground forces to take the ground isil holds is the best way to defeat isil. To that end he said he would expand the training mission and recall the fighters. In order to protect themselves( and avoid any blue helmet like scenarios ) he has allowed out SFs the ability to shoot first when the situation warrants. Not because, yay combat, but because he wants them to be safe and return home to their families.



As I said, AFAIK, the ROE has not changed since this babble talk over ROE and 'shoot first'.  I could elaborate, but can't.  You can take my word for it, or not, but I'll suggest I know what I'm talking about.

Having a schmick about the tactical level and some at the operational, I will say my  :2c: and that of the majority of the coalition is the best way to defeat ISIL is to continue to bomb them AND train GoI forces to take the ground fight to them.

Good ol "concurrent activity" beats "common sense" in this game called combat.  



> just good Ole common sense.





> He has stated on multiple occasions that training local forces to take the fight to isil is more effective than bombing.



Okay then, riddle me why he left assets in place that serve the sole purpose of enabling said ineffective bombing?  Aurora's find stuff, Polaris has one and only one purpose; to keep bomb trucks in the air longer.

*I don't believe in bombing to solve tactical situations, therefore I am pulling our fighters out.  However, here are planes that find stuff for fighters to bomb the shit out of, and a tanker to help them do it longer*



> The only question he has not answered is why not do both.



And it is the last question he has not answered _effectively_.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2016)

Taking and holding ground is the all important element in war, so they at least are "talking the talk", but unless they are willing to commit a battlegroup with all its enablers (some of which are air attack elements), or have the time and resources in place to train thousands of local fighters (and you will need lots since they don't come with artillery, tanks or jet fighters), then they are not "walking the walk".

Even a 250 man training team is more of a handwave in the right direction than a serious effort, unless there is a commitment to continue the training mission for at least a decade (of which I have seen no indication). Even then, being able to rapidly back the trainers and trainees with fast moving firepower simply makes then better and more effective at taking and holding ground.

The issue in the entire "Politics in 2016" thread is the difference between "talking the talk", and "walking the walk". The current government is very good at the first, but haven't really demonstrated much of the second in any sphere of activity.


----------



## McG (14 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Taking and holding ground is the all important element in war, so they at least are "talking the talk", but unless they are willing to commit a battlegroup with all its enablers (some of which are air attack elements), or have the time and resources in place to train thousands of local fighters (and you will need lots since they don't come with artillery, tanks or jet fighters), then they are not "walking the walk".


What if we donated all our old Leopard 1 platforms and then trained a Kurd tank battalion?


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When you don't appoint by merit, you don't have the most qualified people in the slot, unless by sheer luck.



Name me a cabinet appointed solely on merit in Canada or anywhere.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> *Just stop.*
> 
> You were talking out of your butt.



I already presented counter evidence.  There are no junior ministers in the Trudeau government.  I am aware of their original status, but that doesn't not change the facts as they exist within the Trudeau government.  That the ministers were originally worn in as Ministers of State (on paper, as required by law) is irrelevant to their title and eventual (originally intended) status as full ministers, with full ministerial compensation.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Taking and holding ground is the all important element in war, so they at least are "talking the talk", but unless they are willing to commit a battlegroup with all its enablers (some of which are air attack elements), or have the time and resources in place to train thousands of local fighters (and you will need lots since they don't come with artillery, tanks or jet fighters), then they are not "walking the walk".
> 
> Even a 250 man training team is more of a handwave in the right direction than a serious effort, unless there is a commitment to continue the training mission for at least a decade (of which I have seen no indication). Even then, being able to rapidly back the trainers and trainees with fast moving firepower simply makes then better and more effective at taking and holding ground.
> 
> The issue in the entire "Politics in 2016" thread is the difference between "talking the talk", and "walking the walk". The current government is very good at the first, but haven't really demonstrated much of the second in any sphere of activity.



No other country in the coalition is providing a Battle Group - indeed the Government of Iraq would not accept such a thing.  I guess none of us are walking the walk then....


----------



## Altair (14 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Name me a cabinet appointed solely on merit in Canada or anywhere.


Doesn't exist. Every cabinet is pandering to someone.

In terms of scale though, I don't think any politician has pandered to a full 50 percent of the population before.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Mar 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> What if we donated all our old Leopard 1 platforms and then trained a Kurd tank battalion?



Turkey would never allow it to happen, however Russia and Canada could work together on this issue, giving them T-55 or T-72's, flown in by the Russians, who train the crews, the Canadians train the commanders and the logistical guys.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I already presented counter evidence.


Actually, you didn't.   Good2Golf provided facts subsequently, as opposed to your saying, in effect, 'I'm wrong.....but things will change....soon.'

Until "soon" happens, your posts are factually wrong.

For whatever it's worth, we're not all HQ people -- some of us have to function based on things like "current regulations" and "truth."  But to be fair, I'm just assuming you're in a headquarters, based on your posts.

Either way, I guess the whole 'man up and accept you were in error' was a bridge too far.


----------



## Altair (14 Mar 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Turkey would never allow it to happen, however Russia and Canada could work together on this issue, giving them T-55 or T-72's, flown in by the Russians, who train the crews, the Canadians train the commanders and the logistical guys.


that implies that Russians and Canadians can work together


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Either way, I guess the whole 'man up and accept you were in error' was a bridge too far.



If it were an error, I'd admit the error.  That article was from November.  It's likely that the changes have already been made.

There are no junior ministers in the Trudeau government:

However, the Liberals say the designations were a technicality -- the women in question are full members of cabinet, carry the title of minister, were always intended as such, and will receive benefits and supports commensurate with those of their colleagues.

The five women were appointed under the Ministries and Ministers of State Act to ensure they have access to the support of existing departments, as new organizations are not being created, officials said Friday.

For instance, Hajdu's portfolio, Status of Women, is attached to that of the Canadian Heritage minister and Bibeau's La Francophonie responsibilities are linked to the newly named Global Affairs Canada, formerly Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

"I understand that they are full ministers," said Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion. "I will have the great pleasure to work with minister Bibeau, and I may tell you she is not junior in my mind one minute."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/all-ministers-are-full-cabinet-members-liberals-say-1.2646131

And just in case you still have any doubt:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/parliamentarians/en/ministries


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Mar 2016)

jmt, they're getting the same $80,100 as ministers now, but, they are still Ministers of State, in accordance with The Ministeries and Ministers of State Act, R.C.S. 1985 c. M-8, until another Order-in-Council is approved, superseding the 4 Nov 2015 OIC.  I checked PCO's OIC search site and as of today, such an OIC had yet to be approved.

You can hate the players as much as you wish, but it's really the game you appear to have an issue with, and the game is the law, Federal Legislation to be exact, Bill M-8, The Ministries and Ministers of State Act.  

Personally, I suspect there will be no such OIC, because the original OICs already included, as you can see by my quotes a few pages back, that the Ministers of State would by "styled" as Ministers of [insert State portfolio name here], and thus "styled" as Ministers and, being upgraded from a pre-election MoS remuneration of $60,000 to the post-election MoS rate of $80,100, there's nothing more to be done.  By Federal Law, they are Ministers of State, they are addressed as "Ministers" and those in Minister of State billets are now paid the same as those in Minister billets.

If, however, the day comes when a subsequent OIC is approved by the GIC which quashes the appointments and re-appoints them as full Ministers, I will then concede to you that you are now correct.  Til then... 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> that implies that Russians and Canadians can work together



Well if JT can suck up to China, making nice with Putin should be easy. Plus it will show "Global leadership"  [

The biggest issue will be the GHG emissions from the older Russian tanks......


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> jmt, they're getting the same $80,100 as ministers now, but, they are still Ministers of State, in accordance with The Ministeries and Ministers of State Act, R.C.S. 1985 c. M-8, until another Order-in-Council is approved, superseding the 4 Nov 2015 OIC.  I checked PCO's OIC search site and as of today, such an OIC had yet to be approved.
> 
> You can hate the players as much as you wish, but it's really the game you appear to have an issue with, and the game is the law, Federal Legislation to be exact, Bill M-8, The Ministries and Ministers of State Act.
> 
> ...



I suspect you're right - the changes that were made are the changes that will be made.  Though technically (legally) ministers of state, they are treated as ministers.  I think we're talking past each other. I was under the impression that the OIC would be changed, but it seems that the changes were probably too cumbersome and not worth the time given that the ministers are already counted as being equal to all others.  Sorry for any misunderstanding.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> ...that implies that Russians and Canadians can work together


They were one of our flanking battalions in Kosovo. 

That implies a knowledge and/or experience of Canada's military history.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> They were one of our flanking battalions in Kosovo.



This isn't the 90s though.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> This isn't the 90s though.


Oh, thanks.     :facepalm:


----------



## jmt18325 (14 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Oh, thanks.     :facepalm:



I just mean we're not in quite the same cooperative spirit.


----------



## Loachman (14 Mar 2016)

[/quote]


----------



## Altair (14 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

>


even though Goodale says they should be charged?

Oh whatever.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> even though Goodale says they should be charged?
> 
> Oh whatever.



Charged, convicted, released, fly to Syria on Canadian passport, fight for ISIL and then come back for Ontario's basic minimum salary and free health care? Could even get free treatment for PTSD from too many beheadings!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Charged, convicted, released, fly to Syria on Canadian passport, fight for ISIL and then come back for Ontario's basic minimum salary and free health care? Could even get free treatment for PTSD from too many beheadings!



That would be hilarious if it wasn't so true.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> No other country in the coalition is providing a Battle Group - indeed the Government of Iraq would not accept such a thing.  I guess none of us are walking the walk then....



Perhaps worded poorly. If we were to do what the GoC _says_ we need to do, then we would have to commit resources on the scale of an armoured battlegroup or ramp up training so that we would be sending thousands of Kurdish fighters into battle prepared to face a wealthy and numerically superior force equipped with a wide variety of equipment including tanks and AFV's. In either case there is no indication that resources on that scale are being prepared or committed.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> . In either case there is no indication that resources on that scale are being prepared or committed *by any nation in the coalition, including the Americans..*



FTFY


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Charged, convicted, released, fly to Syria on Canadian passport, fight for ISIL and then come back for Ontario's basic minimum salary and free health care? Could even get free treatment for PTSD from too many beheadings!



The idea that we should be stripping citizenship from anyone, no matter the crime they committed doesn't make sense. First of all, given the nebulous definition of terrorism, there's a chance a future Canadian government could abuse these powers. The fact that the RCMP has defined certain environmental groups as "threats to Canada" should be a warning that this could happen. 

Secondly, from a purely security perspective, I have more faith in our jails than I do of whatever country we might ship them off to. 

Finally, from the "hearts and minds" side of things, a fair and public trial in Canada, followed by imprisonment in Canada is more effective than sending someone off to be martyred in some Syrian/Egyptian etc prison. 

Terrorism is a police matter, so we should treat the punishment for such crimes accordingly. Lock them up and throw away the key, I don't care. But it's a dangerous game when we get into playing with citizenship. To paint any government who recognizes the legal and constitutional issues with this as being "pro-terrorist" is juvenile.

Remember when the Right was calling Jack Layton "Taliban Jack" because he wanted to negotiate with the Taliban? Well only a few years later NATO began negotiating. So let's tone the rhetoric down a bit.

This all pure rhetoric from the right designed to score cheap political points.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Mar 2016)

With all of the hullabaloo about the the Liberals not balancing the budget, here's an article that uses the CCPA's budget for ideas on how to stay in the black. Unsurprisingly, the federal government is the smallest it's been since World War II, so this idea that somehow the government is getting bigger must have come solely from the Toronto Sun. 

Now a lot of you with disagree with these initiatives, but let's remember the military is set to lose about $400 million in funding this year as well. If we could eliminate the deficit with these ideas (that only really affect wealthier Canadians and corporations who have seen their taxes decline to historic lows), the military wouldn't have to suffer either.

As the article states, we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.


There are also some graphs on the link that help drive the point home. For example, it's clear that lowering corporate tax rates didn't result in corporations investing in more jobs in Canada. Rather Canadian corporations have been hoarding the money, often offshore. We would be crazy not to tax it.


http://www.pressprogress.ca/5_places_where_canada_finance_minister_can_find_tens_of_billions_of_dollars_for_his_budget




> Don't worry, Mr. Morneau – we've got you covered!
> 
> The federal budget is just around the corner and Finance Minister Bill Morneau is projecting an $18 billion deficit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Mar 2016)

**changing threads


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Mar 2016)

[quote author=Kilo_302] 
The idea that we should be stripping citizenship from anyone, no matter the crime they committed doesn't make sense. [/quote]

It does when you approach the idea of citizenship as something to be cherished and fought for and not as a welfare ticket.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The idea that we should be stripping citizenship from anyone, no matter the crime they committed doesn't make sense.



Will you stop painting everything with a broad brush to suit your views.  Your comments are absurd.  Stripping of one's citizenship WOULD NOT be for committing just ANY crime.  It has already been established that the intent is that revocation would be aimed at those who commit VIOLENT CRIME or ACTS of TERRORISM.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Will you stop painting everything with a broad brush to suit your views.  Your comments are absurd.  Stripping of one's citizenship WOULD NOT be for committing just ANY crime.  It has already been established that the intent is that revocation would be aimed at those who commit VIOLENT CRIME or ACTS of TERRORISM.



You misread my post. I am saying that I disagree with ANYONE losing their citizenship, no matter what crime they commit, for the reasons that I subsequently listed. Take a deep breath. Read the post again. Calm down. Namaste.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You misread my post. I am saying that I disagree with ANYONE losing their citizenship, no matter what crime they commit, for the reasons that I subsequently listed. Take a deep breath. Read the post again. Calm down. Namaste.



Let me see?  Did you read your own words?



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The idea that we should be stripping citizenship from anyone, no matter the crime they committed doesn't make sense.



Once again:

Will you stop painting everything with a broad brush to suit your views.  Your comments are absurd.  Stripping of one's citizenship WOULD NOT be for committing just ANY crime.  It has already been established that the intent is that revocation would be aimed at those who commit VIOLENT CRIME or ACTS of TERRORISM.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You misread my post. I am saying that I disagree with ANYONE losing their citizenship, no matter what crime they commit, for the reasons that I subsequently listed. Take a deep breath. Read the post again. Calm down. Namaste.



Do you think Canadians should lose their citizenship under specific circumstances?


----------



## Remius (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let me see?  Did you read your own words?
> 
> Once again:
> 
> Will you stop painting everything with a broad brush to suit your views.  Your comments are absurd.  Stripping of one's citizenship WOULD NOT be for committing just ANY crime.  It has already been established that the intent is that revocation would be aimed at those who commit VIOLENT CRIME or ACTS of TERRORISM.



I think you are still misreading his post.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you think Canadians should lose their citizenship under specific circumstances?



No


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Terrorism is a police matter...



If only it was that simple, clean and bloodless.  Terrorism is a WORLD matter in this day and age.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I think you are still misreading his post.



I don't think "no matter the crime they committed" can be interpreted in any other manner than a broad brush painting of the matter.  It is a "fear mongering" tactic to have the less enlightened agree to your side of an argument; a complete falsehood and lie to shift opinion.  

I do have to ask Kilo the same question that Jarnhamar just asked:



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you think Canadians should lose their citizenship under specific circumstances?



Sorry if I do not fall for the absurd comment: "A Canadian is a Canadian, is a Canadian."

Those who mouth those words, also will never mouth the words: "A terrorist is a terrorist, is a terrorist."  The failure to acknowledge the fact that there are "evil" people in the world who want to bring about our destruction is so naive on their part.  That problem can not be ignored in the hope that it will just go away; it won't.


----------



## Remius (15 Mar 2016)

Here is a more important question.  Should all Canadians be equal before the law?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> No



And can you explain your stand?  Is Canadian Citizenship a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE"?


----------



## Loachman (15 Mar 2016)

I will admit to mixed opinions regarding stripping citizenship.

I do not believe that those who commit terrorist attacks - really, acts of treason - and who have attained citizenship by naturalization are worthy of retaining that citizenship. Stripping it from them, however, is unfair as it cannot be stripped from those whose citizenship derives rom being born here. Punishment for crimes must be equally applied. One standard for all.

For all that I disagree with Kilo and Altair, they do make some valid points from time-to-time and it is worth considering what they (and others) say without prejudice - which I must usually push myself to do.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Here is a more important question.  Should all Canadians be equal before the law?



All Canadians should be equal before the Law; Canadian Law.  Other forms of Law, religious or not, do not have jurisdiction here.  

When the question comes as to a "new" Canadian having betrayed Canadians, through "deception" in coming here to commit violent crimes or acts of terrorism; then they should be denounced for what they are -- NOT Canadian, nor accepting of Canadian values.  Our Law does cover what constitutes criminal and terrorist activities.  Sharia Law, nor any other perceived religious laws,  do not overrule or override Canadian Law.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And can you explain your stand?  Is Canadian Citizenship a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE"?




You are still not understanding what I am saying. I will try and make this clear. I do not believe that ANY Canadian under ANY circumstances should have his or her citizenship revoked, as I do not believe it is effective as a preventative measure. 

I am not suggesting that the Harper government intended to use this measure for ANY crime. I believe they intended it solely for "terrorism." However, for the reasons I initially posted, this is a symbolic law and not very practical. It's designed to rile people up, and put the Liberals (or the NDP) in a position where it appears they're "siding with the terrorists." And you have clearly bought it, hook, line and sinker. 

First, the definition of "terrorism" is nebulous. Future Canadian governments on the Right OR the Left could attempt to further define it for their own ends, with obvious consequences. We've already seen the RCMP define certain environmental groups as potential "terror" threats, so it that should serve as an indication of what COULD happen if we had the wrong government attempt to apply this law.

Second, I believe Canadian jails are more secure than the jails these people might get sent to. I shouldn't have to explain this point further.

Third, ALL Canadians are entitled fair and equal treatment under the law. Even if someone has killed or maimed innocent civilians, while they might *deserve* to be tortured or receive generally shabby treatment, this is not the same as legally sanctioning it, which would be in effect, what the Canadian government would be doing. This last point is largely a legal precedence issue. Canada might find itself in a sticky situation if we start sending criminals abroad to be tortured.

Is this clear to you George?


----------



## Jed (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> All Canadians should be equal before the Law; Canadian Law.  Other forms of Law, religious or not, do not have jurisdiction here.
> 
> When the question comes as to a "new" Canadian having betrayed Canadians, through "deception" in coming here to commit violent crimes or acts of terrorism; then they should be denounced for what they are -- NOT Canadian, nor accepting of Canadian values.  Our Law does cover what constitutes criminal and terrorist activities.  Sharia Law, nor any other perceived religious laws,  do not overrule or override Canadian Law.



I challenge anyone to logically argue against this statement.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Mar 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> I challenge anyone to logically argue against this statement.



No one should have to challenge this statement, because this discussion isn't "Does Sharia Law apply in Canada?" No one is saying that. What people are saying is that once someone is a Canadian citizen, they are entitled to the same treatment as any other Canadian citizen. That point has been well argued from a legal standpoint.


----------



## Altair (15 Mar 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> I challenge anyone to logically argue against this statement.


a red herring? 

Really Jed?


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I do not believe that those who commit terrorist attacks - really, acts of treason - and who have attained citizenship by naturalization are worthy of retaining that citizenship. Stripping it from them, however, is unfair as it cannot be stripped from those whose citizenship derives rom being born here. Punishment for crimes must be equally applied. One standard for all.



I'm forced to agree that there should be one standard for all when it comes to punishments.  I'm okay with Canadian-born terrorists having their citizenship taken away too.


----------



## Altair (15 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm forced to agree that there should be one standard for all when it comes to punishments.  I'm okay with Canadian-born terrorists having their citizenship taken away too.


making them non citizens? Citizens of no country? Ya...sure there is a rule somewhere where this doesn't fly


----------



## GR66 (15 Mar 2016)

I tend to agree that "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" in the sense that once you have passed the hurdles to become a Canadian citizen you should not be treated any differently than any other Canadian citizen.  Place of birth at that point becomes irrelevant.  

You cannot deport a Canadian born citizen as they have no other home state to which they can be deported.  They are our responsibility to deal with if they break our laws.  A naturalized Canadian citizen should not be treated any differently in my opinion.  There shouldn't be two different classes of citizen.

I'm less certain of my opinion where an individual gains Canadian citizenship under false pretenses.  If someone lies in their application for citizenship and wouldn't otherwise have been eligible to be granted citizenship should the granting of citizenship be binding?  I think that is something that would probably have to be examined on a case by case basis.  Some applicants may "fib" or hide elements of their past out of fear of rejection but not for the purpose of hiding something that would have us deem them as unsuitable for citizenship.

Similarily I'm not certain of where I stand on dual citizens.  It's a tricky matter because it's not like we can simply outlaw dual citizenship because some countries don't recognize renunciation of their own citizenship.  In the vast majority of cases I don't think dual citizens should be treated any differently than any other citizen, but in some situations the case could be made that they are only Canadian citizens of convenience.  I could possibly be persuaded by arguments that dual citizens should have to maintain their citizenship in some way by maintaining ties to Canada.


----------



## Remius (15 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm forced to agree that there should be one standard for all when it comes to punishments.  I'm okay with Canadian-born terrorists having their citizenship taken away too.



If there was way to do that then yes.  But international law preventts us from making anyone stateless.   If the law is to be applied equally then stripping only those with dual citizenship or those that became citizens through immigration or what not goes against that principle.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> making them non citizens? Citizens of no country? Ya...sure there is a rule somewhere where this doesn't fly



Yup it sure is a rule. Just like there is also a rule about not setting bombs off and killing people.  Funny how people happy to break the rules are so quick to try and hide behind them eh?

If we don't execute them for treason then work out a deal with some shitty country to take them in and give them citizenship.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You are still not understanding what I am saying. I will try and make this clear. I do not believe that ANY Canadian under ANY circumstances should have his or her citizenship revoked, as I do not believe it is effective as a preventative measure.



I, however, do think that there are cause for the revocation of Canadian Citizenship for Violent Crime and/or Terrorist activities.  It is rather bold to say "NO" to the revocation of Canadian Citizenship, when discussing doing so for those reasons, while at the same time revoking citizenship of productive members of our society.  (One case, the former British couple who ran a Bed and Breakfast in Northern New Brunswick; and another case of the Lebanese immigrant who ran a chain of pizza parlors in Halifax.) 



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I am not suggesting that the Harper government intended to use this measure for ANY crime. I believe they intended it solely for "terrorism." However, for the reasons I initially posted, this is a symbolic law and not very practical. It's designed to rile people up, and put the Liberals (or the NDP) in a position where it appears they're "siding with the terrorists." And you have clearly bought it, hook, line and sinker.



I find that a very biased and flawed statement on your part, and showing your partisan views.  The Law WAS NOT DESIGNED TO RILE PEOPLE UP.  It is people like you, the Liberal Party and the NDP who riled people up with your partisan propaganda about the Law.  I would say it is you who fell hook line and sinker for a biased and false propaganda used to rile those ignorant of the actual wording to vote against the governing Party.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> First, the definition of "terrorism" is nebulous. Future Canadian governments on the Right OR the Left could attempt to further define it for their own ends, with obvious consequences. We've already seen the RCMP define certain environmental groups as potential "terror" threats, so it that should serve as an indication of what COULD happen if we had the wrong government attempt to apply this law.



If an organization uses "terror" to push their agenda, what would you call them?



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Second, I believe Canadian jails are more secure than the jails these people might get sent to. I shouldn't have to explain this point further.



It has already been proven in the US, that the Prisons are a breeding ground for the spread of radical religious philosophies.  You can look at statistics to read those facts, if you prefer.  



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Third, ALL Canadians are entitled fair and equal treatment under the law. Even if someone has killed or maimed innocent civilians, while they might *deserve* to be tortured or receive generally shabby treatment, this is not the same as legally sanctioning it, which would be in effect, what the Canadian government would be doing. This last point is largely a legal precedence issue. Canada might find itself in a sticky situation if we start sending criminals abroad to be tortured.



ALL Canadians are entitled fair and equal treatment under the law.  Unfortunately, we see recent cases where some do not recognize the Infidel's Laws in our courts.  

Can you point to any cases where we have "legally sanctioned" 'torture' or 'generally shabby treatment' of anyone that is incarcerated in CANADA? 



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Is this clear to you George?



Your bias and prejudices, along with your agendas have long been clear.  Your blind acceptance of your views, not accepting valid counter discussion of your points has long been acknowledged here.  Sorry if I don't have "Blind Faith" in all that is said.


----------



## Jed (15 Mar 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I tend to agree that "a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian" in the sense that once you have passed the hurdles to become a Canadian citizen you should not be treated any differently than any other Canadian citizen.  Place of birth at that point becomes irrelevant.
> 
> You cannot deport a Canadian born citizen as they have no other home state to which they can be deported.  They are our responsibility to deal with if they break our laws.  A naturalized Canadian citizen should not be treated any differently in my opinion.  There shouldn't be two different classes of citizen.
> 
> ...



By pointing out the aspects of 'Dual Citizenship' and new Canadian's that have been granted this citizenship by dishonest means you have effectively proved that 'A Canadian, is a Canadian, is a Canadian' is false.


----------



## Altair (15 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yup it sure is a rule. Just like there is also a rule about not setting bombs off and killing people.  Funny how people happy to break the rules are so quick to try and hide behind them eh?
> 
> If we don't execute them for treason then work out a deal with some shitty country to take them in and give them citizenship.


That's civilization bud.

People don't kill POWs or does that offend  your sensibilities as well?


----------



## Loachman (15 Mar 2016)

I hold dual citizenship. I have been Canadian since 1977 - longer than many who were born here. This is irrelevant, from my point of view.

Those who specifically misrepresent themselves during the citizenship process, or those who recant their oath/solemn affirmation following their citizenship ceremony, should be evaluated and stripped of the Canadian citizenship that they did not rightfully earn.

Not all dual citizens who commit acts of treason obtain their Canadian citizenship for that purpose, though - and, really, why would anybody bother if their intent is to commit an attack? It offers no tactical advantage. A foreign-born child could obtain citizenship and be radicalized many years later - there would be no intent to deceive at the time.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> That's civilization bud.


It's not civilization chief, it's weakness and cowardice. 
Those rules haven't been in place since the beginning of time, in the greater scheme of the universe they're actually pretty new. Rules change. 




> People don't kill POWs or does that offend  your sensibilities as well?



This is a really stupid question and slight Altair, I'm actually surprised to hear it from you.  Are you just having a brain fart or are you really trying to derail the conversation in such a childish manner?


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And can you explain your stand?  Is Canadian Citizenship a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE"?



There should be no distinction between Canadians that were born here, and Canadians that came here.  The only distinction that I agree with (as always existed) is the idea of fraudulent citizenship, as fraudulent citizenship was never valid to begin with.  That is, if you lied to get citizenship, that citizenship doesn't apply (it's the reason that I believe people who renounce their oath to the Queen immediately after should have their citizenship revoked at the same time).  If it can be proven that someone became Canadian for the purpose of terrorizing the people of Canada (why would you go through the trouble to do that, exactly?), then their citizenship is already forfeit, as they lied when the stated their reasons for becoming Canadian.  This is not necessarily the case for all non native Canadians who commit acts of terror, but may be the case for some.  

My position makes sense today.  Lets say that the Canadian born individual who attacked the CF members in Toronto is eventually charged with terror (it's important to note that at this point he hasn't been).  What do we do with him?  How is he any different from a new Canadian who commits an act of terror against Canadians? It doesn't make any sense.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

jmt18325

You contradicted yourself in that post.


----------



## Remius (15 Mar 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> By pointing out the aspects of 'Dual Citizenship' and new Canadian's that have been granted this citizenship by dishonest means you have effectively proved that 'A Canadian, is a Canadian, is a Canadian' is false.


. 

It actually does not prove that.  Those people that gain citizenship through fraudulent means were never Canadians to begin with. And there is plenty of jurisprudence to back that up.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You are still not understanding agreeing with what I am saying.


Fixed that for you.  :nod:



> ... I believe they intended it solely for "terrorism." However, for the reasons I initially posted, this is a symbolic law and not very practical. It's designed to rile people up, and put the Liberals (or the NDP) in a position where it appears they're "siding with the terrorists."


 So the legislation had no basis in removing convicted terrorists from Canada, but rather solely to "rile people up" and make Liberals/NDP look bad?!  Let's go back to a previous post on "naivety."



> And you have clearly bought it, hook, line and sinker.


Yes, we see that a lot from some posters here.



> First, the definition of "terrorism" is nebulous.


 Terrorism, an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems. 
*Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 83.01*
Google "nebulous." The Criminal Code seems pretty clear the way I'm reading it.



> We've already seen the RCMP define certain environmental groups as potential "terror" threats....


Yes, those elements of environmental groups advocating or conducting extremist measures incorporating criminal violence; that's the job of our security services. They do not target environmental groups for surveillance or oppression, regardless of what the tinfoil hat folks will tell you.



Also, "threat" and "risk" are not synonymous; they have specific, non-interchangeable meanings. I'd hazard a guess that most INTREPS regarding environmentalists would cite only a very specific segment, and even then refer to a risk rather than a threat....unless expressly warranted otherwise.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> With all of the hullabaloo about the the Liberals not balancing the budget, here's an article that uses the CCPA's budget for ideas on how to stay in the black. Unsurprisingly, the federal government is the smallest it's been since World War II, so this idea that somehow the government is getting bigger must have come solely from the Toronto Sun.
> 
> Now a lot of you with disagree with these initiatives, but let's remember the military is set to lose about $400 million in funding this year as well. If we could eliminate the deficit with these ideas (that only really affect wealthier Canadians and corporations who have seen their taxes decline to historic lows), the military wouldn't have to suffer either.
> 
> ...



Nope, we have a *spending* problem, and have had one for years.

Corporations are hoarding their money because of perceived economic uncertainty; why invest if there is a good chance you will loose it? The corporate financial officers have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders as well, outside of the good business practice of looking for positive returns.

You may also note that the worst year of the Great Depression (1938, a good 9 years after the start of the depression) was created by the "capital strike" as business refused to make any more investments due to the chaotic environment the "New Dealers" had created in the economy. Canadian companies have decades of historical data and experience to look at and make forecasts, plus the experience of Ontario under both the NDP and the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals (and now the Alberta NDP) to suggest how the future is going to unfold between now and 2019.

Finally, while I'm not too surprised by your assertion that we can simply help ourselves to someone else's money if we don't like what they choose to do with it, Margaret Thatcher pointed out the ultimate fallacy of that idea:

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money"


----------



## Altair (15 Mar 2016)

It's not just dual citizens who lose their citizenship ship, or immigrants

The tories tried to take away the citizenship of one of the Toronto 18 terrorists even though he was Canadian born. His parents were algierian if I remember correctly.

Now I have no love for someone who wants to blow up the middle of Toronto,  but to strip the citizenship of someone born in Canada and make them a citizen of a country they have never stepped foot in is a dangerous precedent


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> jmt18325
> 
> You contradicted yourself in that post.



A citizen that obtained their citizenship fraudulently was never a citizen in the first place.  That's the way it's viewed under the law.  I should have been more clear with my language.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> It's not just dual citizens who lose their citizenship ship, or immigrants
> 
> The tories tried to take away the citizenship of one of the Toronto 18 terrorists even though he was Canadian born. His parents were algierian if I remember correctly.
> 
> Now I have no love for someone who wants to blow up the middle of Toronto,  but to strip the citizenship of someone born in Canada and make them a citizen of a country they have never stepped foot in is a dangerous precedent



This is not a precedence.  It has already happened with a criminal born in Canada of Indian Embassy staff, who became Canadian citizens.  His case was decided upon; to send him to India.  His criminal activity was enough to have his claim to Canadian Citizenship denied.  Your defence of a convicted 'terrorist' should result in more stringent following of that precedence.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Now I have no love for someone who wants to blow up the middle of Toronto,



You just lost the Prairie vote, right there...


Intersting how this discussion studiously avoids looking at the bars many folks will visit on Thursday, and their role as a source of funds for terrorists.  No one ever talks about stripping citizenship/deporting Irish/Canadian dual nationals who provided material support to the IRA.


----------



## Loachman (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> jmt18325
> 
> You contradicted yourself in that post.



He seems to be saying exactly what I did, just prior.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> A citizen that obtained their citizenship fraudulently was never a citizen in the first place.  That's the way it's viewed under the law.  I should have been more clear with my language.



For the most part, that is exactly my view.  

It is rather naive to think that people are not using deception to attain Canadian Citizenship and then conduct Criminal, terrorist, or even espionage activities against Canada.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> He seems to be saying exactly what I did, just prior.



And to top it off, I'd completely missed your post


----------



## Remius (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is not a precedence.  It has already happened with a criminal born in Canada of Indian Embassy staff, who became Canadian citizens.  His case was decided upon; to send him to India.  His criminal activity was enough to have his claim to Canadian Citizenship denied.  Your defence of a convicted 'terrorist' should result in more stringent following of that precedence.


. Except that Mr. Balhokat was not a citizen.  And he never applied for it either.  At least not until he faced deportation.  Not at all the same thing.  There was no citizenship to strip.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Nope, we have a *spending* problem, and have had one for years.
> 
> Corporations are hoarding their money because of perceived economic uncertainty; why invest if there is a good chance you will loose it? The corporate financial officers have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders as well, outside of the good business practice of looking for positive returns.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure I understand your motivation. Do you think if we cut program spending further our economy will grow? 

Do you think it will be the type of growth that would improve the lives of all Canadians, not just the higher earners? 

Are you concerned for lower income Canadians?

What you've provided above are talking points that seem to disagree with straightforward data that clearly shows our government has been shrinking, not growing. This means spending has been decreasing as well. 

You're clearly against welfare, but corporate welfare is one of the biggest net losses of revenue in Canada. This takes the form of tax breaks, tax loopholes and what can only be described as handouts. Meanwhile corporations operating here use public roads, hire employees who have public healthcare and education. 

Are you suggesting that a 15% corporate tax rate is too high?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> . Except that Mr. Balhokat was not a citizen.  And he never applied for it either.  At least not until he faced deportation.  Not at all the same thing.  There was no citizenship to strip.



???

The case of Deepan Budlakoti:  http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/05/canadian-citizen-asks-court-to-declare-him%E2%80%A6-canadian-citizen



> Born in Canada, stripped of citizenship
> 
> Deepan Budlakoti was born in October, 1989, at Ottawa's Grace Hospital, and issued an Ontario birth certificate. His parents, who had come to Canada from India in 1985, had been working for the Indian Ambassador as cooks, gardeners and cleaners until about four months before Deepan was born. In June, 1989, they began working for a medical doctor in Nepean, and it is that doctor's address that appears on Deepan's certificate of live birth.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> The case of Deepan Budlakoti:  http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/05/canadian-citizen-asks-court-to-declare-him%E2%80%A6-canadian-citizen



George you just quoted Rabble.ca! Ahhhhhhh!!!!


----------



## dapaterson (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> The case of Deepan Budlakoti:  http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/05/canadian-citizen-asks-court-to-declare-him%E2%80%A6-canadian-citizen



Read up on international conventions.  Children of people with diplomatic status do not receive birthright citizenship.

So, for example, if the Canadian Defence Attaché in Washington (who holds diplomatic status) were to give birth in Maryland, their child would have an American birth certificate, but no American citizenship.

In that case, his parents had diplomatic status when he was born. Therefore he never had Canadian citizenship - the passport he was once_twice_ issued was issued in error.

EDIT: number of passports


----------



## Altair (15 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Read up on international conventions.  Children of people with diplomatic status do not receive birthright citizenship.
> 
> So, for example, if the Canadian Defence Attaché in Washington (who holds diplomatic status) were to give birth in Maryland, their child would have an American birth certificate, but no American citizenship.
> 
> In that case, his parents had diplomatic status when he was born. Therefore he never had Canadian citizenship - the passport he was once issued was issued in error.


interesting. 

So was the case of the Toronto 18 a first then in terms of trying to remove the citizenship of a Canadian born terrorist?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Read up on international conventions.  Children of people with diplomatic status do not receive birthright citizenship.
> /
> In that case, his parents had diplomatic status when he was born. Therefore he never had Canadian citizenship - the passport he was once issued was issued in error.



It is stated that his parents no longer worked for the Indian Embassy, but for a doctor in Nepean.  However, if we bring into question the date of 'conception', I suppose the rules would apply.  (Hopefully this hasn't brought a whole new twist to the arguments)  >


----------



## George Wallace (15 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> George you just quoted Rabble.ca! Ahhhhhhh!!!!



I know.....It was a quick search..... [:-[


----------



## Remius (15 Mar 2016)

Yes. Rabble portrayed if that way.  And yeah, quoting rabble...

Anyways, he was born while his parents were diplomats.  Hence why under the vienna convention he didn't have Canadian citizenship at birth.  His parents later applied but didn't think their son had to.  He did indeed have to Nd it was ruled that he wasn't a citizen nor ever was.  

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/he-was-born-in-canada-but-now-the-government-wants-him-deported/article13013278/?service=mobile


----------



## dapaterson (15 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is stated that his parents no longer worked for the Indian Embassy, but for a doctor in Nepean.  However, if we bring into question the date of 'conception', I suppose the rules would apply.  (Hopefully this hasn't brought a whole new twist to the arguments)  >



Read the case.  The Doctor's testimony was tossed, as documents from the time clearly indicated that the parents held that status until two months after his birth.


----------



## ballz (15 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand your motivation. Do you think if we cut program spending further our economy will grow?



Yes



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Do you think it will be the type of growth that would improve the lives of all Canadians, not just the higher earners?



It would improve the lives of low income earners more than anyone.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Are you concerned for lower income Canadians?



A question not even deserving of a response. You are basically trying to insinuate that someone that doesn't agree with your Alice in Wonderland economics is just selfish / greedy / immoral / etc etc etc. I happen to be concerned enough for the low income earners to be against government involvement in the economy.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> What you've provided above are talking points that seem to disagree with straightforward data that clearly shows our government has been shrinking, not growing. This means spending has been decreasing as well.



Size of government is most definitely increasing on a long-term basis.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You're clearly against welfare, but corporate welfare is one of the biggest net losses of revenue in Canada. This takes the form of tax breaks, tax loopholes and what can only be described as handouts. Meanwhile corporations operating here use public roads, hire employees who have public healthcare and education.



Not many people are more against corporate welfare than Thucyclides. See his thread about "let them fail." It is left-wing economics that leads to using billions of taxpayer money to intervene in the economy and prop up failing companies, not capitalism.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that a 15% corporate tax rate is too high?



I sure would, cause its silly. But that's hardly relevant to this thread.


----------



## Flavus101 (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Do you think if we cut program spending further our economy will grow?



It's economics 101. The more you tax the people the slower your long run growth in per capita GDP will be. You will see an increase in the short run, but in the long run you are shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (16 Mar 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> It's economics 101. The more you tax the people the slower your long run growth in per capita GDP will be. You will see an increase in the short run, but in the long run you are shooting yourself in the foot.



Just wait until Trudeau and Wynne run with this ridiculous "guaranteed minimum income" insanity, you think taxation is bad now?  

Unless it's applied universally (i.e. not linked to household income) it'll do nothing more than increase the size of the welfare state and speed up the bankruptcy of Ontario.  I mean it's going to that anyways but...

For example:  If I'm making $70k/yr and my wife doesn't work (because I don't see the point in having her work solely to pay for some daycare worker to raise our children when she's perfectly capable, and frankly better equipped, to do it herself), can she claim the minimum income of $30k/yr?  Or do "I" (we) "make too much money" as a household to be eligible for that?  If that's the case, then I'm essentially working my ass off for an extra $10k/yr.

Why would I do that when I can just quit, collect the minimum income of $30k/yr along with my wife and thus have a household income of $60k/yr.

Why work for an extra $10k/yr?  To hell with it.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2016)

Looking at the direction Canada in general is going is just giving me a greater and greater appriciation of Frédéric Bastiat.



			
				CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> Why would I do that when I can just quit, collect the minimum income of $30k/yr along with my wife and thus have a household income of $60k/yr.
> 
> Why work for an extra $10k/yr?  To hell with it.



And CombatMacgyver, you have recaptured the theme of "_Atlas Shrugged_" in a single sentance. There should be some sort of award for that.....


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> Just wait until Trudeau and Wynne run with this ridiculous "guaranteed minimum income" insanity, you think taxation is bad now?
> 
> Unless it's applied universally (i.e. not linked to household income) it'll do nothing more than increase the size of the welfare state and speed up the bankruptcy of Ontario.  I mean it's going to that anyways but...
> 
> ...



Or you could read up on studies that indicate a minimum income actually saves money in the long run by reducing the need for multiple social programs. It's far more effective for getting people out of poverty and those who are unemployed back into the work force where they will no longer require a minimum income. And guess what? That's good for the economy.

It's public policy 101. If it achieves its intended goal (to reduce levels of poverty) and saves money (by reducing reliance on several different independent programs) and in the process allows people to have greater say in the benefits they receive what's not to like? 

This focus on not wanting to "pay for the poor" is ridiculous. Let's close corporate tax loopholes and stop corporate welfare. That would erase any deficit over night and still allow us to increase military spending AND a minimum income.

A trial in Dauphin MB:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/12/23/mincome-in-dauphin-manitoba_n_6335682.html

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/economics/hot_eco_topics/default/11-12-15/a_big_idea_whose_time_has_yet_to_arrive_a_guaranteed_annual_income.aspx



> There is little talk today among thought-leaders in Canada of a guaranteed annual income, or GAI, as an efficient and effective way to combat poverty—despite mounting evidence of rising social inequality and never-ending concerns about social exclusion. The Conference Board’s recent analysis under How Canada Performs highlighted growing income inequality among Canadians. Although it has a low profile at present, a GAI is a fascinating idea that could simultaneously serve economic, social and fiscal interests, and could be embraced across the political spectrum.
> What is a guaranteed annual income? It is a minimum level of income for every individual or family in the country, delivered without condition through the existing income tax system. Earned income above the GAI could be taxed at a relatively low marginal rate, raising net income for the individual and encouraging them to work.
> The concept behind a guaranteed annual income comes (surprisingly to some) from free-market economic thinkers. Fifty years ago, Milton Friedman developed an idea called a “negative income tax” to address poverty with minimal government bureaucracy while increasing workforce attachment. Friedman saw personal liberty and minimizing the role of government as fundamental values, and the negative income tax provided a way for him to address the reality of poverty with minimal state intervention. But other prominent economists like James Tobin also supported the GAI concept, which was debated at great length in the U.S. and Canada in the 1970s but never implemented. In Canada, Senator Hugh Segal has been a prominent advocate of a GAI. 1
> There are three main advantages to a GAI. First, it would address poverty directly, and in a neutral fashion, via transfers provided through a single existing administrative system—the income tax system. A GAI would streamline existing social welfare programs into one universal system, reducing public administration and intervention with related savings.
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Or you could read up....


Or to quote your own source (for the GAI story).... maybe we should just stop spending people's money with wild abandon.  

But I guess "government deficits and debt service come with a serious opportunity cost" doesn't sound sufficiently 'kumbaya' within the collective -- again, the hands are out, but they're most definitely not reaching for the check.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Or to quote your own source (for the GAI story).... maybe we should just stop spending people's money with wild abandon.
> 
> But I guess "government deficits and debt service come with a serious opportunity cost" doesn't sound sufficiently 'kumbaya' within the collective -- again, the hands are out, but they're most definitely not reaching for the check.



The point here is (and it should be abundantly obvious)  that just dismissing the idea with typical conservative talking points like yours or CombatMacgyver's doesn't actually add to the discussion. There are serious people who do public policy for a living on both the right and the left who think the idea has some merit, so why not discuss it rationally without the "kumbaya" and "hand out" crap? 

And again, if I heard that same concerns echoed for the loopholes and hand outs we give corporations and the wealthy that would be something, but I don't. At least be consistent in your concerns about how our government manages money.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Mar 2016)

Journeyman,

your story, from the same author as the piece referred to by Kilo_302, is on a totally different topic and one has absolutely no bearing on the other.

So what is your point?

BTW, for those who do not like the concept of "guaranteed minimum income", please go read up and try and understand its working before inventing the ways it would work (No, Combat MacGyver, you and your wife could not both stop working, collect $30K each, for a total of $60K and be behind only $10K without having to work).

And for all of you people out there who don't like big government, Guaranteed Minimum Income specifically saves in part because it reduces government resources that need to be allocated to its administration. Instead of 25 - 30 different programs covering situation A or situation B, etc. each of which need administration, the whole GMI scheme is administered in a single integrated manner by the Revenue department, through the income tax reporting. In the end, it does not redistribute much more than what is done by the current rainbow of programs, but does so with very little extra administration, while incorporating into the whole direct and palpable incentives to bettering one's position by working, even part time at minimum salary.

GMI schemes have been extensively studied by economists and are widely supported by well known economists everywhere. Before commenting on this, I suggest that people in here go and read on how they work from proper economists, and not on sites where lobbyist economists hide to "defend" their master's position with mumbo-jumbo pseudo-scientific articles (such as the Canadian Taxpayer federation or the Fraser Institute).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2016)

I suppose the first people that will get the 'Living Wage' will be all of the people, put out of work, that originally administered all the other social programs it is replacing. Oh wait.......... :


----------



## Journeyman (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The point here is (and it should be abundantly obvious)  that just dismissing the idea with typical conservative talking points like yours or CombatMacgyver's doesn't actually add to the discussion. There are serious people who do public policy for a living on both the right and the left who think the idea has some merit, so why not discuss it rationally without the "kumbaya" and "hand out" crap?
> 
> And again, if I heard that same concerns echoed for the loopholes and hand outs we give corporations and the wealthy that would be something, but I don't. At least be consistent in your concerns about how our government manages money.


The point I'm making here _(and it should be abundantly obvious),_  is that of being contemptuously dismissive  of those who, despite many examples to the contrary -- from whole, failing societies (1) to mindlessly simple yet still unsuccessful businesses (2), don't understand that those of us who work for a living get no satisfaction out of giving handouts to those who choose not to..... especially while having to listen to their repeatedly disproven theories.

Not overly fond of loopholes for business, but they are producing, employing....you know, _contributing_  to society. Those standing on their soapbox, waving their fists in the air about how they're so hard done by and it's EVERYONE ELSE'S FAULT.... not so much.



(1) "Soviet Union," China, Bulgaria, Vietnam, Laos, etc, etc.....
(2) Kingston's The Sleepless Goat: "The Sleepless Goat Workers' Co-operative is a collectively owned restaurant and association of workers committed to shared values derived from a participatory, non-hierarchical workplace and a consensual decision making process."  Yep, they've finally shut down; yet we're expected to organize society based on the advice and example of people who can't even run a simple coffee shop. It must have been because of Starbucks' oppression.  :'(


And on that note, back to <ignore> (so you don't have to waste a lot of effort on the "ohh...oh _ya?!_" )


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It's far more effective for getting people out of poverty and those who are unemployed back into the work force where they will no longer require a minimum income.



This assumes all people on UI want to get back into the work force.




			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And for all of you people out there who don't like big government, Guaranteed Minimum Income specifically saves in part because it reduces government resources that need to be allocated to its administration. Instead of 25 - 30 different programs covering situation A or situation B, etc. each of which need administration, the whole GMI scheme is administered in a single integrated manner by the Revenue department, through the income tax reporting. In the end, it does not redistribute much more than what is done by the current rainbow of programs, but does so with very little extra administration, while incorporating into the whole direct and palpable incentives to bettering one's position by working, even part time at minimum salary.
> 
> GMI schemes have been extensively studied by economists and are widely supported by well known economists everywhere. Before commenting on this, I suggest that people in here go and read on how they work from proper economists, and not on sites where lobbyist economists hide to "defend" their master's position with mumbo-jumbo pseudo-scientific articles (such as the Canadian Taxpayer federation or the Fraser Institute).



OGBD, having read on GMI, I would agree with your assessment if GMI was implemented effectively (i.e. in a streamlined manner)...but, and you may figure where I'm going to head on this one...would Government ever implement GMI in such a manner?  I'm not so sure, adn even if they did, what would they do with the xx,xxx civil servants who used to administer the menagerie of programs (and who themselves contirbute to the GDP) prior to replacement by GMI?

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Jed (16 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> This assumes all people on UI want to get back into the work force.
> 
> 
> OGBD, having read on GMI, I would agree with your assessment if GMI was implemented effectively (i.e. in a streamlined manner)...but, and you may figure where I'm going to head on this one...would Government ever implement GMI in such a manner?  I'm not so sure, adn even if they did, what would they do with the xx,xxx civil servants who used to administer the menagerie of programs (and who themselves contirbute to the GDP) prior to replacement by GMI?
> ...




Exactly.  Socalism only works in theory, never in implementation. People have a pesky way of messing with the theorem.  An aside; Keynesian economic theory has a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented correctly by any government party.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (16 Mar 2016)

Guaranteed income only makes sense if everyone is receiving it. The idea the Ontario Liberals are floating around is both absurd and simply stupid. There intent to top up everyone below a certain points income to a specified level, reduces the desire to work, if people know they will not reach above that level or if they are only going to reach just above it. For example if the top up amount was 35,000 (pulling numbers out of thin air) and I only am going to make 20,000 why would I bother working when they will top me up the same as someone who was making 1,000? 

If you want guaranteed income to work, give everyone (from the poor to the rich, income level wouldn't matter) a fixed tax-free amount, and then tax all other forms of income (do a fixed taxation rate, say 20 or 25% if you really want to see incentive to work). This way no one starves, and there is a direct incentive to work, as you get to keep your income from your work. You no longer need a minimum income threshold as you are already getting the minimum to survive. You also wouldn't need to give taxes back if everyone was taxed at a fixed rate as it would be easy to calculate the amount needed, and the employer could send the exact amount straight to the government. It would also kill the bureaucracy, make tax time much easier and prevent people from playing the system.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The point I'm making here _(and it should be abundantly obvious),_  is that of being contemptuously dismissive  of those who, despite many examples to the contrary -- from whole, failing societies (1) to mindlessly simple yet still unsuccessful businesses (2), don't understand that those of us who work for a living get no satisfaction out of giving handouts to those who choose not to..... especially while having to listen to their repeatedly disproven theories.
> 
> Not overly fond of loopholes for business, but they are producing, employing....you know, _contributing_  to society. Those standing on their soapbox, waving their fists in the air about how they're so hard done by and it's EVERYONE ELSE'S FAULT.... not so much.
> 
> ...



You really should have put Venezuela at the head of the list; a nation with massive oil reserves that managed to slide into bankruptcy and economic chaos by following socialist policies when oil was _still_ $100/bbl (check out when toilet paper became a scarce commodity) . Alberta under the NDP should be a wonderful lab to see how fast progressivism can collapse the former engine of Confederation (it took the Liberals less than 10 years to turn Ontario from a contributing province to one needing "equalization payments", can the Alberta NDP beat that record?)


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The point I'm making here _(and it should be abundantly obvious),_  is that of being contemptuously dismissive  of those who, despite many examples to the contrary -- from whole, failing societies (1) to mindlessly simple yet still unsuccessful businesses (2), don't understand that those of us who work for a living get no satisfaction out of giving handouts to those who choose not to..... especially while having to listen to their repeatedly disproven theories.
> 
> Not overly fond of loopholes for business, but they are producing, employing....you know, _contributing_  to society. Those standing on their soapbox, waving their fists in the air about how they're so hard done by and it's EVERYONE ELSE'S FAULT.... not so much.
> 
> ...



Incoherent for the most part, however if you're suggesting I'm being "contemptuously dismissive" I'll just refer you to the rhetoric from yourself and others around this policy that so far has yielded nothing but uninformed talking points as OldGateBoatDriver has pointed out. 



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> This assumes all people on UI want to get back into the work force.



The GAI report I posted specifically addressed this point. Only new mothers and teenagers still in secondary school worked substantially less, and for obvious reasons. Again, a live trial was carried out in Canada in the 1970s, with very good results. None of the potential problems being listed here actually happened. 

Here is a link to research paper on the trial itself. I would encourage everyone to read it.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Socalism only works in theory, never in implementation. People have a pesky way of messing with the theorem.  An aside; Keynesian economic theory has a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented correctly by any government party.



Public healthcare, public roads, public schools are all forms of socialism. Keynesian economic theory has been successfully implemented several times in several Western nations. Much of our post-war growth occurred under Keynesian economic policies.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> You really should have put Venezuela at the head of the list; a nation with massive oil reserves that managed to slide into bankruptcy and economic chaos by following socialist policies when oil was _still_ $100/bbl (check out when toilet paper became a scarce commodity) . Alberta under the NDP should be a wonderful lab to see how fast progressivism can collapse the former engine of Confederation (it took the Liberals less than 10 years to turn Ontario from a contributing province to one needing "equalization payments", can the Alberta NDP beat that record?)



 We are talking about a very specific policy here, and there is quite a bit of evidence to support that it would work. Beyond horror stories in Venezuela, and speculation around Alberta based on a false premise (Alberta is already collapsing because it's overly depended on one resource, the NDP has absolutely zero to do with that. Furthermore Ontario's decline is largely attributed to the loss of manufacturing jobs, which is directly tied to NAFTA, or are you denying this as well?) , what are you offering to the discussion?


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Guaranteed income only makes sense if everyone is receiving it. The idea the Ontario Liberals are floating around is both absurd and simply stupid. There intent to top up everyone below a certain points income to a specified level, reduces the desire to work, if people know they will not reach above that level or if they are only going to reach just above it. For example if the top up amount was 35,000 (pulling numbers out of thin air) and I only am going to make 20,000 why would I bother working when they will top me up the same as someone who was making 1,000?
> 
> If you want guaranteed income to work, give everyone (from the poor to the rich, income level wouldn't matter) a fixed tax-free amount, and then tax all other forms of income (do a fixed taxation rate, say 20 or 25% if you really want to see incentive to work). This way no one starves, and there is a direct incentive to work, as you get to keep your income from your work. You no longer need a minimum income threshold as you are already getting the minimum to survive. You also wouldn't need to give taxes back if everyone was taxed at a fixed rate as it would be easy to calculate the amount needed, and the employer could send the exact amount straight to the government. It would also kill the bureaucracy, make tax time much easier and prevent people from playing the system.



 I will refer you to this report as well, which found only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less under the Guaranteed Income Plan in Dauphin. There was a US experiment as well, but it didn't produce the same results. The failure was largely attributed to the fact that they didn't use a "saturation site" ie the Canadian experiment included all families not receiving an income as well as the elderly and the disabled.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf


----------



## ballz (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Public healthcare, public roads, public schools are all forms of socialism.



Yes, and our healthcare sucks, our roads suck, and our education system is not producing what our industry's need.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Keynesian economic theory has been successfully implemented several times in several Western nations. Much of our post-war growth occurred under Keynesian economic policies.



Any and all post-war growth has been due to technological advancements, more in spite of government policies than because of them. Keynes has just contributed to the insane amount of inflation that's occurred since then and the growth of debt.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Yes, and our healthcare sucks, our roads suck, and our education system is not producing what our industry's need.
> 
> Any and all post-war growth has been due to technological advancements, more in spite of government policies than because of them. Keynes has just contributed to the insane amount of inflation that's occurred since then and the growth of debt.



There are certainly issues with all three, but are you suggesting we privatize healthcare, the roads the our educational system?

Any and all post-war growth you say? Please expand. Sources?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> There are certainly issues with all three, but are you suggesting we privatize healthcare, the roads the our educational system?
> 
> Any and all post-war growth you say? Please expand. Sources?



There is plenty of room for a combination of public and private health care. It is already here. Ditto education. Only federal roads (Trans Canada, etc) are the problem of the Feds.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There is plenty of room for a combination of public and private health care. It is already here. Ditto education. Only federal roads (Trans Canada, etc) are the problem of the Feds.



This is true, Germany has privately administered public healthcare, and there are more traditional mixed-models like ours, I was referring to ridding the system of any government funds or management at all, as that's what ballz seems to be suggesting.


----------



## ballz (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> but are you suggesting we privatize healthcare, the roads the our educational system?



The Swiss don't have public healthcare and it is far superior to ours, ranked #2 of all OECD countries I believe. Australia hasn't made private healthcare impossible like we have, and they spend far less on healthcare with a superior end state than ours, ranked #4 I think.

Canada ranks #11, just below the #10 United States.

It'd be interesting to see how a private healthcare system would look in today's age of technology. Unfortunately the closest we've got is Switzerland, its doing pretty damn good.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Any and all post-war growth you say? Please expand. Sources?



Well I don't see any sources for your claim that Keynesian theory has been successfully implemented on several occasions, but I am sure that you would not have a hard time finding occurrences where the government increased spending and the GDP grew. However, that means nothing. GDP growth =/= growth in production or gains in efficiency of production. GDP just measures consumption. If you inflate the currency and artificially lower the cost of money (interest) below what its market value would be, of course you will see an increase in consumption. That doesn't mean jacks**t.

I have no "sources," only a lot of reading on my own. I only have an explanation of how an economy actually grows and a comparison. First a better definition of economic growth, which would be an increase in production for the same cost, or producing the same for lower cost. This only occurs through an improvement in technology. We often think of technology as computer widgets and whatnot, but that is a very narrow view of technology. An otter using a rock to break a shell open is technology. The creation of assembly lines to produce massive amounts of goods at a low cost was technology. Flooding the market with money and decreasing interest rates to encourage consumption does not achieve this.

The greatest economic expansion to ever occur was a 200 year period in about the 1700s to early 1900, and it occurred in an area of the world with low taxes, open borders, and very very limited regulation, if any at all. In this 200 year period, money deflated every year. This means it became more valuable, because economic growth was occurring and goods became cheaper, and cheaper, and cheaper, and so your dollar that could only buy you bread a year ago could now buy you three loaves of bread. This was all before central banking, when interest rates were relatively high (because money was a real scarce thing (gold), not just paper that the central bank prints, so people didn't lend it for cheap) encouraging savings (under-consumption... quite the opposite from today's theme, and something Keynes followers swear would break an economy), and people could literally save up money and buy a house. The definition of middle class meant being able to afford to eat meat once a day to be able to afford leisure, shopping, amusement parks, stadium sports, movies and recreation.

Fast forward to the end of this period and the creation of the Federal Reserve system. Money has devalued ever since and debt for both people and governments is at an all-time high. Yet, we still think we can over-consume and spend our way into economic growth again.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There is plenty of room for a combination of public and private health care. It is already here. Ditto education. Only federal roads (Trans Canada, etc) are the problem of the Feds.



There is no federal highway system in Canada.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Mar 2016)

>Unsurprisingly, the federal government is the smallest it's been since World War II

I doubt it.  What this claim usually amounts to is that the federal government's share of GDP is smaller.  The federal government is in fact huge; it's just that GDP has grown so much.

On GMI: don't confuse it with GAI, as some people out there are doing.  But also don't assume that trials miniscule in space and time conducted in, essentially, an entirely different version of Canada, are relevant.

On citizenship: we can enumerate all the things which distinguish citizens from residents, and we could strip them away from birth citizens if we needed to do so to be "fair".  But, frankly, a person holding 2+ citizenships is at least as much the "problem" of the other countries to deal with, and arguably mostly the responsibility of his birth country.  And, arguably, a person voids naturalized citizenship in committing any act of war (or major violent crime for political purposes, if you prefer).  Revoke that which was granted, and send him home.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> There is no federal highway system in Canada.



You're right, my bad [:-[


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2016)

i've tried to be polite, but Kilo, your total lack of perspective has finally put you on my ignore list as well. 

NAFTA was signed in 1994, which oddly enough coincided with a boom in Ontario's economy and employment (and Mike Harris was Premier). Ontario's decline started in 2002 with the election of the Liberals, and the decline has covered Federal Liberal governments, Federal Conservative governments, a Republican US administration, a Democrat US administration, oil prices rising to $100/bbl and falling to $30bbl, the dollar being below par, at par and well below par with the USD, wars in the Middle East, plagues of locusts and every other excuse, straw man or moving goal post you can deploy.

The _one and only constant_ is a reckless and free spending Liberal government which has enacted all the Keynesian, pro union, green and progressive policies that you advocate since they were elected. But since you refuse to see the evidence that is literally right in front of you (in one post you said you live in Toronto, so as an Ontarian, the evidence is right outside your window), then there is no help for you.

So please continue to ponder how Starbuck's oppression killed the Sleepless Goat coffee shop cooperative and other important thoughts. (I saw the Sleepless Goat BTW, since I work in Kingston, and the dirty wretched exterior certainly wasn't enough to tempt me into exploring further. In addition to everything else, capitalism is clean and sanitary).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2016)

https://www.facebook.com/Amillionbills/videos/10201373145838544/


----------



## Journeyman (17 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> .... if you're suggesting I'm being "contemptuously dismissive"...


   Wow.  :facepalm:

How could anyone _possibly_  misunderstand which one of us was being dismissive??  <<  Google "rhetorical" before considering responding.


If you still want to respond, Google "dumber than dirt" to save me responding.    :not-again:


----------



## GR66 (17 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I will refer you to this report as well, which found only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less under the Guaranteed Income Plan in Dauphin. There was a US experiment as well, but it didn't produce the same results. The failure was largely attributed to the fact that they didn't use a "saturation site" ie the Canadian experiment included all families not receiving an income as well as the elderly and the disabled.
> 
> http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf



I personally think an guaranteed income program, set up properly with incentives to work over receiving "benefits" is a good idea.  However, the 70's were very different than the 2010's and I'd be very interested in seeing a modern trial on a program like this to see the results.


----------



## blacktriangle (17 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So please continue to ponder how Starbuck's oppression killed the Sleepless Goat coffee shop cooperative and other important thoughts. (I saw the Sleepless Goat BTW, since I work in Kingston, and the dirty wretched exterior certainly wasn't enough to tempt me into exploring further. In addition to everything else, capitalism is clean and sanitary).



You didn't miss much. I was 20 or so when I sat through an awkward first date with a Queen's student there. She probably works at a Starbucks now... 

Anyways...


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Mar 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> You didn't miss much. I was 20 or so when I sat through an awkward first date with a Queen's student there. She probably works at a Starbucks now...
> 
> Anyways...



I went in there one weary eyed morning for a coffee on the walk work at the Cataraqui as a young AB... In 16 years I have never been back lol


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Mar 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> You didn't miss much. I was 20 or so when I sat through an awkward first date with a Queen's student there. She probably works at a Starbucks now...
> 
> Anyways...



QFTFT.

...it's best attribute was that it smelled.

The hipocrasy of the 'Goat was their rabidly anti-military stance (refusing to serve military), yet they would serve the same people out of uniform if they came in wearing an organic-looking sweater and Birks...   :

Alas...this was not me when I heard the news  ->  :'(

G2G


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2016)

This is what George Carlin had to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwmnMR0RbXU


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> i've tried to be polite, but Kilo, your total lack of perspective has finally put you on my ignore list as well.
> 
> NAFTA was signed in 1994, which oddly enough coincided with a boom in Ontario's economy and employment (and Mike Harris was Premier). Ontario's decline started in 2002 with the election of the Liberals, and the decline has covered Federal Liberal governments, Federal Conservative governments, a Republican US administration, a Democrat US administration, oil prices rising to $100/bbl and falling to $30bbl, the dollar being below par, at par and well below par with the USD, wars in the Middle East, plagues of locusts and every other excuse, straw man or moving goal post you can deploy.
> 
> ...



I can see you're upset, but you still haven't offered a coherent reason why we shouldn't be seriously looking at a guaranteed minimum income beyond "I don't like "liberal" ideas."

You can put me on ignore, but I think you'll find reality or facts don't have that option. Or maybe they do for you.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Mar 2016)

I have read a fair bit from respectable academic economists on the "whys" for various forms of guaranteed annual income (GAI) ... many of those "whys" are compelling. What is less common, in the same literature, is a convincing (much less compelling) "how." Even I, pretty much a *fiscal hawk*, want to see an end to poverty and suffering but I cannot, for the life of me, see how to do it. I'm beginning to think that Jesus of Nazareth was right:

                     "For ye have the poor always with you ..."

Every "solution" involving a GAI_ seems, to me_, to create more and worse problems ... it's a lot like squeezing a balloon.

That's why so many Conservatives hate what Pierre Trudeau did to Canada when he created his "just society," which turned out to be unaffordable. I have. elsewhere, likened the Canada Health Act, for example, to thirteen 800 pound gorillas, on in in every provincial and territorial  living room. Provinces cannot afford to provide unlimited "free" health care without either (likely both) raising taxes to and even beyond the political breaking point or robbing education and infrastructure maintenance. The Canada Health Act is (always was) a Marxist (which is a synonym for appalling stupid) notion that urgently needs to be repealed, before it destroys Canada.

Marxism doesn't work. It's just that simple. But Marxism is very, very popular. The problem is that politicians are supposed to lead, not follow ... as I believe Justin Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne are doing.

Eventually things in Canada will get bad enough that you, almost everyone will beg for _*fiscal hawks*_ to fix things ... but you, almost everyone, will hate the cure as quickly as you forget that you had a deadly disease.


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Wow.  :facepalm:
> 
> How could anyone _possibly_  misunderstand which one of us was being dismissive??  <<  Google "rhetorical" before considering responding.
> 
> ...



Googled it. It was just a list of your posts.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Mar 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ..... Jesus of Nazareth was right:
> 
> "For ye have the poor always with you ..."
> 
> .... But Marxism is very, very popular.



I believe you have cause and effect right there.  And also the linkage from Manchester to Marx.


----------



## Altair (18 Mar 2016)

While I am aware that quebec gets 10 billion or so in equalization,  does anyone find it weird that they have two balanced budgets in a row now?


----------



## CombatMacguyver (18 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I can see you're upset, but you still haven't offered a coherent reason why we shouldn't be seriously looking at a guaranteed minimum income beyond "I don't like "liberal" ideas."
> 
> You can put me on ignore, but I think you'll find reality or facts don't have that option. Or maybe they do for you.



You still haven't managed to articulate why anyone should bother working full-time and suffer multiple ex's and op's for a measly $10k annual bonus over the "guaranteed income" threshold either.  You just wrote me off as some rabid right-wing conservative/republican.  Is this income going to be universally applied or indexed to household income (as usual) thus making the poor richer and the middle class poorer?

Logic isn't partisan, it's mathematical.

Where x is deductions/refunds and n is your income tax bracket percentages (subject to income indexing, i.e. low income earners don't pay taxes)
(30k + 30k) - x(n/100) + x(n/100) = 60k

vice full time employment formula:
(70k + 0) - x(n/100 + n2/100 + n3/100) = < 60k

Why the hell should I work?  I probably won't even be getting the 10k bonus I'm theorizing.  It's more likely I'd be PAYING 10k FOR THE PRIVILEDGE OF WORKING.  Why would anyone bother to work?  To "better themselves" a la Star Trek?
How can you assume that the legions of able-bodied people now on making around 6k annually on welfare would be motivated to work when you give them a 24k raise simply for existing?

Even if it could be worked out to function as a mass benefit to the entire Dominion.  You honestly believe the federal gov't can properly apply something like this fairly and equitably so it benefits everyone?  They can't even figure out how to get us basic kit without politics and IRB requirements effing up the whole thing regardless of who's in power.  Even worse Ontario is going to try it?  Right... golden example of fiscal prudence there....

On top of that, none of these ridiculous theories about poverty take note that (most) people that were classified "poor" 20 years ago are no longer "poor".  They've aged and moved up the income ladder as new "poor" have taken their place.  The poor are typically young and beginning their careers.  I was a poor, uneducated, underemployed 21 year-old at one point too.  If someone handed me (and my then g/f) a free 30k/yr each I'm 100% certain that it would've - if not completely demotivated me to do anything productive - at the very least delayed said motivation for another five years.


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Mar 2016)

It's 2016. Time to make our country a truly equal place. Let's just pay everyone 30K and ban working entirely. Tear down trendy neighbourhoods and suburbs alike, and replace them with public housing. I have no idea where we will get this money, but I'm sure the plan will be fully costed!

I wonder how long it would take for the "foodies" among the liberal elite to go crazy when their only dining options are McDonald's and Tim Hortons?


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Mar 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> You still haven't managed to articulate why anyone should bother working full-time and suffer multiple ex's and op's for a measly $10k annual bonus over the "guaranteed income" threshold either.  You just wrote me off as some rabid right-wing conservative/republican.  Is this income going to be universally applied or indexed to household income (as usual) thus making the poor richer and the middle class poorer?
> 
> Logic isn't partisan, it's mathematical.
> 
> ...



This is simply not how the policy would work. Did you read about the study in Dauphin?


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Mar 2016)

Why does Quebec need so much money in  equalization payments? What the hell are they doing in that province?


----------



## krimynal (18 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why does Quebec need so much money in  equalization payments? What the hell are they doing in that province?



Trust me , even I don't know what the heck we are doing with that much money , because our health care is completely stupid.  the roads are litterally destroyed. We pay more in taxes than pretty much everybody else .... 
I honestly have no clue on what is going on with us .... and I don't even think our political leaders do too ...


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> While I am aware that quebec gets 10 billion or so in equalization,  does anyone find it weird that they have two balanced budgets in a row now?


They're projecting a $2b surplus this year. Seems to me like they owe Alberta and Saskatchewan $2b.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Mar 2016)

Fat chance.  They won't cooperate or even apologise to Alberta in a time of need.  Give money back...?  :rofl:


----------



## krimynal (18 Mar 2016)

Trust me when you ask people here in Quebec what they think about the fact that we receive more money than any other province in Canada the answer is , a lot of times , "Well we pay more taxes to the federal , and we are giving them all the electricity and all our wood , so its only right they give us more money" 
I stopped trying to understand the logic that most french people here have .... because it makes no sense whatsoever


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Mar 2016)

krimynal said:
			
		

> Trust me when you ask people here in Quebec what they think about the fact that we receive more money than any other province in Canada the answer is , a lot of times , "Well we pay more taxes to the federal , and we are giving them all the electricity and all our wood , so its only right they give us more money"
> I stopped trying to understand the logic that most french people here have .... because it makes no sense whatsoever



I hope you point out the reason their tax rate is so high is the provincial tax rate, everyone in Canada pays the same federal tax rate.


----------



## krimynal (18 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I hope you point out the reason their tax rate is so high is the provincial tax rate, everyone in Canada pays the same federal tax rate.



Trying to tell someone that ALWAYS wanted to leave the contry and that for him speaking english is a disgrace and that he should be PROUD of speaking french and french is the best thing out there and english is stupid , and bla bla bla ... I use to try to tell them how stupid the mentality they had was stupid .... nowadays , I'm just laughing ....

it's sad , but a lot of Quebec resident are completely clueless , they never went out of the province and if they did , they only have bad experiences because they don't understand that the Rest Of Canada dosen't speak french.  I try to explain that French is an option and is not mandatory in the other provinces .... but then they question why is English mandatory in Quebec.
Usually they will make sure to NOT speak english when they travel .... it is so dumb ...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Mar 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> It's 2016. Time to make our country a truly equal place. Let's just pay everyone 30K and ban working entirely. Tear down trendy neighbourhoods and suburbs alike, and replace them with public housing. I have no idea where we will get this money, but I'm sure the plan will be fully costed!
> 
> I wonder how long it would take for the "foodies" among the liberal elite to go crazy when their only dining options are McDonald's and Tim Hortons?



Spectrum:

You don't need to tear down public housing.  Just take the total floor space of all the accommodation in a given community, divide by the number of inhabitants and allocate accordingly.  Then you can place three or four unrelated family units in a single large house, and, if they situation warrants and you have houses with really large rooms then you can put multiple families in one room.

It worked well enough in 1917.


----------



## Jed (18 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Spectrum:
> 
> You don't need to tear down public housing.  Just take the total floor space of all the accommodation in a given community, divide by the number of inhabitants and allocate accordingly.  Then you can place three or four unrelated family units in a single large house, and, if they situation warrants and you have houses with really large rooms then you can put multiple families in one room.
> 
> It worked well enough in 1917.



good observation.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> While I am aware that quebec gets 10 billion or so in equalization,  does anyone find it weird that they have two balanced budgets in a row now?



I would think that people like the families of the five Quebecers who died after being crushed under the Aut.19 De la Concorde Bridge in Montreal in Oct 2006 would probably find it wierd....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why does Quebec need so much money in  equalization payments? What the hell are they doing in that province?



Spoken like a true ignoramus, Jarnhamar (but then again, you seem to be one of those "screw Quebec at all costs" people in these pages).

Transfer payments, not just equalization, which is only one part of the picture from the federal government go to ALL provinces (Yes, even Nfld and Alberta, where it constitute about 15% of provincial revenues BTW).

As for Equalization payments, their purpose is to correct for discrepancies in the tax base from province to province so that generally equivalent services can be provided on a generally equivalent taxation rate.

This means that, IF the services provided by the provinces were the same in all provinces, then the resulting provincial taxation rates would also be the same in all provinces as a result. We all know, however, as people in these fora like to remind us all the time, that Quebec provides its residents with rather more services than the other provinces, but - funny enough - it also has the highest provincial taxation level. The conclusion here, BTW, is that it means that Quebec is NOT using equalization to provide itself with more services it could not otherwise afford, but that Quebecers are actually paying for those extra services by themselves - with their own money. Period.

Going back to the equalization payments themselves, they are derived from the average figure for per capita GDP. The per capita GDP of each province is compared to the national average. Anyone with a per capita GDP below 95% of the national average gets a per capita payment to bring the tax generation capacity in line with the average (for instance, lets say province X has a GDP $5,000 below average, and $5K GDP is expected to translate into $1K of tax revenue, that province will get a transfer of $1,000 for each resident).

So what are each province getting for the last year the figures are available (2014-15, Parliamentary Budget Officer's web site): [and I will put them in descending order of per capita amount]

SK - AL - BC and NL received zero.

PEI:        $2,477.60
NB:         $2,205.80
NS:         $1,728.10
MB:         $1,367.40
QC:         $  961.50
ON          $  145.70

Purely for comparison sake here, I will provide the equalization payments for the three Federal territories, which people seldom include in their discussions: Yukon: $ 23,052.70; North-West Territories: $ 27,878.50; and (watch out) Nunavut: $ 38,797.00. Basically we, in the South are paying just about 100% of the taxes of those living in the territories.

Funny enough, I seldom, if ever, see anyone bitchin' about "Why does Manitoba/Nova Scotia/New Brunswick or PEI need so much money, what the hell are they doing in those provinces". Anyone here wants to debate that there isn't a discriminatory approach to Quebec, with racist underlying cause still existing in the R.O.C.? I am open.

Now, here is the next piece of the puzzle for Equalization. Watch out, this is a complicated concept to grasp: The residents of the provinces that receive no equalization do not pay any more than any one else in Canada for the money sent to the receiving provinces in any form or shape. They are NOT taxed extra on either their Federal or Provincial income taxes (and in fact, being above national average for GDP, probably pay less provincial income taxes or get better provincial services), they do not pay higher GST or PST (if any, again).

The Equalization payments come from the Federal government general revenue fund, that is, the general melting pot fund where all the money collected from any source by the Federal government goes. ALL Canadians pay into that fund equally (meaning same tax rates for any type of Federal taxes) regardless of where they are located.

Ah! Ah! You say: people in those "rich" provinces will still pay more because they are rich. Well: No. a rich person in those provinces will pay exactly the same as a rich person in any other province. Same goes for a poor person in either provinces: There is NO extra charge imposed in any way on the residents of the "rich" provinces.

Surely the government must collect more from those provinces, you say. Well, the Federal government does not compile where it gets its revenue from. But Statistics Canada keeps data on various revenue streams and where they are paid from, etc, so a compilation is possible and, lucky for us, some people take the time to do those compilation.

The latest one I could find ( http://thoughtundermined.com/2012/07/22/a-closer-look-at-federal-revenues-and-expenditures-by-province/ ) is for 2009, which is great because we are at the height of the oil boom in Alberta; Saskatchewan and Newfoundland - the oil prices hadn't even started to tank. Let's deal with Federal revenue from various provinces as a percentage of total revenue:

ON: generated 40% of revenue
QC: generated 18% of revenue
AB: generated 17% of revenue
BC: generated 13% of revenue

All the other provinces and territories, together, generated the last 12% of federal revenue.

What this means is that, at the height of the oil boom, Albertans - without being taxed any differently than anyone - contributed a little less (1%) than Quebecers themselves towards the equalization payments made to the Government of  Quebec.

So I suggest we all can the bullshit where equalization payments are concerned.



			
				krimynal said:
			
		

> Trust me when you ask people here in Quebec what they think about the fact that we receive more money than any other province in Canada the answer is , a lot of times , "Well we pay more taxes to the federal , and we are giving them all the electricity and all our wood , so its only right they give us more money"
> I stopped trying to understand the logic that most french people here have .... because it makes no sense whatsoever



Criminal, I don't know where you come from, but I have lived most of my life in Quebec and I have *never ever* heard what you refer to. If you want to make such statements, I strongly suggest you back them up with references. Quite to the contrary, most people I know here feel ashamed of receiving equalization and would like nothing better than get off them. The only unfortunate problem is that (as in any province) there is a disconnect between understanding the problem and seeing solutions you can translate into the political arena successfully (such as, in QC's case, removing the self-imposed barriers we have put in the way of our businesses so they can flourish).


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2016)

That line of thinking has worked so well since the French Revolution that it has been applied again and again in many different times and places. With resounding success stories like Russia 1917-1989, Germany 1933-14, Cuba, China 1950-1978 Cambodia, Venezuela, etc. it isn't surprising that it took the occupying Red Army to ensure that Eastern Europe enjoyed socialism until the fall of the wall, or the enormous police states that are employed to retain socialists in power once they have eliminated all opposition and bureaucratic regulatory states which strangle people in red tape are really only different by a matter of degree. Look at the rhetoric against opponents when people flout or defy the bureaucratic regulatory state, and think how short a step it is to move from rhetoric to action).

Sadly, knowledge and wisdom come from first hand experience, so we will continue to ride the merry go round....


----------



## krimynal (18 Mar 2016)

I happen to come from a Quebec Family , with Quebec roots , from Donnacona - Cap-Sante - Princeville - Villeroy.  You can look it up if you want , dosen't get much quebecer than that. 
Most of the family / extended family / friends are french Quebecers. Most of the person I worked for we're French Quebecers.  Most of the people I went to school with were french Quebecers. 

You want fact ? just walk down any day in Quebec Downtown.  Note here that I havn't said Montreal but QUEBEC downtown.  Go to any french school in Quebec.  How about look up at "L'office de la langue française" Were you get fined if you put "Barber Shop" on the display of your store.
We Can go all day about what french people think about Canada , and what Canada thinks about Quebec.  

I was Born in Whitby Ontario, came back for a good ammount of years in Quebec , went back to Ontario then was doing stint of 1-2 years on each side.  I've seen both side as a CIVILIAN, as a CHILD, as a STUDENT.

Please don't act like if Quebec was proud to be in Canada when the 2012 Election was won by the PQ which were basically promising a new "referendum" and when right now the PQ is behind one of the biggest separatist there is in Quebec in Pier-Karl Peladeau. 

In the army , yeah most french quebecers are aware that there is life over the freaking bridge and that there is no shame in beeing bilingual .... sadly this is not the mentality of MOST baby-Boomers and elders here in the province


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Mar 2016)

Dear Krimynal,

Leaving aside your vitriolic ramblings, I note that you have not provided any evidence of people in Quebec (as a generalization - not  one individual here or there) propounding the views you presented, and which I refuted.

Addressing some of your ramblings, however, I must state the following:

As you were born in Ontario, to parents with roots in Quebec I assume, and seem to have alternated between Ontario and Quebec (apparently the City - not anywhere else in the province), I would say it is quite easy to "get much quebecer than that". But it is irrelevant to the point. (I also assume that the four towns whose name you throw out there are the location of you grand parents - hence four of them - as Donnacona and Cap-Chat are two neighbouring villages, as are Princeville and Villeroy, neighbours on either side of highway 20.).

I must say I feel for you having only downtown Quebec City as your reference: comments heard there from the "locals" have as much to do with reality as comments heard downtown Ottawa have to do with the reality of Canada. Those are places completely engrossed in the politics of the capitals that they are. I must add here that on top of that, Quebec City is the most chauvinist, bigoted and closed minded city I know of in Canada.*

The reality of Quebec is found in Montreal, the Eastern Townships, the Lower Laurentians and the Beauce, where 60% of the population lives and 75% of the economy is found. Until you meet and mingle with these people, don't think you know how quebecers think just because you have had exchanges with Quebec city "citizens".

Next, lets deal with your peeves: No "Barber Shop"? Bull. As long as you have a French sign that says Barbier and it is bigger than the English one, you are entitled to the "barber shop" sign and the "Office" won't bother you. But if you don't like that, stand for office and then, once elected, change the law. If the law is still there, it's probably because most of the population has no problem with it. Of course, you probably don't know where all this comes from, not having lived through the language riots in Montreal in the 1960's and 70's as I have. You probably have never seen French Canadian store clerks at Eaton being fired for speaking French to another french Canadian they were serving at the store. I have. 

How about that 2012 election now, eh! 31% of the electorate gave Pauline Marois a minority government after the scandal of party financing and contracts fixes badly tainted the liberal government. Funny enough: the PQ did not run its campaign primarily on holding another referendum (would hold it IF winning conditions exist only), while the liberals even tainted got only 1% less votes than the PQ and the third party (CAQ) got 25 % on the promise that they would not even talk about the independence/federalism debate AT ALL for minimum ten years. So you tell me how that election taints the quebecers pride in Canada? Same goes for your next point about the PQ (how, at 28% of the vote - but even less for their "option" - do they represent all quebecers?) getting behind Pierre-Karl Peladeau. Of course the PQ will get behind a separatist: That is what they are. But they are in the opposition also !!!

BTW: most baby boomers and elders live in the Greater Montreal Region, where most of us (from both sides of the divide) are sufficiently fluent in both language, if not tri-lingual (yes, my Italian is pretty good).

You want Canadian pride: I suggest you attend pro sports events in Montreal. People sing the national anthem with as much if not more gusto than in many other Canadian cities (actually, more gusto than I have ever seen in Ontario, and about as much as I have seen in the Prairies). Also: we always sing the bilingual version, something, I have noted, that the Prairies teams in all sports (hockey, Football and Soccer) reciprocate - thank you very much - while our very neighbour Ontario, which pretends to be bilingual, does not. In fact, the Ottawa Senators insist on singning the anthem in English only - in the National Capital - and then, they are surprised when the people from Gatineau in attendance support the Canadiens instead of the Sens ????     

*: Personal experience here: We moved to Quebec when I was 13. We came back to Montreal 10 years later. Meanwhile I had attended the last two years of High school, College, completed two university degrees at Université Laval and served 7 years with the local naval reserve unit. I have struck in that time no friendship that stood the test of time. Same goes for my three brother and sisters or my parents. We were never accepted and were always "strangers from Montreal" [P.s. we are as French Canadian as can be: our direct ancestor was amongst the very first group of french settlers]. I then attended university in Sherbrooke for only three years and made no less than five friends from the local population (not in university at all) and from Quebecers from other region of the province that are still ongoing 30 years later.

À bon entendeur, salut!


----------



## ballz (18 Mar 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Spoken like a true ignoramus, Jarnhamar (but then again, you seem to be one of those "screw Quebec at all costs" people in these pages).



Agreed. Quebec's got a real hard go and everyone should feel sorry for critically thinking about what their tax dollars are going towards.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Transfer payments, not just equalization, which is only one part of the picture from the federal government go to ALL provinces (Yes, even Nfld and Alberta, where it constitute about 15% of provincial revenues BTW).



Yes, all provinces receive transfer payments, something the silly federal government imposed on themselves. However, not all receive equalization. Quebec receives more equalization than anyone, yet has services that no other province has such as $7 dollar a day daycare. Generally, when a taxpayer sees a welfare recipient driving a brand new 50,000 truck that the taxpayer can't afford, they get a little irritated. This has nothing to do with racism.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This means that, IF the services provided by the provinces were the same in all provinces, then the resulting provincial taxation rates would also be the same in all provinces as a result.



That assumes that each provincial government is run as efficiently as the next. That is just not the case.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> We all know, however, as people in these fora like to remind us all the time, that Quebec provides its residents with rather more services than the other provinces, but - funny enough - it also has the highest provincial taxation level. The conclusion here, BTW, is that it means that Quebec is NOT using equalization to provide itself with more services it could not otherwise afford, but that Quebecers are actually paying for those extra services by themselves - with their own money. Period.



That conclusion does not match up with reality. The money, both equalization and provincial tax revenues go into one pot, Quebec's revenues. The services are paid for out of that pot.  You mention the "one pot" below, so you must be deliberately be foolish.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Purely for comparison sake here, I will provide the equalization payments for the three Federal territories, which people seldom include in their discussions: Yukon: $ 23,052.70; North-West Territories: $ 27,878.50; and (watch out) Nunavut: $ 38,797.00. Basically we, in the South are paying just about 100% of the taxes of those living in the territories.
> 
> Funny enough, I seldom, if ever, see anyone bitchin' about "Why does Manitoba/Nova Scotia/New Brunswick or PEI need so much money, what the hell are they doing in those provinces". Anyone here wants to debate that there isn't a discriminatory approach to Quebec, with racist underlying cause still existing in the R.O.C.? I am open.



I bitch about it all the time. But of course, you must recognize that the gross amount going to Quebec is the largest, and they have the most services, so naturally they are the prime example most people are going to gravitate towards. Calling this "racist" is just trying to stifle legit criticism.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Now, here is the next piece of the puzzle for Equalization. Watch out, this is a complicated concept to grasp: The residents of the provinces that receive no equalization do not pay any more than any one else in Canada for the money sent to the receiving provinces in any form or shape. They are NOT taxed extra on either their Federal or Provincial income taxes (and in fact, being above national average for GDP, probably pay less provincial income taxes or get better provincial services), they do not pay higher GST or PST (if any, again).
> 
> The Equalization payments come from the Federal government general revenue fund, that is, the general melting pot fund where all the money collected from any source by the Federal government goes. ALL Canadians pay into that fund equally (meaning same tax rates for any type of Federal taxes) regardless of where they are located.



Federal taxes would be (should be) lower across the board if equalization didn't exist, as the Federal government's expenses would be lower and so they could afford to have lower revenues. So yes, taxpayers in other provinces are most definitely helping to pay. If my income tax money and GST money goes into the general revenue pot, and the general revenue pot pays Quebec equalization, well... I can't really make it any clearer than that...



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> There is NO extra charge imposed in any way on the residents of the "rich" provinces.



I don't think anyone is arguing there is.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Surely the government must collect more from those provinces, you say. Well, the Federal government does not compile where it gets its revenue from.



Ah yes it does, its published every quarter by the Department of Finance in their financial reports. Income tax is by *far* the greatest contributor to Federal government revenues. Personal and corporate income taxes make up about 62% if Federal government revenues, so we can easily see that personal and corporate income taxes' share of equalization payments is 62%.


----------



## krimynal (18 Mar 2016)

well I guess the entire post that I just did didn't came up as it got online the same second as the one from Ballz .... and I honestly don't feel like doing it again , maybe later on


----------



## Infanteer (18 Mar 2016)

You Easterners worry about wierd things....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Mar 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Agreed. Quebec's got a real hard go and everyone should feel sorry for critically thinking about what their tax dollars are going towards.
> 
> Yes, all provinces receive transfer payments, something the silly federal government imposed on themselves. However, not all receive equalization. Quebec receives more equalization than anyone, yet has services that no other province has such as $7 dollar a day daycare. Generally, when a taxpayer sees a welfare recipient driving a brand new 50,000 truck that the taxpayer can't afford, they get a little irritated. This has nothing to do with racism.
> 
> ...



You are talking about "where" in terms of source of revenue. I was talking (as the figures I provided demonstrated) on province of origin - geographical provenance - of the federal revenue. That, they do not compile, but as I indicated, others do.


----------



## ballz (18 Mar 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No. PEI receives the most equalization payment.  That's the whole point, since payment is per capita. Otherwise, ***** at Ontario which is getting the second largest payment (4b$), yet barely gets anything "per capita". Also, I have yet to see a single welfare recipient in Quebec driving $50K trucks (in fact, Quebec has the largest proportion of sub-compact car in Canada and the lowest sales of pick-up trucks per 100,000 resident).



PEI receives the most per capita, it does not receive the most money. Your assertion that gross numbers are irrelevant is BS. If a province with a population of 2 gets the most per capita, it has less effect on every Canadian than Quebec. A larger, urbanized province also benefits from economies of scale.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't recall ever seeing any studies made on the comparative efficiency of the various civil services in Canada, but I would be very surprised if - service for service, there was any significant discrepancies between them.  Not to be confused here with more or different services existing from one province to the next.



Do you really need to study realize that some governments are going to be run more efficiently than the next? Really? That's not a given that no two governments are the same? It really requires a study to acknowledge this? Your basically saying "unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my assumption is wrong, I'm going to keep it because it benefits my argument, despite how unlikely it is."



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No I am not. If you could demonstrate that, for services rendered in all provinces, such as health or education, Quebec is skimping compared to the other provinces generally so they can provide other services instead, your point would have some value. But so long as Quebec provides the same services as most other provinces at or near the Canadian average level of service, then the supplementary services it provides come from its own taxation of its own residents. Sure, all sources go in the general fund, but it cannot be said that Quebec is "using" that payment for the purpose of providing this supplementary service. In other words, Quebec counts on its own taxation to provide for these extra services.



Again, willfully being blind. That's like asking which loonie I paid for my coffee with when it all came out my pay cheque. I paid for it with my hard work. Accepting equalization payments means you are paying for x% of what you have with your "hard work" and y% with someone else's.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Showing, as I mentioned that they are ignoramuses. The gross amount is irrelevant: all proportions kept, PEI and NS are getting more than twice as much as Quebec. Why are they not he ones singled out? Why doesn't any one criticize their way of governing or their incapacity to generate business? Gross figures have nothing to do with it.



Right, no one has ever criticized the Atlantic provinces for being a dive : Gross figures are what are important on the deductions portion of my pay stub.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yeah. On an individual basis. And so does my income tax and GST. So everybody in Canada pays equally into the pot (i.e. same rates). If there was no equalization, my taxes would also go down here in Quebec. Or so we hope. Do you honestly think that if the Federal government did not spend $20b on equalization every year we (you and I) would see even one cent of it in lower taxes? More likely, they would find a way to spend it Federally on something else (like a Federaly planned $7/day child care system   )



Everybody pays equally into the pot, and some benefit a lot from it, and some don't benefit at all. WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE ABOUT THAT???

That comment at the end is just silly. I am supposed to say "oh well, the federal government would just piss it anyway, so I'm okay with other provinces pissing it away on things my own province can't afford." At least if the federal government was pissing it away federally, Canadians would see an even return on their taxes. All of this just serves to prove why the federal government shouldn't be giving any money to provinces, and should lower its own tax rate instead and let provinces raise their own revenues and work within their own means.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You are talking about "where" in terms of source of revenue. I was talking (as the figures I provided demonstrated) on province of origin - geographical provenance - of the federal revenue. That, they do not compile, but as I indicated, others do.



Good info in that link for sure, I have actually wondered how much they receive compares to how much they pay in, in relation to other "have-not" provinces. I do not think that gross numbers are irrelevant, however. I hate the way Atlantic provinces run themselves (including Nfld) and I still hate the way Quebec runs itself. And I would still shit a brick if the Atlantic provinces introduced $7/day daycare, not that they don't already piss away enough money on stuff that "have" provinces can't afford.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Mar 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> PEI receives the most per capita, it does not receive the most money. Your assertion that gross numbers are irrelevant is BS. If a province with a population of 2 gets the most per capita, it has less effect on every Canadian than Quebec. A larger, urbanized province also benefits from economies of scale.
> 
> This doesn't make any sense. Per capita is the most egalitarian way to make these payments. What other method would you suggest? Should equalization payments be made according to land area? Of COURSE provinces with higher populations are getting more. The basis of governance is people, not some other metric.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Mar 2016)

Maybe we should go back to politics in 2016.  :nod:

So ... How about them Raptors?  [


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Mar 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You Easterners worry about wierd things....



Infanteer - when are you available for a beer?  This thread is parching my throat.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Mar 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Maybe we should go back to politics in 2016.  :nod:



We certainly can. More evidence that the Liberals (while certainly pursuing a very liberal _social_ (window dressing) agenda are actually not very divergent from the Conservatives when it comes to the classic labour/capital debate. 

http://rabble.ca/news/2016/03/no-progress-made-on-public-sector-bargaining-liberals-ape-conservatives-stance



> Canada's largest public service union is warning of another era of emaciated civil service systems following a second round of unsuccessful contract negotiations under the Liberal government.
> Five bargaining units from the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), representing nearly 100,000 civil servants, met with teams from the Treasury Board in Ottawa last week to discuss new contracts.
> The workers have been without collective agreements since the summer of 2014, and little progress was made at the bargaining table under Stephen Harper's government.
> "There was no progress made," PSAC president Robyn Benson said of last week's negotiations.
> ...


----------



## Altair (18 Mar 2016)

I think the thing people are missing regarding quebec  is the great leaps forward they are mankind on the budgeting/economic front.

They are cutting spending, limiting growth in government departments, standing up to unions, and trying to pay down their debt.

Compared to the quebec of the past 15 years or so, they aren't doing too bad. Keep this up and they might be a have province before I die.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Mar 2016)

It's almost like they have Harper and the federal Tories running the ship...


----------



## George Wallace (18 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I think the thing people are missing regarding quebec  is the great leaps forward they are mankind on the budgeting/economic front.
> 
> They are cutting spending, limiting growth in government departments, standing up to unions, and trying to pay down their debt.
> 
> Compared to the quebec of the past 15 years or so, they aren't doing too bad. Keep this up and they might be a have province before I die.



Really?  If they couldn't balance their budge after taking 52 billion out of the 94 billion in equalization payments between 2006 and 2012, then perhaps they should have the province disolved and split between Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, so that those provinces can become profitable.   I would not give Quebec any credibility or bragging rights on fiscal responsibility.  Close scrutiny of the subsidized Hydro, subsidized Child Care, and all the other subsidization offered Quebecers, will only illuminate the sad state of their fiscal planning.

[Edit to add]



> Quebec budget: $2B surplus planned but $10B coming from federal equalization
> 
> Giuseppe Valiante, The Canadian Press
> Published Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:07AM EDT
> ...


----------



## ballz (18 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> PEI receives the most per capita, it does not receive
> This doesn't make any sense. Per capita is the most egalitarian way to make these payments. What other method would you suggest? Should equalization payments be made according to land area? Of COURSE provinces with higher populations are getting more. The basis of governance is people, not some other metric.



Per capita does not reflect the total impact an individual's tax bill. It makes a lot of sense when talking about people's perspective and how each province's financial affairs affects the individual that has to help pay for it.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You have it backwards. If we take two provinces administering the same programs within the same guidelines, the onus is on you to provide data that shows one is doing things more efficiently than the other. Did you just stick your finger in the air and decide that Quebec must be doing things less efficiently "just because?" What's your feeling on Alberta? Or Ontario? Utterly ridiculous.



First of all, I didn't suggest anywhere that Quebec or any other province was running a more or less efficient government. I stuck my finger in the air and said its very unlikely that every government is created equally and that if they had the same population, they would all be able to provide x,y,z, service for the same amount of money.

OBGD asserted, as if it was fact, "IF the services provided by the provinces were the same in all provinces, then the resulting provincial taxation rates would also be the same in all provinces as a result." The onus is on OBGD to prove *this statement.*

I simply pointed out that in order for that to be true, then every government would have to be running itself as efficiently as the one beside it. That is an ASSUMPTION that *has* to be true in order for the proposed statement to be true. You are now arguing that "you need to prove my assumption is false, or else I am right."

It is an assumption that is in all probability a poor assumption, but you can live in whatever magical fairy land you want. It's not worth the time to look for a "study" (as if I was provided with one that supported OBGD's statement), I doubt anybody would waste research dollars on something so painfully obvious.


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Mar 2016)

With all of the uproar around the planned Liberal deficit, thought I would post this here as well. The banks at least don't seem overly concerned about stimulus, and they're generally a pretty good barometer of how the business class views policy. Hence my previous posts about there not being a panic in the corporate community around the Liberals taking power.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/analysts-on-tomorrows-budget-deficit-paranoia-is-mind-bogglingly-stupid/article29308661/



> Awaiting the budget
> 
> Canada’s new government is expected this week to unveil a stimulus budget with a deficit in the area of $30-billion.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Mar 2016)

In how many threads do you plan on posting the same article?

Since when are you such a cheerleader for bankers and business?


----------



## Journeyman (21 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ...... thought I would post this here as well.


You may think that making the same post in multiple threads somehow makes it more credible (while ignoring the response in the original post that banks like debt because that's how they make money).

The rest of us call it "spamming the site."


----------



## George Wallace (21 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The rest of us call it "spamming the site."



 [   :nod:


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You may think that making the same post in multiple threads somehow makes it more credible (while ignoring the response in the original post that banks like debt because that's how they make money).
> 
> The rest of us call it "spamming the site."





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> In how many threads do you plan on posting the same article?
> 
> Since when are you such a cheerleader for bankers and business?



Strangely enough, I'm not surprised that I'm finding it necessary to explain that a budget has political implications as well as economic implications to either of you.

I fail to see how posting about how big business views the deficit automatically means I am cheerleader for big business. I explained as much in my post, though I will explain again. 

The "panic" about deficits and the Liberals' economic plans in general is largely a political creation and not reflective of how Big Business in Canada views them. It's literally "business as usual" for Canadian corporations as they're not overly concerned with social conservatism like the Conservative base is. Do I agree with the close ties between the Liberals and the corporate world? I do not. It's a revolving door between them and Bay Street.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Strangely enough, I'm not surprised that I'm finding it necessary to explain that a budget has political implications as well as economic implications to either of you.



a) no explanation is required, for either of us;
b) you've explained nothing. You're merely posting the same newspaper article in multiple locations;


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> a) no explanation is required, for either of us;
> b) you've explained nothing. You're merely posting the same newspaper article in multiple locations;



If an explanation isn't required then neither was this exchange. 

But, because I believe you wouldn't have said anything if you truly understood how this article is relevant to both threads I'll play.  

On the economic side of things, there definitely exists a legitimate discussion as to how much stimulus (or, how much deficit as a result of a stimulus package) is necessary to maintain economic growth and pull Canada out of a recession. There's also a discussion as to what _kind_ of stimulus is most effective. What's the right mix of infrastructure spending (anyone who drives in Ontario knows we're in dire need of some) and social infrastructure spending?

On the political side of things, the Conservatives will no doubt howl to the moon about fiscal responsibility (it will be interesting to see what the NDP reaction will be, given their bizarre "no deficit no matter the cost" platform in 2015"), but as the article underlines, it's hard to take this position given that business seems to understand the need to avoid a recession through deficit spending as well.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If an explanation isn't required then neither was this exchange.
> 
> But, because I believe you wouldn't have said anything if you truly understood how this article is relevant to both threads I'll play.
> 
> ...



I'm getting pretty tired of having to tell you to watch your tone and quit talking down to people. You have no lock on how things are read and interpreted. There are many here that are vastly more intellectually savvy than you give credit for. You've already topped out the warning ladder and are a single step from losing your privileges here. Better tone down the rhetoric.

---Staff---


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm getting pretty tired of having to tell you to watch your tone and quit talking down to people. You have no lock on how things are read and interpreted. There are many here that are vastly more intellectually savvy than you give credit for. You've already topped out the warning ladder and are a single step from losing your privileges here. Better tone down the rhetoric.
> 
> ---Staff---



"I have to leave. I can't hold conversations with potatoes."  You to me, after deciding you disagreed with the points I made. This qualifies as "talking down" yes? 

If you're comfortable with only enforcing the rules when it comes to people with whom you disagree, by all means take my privileges away. And then rename the site "conservativeviewpointsonlyarmy.ca"


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> "I have to leave. I can't hold conversations with potatoes."  You to me, after deciding you disagreed with the points I made. This qualifies as "talking down" yes?
> 
> If you're comfortable with only enforcing the rules when it comes to people with whom you disagree, by all means take my privileges away. And then rename the site "conservativeviewpointsonlyarmy.ca"



Dude - all of the above is indicative of the "tone" issue.  I personally think that you are making useful contributions to the discussion, if only because it challenges the confirmation bias that is the norm for most online communities.  I even agree with some of what you are saying, especially with respect to our "deficit fetish".

Having said all of that, your tone can be abrasive.  If you can wind it in a bit, that would be great - I would hate to see your voice silenced.

My  :2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> "I have to leave. I can't hold conversations with potatoes."  You to me, after deciding you disagreed with the points I made. This qualifies as "talking down" yes?
> 
> If you're comfortable with only enforcing the rules when it comes to people with whom you disagree, by all means take my privileges away. And then rename the site "conservativeviewpointsonlyarmy.ca"



I don't recall saying *you* were a potatoe. At any rate, PPCLI Guy gave you some very sage advice. I suggest you follow it.

---Staff---


----------



## Flavus101 (21 Mar 2016)

Recceguy, while I hold absolutely no love for kilo and do not agree with how he goes about stating his "facts" you are splitting hairs. It was quite obvious that you were referring to Kilo as a potato. 

I can completely see where you are coming from with the potato comment though, he seems to bounce back and forth between stances depending on what fits into his rhetoric at the moment. I remember him hating on big business before, but look, now they support his viewpoint so they are gods yet again.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

Everyone's points are well taken and we can move on. Don't like my style? Use the Report to Mod function. This is not the place to discuss this.

---Staff---


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Mar 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Recceguy, while I hold absolutely no love for kilo and do not agree with how he goes about stating his "facts" you are splitting hairs. It was quite obvious that you were referring to Kilo as a potato.
> 
> I can completely see where you are coming from with the potato comment though, he seems to bounce back and forth between stances depending on what fits into his rhetoric at the moment. I remember him hating on big business before, but look, now they support his viewpoint so they are gods yet again.



Tone aside, I'm not quoting the banks out of some great love for them. Rather, I understand that they serve as a pretty fair barometer for the business class in Canada. They want economic growth too, so when they're saying that going into a deficit in order to provide stimulus is not just acceptable, but even desirable given our current situation, I think it should lend some credibility in the eyes of those who would be inclined to repeat the Conservative mantra of "deficits are bad for the economy no matter what." 

This does not mean I support the more odious activities of Canadian banks, nor the role they play in the continued domination of labour and the working Canadian by capital.


----------



## Flavus101 (21 Mar 2016)

Perhaps going into a deficit would be beneficial for Canada. The reason I believe that the majority of us are against the idea of a deficit is because of HOW the money is being spent, not necessarily the idea of running a deficit.

I believe you used the term "social infrastructure" a little while ago. While you did not specify exactly what is included in your idea of social infrastructure I believe that I would disagree with a lot of what it contains.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Mar 2016)

We pay more to service the debt than we give to DND per year. Imagine the infrastructure we could buy with $30B a year, that's not being borrowed. 

You wouldn't rack up your credit card with no intention to ever pay it off, but some people here think that's a perfectly acceptable way to run a country.


----------



## Flavus101 (21 Mar 2016)

Exactly, you sometimes finance certain investments in order to realize return later on.

You should not finance that 60 inch TV that you cannot afford...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Mar 2016)

Sadly Canadian governments of all levels have a long history of funding things like hockey arenas, convention centres and performing arts centres (among other things) as "infrastructure", rather than roads, rails and pipelines. Indeed, many current subnational governments have stated open hostility towards pipelines.

As for how well these "investments" have worked out, I know that the downtown hockey arena bass cost London taxpayers @$4.5 million/year in the interest costs, and the downtown convention centre has never had a year in which it has not received a subsidy (ranging from $1.6 million to $.4 million, depending on the year). The alleged benefits of bringing people and business downtown is also refuted, hilariously enough a city study showed the value of downtown property dropped by almost $70 million in the years after the "infrastructure" was built, and walking along the streets of downtown London is an eerie Potemkin village of storefronts converted to government offices to create the illusion of a busy and energetic core.....

Now multiply that by every Liberal friendly riding across Canada.....


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Mar 2016)

Downtown Kingston is a perfect example of that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

The problem I have with 'social infrastructure' is the liberals are not defining it. Sunny ways, selfies and trusting someone that has really never worked a day in his life, just because he flips his hair and winks, doesn't cut it anymore.

Working Canadians (especially in Ontario) are getting very, very tired of busting our asses, working to get ahead, only to have the government(s) take more and more, from our dwindling paycheck, and give it to people that *won't* work, but for some reason, are the darlings of those governments. I can get behind paying for roads, bridges, even pipelines, that's not the problem.

What I'm getting really sick and tired of is a government that keeps reaching in my pocket, taking more, in order to pay for their feel good programs that make people benefiting from that program, more unwilling to work because they are living off more of the workers money.

Taking my money to bribe voters that don't have my interests in mind. Like paying dues to a union so they can support the party that you don't want to vote for.

Working Canadians are tired of being taxed at near fifty percent, with it creeping up past that, to pay for someone to sit on a subway grate and find themselves.

As with the native problem, for example, I didn't create it, it is not my fault and I'm tired of my taxes supporting them to do nothing but help stop progress and fight against my values.......with my money. 

I won't accept that I have a white man's burden or guilt. Just like I'm not responsible for the majority of the people that stand outside the liquor store twice a month with the welfare check that I provided.

Trudeau better get his shit together. Working people are mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Mar 2016)

Voting for Trump are you?  ;D


----------



## Altair (21 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The problem I have with 'social infrastructure' is the liberals are not defining it. Sunny ways, selfies and trusting someone that has really never worked a day in his life, just because he flips his hair and winks, doesn't cut it anymore.
> 
> Working Canadians (especially in Ontario) are getting very, very tired of busting our asses, working to get ahead, only to have the government(s) take more and more, from our dwindling paycheck, and give it to people that *won't* work, but for some reason, are the darlings of those governments. I can get behind paying for roads, bridges, even pipelines, that's not the problem.
> 
> ...


your problem is not with trudeau.

It's with politicians.

What you just described has been going on since before pmjt was even born.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The problem I have with 'social infrastructure' is the liberals are not defining it. Sunny ways, selfies and trusting someone that has really never worked a day in his life, just because he flips his hair and winks, doesn't cut it anymore.
> 
> Working Canadians (especially in Ontario) are getting very, very tired of busting our asses, working to get ahead, only to have the government(s) take more and more, from our dwindling paycheck, and give it to people that *won't* work, but for some reason, are the darlings of those governments. I can get behind paying for roads, bridges, even pipelines, that's not the problem.
> 
> ...



And you are somehow trying to convince us it is a Liberal fault, federally although you wish wash back and forth from provincial feelings, that Working people are mad?  

You know they have been in just over 100 days, so please; your angst should be directed towards the the Reform Jackals, that wrapped themselves in Conservative wool only to give us a decade of decay.

Please spare me with the Liberal bashing, the CONS have done enough damage to this nation, and the Working people voted them out October 19, 2015!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

I'm not blaming liberals. All politicians have a hand in this. The liberals just happen to be the sitting offenders right now. Ontario and Federally.

So you can all sit back and take a breath, put away your torches and pitchforks.

Never mind the 'which side' rhetoric, or all the 'woe is me, he's picking on my party' bullshit. Stick to the problem and try stay on track.

Working people are tired of being fleeced by politicians so they can give our money to gluebags, just because they will vote to keep getting their free money.

Problem is, it isn't free, working people across the country have to do without and can't raise their own standard of living because we're supporting a country of lazy brothers in laws that won't work.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm not blaming liberals. All politicians have a hand in this. The liberals just happen to be the sitting offenders right now. Ontario and Federally.
> 
> So you can all sit back and take a breath, put away your torches and pitchforks.
> 
> ...



I totally agree with you, the working man is up in arms,and that is why we made change in October.  Unfortunately, cleaning up a ten year mess is not going to happen overnight.

I am just asking that people have a little patience, as things do not happen overnight.

Trust me, I am anxious as well, and tapping my toes but again big job for them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Voting for Trump are you?  ;D



Not so much Trump, per se, but his idea. Canadians are, traditionally, slow off the mark. We like to watch what's going on and where it's going before we take off our shoes and socks and put a foot in the water.

If Trump pulls this off, and proves to the world that professional politicians are the slaves to big corporate and their lobbyists and that a country can survive and prosper without the anchor of elite professional slugs, the flood gates around the world will open and governed societies are open to huge changes.

Canada just needs the right billionaire, beholden to no one, to take on the parasites that govern us and destroy the symbiotic relationship that they have established in the guts of Canadians.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not so much Trump, per se, but his idea. Canadians are, traditionally, slow off the mark. We like to watch what's going on and where it's going before we take off our shoes and socks and put a foot in the water.
> 
> If Trump pulls this off, and proves to the world that professional politicians are the slaves to big corporate and their lobbyists and that a country can survive and prosper without the anchor of elite professional slugs, the flood gates around the world will open and governed societies are open to huge changes.
> 
> Canada just needs the right billionaire, beholden to no one, to take on the parasites that govern us and destroy the symbiotic relationship that they have established in the guts of Canadians.



Wow?

Did we not just experience 10 years of right wing diplomacy, you actually think that is what is going to fix America.

Got to pull out one of my old sayings, but I shall retire to bedlham now after reading that !!!

 :-*


----------



## CougarKing (21 Mar 2016)

As expected: of course Trudeau's media advocates spun this by saying that Trudeau's "taking the risk" to take Canada back into deficit was won him a majority mandate in the last election.  

Reuters



> *Canada set to buck G7 trend by unveiling stimulus-rich budget*
> By Leah Schnurr | Reuters – 1 hour 53 minutes ago
> 
> OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's new Liberal government will try to revive a flagging economy by unveiling one of the country's biggest deficits since the 2008 financial crisis in Tuesday's federal budget, making it a rarity among Group of Seven peers more focused on austerity.
> ...


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> As expected: of course Trudeau's media advocates spun this by saying that Trudeau's "taking the risk" to take Canada back into deficit was won him a majority mandate in the last election.  :
> 
> Reuters



Trudeau's media advocates.....

You come up with this shit, or copy and paste it from Facebook?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> I totally agree with you, the working man is up in arms,and that is why we made change in October.  Unfortunately, cleaning up a ten year mess is not going to happen overnight.
> 
> I am just asking that people have a little patience, as things do not happen overnight.
> 
> Trust me, I am anxious as well, and tapping my toes but again big job for them.




We didn't make change in November. It was half time, we traded the ends of the rink. Our current politicians cannot survive without the other parties. They are part and parcel of the same league. The same teams are still on the ice, playing by the same old rules and sharing the spoils. Elections are now cheapened by all.

We need to change who and how we select, to tell us how to live our lives. Or, in reality, we need to find someone(s) that will not tell us what is good for us, how much they need to steal or money, how much we are responsible for someone, across the country, who we've never met because that person doesn't want to work.

I'll vote for the first person that stands for workfare, drug tests for welfare recipients, reduced personal income tax, etc. I don't give a rat's ass what party they are. Wait... wrong... I'll vote for the first person that promises the above and DOESN'T belong to a party.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Wow?
> 
> Did we not just experience 10 years of right wing diplomacy, you actually think that is what is going to fix America.
> 
> ...



Obviously, you don't have a better alternative.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We didn't make change in November. It was half time, we traded the ends of the rink. Our current politicians cannot survive without the other parties. They are part and parcel of the same league. The same teams are still on the ice, playing by the same old rules and sharing the spoils. Elections are now cheapened by all.
> 
> We need to change who and how we select, to tell us how to live our lives. Or, in reality, we need to find someone(s) that will not tell us what is good for us, how much they need to steal or money, how much we are responsible for someone, across the country, who we've never met because that person doesn't want to work.
> 
> I'll vote for the first person that stands for workfare, drug tests for welfare recipients, reduced personal income tax, etc. I don't give a rat's ass what party they are. Wait... wrong... I'll vote for the first person that promises the above and DOESN'T belong to a party.




Sorry Dave, 

Your post is way out of order.  *First*, a majority was won, *Second* all new MPs from the last 10 years, For ALL THREE PARTIES.

New players on the ice, you spent too much time at the concessions booth that you must have missed it man.

Times are a changing, and for the better.  We got to stop with the doom and gloom posts, that we did for the last decade.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Downtown Kingston is a perfect example of that.



And don't forget the K-Rock Centre!!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Sorry Dave,
> 
> Your post is way out of order.  *First*, a majority was won, *Second* all new MPs from the last 10 years, For ALL THREE PARTIES.
> 
> ...



See, I'm not blaming any party, but you seem stuck on raging against Harper. You also miss the point, PCP, Liberal, NDP are just club names. The players are all professional. The get brought up from the farm leagues, scouts go out and recruit promising players. 

These players give all to their team and work within the league rules. The are resolute in their goal to pad their own nest and stay there as long as possible at the expense of the taxpayer.

 :-*


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> See, I'm not blaming any party, but you seem stuck on raging against Harper. You also miss the point, PCP, Liberal, NDP are just club names. The players are all professional. The get brought up from the farm leagues, scouts go out and recruit promising players.
> 
> These players give all to their team and work within the league rules. The are resolute in their goal to pad their own nest and stay there as long as possible at the expense of the taxpayer.
> 
> :-*



Unfortunately,

Although you hide who you talk about, your signature, and your many use of the term "Libtards" nullifies you trying to make a broadstoke statement of ALL parties.

I, like you, don't hide my party affiliations. Nor try to hide it when having a discussion.

 ^-^


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Unfortunately,
> 
> Although you hide who you talk about, your signature, and your many use of the term "Libtards" nullifies you trying to make a broadstoke statement of ALL parties.
> 
> ...



I just can't seem to think of a way to prove that I'm not being partisan on this particular subject. It covers politicians, not parties.

I'll have to see if my 4 year old grandson has gone to bed yet. Perhaps he can explain it better.  [


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I just can't seem to think of a way to prove that I'm not being partisan on this particular subject. It covers politicians, not parties.
> 
> I'll have to see if my 4 year old grandson has gone to bed yet. Perhaps he can explain it better.  [



The Cheek!!!

Then again Justin is very young......


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

One thing I will say, and Recceguy can attest, I am a dye in the wool Liberal.

But I am getting antsy as well with the promise waiting.

IT's like C'mon already, enough with the fluff, where is the stuff.  

But that is all you will get from me negative about our dear leader!


----------



## cavalryman (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> One thing I will say, and Recceguy can attest, I am a dye in the wool Liberal.
> 
> But I am getting antsy as well with the promise waiting.
> 
> ...


You should see the deficit budgeting promise fulfilled tomorrow, so don't fret.  Beyond that  :dunno:


----------



## Jed (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> One thing I will say, and Recceguy can attest, I am a dye in the wool Liberal.
> 
> But I am getting antsy as well with the promise waiting.
> 
> ...



Well that's OK then. As long as you aren't one of those ABC types.  [


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> You should see the deficit budgeting promise fulfilled tomorrow, so don't fret.  Beyond that  :dunno:



And surpassed 3 fold.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> You should see the deficit budgeting promise fulfilled tomorrow, so don't fret.  Beyond that  :dunno:



I know,

The New Government inherited quite the mess to burden, and try to clean up!

 :nod:


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Well that's OK then. As long as you aren't one of those ABC types.  [



Absolutely not.

However they had merritt.

Canadian tradition is to elect Governments out, not in....


----------



## cavalryman (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> I know,
> 
> The New Government inherited quite the mess to burden, and try to clean up!
> 
> :nod:


As will the government after this one.  'Tis the Canadian way :cdnsalute:


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> As will the government after this one.  'Tis the Canadian way :cdnsalute:



Maybe, but I doubt it.  

Remember it was a Liberal Government that tamed the deficit and gave us a balanced budget.


----------



## cavalryman (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Maybe, but I doubt it.
> 
> Remember it was a Liberal Government that tamed the deficit and gave us a balanced budget.


And a Liberal one who'll put us right back in it.  The overwhelming sentiment I get is  :brickwall: but that may just be the CPA in me screaming at anyone whose outflow of cash is greater than his inflow.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Remember it was a Liberal Government that tamed the deficit and gave us a balanced budget.



That Kool-Aid must be awesome stuff.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> And a Liberal one who'll put us right back in it.  The overwhelming sentiment I get is  :brickwall: but that may just be the CPA in me screaming at anyone whose outflow of cash is greater than his inflow.



The only overwhelming sentiment you get, is from fellow Cons that can't beleive Canada got sick of them, and turfed them out.  But I digress.




			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That Kool-Aid must be awesome stuff.



You should know, sucking at the teet of the Koolaid makers themselves the Conservatives/Reformists we have suffered under the last decade.  Sorry your cup is empty now.  oh wait, gotta put an emoji so you don't feel sad.


----------



## cavalryman (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> The only overwhelming sentiment you get, is from fellow Cons that can't beleive Canada got sick of them, and turfed them out.  But I digress.
> 
> 
> You should know, sucking at the teet of the Koolaid makers themselves the Conservatives/Reformists we have suffered under the last decade.  Sorry your cup is empty now.  oh wait, gotta put an emoji so you don't feel sad.


The partisan mind is a fabulous thing.   I hope  for the sake of the country you're right but I stopped believing in any political party's ability to rise above petty partisanship about the time I stopped believing general officers were all seeing and all knowing.  [


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> The partisan mind is a fabulous thing.   I hope  for the sake of the country you're right but I stopped believing in any political party's ability to rise above petty partisanship about the time I stopped believing general officers were all seeing and all knowing.  [



I love Canada, Love democracy, and love the Fact I can support the Party of my choice, Liberals.

Party partisanship is the fundamentals of democracy, and I served so we can have it.

The danger is when we try to oppress that, and follow one belief.......

Canada does not need to be "Grate" again, because we never lost it!


----------



## cavalryman (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> I love Canada, Love democracy, and love the Fact I can support the Party of my choice, Liberals.
> 
> Party partisanship is the fundamentals of democracy, and I served so we can have it.
> 
> ...


I just wish I could find a party I can support, but I suppose the Sound Administration and Limited Government Party of Canada doesn't have much curb appeal.  :dunno:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> The partisan mind is a fabulous thing.   I hope  for the sake of the country you're right but I stopped believing in any political party's ability to rise above petty partisanship about the time I stopped believing general officers were all seeing and all knowing.  [



You mean ... right after BMOQ  :hellyeah:


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> I just wish I could find a party I can support, but I suppose the Sound Administration and Limited Government Party of Canada doesn't have much curb appeal.  :dunno:



You could always fire up the Natural Law Party of Canada.

 :-\


----------



## cavalryman (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> You could always fire up the Natural Law Party of Canada.
> 
> :-\


At this point, the Rhinoceros Party may be my best bet. [:'(


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> At this point, the Rhinoceros Party may be my best bet. [:'(



Bwahahaha, well said well said!!

 :blotto:


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> You should know, sucking at the teet of the Koolaid makers themselves the Conservatives/Reformists we have suffered under the last decade.  Sorry your cup is empty now.  oh wait, gotta put an emoji so you don't feel sad.



Its real sad when someone accomplishes posting less coherent arguments than Kilo, but here we are. The smugness is perfect. How did you live with yourself for the last 10 years? A bunker? Throwing knives at a picture of Stephen Harper in a dark basement in downtown Toronto? Maybe you moved to the US to enjoy the great progressive leader Obama to shelter you from the bad man.


----------



## cavalryman (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Bwahahaha, well said well said!!
> 
> :blotto:


True story.  When I was in high school, my prof happened to mention that her colleague teaching in the classroom next door was the Rhino Party candidate for our riding.  Of course, we immediately ran out of class to see what a genuine Rhino Party man looked like.  Turns out he looked like any high school teacher, but he did pass out some neat Rhino Party stuff.  I might still have some of it in a dusty barracks box hidden in the basement.  Time to revive the old banner!  [


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its real sad when someone accomplishes posting less coherent arguments than Kilo, but here we are. The smugness is perfect. How did you live with yourself for the last 10 years? A bunker? Throwing knives at a picture of Stephen Harper in a dark basement in downtown Toronto? Maybe you moved to the US to enjoy the great progressive leader Obama to shelter you from the bad man.



How endearing,

Coming from someone, who's only contribution was "That Kool-Aid must be awesome stuff."  I don't find your posts on this thread really to be contributing in any way, other to antagonize me. 

Edmund Burke once said "Superstition is the religion of feeble minds." 


Very useful today if you replace Superstition, with Trolling.........


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Mar 2016)

I remember how the Chretien gang balanced the deficit, by robbing from the CF pensions.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> I know,
> 
> The New Government inherited quite the mess to burden, and try to clean up!
> 
> :nod:



Well they had no problem cleaning up that billion $ plus the Treasury Board said the CPC left them :

Their idea of cleanup is to simply reverse all Harper's programs and legislation to bring it back to where the Laurentian Elites left it. The last ten years have only been a distraction, even if it's what a majority government with the peoples mandate instituted on their behalf.

The 'Natural Governing Party' seems to feel they are the only ones that can rule us......................and we'll be happy about it :


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Well they had no problem cleaning up that billion $ plus the Treasury Board said the CPC left them :
> 
> Their idea of cleanup is to simply reverse all Harper's programs and legislation to bring it back to where the Laurentian Elites left it. The last ten years have only been a distraction, even if it's what a majority government with the peoples mandate instituted on their behalf.
> 
> The 'Natural Governing Party' seems to feel they are the only ones that can rule us......................and we'll be happy about it :



Bwahahahahahaha


 :rofl:

And Puckchaser talks about Koolaid!!!!!


----------



## dapaterson (21 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I remember how the Chretien gang balanced the deficit, by robbing from the CF pensions.



No.

An actuarial surplus was removed.  No benefits were denied, reduced, or changed.  And the government of Canada remains on the hook for any shortfalls in the plan.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I remember how the Chretien gang balanced the deficit, by robbing from the CF pensions.




.....and Canada Pension and Employment Insurance. Easy to balance things when you steal from funds that belong to the Canadian people.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I remember how the Chretien gang balanced the deficit, by robbing from the CF pensions.



Yes......

Military Pensions were used......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Bwahahahahahaha
> 
> 
> :rofl:
> ...



So the impartial Treasury Board are liars then?


----------



## cavalryman (21 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> An actuarial surplus was removed.  No benefits were denied, reduced, or changed.  And the government of Canada remains on the hook for any shortfalls in the plan.


Stop being the voice of reason.  It introduces a downer into a good political rant  ;D


----------



## Remius (21 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> An actuarial surplus was removed.  No benefits were denied, reduced, or changed.  And the government of Canada remains on the hook for any shortfalls in the plan.



Time to report you to a mod for inserting a fact.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Mar 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> And don't forget the K-Rock Centre!!



RAFG, I think that was exactly what PuckChaser was referring to.  There hasn't been a single year where the K-Rock Centre has come anywhere close to the business case revenue that it was pitched to City Council for its approval.  :nod:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> An actuarial surplus was removed.  No benefits were denied, reduced, or changed.  And the government of Canada remains on the hook for any shortfalls in the plan.



Nice banker speak there... sounds like removing money from the source I spoke of nevertheless.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Nice banker speak there... sounds like removing money from the source I spoke of nevertheless.



Banker speak.

And people PM me about my tone (oh here it comes)

 :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> RAFG, I think that was exactly what PuckChaser was referring to.  There hasn't been a single year where the K-Rock Centre has come anywhere close to the business case revenue that it was pitched to City Council for its approval.  :nod:
> 
> Regards,
> G2G



Yep. The businesses as well. Never see anyone in them, but they're still open selling top end fashions that no one can afford. Slowly they close, and nobody moves in because the rent is run by a monopoly and stupid expensive. Pretty downtown, does nothing.


----------



## cavalryman (22 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Nice banker speak there... sounds like removing money from the source I spoke of nevertheless.


You know, if I had a buck for every time I had to explain that one, I'd have retired five years ago instead of last month.  OSFI has the legal mandate to determine the government's liability for all of the pension plans (PSSA, CFSA, RCMPSA et al) and back in the day, OSFI told the government that the amount carried on the government's books for said pension plans exceeded what the projected liability, i.e. payouts, was going to be.  The government did what any sane entity would do and adjusted the liability to better reflect the actuarial projections.  Carrying a book surplus (not actual money!) in those accounts makes exactly zero sense since our pensions are determined by a fixed formula and can only be modified via an Act of Parliament to sweeten the terms.  The canard that the government 'stole' from our pension plans needs to be shot down by some cyanide coated buckshot because it just refuses to die.  Mind you, the unions didn't help - but then I don't expect them to be able to count past ten without removing shoes and socks.  (P.S. before anyone flames me for being ignorant, I was the principal CFSA analyst in CMP back in the day who answered all of your and Treasury Board's questions when it came to military pensions...)


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2016)

Well, we're getting what was promised ... and then some.

Put me somewhere on the spectrum between unimpressed and dismayed.

There are some good people on that Liberal front bench ... I'm a bit surprised they (including Bill Morneau) are still there this evening.


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Mar 2016)

http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/docs/download-telecharger/index-en.html

Complete Budget Plan can be found at link


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Mar 2016)

Support for DND by the Liberals is truly a mile wide and inch deep. $30B deficit and we get $200M over 2 years for infrastructure, as well as $3.7B in deferred capital funding (something the Tories were vilified for doing). Less than 1 page in a 200 page budget document dedicated to one of the single largest departments in the government. So much for diverting money to help the RCN get ships.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Mar 2016)

We were getting ships  ???


----------



## dangerboy (22 Mar 2016)

It is interesting reading the various Canadian newspapers and seeing what they think of the budget.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Support for DND by the Liberals is truly a mile wide and inch deep. $30B deficit and we get $200M over 2 years for infrastructure, as well as $3.7B in deferred capital funding (something the Tories were vilified for doing). Less than 1 page in a 200 page budget document dedicated to one of the single largest departments in the government. So much for diverting money to help the RCN get ships.



IMO and other more qualified people have said this so its only me repeating it:

Remember Peacekeeping, where UN Peacekeepers held hands with warring people and chatted over tea, or coffee?

Peacekeeping doesn't require fancy jets or ships with missiles and guns. All it requires are a few lightly armed troops and a freindly personality and maybe a few leprechauns and unicorns... to make the opposing factions see the error of their ways....


----------



## YZT580 (22 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Support for DND by the Liberals is truly a mile wide and inch deep. $30B deficit and we get $200M over 2 years for infrastructure, as well as $3.7B in deferred capital funding (something the Tories were vilified for doing). Less than 1 page in a 200 page budget document dedicated to one of the single largest departments in the government. So much for diverting money to help the RCN get ships.


ah, but the CBC gets 675 million.  See what happens when you advertise for libs for free?


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Mar 2016)

I am sure they'll ensure everyone gets issued a personal kazoo so we can all play Kumbaya en mass and sooth the savage breast.  And Birkenstock sandals too.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I am sure they'll ensure everyone gets issued a personal kazoo so we can all play Kumbaya en mass and sooth the savage breast.  And Birkenstock sandals too.



I don't like Birkenstocks.....


----------



## the 48th regulator (22 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I am sure they'll ensure everyone gets issued a personal kazoo so we can all play Kumbaya en mass and sooth the savage breast.  And Birkenstock sandals too.



Neat!!


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So much for diverting money to help the RCN get ships.



You and I both know those ships weren't coming before 2020.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I am sure they'll ensure everyone gets issued a personal kazoo so we can all play Kumbaya en mass and sooth the savage breast.  And Birkenstock sandals too.


The funding for the kazoos and Birkenstocks has been differed indefinitely, so you'll have to buy them yourself.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I am sure they'll ensure everyone gets issued a personal kazoo so we can all play Kumbaya en mass and sooth the savage breast.  And Birkenstock sandals too.



Sorry.  Birkenstocks are considered footwear.  Not going to happen.


Making our CAF sound like they are becoming a 3rd World African nation's military.


----------



## cavalryman (22 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Making our CAF sound like they are becoming a 3rd World African nation's military.


Which would make us perfect for UN missions.  Feature, not bug under the current administration   >


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The funding for the kazoos and *Birkenstocks* has been differed indefinitely, so you'll have to buy them yourself.


Like boots for some recruits?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> RAFG, I think that was exactly what PuckChaser was referring to.  There hasn't been a single year where the K-Rock Centre has come anywhere close to the business case revenue that it was pitched to City Council for its approval.  :nod:
> 
> Regards,
> G2G



And the city had a chance a couple of years ago to sell off the K-Rock and they turned it down and Kingstonians are still paying for its shortfalls.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Mar 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Like boots for some recruits?



The Afghans had sandals, we donated boots, now they issue boots. We had boots, screwed up the procurement, now are troops wear sandals. 

Canada's back.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Mar 2016)

Nothing is too good for the troops and that is what they'll receive.


----------



## cavalryman (22 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Nothing is too good for the troops and that is what they'll receive.


Hey, maybe we'll get a temporary  UN  security council seat in 2021 and that makes every sacrifice worthwhile.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Mar 2016)

No sacrifice is too great to give "nice hair" a photo op.


----------



## blacktriangle (22 Mar 2016)

I haven't had a chance to look more closely at the budget yet, should I assume there was no mention of the "Veterans Education Benefit" the Liberals were speaking of?


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> You know, if I had a buck for every time I had to explain that one, I'd have retired five years ago instead of last month.  OSFI has the legal mandate to determine the government's liability for all of the pension plans (PSSA, CFSA, RCMPSA et al) and back in the day, OSFI told the government that the amount carried on the government's books for said pension plans exceeded what the projected liability, i.e. payouts, was going to be.  The government did what any sane entity would do and adjusted the liability to better reflect the actuarial projections.  Carrying a book surplus (not actual money!) in those accounts makes exactly zero sense since our pensions are determined by a fixed formula and can only be modified via an Act of Parliament to sweeten the terms.  The canard that the government 'stole' from our pension plans needs to be shot down by some cyanide coated buckshot because it just refuses to die.  Mind you, the unions didn't help - but then I don't expect them to be able to count past ten without removing shoes and socks.  (P.S. before anyone flames me for being ignorant, I was the principal CFSA analyst in CMP back in the day who answered all of your and Treasury Board's questions when it came to military pensions...)



Sadly, everyone posting on this is wrong. The Federal government has over $500 billion in unfunded liabilities, which include government, military and RCMP pensions and benefits. While shifting actuarial figures around on a ledger is impressive or awful, depending on where you sit, the reality is they are playing shell games with nothing at all to back them.

Add the $500 billion + unfunded liabilities to the $500 billion + Federal debt and you have a very real problem on your hands...


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Mar 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I haven't had a chance to look more closely at the budget yet, should I assume there was no mention of the "Veterans Education Benefit" the Liberals were speaking of?



Crickets.


----------



## blacktriangle (22 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Crickets.



Why am I not surprised? Thanks PuckChaser.


----------



## chanman (22 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Nothing is too good for the troops and that is what they'll receive.



While this particular Dilbert strip ran nearly two decades ago...


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Which would make us perfect for UN missions.  Feature, not bug under the current administration   >



On the plus side:  Going to Haiti, for example, would be a great opportunity to put some miles on those TAPVs.  By 2019 they will be about ready to donate to the Haitian constabulary.


----------



## Lightguns (23 Mar 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I haven't had a chance to look more closely at the budget yet, should I assume there was no mention of the "Veterans Education Benefit" the Liberals were speaking of?


No, everything the Cons coated out before tge election is going to happen plus the maritimes get their unproductive VA offices back.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Mar 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I haven't had a chance to look more closely at the budget yet, should I assume there was no mention of the "Veterans Education Benefit" the Liberals were speaking of?


Closest thing (without naming the benefit) on page 176:


> ... Over the next year, the Government will work with the veterans’ community to examine the best way to streamline and simplify the system of financial support programs currently offered by Veterans Affairs Canada and National Defence for veterans and their families. The overall objective of this work will be to ensure that the Government delivers programs and services in a way that is veterans-centric and facilitates a seamless and successful transition from military to civilian life ...


A cross between :crickets: and "we'll get back to you" ...


----------



## dapaterson (23 Mar 2016)

Jim Hillyer, PC MP for Medicine Hat–Cardston–Warner, was found dead in his office this morning.  He had complained of feeling ill yesterday.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jim-hillyer-mp-dead-1.3503771

Condolences to his family.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Mar 2016)

41 years old.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Mar 2016)

Believing that the past 10 years has been a decade of darkness that is about to be fixed is wishful thinking that can only end in disappointment, because it is at odds with the historical fiscal facts.  (Unless your perception is purely founded on your hatred of the characteristics of introverted people, in which case you are welcome to it.)

The past government didn't rebalance the budget on the backs of anyone in need.  Transfers, which account for 70+% of federal spending, were essentially maintained and increased.  Rebalancing was achieved by the restoration of revenues after the recessionary drop and a mix of spending growth restraint and cuts to the other 30% of government spending (ie. agencies and their operations).  There isn't going to be a sunny new day for the Canada Social Transfer or the Canada Health Transfer, or payouts like CPP, OAS, EI, etc because there was never an end to the sunny old day.

The expense-side cost reductions were numerous and each relatively paltry.  The people most affected were those who were relocated if an office was closed or staffing reduced, or cut off from a federally-funded gravy train.  None of the usual sky-is-falling prediction made by the usual whingers came to pass; Canada did not become a perceptibly more horrible place to live and work.

The new government is basically setting the clock back to about 2011, and undertaking to restore most of the spending desired by its political base, ideological principles, and aesthetic preferences, without commensurate and balancing changes on the revenue side (for which optimistic hope and belief that it will get better are essentially the plan).  So we will have a structural deficit, and borrow chiefly for consumption - only a little for "investment" - and see where that takes us.

The ratio to keep an eye on is not debt:GDP.  The ratio to watch is "public debt charges":"revenues" (columns in the readily available Fiscal Reference Tables).  If the number increases, you may be assured that the costs of borrowing are squeezing out the money available for program spending, in an unhealthy direction.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Mar 2016)

Harper could have restored balance much sooner, had he reneged on some of his campaign promises like GST cut or income splitting, much like Trudeau wouldn't have such a massive deficit without that middle class tax cut.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Mar 2016)

Quotas vs Merit

Trudeau filled his Cabinet by using a "Quota System"

Labour Minister, MaryAnn Mihychuk, is constantly proving herself to be totally incompetent:

This piece: Trudeau's Labour Minister Mihychuk “should either resign or be fired” by Brian Lilley demonstrates this, if you have any doubts.


----------



## Lumber (24 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Quotas vs Merit
> 
> Trudeau filled his Cabinet by using a "Quota System"
> 
> ...



Ministers are supposed to be experts in their fields? I though the DMs were the experts and the Ministers were just bobble-heads?


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Mar 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Ministers are supposed to be experts in their fields? I though the DMs were the experts and the Ministers were just bobble-heads?



What ministers should be good at is management.  This isn't the first time Mihychuk has been a minister, so that made here very good candidate in this young government.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Mar 2016)

No. What ministers should be good at is representing their department's position in public.

Ministers are required to master their briefs, especially when they are going to represent the government's position on new legislation before a committee of Parliament. Before hand, they would have been given a brief by their officials that had been carefully arranged to present the department's position and would have included answers to all of the foreseeable questions. And the questions she muffed up were pretty obvious lines of questioning.

One such aspect of mastering the brief is that a minister that appears before a committee to defend his/her own department's legislation should absolutely know what is or isn't in the actual law. Her representation that the Bill contains no provision about secret ballots is, quite simply, either an outright lie on her part or gross incompetence: It is one of the main provision of the Act she is introducing in Parliament.

There are no excuse for someone allegedly experienced as a Minister.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2016)

One of the provisions of the new government's budget seems to have slipped past many people's notice:

http://www.inquisitr.com/2928566/bank-bail-in-provision-cdic-contingent-convertible-debt-coco-budget-2016/



> MARCH 26, 2016
> BANK BAIL-IN PROVISION, CDIC FINANCIAL POSITION: WHAT EVERY CANADIAN NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT BUDGET 2016
> SCOTT HOUGH
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Mar 2016)

Awesome, that's just Liberal fan-fucking-tastic!!  I'm so glad the mouth breathers were able to vote these assholes in with a majority.  You start letting the banks rob from their customers over $100K you give them that inch and they'll take a mile down the road.  Thanks, Capt. Sunshine ways... so relieved you're here with your peeps to save us all.  Guess he's not smarter than a 5th grader after all.


----------



## cavalryman (28 Mar 2016)

A writer who can't even spell Cyprus?   :dunno:


----------



## a_majoor (28 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> A writer who can't even spell Cyprus?   :dunno:



You would not believe the number of times I've been caught out by spellcheck or autocorrect. Sadly, "layers of editors and fact checkers" in the sorts of organizations that still have any rarely make up for this either....


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Mar 2016)

It's actually straight from a study done in the 2013 Budget.  It was a Conservative plan.  The Liberals and Conservatives are virtually the same party when it comes to economic matters.

Anyway, bail in is better than bailout.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> A writer who can't even spell Cyprus?   :dunno:



Wow, 

The evil!  

Good catch finding that in the pepper!


----------



## cavalryman (28 Mar 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Wow,
> 
> The evil!
> 
> Good catch finding that in the pepper!


The devil's in the details  >


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> The devil's in the details  >



Well played, well played!!

 :blotto:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2016)

We are going in a new direction here, and in the other political threads.

If people are going to participate in this thread, they have to ensure their points are factual. 

No more name calling, vitriol or baiting. Trolling is out. Proper names and titles only in the first instance. (PM Trudeau, Stephen Harper, etc) which may be followed by Trudeau, Harper for the rest of the post

We are going to stick to the issues. That's it, that's all. Anything else runs the risk of being deleted without notification or explanation.

Lastly, by way of a small explanation, this is a military site, of mostly military people, who come here to discuss military topics. If you want to spend your day arguing politics, there's plenty of sites out there that cater to that subject.

This is not one of them.

From this point on, Moderators who contribute to this thread will not moderate them and vica versa.

_*---Staff---*_


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Apr 2016)

iPolitics is noting a large percentage drop in the Prime Minister's approval ratings:



> Trudeau’s “honeymoon” now fading: EKOS
> THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s hold on the Canadian psyche appears to be returning to more normal levels, an EKOS poll suggests.
> ...



http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/03/trudeaus-nuclear-honeymoon-now-fading-ekos/ (More here)

Interesting to see some of the regional divide in the results. I'm not sure how much of the decline in Ontario is due to the PM's policies, or the absolute destruction the Ontario Liberals have made of the province's economy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2016)

How some socialists complain the NDP isn't socialist _ENOUGH_!


> In the run-up to this weekend’s federal New Democratic Party (NDP) convention, Canada’s pseudo-left has stepped up its efforts to promote this discredited big business party as an instrument for opposing austerity and even fighting for socialism.
> 
> The claim that the NDP can be a vehicle of working class struggle is preposterous. But that is no obstacle for the likes of Fightback, the International Socialists (IS), Socialist Action, and the NDP’s moribund Socialist Caucus. However, it does require that they shamelessly distort, falsify and lie about the political record, social composition, and class orientation of the NDP.
> 
> ...


You get the idea ...


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Apr 2016)

It will certainly be interesting if they formally adopt the LEAP manifesto as some members want them to.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2016)

If I remember correctly one of Prime Minister Harper's aims was to eliminate the middle from Canadian politics.  He went after the Liberals.

It seems to me that the Liberals may be on the verge of producing the political divide that he wanted. The Liberals have moved so far to the left, in popular perception, that the NDP is contemplating moving even farther to the left, to the point of unelectable irrelevance.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly one of Prime Minister Harper's aims was to eliminate the middle from Canadian politics.  He went after the Liberals.
> 
> It seems to me that the Liberals may be on the verge of producing the political divide that he wanted. The Liberals have moved so far to the left, in popular perception, that the NDP is contemplating moving even farther to the left, to the point of unelectable irrelevance.



Absolutely. Harper is going to achieve his goal of a 2 party system, but he had the wrong target in mind. The NDP was a ticking timebomb since Jack Layton took over, they could only hold back the hard socialists for so long.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Apr 2016)

Took the words right out of my mouth.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-blasted-brazillian-columnist-1.3526593


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Took the words right out of my mouth.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-blasted-brazillian-columnist-1.3526593









To a louse.


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Took the words right out of my mouth.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-blasted-brazillian-columnist-1.3526593



Consider the sources.  Amnesty International and a Brazilian newspaper no one here has ever heard of that has a history of false info and accusations.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2016)

And more on the NDP's formation of a circular firing squad:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulcair-chris-hall-leadership-ndp-1.3525911



> *Mulcair and the NDP head into couples therapy at convention*
> NDP leader faces a divided party, with some calling for his departure and others standing behind him
> By Chris Hall, CBC NewsPosted: Apr 08, 2016 5:00 AM ET|Last Updated: Apr 08, 2016 10:09 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Apr 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Consider the sources.  Amnesty International and a Brazilian newspaper no one here has ever heard of that has a history of false info and accusations.



Amnesty spoke out against the Tories as well, it isn't a partisan plot. The Globe ran a similar article attacking the source, instead of the ideas, including trying to smear all Brazilian newspapers as "traditionally right-wing".


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Apr 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Consider the sources.  Amnesty International and a Brazilian newspaper no one here has ever heard of that has a history of false info and accusations.



They, Amnesty excepted, as I said, take the words right out of my mouth for how I feel about the subject matter.  I'm not alone in this either.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Consider the sources.  Amnesty International and a Brazilian newspaper no one here has ever heard of that has a history of false info and accusations.



Remius, I don't believe the articles were quoted for validation.  In my mind they were merely quoted because of the opinion.  I agree that Vilma's opinion doesn't matter. Just as mine doesn't. I can still agree with her opinion.


----------



## Remius (8 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Remius, I don't believe the articles were quoted for validation.  In my mind they were merely quoted because of the opinion.  I agree that Vilma's opinion doesn't matter. Just as mine doesn't. I can still agree with her opinion.



I find it funny that the CBC is publishing stories from other sources about the Prime Minister.  Wouldn't it be novel if they published their own editorials criticizing him?  Now I can understand them publsihing a story about Amnetsy International (no shock there) but then finding an obscure editorial? And then loosely linking them together somehow? 

You'd figure with the influx of money they just received they could do a better job of it.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Apr 2016)

They'd never do that unless they want that $675M of hush money turned off.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I find it funny that the CBC is publishing stories from other sources about the Prime Minister.  Wouldn't it be novel if they published their own editorials criticizing him?  Now I can understand them publsihing a story about Amnetsy International (no shock there) but then finding an obscure editorial? And then loosely linking them together somehow?
> 
> You'd figure with the influx of money they just received they could do a better job of it.



The CBC gets itself into trouble when it develops its own opinions.  I don't believe that a government funded organization should have anything whatsoever to do with opinion.  It is on safer ground when it reports the opinions of others.  But even that can be risky.  Not mention the minefields of opinions masquerading as facts.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The CBC gets itself into trouble when it develops its own opinions.  I don't believe that a government funded organization should have anything whatsoever to do with opinion.  It is on safer ground when it reports the opinions of others.  But even that can be risky.  Not mention the minefields of opinions masquerading as facts.



That's why I get a great deal of my news from the BBC. They seem to me to be pretty neutral.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2016)

Mike: 

BBC is only neutral if you're not a Brit.  As far as the Brits are concerned the Beeb is as neutral as the CBC.  Opinions and stacking the deck on panels and selecting facts.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Mike:
> 
> BBC is only neutral if you're not a Brit.  As far as the Brits are concerned the Beeb is as neutral as the CBC.  Opinions and stacking the deck on panels and selecting facts.


At least the BBC 1)  has comedy shows poking politicians, 2) that poke equally at politicians from all parties, no matter who's in government.


----------



## Altair (9 Apr 2016)

It's been nice to see the federal NDP destroy any chance of ever electing MPs in Alberta federally with this leap manifesto nonsense, but also completely torpedo the alberta NDP in the process by talking about keeping alberta oil in the ground while in Alberta. 

Pierre Trudeau would be proud.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> It's been nice to see the federal NDP destroy any chance of ever electing MPs in Alberta federally with this leap manifesto nonsense, but also completely torpedo the alberta NDP in the process by talking about keeping alberta oil in the ground while in Alberta.
> 
> Pierre Trudeau would be proud.



Notley is desperately trying to backpedal from her federal counterparts. Its funny to watch.


----------



## Altair (9 Apr 2016)

If I were Notley,  I would seriously consider rebranding the party after this. The Democratic party or something.

After this is done to the ndp brand, never all that strong to begin in akberta with, is going to be toxic.

Don't know what pros come from being branded with the federal NDP at the best of times, but they cannot possibly out weight the cons at this point.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Apr 2016)

Absolutely, but the national support for fundraising might be an issue, she'd also split the NDP vote between her, and the new provincial NDP that will get set up right after.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Apr 2016)

Talk about your classic "blue on blue" engagement.

The national NDP brain trust (such as it is) is remarkably tone deaf for holding this convention in Edmonton.


----------



## cavalryman (9 Apr 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Talk about your classic "blue on blue" engagement.
> 
> The national NDP brain trust (such as it is) is remarkably tone deaf for holding this convention in Edmonton.


Considering the LEAP manifesto, I think tone deafness is par for the course when you're a socialist.


----------



## Altair (9 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely, but the national support for fundraising might be an issue, she'd also split the NDP vote between her, and the new provincial NDP that will get set up right after.


a merger with the liberals then. Strengthen the left, and move away from the federal NDP.

The liberal democratic party.

Because when the Wildrose and PCs start to run with this charlie foxtrot,  the provincial ndp are going to be massacred


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Apr 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Talk about your classic "blue on blue" engagement.
> 
> The national NDP brain trust (such as it is) is remarkably tone deaf for holding this convention in Edmonton.



Wouldn't that be a "red" on "red" as "blue" is for conservatives...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Apr 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Wouldn't that be a "red" on "red" as "blue" is for conservatives...



Nope, new one. Orange on Orange.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Apr 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nope, new one. Orange on Orange.



I suppose that's so.  I was just thinking of them being Commie-lite, therefore, Reds.


----------



## Ostrozac (9 Apr 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The national NDP brain trust (such as it is) is remarkably tone deaf for holding this convention in Edmonton.



You're absolutely correct on that one.

The NDP had three really good options -- hold the convention in Quebec and ask "how can we get those seats back?", hold the convention in Hamilton and try to symbolically connect with blue-collar Ontario voters, or hold the convention in BC and connect with the environmentalist/pacifist/hippie wing of the party. All three are politically good options.

Instead, they chose this specific time to try to revitalize their prairie populist roots. The NDP has three MP's in the Prairies! Three! That's as many MP's as the NDP has in Metro Halifax, and the Maritimes are not known as a bastion of the NDP. Having that convention in Edmonton is a bad, bad decision.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2016)

Tone Deaf? 

The NDP is holding their convention where there has never been an NDP government in living memory before, but also close to the roots of the CCF and Prairie Populism.

The fact that they were outfoxed by Gerald Butts and his team on one hand, and don't resonate with a lot of Canadians on the other (outside of the Jack Layton era) on the other are issues that probably _should_ be looked at, but designing an imaginary society around the Leap Manifesto is more fun for Party insiders.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Apr 2016)

Dare I foresee a cheering Elizabeth May thumb her nose at the remaining Dippers on the next go as the Greens get more seats than the NDP?  ;D

The NDP appear to be heading towards a disastrous [for them] political spectrum nexus shift... :trainwreck:


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2016)

The political _left_ has a problem: the LEAP manifesto is really good, solid,_ left wing_ stuff and, making a WAG (wild assed guess) I suspect that as many as 3.5 million Canadians (10% of us all) actually believe it is good public policy ... of course 1 million of that number will grow up, get married, need jobs and want to hang onto something in excess of ⅓ of what they earn after income taxes, HST, etc.

But, the 2+ million who count (who can vote) and the 1.5 million who actually did vote in 2015 are sorely divided between the:

   BQ:         my _guess_ is that 500,000 of the Bloc's supporters are also LEAP supporters, but Quebec nationalism is more important;

   Greens:  I would _guess_ that 400,000 of the 600,000 Green voters believe in LEAP but will stay Green because they don't trust Mulcair's _Dippers_ to "keep the faith;"

   Liberals: _I think_ that 100,000 _true lefties_ (who support LEAP) voted Liberal for a variety of reasons;

   NDP:       I also _guess_ that 500,000 of the NDP's supports are LEAP fans.

I don't see the Bloc and Green voters shifting and I don't think enough _Dippers_ believe in LEAP to make a real difference.

Remember the *Waffle* (late 1960s and early '70s)?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Apr 2016)

I wonder if the Notley - Avi Lewis "debate" has the potential to derail some of that hard-left environmental activism?

The NDP natives are perturbed at Notley because she is still digging up "their" resources.  The Liberal natives were perturbed at Trudeau because he didn't invite them to his meeting. So the left-enviro-native alliance is under stress.

Meanwhile Avi is perturbed that Notley is showing him the appropriate level of deference due NDP Royalty (Avi son of Stephen son of David).  What does it say if the Leap Manifesto is adopted by the Third Party?  What does it say if the Leap Manifesto is rejected by the most radical of the mainstream alternatives?

I think that either way this Leap gambit has the potential for exposing how poorly supported such radical thinking is and may take the extreme activism out of the spotlight for a while.  Perhaps enough to clear the decks for pipelines?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Apr 2016)

This is usually the direction a party takes after a spanking.  "We weren't extreme enough and true enough to our most fervent base."  Later will come the phase when they realize they really do need to make concessions to move to the political centre.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Apr 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This is usually the direction a party takes after a spanking.  "We weren't extreme enough and true enough to our most fervent base."  Later will come the phase when they realize they really do need to make concessions to move to the political centre.



The NDP seem to be particularly bothered by a lack of focus though.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/from-socialists-to-good-old-boys-a-taxonomy-of-the-ndps-edmonton-factions

Is there a there there?  Is there a single defining base?


----------



## FSTO (10 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The NDP seem to be particularly bothered by a lack of focus though.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/from-socialists-to-good-old-boys-a-taxonomy-of-the-ndps-edmonton-factions
> 
> Is there a there there?  Is there a single defining base?



Here in Saskatchewan, "The birthplace of the CCF" the NDP has completely lost the rural and suburban vote and the Sask Party is making inroads into the inner city and native north as well.
I have no idea how they are going to rise from the depths, maybe through the large bubble of native kids coming up could be their base in the future? I don't know and if they follow Avie Lewis and Naomi Klein then their goose is truly cooked.


----------



## Altair (10 Apr 2016)

Mulcair only gets 48 percent support from the party.

Prime minister trudeau the last man standing from the 2015 election.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Apr 2016)

Don't forget Lizzie May...


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Apr 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Don't forget Lizzie May...





			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Mulcair only gets 48 percent support from the party.
> 
> Prime minister trudeau the last *man* standing from the 2015 election.



SKT, gotta say Altair wasn't wrong.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Apr 2016)

Yup. I defer to superior attention to detail....


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Apr 2016)

To lose this badly twice in the span of 6 months has got to hurt.      Still, won't miss him.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Apr 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> To lose this badly twice in the span of 6 months has got to hurt.      Still, won't miss him.



Be careful what you wish for... who know's who will replace him.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Apr 2016)

Interesting dynamic now. NDP moving back left, the Liberals can't outflank them anymore. The progressive vote gets split again, with the Liberals losing a whole bunch of seats to the NDP.


----------



## Altair (10 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Interesting dynamic now. NDP moving back left, the Liberals can't outflank them anymore. The progressive vote gets split again, with the Liberals losing a whole bunch of seats to the NDP.


Maybe.

Depend who is leader though and what they do with the leap manifesto. 

Adopt it and they swing further left than the liberals and then they're only attracting what,10, 15 percent of the electorate?


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Maybe.
> 
> Depend who is leader though and what they do with the leap manifesto.
> 
> Adopt it and they swing further left than the liberals and then they're only attracting what,10, 15 percent of the electorate?



Which is 10% right out of the Liberals bottom line. Don't tell me you don't believe that the progressive vote didn't flock to the Liberals after the NDP ran a center-left campaign, and the Liberals were clearly in the left-wing where the NDP previously occupied? There will be centrists moving back towards the Liberals, but if they stay left, those voters may just stay home instead of voting Tory, which many centrist voters did by not supporting PM Harper.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Apr 2016)

I am not so sure Altair.

If they adopt the Leap Manifesto, I think it will be a wash. They may lose a small percentage of the more centrist vote Mulcair had attracted to the party, but at the same time, it may bring back a nearly similar percentage of more lefty vote that decided to take a chance on Trudeau jr. in the last election based on his more leftist position, but who will be disappointed after they realize that they will govern from their historical centre position.

What will be interesting to see is if Trudeau jr., seeing this loss of some of his left leaning voters, decides to cater to them with more left of centre actual actions. If he does, he may push enough of his more centre and right-of-centre voters into the Conservatives arms for them to win the next election, especially if the Conservatives chose a leader that is centrist on social issues but clearly conservative (little c) in fiscal matters.

Lots of fun to come in the next few years (especially if one factors in what will happen with  :cowboy.

op:


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Apr 2016)

I think a lot of center-left voters would rather stay home than vote for the Tories, unless they have a polar shift in the type of leader they elect. If they go with a social-conservative, they won't reap the rewards of a NDP implosion. There was likely similar apathy for center-right voters not wanting another 4 years of PM Harper, so they stayed home, allowing the surge of special-interest left-wing votes to cover the gap.


----------



## Altair (10 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which is 10% right out of the Liberals bottom line. Don't tell me you don't believe that the progressive vote didn't flock to the Liberals after the NDP ran a center-left campaign, and the Liberals were clearly in the left-wing where the NDP previously occupied? There will be centrists moving back towards the Liberals, but if they stay left, those voters may just stay home instead of voting Tory, which many centrist voters did by not supporting PM Harper.


I think if they swing that far left so they will end up with 15 percent national support, max, a drop from the 19 they got in 2015. While many might stay home, I think that in 3 1/2 years the memory of PM stephen harper will still be fresh enough in the minds of progressive voters.

That said, so much is in flux right now.

Liberals and their plans only just beginning. 

Conservatives and NDP with a leadership races. 

Economic recovery weak and price of oil in the dumps.

The electoral reform is a huge one.

Who knows what things are going to look like a next week, never mind 3 years from now?


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Apr 2016)

Progressive voters will never vote Tory, so the Conservatives could care less which left wing party they vote for. With a new Tory leader, and the Liberals not wanting to run attack ads (we'll see), the strategic voting campaign will be completely silent, making a lot more vote splits similar to 2006. There is a lot that is going to change, but NDP is trending to outflank the Liberals on the left, which is bad news for Gerald Butts and Telford. They counted on those votes to beat the Tories, and unless the NDP about-face and gets another Layton/Muclair, those votes are gone.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Apr 2016)

No, actually, electoral reform is so far out of sight on the radars of every day Canadian that it doesn't even register.

Canadians just don't have any problem with the system in place, regardless of how many time media pundits who are tired of analyzing the same old gaming of the system in the same old way (and therefore sounding like a recording of themselves all the time) would love to force the government's hand in changing it so they get a new field to play in.

Electoral reform is a total non-starter for Canadians, and I think the only thing that would get them going on the subject would be for the government to start looking at it: The masses would get the message to the government in no uncertain term to leave well enough alone - we know how it works and we don't want to have to figure out something new. 

At least that is my considered opinion based on my discussion with people around here.

Only people who want to change the electoral system are the media and third parties with no chance at ever being the government, and may be Trudeau jr., but only because he was stupid enough to mention that he would change the system and thinks people voted for that instead of just against Harper.

Besides, as I have mentioned in another thread, I am not convinced that you can change the voting system whereby Canadians vote directly for their member of parliament without amending the Constitution, and I can see at the very least that there would be a constitutional challenge to any attempt made otherwise.


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Progressive voters will never vote Tory, so the Conservatives could care less which left wing party they vote for. With a new Tory leader, and the Liberals not wanting to run attack ads (we'll see), the strategic voting campaign will be completely silent, making a lot more vote splits similar to 2006. There is a lot that is going to change, but NDP is trending to outflank the Liberals on the left, which is bad news for Gerald Butts and Telford. They counted on those votes to beat the Tories, and unless the NDP about-face and gets another Layton/Muclair, those votes are gone.



At this point I think I disagree with that assessment.  Things might change but the reason the NDP was polling high was that they were moving to the centre.  Meaning they were a viable option for liberals who might not like the direction or the leader of the party.

Only when that leap manifesto crap came out among other weird things did Mulcair start to nosedive.  He tried to reassure the centrists that they weren't up to their old socialist games and simultaneously alienated the hard core left when he would endorse the manifesto.

No, I predict that the NDP will finish with even less seats than what they have now.

Divisive leadership campaigns from both parties will keep the liberals in next election unless they get their acts together.  I think the CPC one will be divisive at first but will be able to get itself together.  The NDP not so much.  The Leap people will make sure of that.


----------



## Altair (10 Apr 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No, actually, electoral reform is so far out of sight on the radars of every day Canadian that it doesn't even register.
> 
> Canadians just don't have any problem with the system in place, regardless of how many time media pundits who are tired of analyzing the same old gaming of the system in the same old way (and therefore sounding like a recording of themselves all the time) would love to force the government's hand in changing it so they get a new field to play in.
> 
> ...


ranked ballots doesn't require touching the constitution, and it favors the liberals heavily as they are usually CPC and NDP voters second choice as it is.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Apr 2016)

It doesn't matter what a change to, the system will be dissected and gamed. Strategic voting games FPTP, and picking an independent as second choice games ranked ballot.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Apr 2016)

All being said, I have enjoyed Mr. Mulcair doing his lawn dart impression of Oct again.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Progressive voters will never vote Tory, ...



Progressive voters may never vote Tory but NDP voters may.  That is what the British Labour party has run into when their champagne socialists find themselves losing the miners and steelworkers who are heading towards the United Kingdom Independence Party, the British National Party and English Defence League.  Those parties are not composed of Tory supporters, although UKIP draws some strength from the Tories on the EU issue.  Most of the supporters are traditional Labour supporters with whom the party has lost touch.

Kind of like the Roughnecks, Welders and Machinists on the Edmonton floor.  Redeyes more likely than Mimosas.


----------



## Altair (11 Apr 2016)

I think what we've seen here is the hijacking of the NDP by the environmental wing. The labor wing just got told to stfu and take it.

The environmental wing doesn't give a damn if all of alberta goes bankrupt if it means no pipelines and a moratorium on new projects.

Then there is the quebec wing that just had their leader kicked unceremoniously to the curb.

The party might be gearing up for a ugly leadership race.

And there is already talk of the alberta provincial ndp to cut all ties with the federal NDP party. Might not be a bad idea, this will sink any chance of Notley getting reelected, if the federal cousins start talking about keeping oil in the ground. If I were her I would be in serious talks with the liberals about a merger.

The "Liberal Democratic Party" or "Democratic Liberal party" or maybe the "New Liberal democratic Party"

Either way, should Notley go to the polls tied to the federal wackos the NDP is going to make the liberal party death in Alberta after PET look like a minor time out.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Apr 2016)

I'm going to post this here since it demonstrates the convergence between technology and politics. The proposed gassification/fuel cell system is far more efficient than a straight thermal system (in technical terms, it is not limited by the Carnot cycle), and could be even more efficient by tapping the waste heat to run a bottoming cycle engine (maybe a steam turbine, or maybe a gas turbine using the hot exhaust gasses, much like a turbocharger).

The article "sells" the idea by bowing to the church of global warming, and any serious attempts to develop this will probably have to be marketed like this. Not mentioned is the real benefit; cutting the input costs in half (burn 1/2 the coal for the same amount of energy) is a huge boost in productivity, and increasing productivity is the only way *we* can pay for the expensive welfare state that has been built since the 1960's. Cheap and reliable energy is key to a modern economy (ask Ontario how losing cheap and reliable energy is working out), so any serious politician, economist or interested members of the public should be advocating for and inversting in these sorts of technologies as infrastructure, rather than "green" energy boondoggles or Performing Arts Centres as infrastructure.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/mit-proposes-gasification-fuel-cell.html



> *MIT proposes gasification fuel cell coal plants to get to 60% efficiency which is double pulverized coal efficiency*
> 
> Researchers at MIT have come up with a plan to generate electricity from coal with much greater efficiency — possibly reaching as much as twice the fuel-to-electricity efficiency of today’s conventional coal plants. This would mean, all things being equal, a 50 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for a given amount of power produced.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Apr 2016)

PMJT to apologize for Komagata Maru in House of Commons ...


> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that on May 18, 2016, he will make a formal apology in the House of Commons for the Komagata Maru incident.
> 
> This year will mark the 102nd anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident, where 376 passengers of mostly Sikh descent arrived in Vancouver and were refused entry into Canada due to the discriminatory laws of the time.
> 
> The Prime Minister made the announcement at Vaisakhi on the Hill concluding a three day religious ceremony, where Sikh scriptures were read continuously to commemorate Vaisakhi.


PMSH apologized in 2008, _but_ ...


> ... as soon as (PM Harper) left the stage members of the Sikh community rushed to the podium denouncing the apology and said they wanted it made on the floor of the House of Commons.
> 
> "The apology was unacceptable," said Jaswinder Singh Toor, president of The Descendants of Komagatamaru Society.
> 
> "We were expecting the prime minister of Canada to do the right thing. The right thing was … like the Chinese Head Tax," said Toor, referring to Harper's full apology to the Chinese-Canadian community in 2006 for the head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants who came to Canada between 1885 and 1923 ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Apr 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm going to post this here since it demonstrates the convergence between technology and politics. The proposed gassification/fuel cell system is far more efficient than a straight thermal system (in technical terms, it is not limited by the Carnot cycle), and could be even more efficient by tapping the waste heat to run a bottoming cycle engine (maybe a steam turbine, or maybe a gas turbine using the hot exhaust gasses, much like a turbocharger).
> 
> The article "sells" the idea by bowing to the church of global warming, and any serious attempts to develop this will probably have to be marketed like this. Not mentioned is the real benefit; cutting the input costs in half (burn 1/2 the coal for the same amount of energy) is a huge boost in productivity, and increasing productivity is the only way *we* can pay for the expensive welfare state that has been built since the 1960's. Cheap and reliable energy is key to a modern economy (ask Ontario how losing cheap and reliable energy is working out), so any serious politician, economist or interested members of the public should be advocating for and inversting in these sorts of technologies as infrastructure, rather than "green" energy boondoggles or Performing Arts Centres as infrastructure.
> 
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/mit-proposes-gasification-fuel-cell.html



Just a couple of small points, if I may Thuc.

I read the article carefully through and through: They claim no combustion, but where the heck do they get their steam from ???

Second, why on god's green earth would we, in Canada, want to go back to coal based technology for electricity production when we completely got out of that business altogether ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2016)

Jen Gerson, writing in the _*National Post*_, has it about right, I think: Thomas Mulcair is well rid of the "new" NDP and it is Rachel Notley who was rejected ... because she wants to lead a successful NDP government.

I _suspect_ that Altair might be right. Premier Notley might, like Premier Bob Rae, be a better Liberal than she is a _Dipper_.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Apr 2016)

Politics of convenience. Notley was NDP because Alberta Liberals/Liberals had no chance of winning. Bob Rae went federal Liberal because the federal NDP at the time had no chance to win. Jean Charest turned Liberal in Quebec because the Tories weren't even close to winning.

Anything for power seems to run a trend in the Liberal party?


----------



## Jed (11 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Politics of convenience. Notley was NDP because Alberta Liberals/Liberals had no chance of winning. Bob Rae went federal Liberal because the federal NDP at the time had no chance to win. Jean Charest turned Liberal in Quebec because the Tories weren't even close to winning.
> 
> Anything for power seems to run a trend in the Liberal party?


 :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Apr 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a couple of small points, if I may Thuc.
> 
> I read the article carefully through and through: They claim no combustion, but where the heck do they get their steam from ???
> 
> Second, why on god's green earth would we, in Canada, want to go back to coal based technology for electricity production when we completely got out of that business altogether ?



OGBD:

The coal is gasified to release Hydrogen.  The Hydrogen is then passed through the fuel cell to create electricity. Electricity is used to create steam.  Heat is a byproduct of  the entire process that can also be utilized to raise steam (or at least high value heat for space heating / district heating).

The overall efficiency of the plant then rises to 60% which is at the low end of capabilities for a Combined Heat and Power Plant (60 to 90% being the norms I believe) and almost twice as efficient as a diesel powered infernal combustion engine.

Coal is still plentiful and cheap and it is easier to manage one Chimney stack than it is to manage a million exhaust stacks (or a thousand windmills).

And that nice pure CO2 would do a great job of combining with H2O to make duckweed and tomatoes.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Apr 2016)

I have a feeling that even if you tripled the efficiency of coal, the climate lobby would still demand that you ban it. They have too much at stake in the electric car/wind turbine industry.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that even if you tripled the efficiency of coal, the climate lobby would still demand that you ban it. They have too much at stake in the electric car/wind turbine industry.



No argument here.  And the stake is financial - not philosophical.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Politics of convenience.


Did anyone else think of a former-Army General who, _rumour has it_,* first approached the Conservative Party and who now is relegated to the Liberal back bench until he proves his Liberal Party loyalty?   


* I've seen it published several times, but I fear distrust lawyers.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Politics of convenience. Notley was NDP because Alberta Liberals/Liberals had no chance of winning. Bob Rae went federal Liberal because the federal NDP at the time had no chance to win. Jean Charest turned Liberal in Quebec because the Tories weren't even close to winning.
> 
> Anything for power seems to run a trend in the Liberal party? *politics*



FTFY.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Apr 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Did anyone else think of a former-Army General who, _rumour has it_,* first approached the Conservative Party and who now is relegated to the Liberal back bench until he proves his Liberal Party loyalty?
> 
> 
> * I've seen it published several times, but I fear distrust lawyers.



It does seem strange that they made such a big deal out of Sajjan's experience when they had the FORMER ARMY COMMANDER in the party. All things being equal (and the need to meet ratios matters) there is no way that you can believe that being a reserve LCol (or reg force one- not ripping on reserves!) makes you more qualified to run the military than having commanded the entire army.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Apr 2016)

I for one am bloody grateful he didn't get the job.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Apr 2016)

You know:  I'm starting to sense a trend in the commentary.

No matter what the politics of the people from my province.  No matter what creed they espouse.  The rest of Canada is happy to relegate us to being Albertans.  Apparently Tom Mulcair and Naomi Klein were done in by us Albertans.

As a Scot the position is familiar.  I sense much of the sameness for the Quebecois.  And maybe the Maritimers.  And perhaps BC.

Vimy was the start of a national legend of unity.  It served for a decade or two and then was forgotten.  I suspect that its remembrance will do little to improve Canadian unity in the current environment. 

Cosmopolitans, Internationalists, Nationalists and Provincialists.  Cross hatch with protestant/catholic/jew/muslim/sikh and anarchist/marxist/communist/socialist/liberal/libertarian/conservative/power-hungry.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Apr 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> It does seem strange that they made such a big deal out of Sajjan's experience when they had the FORMER ARMY COMMANDER in the party. All things being equal (and the need to meet ratios matters) there is no way that you can believe that being a reserve LCol (or reg force one- not ripping on reserves!) makes you more qualified to run the military than having commanded the entire army.



Who is most likely to follow orders?


----------



## blacktriangle (11 Apr 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> It does seem strange that they made such a big deal out of Sajjan's experience when they had the FORMER ARMY COMMANDER in the party. All things being equal (and the need to meet ratios matters) there is no way that you can believe that being a reserve LCol (or reg force one- not ripping on reserves!) makes you more qualified to run the military than having commanded the entire army.



Part of me suspects that the Liberal "vision" for the military has more in common with a PRes unit than it does with the CA circa 2006-2010.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Who is most likely to follow orders?



True. But when you're defence policy states that you're going to implement the measures noted in the Transformation Report.... written by Andrew Leslie... when Andrew Leslie is in your party.... it goes reason that you may, possibly, think Andrew Leslie might be a solid choice to do so. 

The transformation plan would gut the logistics side of the army so it seems to go along with Liberal blue beret plans... hard to sustain combat with no logistics.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Apr 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> True. But when you're defence policy states that you're going to implement the measures noted in the Transformation Report.... written by Andrew Leslie... when Andrew Leslie is in your party.... it goes reason that you may, possibly, think Andrew Leslie might be a solid choice to do so.
> 
> The transformation plan would gut the logistics side of the army so it seems to go along with Liberal blue beret plans... hard to sustain combat with no logistics.



Gut the navy too.  I cannot emphasise enough how relieved I am that he has SFA to do with the department.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Who is most likely to follow orders?


Politics 101, right there.


			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> True. But when you're defence policy states that you're going to implement the measures noted in the Transformation Report.... written by Andrew Leslie... when Andrew Leslie is in your party.... it goes reason that you may, possibly, think Andrew Leslie might be a solid choice to do so.


Assuming, of course, that this part of the platform _remains_ a priority for the Team Red.  Hard to change horses (should they decide something else is more likely to get them re-elected important) when the horseman's chained to the outgoing horse.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Apr 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Politics 101, right there.Assuming, of course, that this part of the platform _remains_ a priority for the Team Red.  Hard to change horses (should they decide something else is more likely to get them re-elected important) when the horseman's chained to the outgoing horse.



To be honest, the ordinary Canadian doesn't legitimately care about strategy any deeper than platitudes about peace keeping. When I bring up that we used to have more people in Europe than we ever had peacekeeping at any given time most of my civilian friends are surprised, while some don't even know that we were in Europe.

I suspect that the "talk with canadians" about the future of the military is going to be a whole lot of "return to peacekeeping". once armed with this info, the Liberals will declare that they were right and the conservatives were wrong, trot out transformation, and we'll be spending the next 30 years fixing Trudeau Jrs version of the military.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Apr 2016)

There's a discussion forum on the policy page. Its literally like reading the CBC comments section, with a lot of ex-CAF members justifying they are ex-CAF members. Someone even suggested we shut the entire CAF down, and focus on SOF, Cyber, and Space, because we're only ever going to fight with drones or in space.  :facepalm:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's a discussion forum on the policy page. Its literally like reading the CBC comments section, with a lot of ex-CAF members justifying they are ex-CAF members. Someone even suggested we shut the entire CAF down, and focus on SOF, Cyber, and Space, because we're only ever going to fight with drones or in space.  :facepalm:



Yes... I wont dwell on the policy forums as there's a seperate thread, but the Liberals seem to have run on a policy and now are using forums to justify those policies. 

The average Canadian does not understand military matters (every time I hear a UAV called a drone I die a little inside). The average Canadian does not care about grand strategy.

It's like the cart leading the horse. The government should develop policy, run on it, engage in debates in the election cycle and then implement it if victorious. Asking people after the fact seems overtly political to the point of being cheesy. Ok Trudeau, you're not Harper... we all get it. You love camera's and publicity. Harper didn't.


----------



## Altair (12 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Politics of convenience. Notley was NDP because Alberta Liberals/Liberals had no chance of winning. Bob Rae went federal Liberal because the federal NDP at the time had no chance to win. Jean Charest turned Liberal in Quebec because the Tories weren't even close to winning.
> 
> Anything for power seems to run a trend in the Liberal party?


You are aware that premier rachel Notley father was the alberta NDP leader and MLA,  right?


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Apr 2016)

Outstanding Chronicle Herald cartoon today.   ;D

NDP Leap Manifesto


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2016)

Purely* tactical*, but ...

One thing the Conservatives need to *try* to do is to support the NDP in whatever ways are possible.

An NDP collapse back into _weak_ 3rd (even 4th if there is a resurgence in Quebec nationalism) party status can only help the Liberals. The "soft left" can switch Liberal <> NDP at the federal level but very little NDP support will bleed off to the CPC (unlike in some provinces where there is, still, some overlap (there was rather a lot in the '50s, '60s, and '70s)). A strong NDP keeps the left, which is, on the whole, bigger than the right in Canada, safely divided. Liberals need safety valves ... a viable NDP provides one, the CPC itself provides another.

This "lurch left" might be good for the CPC if it revitalizes the real NDP ... not the one too many Canadians might trust with the reigns of government (that would be the one Layton and Mulcair led) but, rather, one which expresses the real passions of the political left in Canada ... nationalize the banks, shut down the big corporations, eat the rich, that sort of thing.


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's a discussion forum on the policy page. Its literally like reading the CBC comments section, with a lot of ex-CAF members justifying they are ex-CAF members. Someone even suggested we shut the entire CAF down, and focus on SOF, Cyber, and Space, because we're only ever going to fight with drones or in space.  :facepalm:



Link to the forum ?


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Apr 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Link to the forum ?


http://www.defenceconsultations.ca/discussion-boards


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> http://www.defenceconsultations.ca/discussion-boards


Thanks! It's a hard life sleeping in on leave, but someone has to do it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Apr 2016)

This is pretty comical. Justin Trudeau asks a reporter to ask him about quantum computing, the reporter decides that's stupid and asks a real question about ISIL and Trudeau answers the self-staged question anyways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FZzhI3WyKA


----------



## Altair (19 Apr 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> This is pretty comical. Justin Trudeau asks a reporter to ask him about quantum computing, the reporter decides that's stupid and asks a real question about ISIL and Trudeau answers the self-staged question anyways.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FZzhI3WyKA


And as the master of the media, at home and abroad, the only part people will hear or see is the clip of him explaining quantum computing.

Win.


----------



## dimsum (19 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> And as the master of the media, at home and abroad, the only part people will hear or see is the clip of him explaining quantum computing.
> 
> Win.



Um...



> “So, to summarize, the PM went to a place and learned about a thing. During the speech that followed, he excitedly suggested he wanted to talk about the thing he just learned,” McCullough wrote in the post “The North Koreanification of Canadian political reporting.”



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/im-really-hoping-people-ask-me-how-quantum-computing-works-trudeaus-geek-lecture-not-off-the-cuff


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> And as the master of the media, at home and abroad, the only part people will hear or see is the clip of him explaining quantum computing.
> 
> Win.



How do you win when the game is rigged already? He's getting softballs every scrum, and missteps are ignored. His justice minister basically told ethical conduct to @#$# off and took money from people who are registered to lobby her, and the PM thought there was nothing wrong with it. The media let the story die after a few days. We'd have Op Eds for weeks if this was a Stephen Harper cabinet minister, deriding the loss of our free society and his corruption.


----------



## Altair (19 Apr 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Um...
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/im-really-hoping-people-ask-me-how-quantum-computing-works-trudeaus-geek-lecture-not-off-the-cuff


If you were to ask yourself honestly, how many people will hear about that part of the story?

1 in 10? If lucky?

Just like the "because it's 2015".

Totally pre planned, not spontaneous. Nobody cares about that.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2016)

Since too few people are going to read F.A Hayek's book "Prices and Production" (much less Frédéric Bastiat  Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne void pas), I'm going to repost an entertaining song which spells out the effects of the budget down the road: Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem

Enjoy, and don't say you weren't warned...


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Win.



For The Bachlor and Keeping up with the Kardashians fans yes.
For Canada, not so much.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> And as the master of the media, at home and abroad, the only part people will hear or see is the clip of him explaining quantum computing.
> 
> Win.



Having gone viral, I think your assessment is way off.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Apr 2016)

And then there was one:

 Brian Pallister's PCs win majority government in Manitoba.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Apr 2016)

When I saw our friendly PM on The National, I thought it managed to kill two birds with a stone: It made the PM look condescending and arrogant, while making Peter Mansbridge look like a little girl at a boy band's concert.

I would surmise that there are many many more people out there in Canada (at least a lot more than the Liberal may think there are) that have a good basic understanding of science in general and for whom the little speech learned by rote by the PM (remember, he was a drama teacher: he can learn and deliver his lines by rote without having a clue what he is saying) is of such limited and obvious contents that its equivalent to a formula one mechanic explaining that they will make the car faster by making the engine more powerful and increasing the air intake.

What I found more interesting in recent news, however, is the PBO's report that basically state that the Liberals exaggerated the alleged budget deficit and particularly that for the current year, the budget would have had a small surplus, funny enough exactly as the Conservatives said it would.


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2016)

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tasha-kheiriddin-in-the-2015-election-the-millennial-moment-arrived

The much ignored youth vote finally showed up on election day.

Perhaps going forward, they/we cannot just be written off because we don't vote.

And who knows, maybe the selfie voters will be courted by future leadership of all parties, not just the liberals.



> According to a study by Abacus Data, young Canadians — long assumed to be apathetic and uninvolved — were the driving force behind our country’s dramatic change of government in 2015.
> 
> Participation by young voters in the last election increased more than any other age group over the 2011 election: 67 per cent of voters aged 18-25 showed up at the polls, up from 55 per cent four years earlier. Breaking the numbers down further, 58 per cent of 18-20 year olds voted, as did 71 per cent of 21-23 year olds and 72 per cent of 24-25 year olds. And young voters’ preferences changed dramatically from one election to the next. In 2011, 36 per cent cast their ballots for the NDP, 24 per cent for the Conservatives and 17 per cent for the Liberals. But in 2015, those totals shifted: 45 per cent of young voters chose the Liberals, 25 per cent the NDP and 20 per cent the Conservatives.
> 
> ...


----------



## runormal (21 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tasha-kheiriddin-in-the-2015-election-the-millennial-moment-arrived
> 
> The much ignored youth vote finally showed up on election day.
> 
> ...



It'll be interesting to see what happens in the next election. Anyone who was 21 or older on election day, won't be included in these statistics for the next election.  Like wise the 18-20 % vote is the lowest of the three.

But I was floored by the amount of posts I saw shared on social media encouraging youth to vote. So :dunno:

Edit:

I've attached my favourite goodies from the election.

Justin Trudeau Smacks Down Every Excuse Not To Vote In Vice Town Hall

"Don't kid yourself. If a young person doesn't vote, you are still voting," he said. "You've actually given a double vote to someone who is voting and may disagree with you."
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/09/justin-trudeau-voting_n_8271752.html


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Apr 2016)

Let's see if they show up for the next election. Once they get their dope and free university, they'll go back to not caring until someone mobilizes "evil Tories" memes again.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Let's see if they show up for the next election. Once they get their dope and free university, they'll go back to not caring until someone mobilizes "evil Tories" memes again.



Let's see if they become disillusioned with the Party they voted for, or perhaps research the historical trends of that Party.


----------



## larry Strong (21 Apr 2016)

An interesting article by Andrew Coyne along the lines of George's post.


Shared as per the Copyright act...

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-a-liberal-government-styled-by-dorian-gray

*"A Liberal government styled by Dorian Gray"*



> Justin Trudeau is very much the face of this government, and why not? He is the Liberal franchise, and they know it. Other prime ministers might have preferred to ration their public appearances, for fear of overexposure. Not this one. He is everywhere, on every magazine cover, in every news cycle, opening this and announcing that, offering here a hug and there a Cook’s tour of quantum mechanics. Occasionally he even shows up in Parliament.
> 
> But while Trudeau, dimpled of smile and tousled of hair, seems the embodiment of eternal youth, his rapidly aging government is the portrait in the attic, on which all the lines and pockmarks of ethical decay are visited. The face on television may bespeak a commitment to idealism and honesty, transparency and fairness, but the government behind it has already amassed a record of cynicism, deception, secrecy and cronyism that for most governments would take years.
> 
> ...





Cheers
Larry


----------



## Remius (21 Apr 2016)

Looks like Mike Duffy has had some 20 charges dismissed so far. 

More to come but i think he's going to get off.


----------



## brihard (21 Apr 2016)

Curious to see how the afternoon goes. I feel like if they were going to blanket dismiss all charges they would have done so at the start with a sort of summary as to why, prior to getting to the specifics of each charge... I'm wondering if he isn't going to eat a few convictions out of the latter half?


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Apr 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Curious to see how the afternoon goes. I feel like if they were going to blanket dismiss all charges they would have done so at the start with a sort of summary as to why, prior to getting to the specifics of each charge... I'm wondering if he isn't going to eat a few convictions out of the latter half?



That seems to be the tone of the speculation in the local media. One commentator noted that the judge has accepted as legitimate Senate business certain activities such as attending partisan political events that were condemned by the Auditor General in a scathing report a year or two back.


----------



## Remius (21 Apr 2016)

I'm sure that Mr. Brazeau Mr. Harb and Ms. Wallin are watching very very closely the outcomes of this.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (21 Apr 2016)

Not a lawyer but doesn't a fraud conviction require mens rea, a guilty mind.  If he follows the advice of others or uses past practices in an office where rules barely exist, it is hard to prove guilt.  On his PEI residency, clarity was provided by the Prime Minister, not a petty bureaucrat.  As I have said many times in this case, residency is where you say it is.

A lot of stuff was silly, like a 14 day western tour where he supposedly committed fraud by visiting his daughter is lame.  I think the media failed us in not reporting what a flimsy case the prosecution presented.  When the judge verbalizes it, it becomes obvious.  Mind you the main stream media was busy trying to unseat a government at the time so they weren't ready to let truth get in the way.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Apr 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> ...so they weren't *aren't* ready to let truth get in the way.



FTFY


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Apr 2016)

I think he sub-text of the judge's decision so far is: "When, as politicians, it is your job to write the rules to which you wish to subject yourselves to and do a lousy job at it - with all the time in the world to do it right or correct it - don't come to the courts to then solve your political image problems arising from flimsy rules and your own lax application of them."


----------



## Rocky Mountains (21 Apr 2016)

I thought they might have had Duffy on the slush fund but - not guilty.  I suspect if the crown hadn't have done a 31 charge overkill, there might have been room to convict something there but I suspect the stench of malicious prosecution was getting a bit too overwhelming for the judge to handle.  Not guilty on all 31 charges.  Does Duffy get 2 years back bay for being suspended?  He should - with interest.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Apr 2016)

Not guilty on all charges at 1527 EDT.


----------



## Remius (21 Apr 2016)

Glad this shyte show is over.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Apr 2016)

I figured the bugger would skate.  Shameful.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Apr 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I figured the bugger would skate.  Shameful.


With how @#$%^&*'ed up the rules sound like they were, sadly, I'm not surprised.  I thought there might be a minor charge or two as a "technical fail", but not even that ...

That said, as some much smarter than me have said, just because something is legal and not against "the rules" doesn't mean it's right.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2016)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> An interesting article by Andrew Coyne along the lines of George's post.
> 
> 
> Shared as per the Copyright act...
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Apr 2016)

Just watch him try to sue for millions now.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tasha-kheiriddin-in-the-2015-election-the-millennial-moment-arrived
> 
> The much ignored youth vote finally showed up on election day.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't worry about this becoming a long term trend. By the next election the youth vote will be too stoned to make it to the polling station.  >


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Apr 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Glad this shyte show is over.



Don't forget Max Harb!


----------



## Rocky Mountains (21 Apr 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Don't forget Max Harb!



Max Harb sold his house retaining a fractional ownership and claimed expenses on it.  Looks bad.

They might want to look at dropping the charges against Brazeau and any minor charges against Harb.  Given the outcome of the Duffy trial things would look just a bit malicious.  The judge used a wonderful expression - "there was no oversight to avoid."


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2016)

Awesome outcome for the Duffy trial.  Many critics have had to flip the message 180 from "the self-serving greedy criminal underling Duffy, protected by the arch-fiend Harper" (a few months ago), to "the noble and honourable Senator Duffy, victim of ambiguous Senate policies and persecution by the arch-fiend Harper" (today).


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Apr 2016)

"Family Compact"

"Chateau Clique

Plus ca change...


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Apr 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Awesome outcome for the Duffy trial.  Many critics have had to flip the message 180 from "the self-serving greedy criminal underling Duffy, protected by the arch-fiend Harper" (a few months ago), to "the noble and honourable Senator Duffy, victim of ambiguous Senate policies and persecution by the arch-fiend Harper" (today).



He's still that in my eyes.  Just another self serving Hill life form that will back at the trough with a vengeance.


----------



## Altair (21 Apr 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I wouldn't worry about this becoming a long term trend. By the next election the youth vote will be too stoned to make it to the polling station.  >


I'm sure I saw a Simpsons episode to that effect.

That said, should another party try to overturn legalized weed, I trust that those voters will be back in force, stoned or not.


----------



## ballz (23 Apr 2016)

The judge seems to believe that Mike Duffy made genuine attempts to do the right thing, and was stopped by the PMO and more senior senators, even the Prime Minister himself. Personally, I'd like to see another trial, this time Mike Duffy would just be a witness... Is Nigel Wright charged with bribery yet? Not that I think he'd be convicted but I'd bet some interesting stuff would come to light.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Apr 2016)

Still waiting for the *five* Liberal senators under investigation to be charged and sent to trial....oh wait...


----------



## RedcapCrusader (23 Apr 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Still waiting for the *five* Liberal senators under investigation to be charged and sent to trial....oh wait...



That's my biggest issue with the RCMP involvement: it was all political. 

There's no backbone left in the service, the first thing out of the OIC or Commissioner's mouth should have been "No."

The RCMP fell to media pressure for the sake of political correctness and, instead of enforcing the law - Maintiens le droit "maintain the right"/"defending the law".

Theu should have then arrested and charged Nigel Wright, and every other MP, Senator with questionable expense claims regardless of political affiliation, regardless of who gave the order.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2016)

The investigations and inquiries and trial were never about political correctness or justice.  Each was always just a point from which to fling mud at Harper, particularly in the lead up to the federal election.  The senator best positioned to serve that purpose was Duffy.  If people were incensed about the Senate, or senators in general, more senate heads would have been demanded more strongly.  The biggest "tell" is the near-death of interest when the trial resumed with Harper no longer PM.  The only thing left to chew was the verdict, which was always fated to be spun to take parting shots at Harper regardless of conviction or acquittal.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (23 Apr 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The investigations and inquiries and trial were never about political correctness or justice.  Each was always just a point from which to fling mud at Harper, particularly in the lead up to the federal election.  The senator best positioned to serve that purpose was Duffy.  If people were incensed about the Senate, or senators in general, more senate heads would have been demanded more strongly.  The biggest "tell" is the near-death of interest when the trial resumed with Harper no longer PM.  The only thing left to chew was the verdict, which was always fated to be spun to take parting shots at Harper regardless of conviction or acquittal.



Which probably explains why Senator Mac Harb's trial, which was supposed to take place In August 2015 during the election run-up, mysteriously got postponed until later a later date after the election.  And with the recent Duffy verdict may never take place.


----------



## AgentSmith (25 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Let's see if they show up for the next election. Once they get their dope and free university, they'll go back to not caring until someone mobilizes "evil Tories" memes again.



I'm actually ok with how they've done so far. I fully admit I wish they would be smart and decriminalize weed first while they work on legalizing it. That's really my only gripe with them. This last election was the one that got me to care about politics and I think a lot of young people realize that their vote actually matters now. So I think we will see more people turning out to vote, especially if they keep up on their promise.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Apr 2016)

As I watch Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau work their way into their jobs and confront the realities of making decisions/compromises I am reminded of the old saw about the heartless youth and conservatism and the brainless elder being socialist.

If Rachel and Justin "grow up" while in office and find themselves becoming more "conservative", as seems to be happening, will they drag their cohort with them?

Already I see them adopting many of the policies and strategies they railed against when it was the Conservatives pursuing them.  Will those same strategies and policies become more popular just because of the presenters?


----------



## Altair (26 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> As I watch Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau work their way into their jobs and confront the realities of making decisions/compromises I am reminded of the old saw about the heartless youth and conservatism and the brainless elder being socialist.
> 
> If Rachel and Justin "grow up" while in office and find themselves becoming more "conservative", as seems to be happening, will they drag their cohort with them?
> 
> Already I see them adopting many of the policies and strategies they railed against when it was the Conservatives pursuing them.  Will those same strategies and policies become more popular just because of the presenters?


I really don't think Trudeau or Notley are becoming conservative in the least.

Notley has a price on carbon, emission limits on the oil sands, and did away with a flat tax.

Trudeau is moving to legalize weed, running deficits, has gender parity in cabinet, is pushing his climate chamge agenda, and is generally dismantling everything the conservatives have tried to achieve.

i think the term you were looking for was pragmatic.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Apr 2016)

And in their pragmatism they are making decisions on pipelines and climate that are indistinguishable from conservative positions.

Marijuana reform?  Bread and circuses.

Carbon tax/price? It don't matter to me.  Call it a carbon tax, as gas tax, a sales tax, a sin tax or an indulgence - it is just money into the coffers.  If the tax were offset by dropping some other tax, or even by adjusting expenditures to eliminate the deficit I would be fine with a "carbon tax".  I'll ask for a rebate for every pound of carbon I am sequestring around my waist just now and every ounce of  plant food I am exhaling and supplying free to the farmers and lumber companies.

For me, in watching them, the intriguing bit is how much political capital the might have with their supporters before their supporters start calling them on their pragmatism.  I suspect that Rachel might have a shorter leash than Justin as her supporters, ill informed as I consider them to be, tend to pay attention.  They are all about the substance. Justin's supporters don't pay attention.  They are all about the show.


----------



## Altair (26 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And in their pragmatism they are making decisions on pipelines and climate that are indistinguishable from conservative positions.
> 
> Marijuana reform?  Bread and circuses.
> 
> ...


Let's be clear here.

Premier Notley was always for pipelines. She only thought that it would be easier to sell pipelines if alberta could show it was serious about climate change. While that message may have fallen on deaf ears within her own party federally, it seems to resonate with the federal Liberal party.

Prime Minister Trudeau never said no to pipelines either. Relatively early in his mandate when mayor Corderre was running his mouth off about pipelines trudeau flew in and talked him down from that position.

At the end of the day, trudeau needs to pay for all of the programs he's putting in place. If he doesn't want to raise taxes then he needs to hope for a economic growth. That doesn't happen with alberta oil remaining stuck in the ground.

This really isn't anything new.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, trudeau needs to pay for all of the programs he's putting in place.
> 
> This really isn't anything new.


Actually, admitting that there _will_  be a bill to be paid IS new.

I guess the term you're looking for, but struggling to avoid is...... pragmatic.


----------



## Altair (26 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> i think the term you were looking for was pragmatic.





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Actually, admitting that there _will_  be a bill to be paid IS new.
> 
> I guess the term you're looking for, but struggling to avoid is...... pragmatic.


I suppose I'm a little too dumb to understand what is going on here.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Apr 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> That's my biggest issue with the RCMP involvement: it was all political.
> 
> There's no backbone left in the service, the first thing out of the OIC or Commissioner's mouth should have been "No."
> 
> ...



The Mounties went political in the 90's (that's a guess) when a Commissioner - I can't recall his name - was blatantly obvious in his political leanings.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Apr 2016)

I am not a fan of the Liberals in general and Justin Trudeau in particular.  Those that know me, or at least have seen some of my posts, will know that this is stating the obvious.  For the rest, that is just to set my credentials.

Margaret Wente prompted this submission with her article of April 15th "Reality Bites Trudeau".

I have been swivering over whether the Prime Minister is a dilletante or venial or naive or narcissistic because he has not demonstrated to my liking that he is competent or even grounded.

I am coming to the conclusion that, in the best possible light, he is naive.  He has led a sheltered life.  He has never had to worry about an income.  With that privileged upbringing he has had ample opportunity to absorb from his peers the prevailing orthodoxies of the day.  And he has never found a reason to question them.

One of the most pervasive dogmas of the day is the dogma of consensus.  It is particularly prevalent within the school system.  Consensus is the notion that with enough time and enough words then every one will come to a common understanding of The Truth.

Once The Truth has been discerned and accepted then decisions will make themselves, strife will fall away and the lion will lie down with the lamb.   There will be no need for adjudication.  There will be no people unhappy with the outcome.  There will be no bad guy.

Our Prime Minister fears being the bad guy.  He detests those that are accepting of the need for making decisions against the wishes of others.  He knows in his heart of hearts that there isn't a problem he can't talk his way out of.

And so he tells everybody exactly what they want to hear as he waits for them to solve his problems for him.  Consensus rules the day.

But government by consensus has been tried in the past.  The most notorious example was of the Polish-Lithuanian Sejm.  Between the years of 1573 and 1763 the governing principle of the parliament was consensus.  Effectively it handed every member of the parliament a veto.  As a result, during this period, according to Wiki 



> about 150 sejms were held, out of which about a third failed to pass any legislation


.

Poland disappeared and Lithuania was subsumed.  And nobody was happy - except their neighbours the Germans and the Russians.


----------



## Altair (30 Apr 2016)

Let's just wait and see what approach works better.

Being a leader doesn't always mean squashing dissent and ramming your agenda through. That just leads to push back, resentment and anger.

If all sides can get together and leave equally unhappy or equally happy with the prime minister acting as a mediator, that is a approach that is not to be discounted.

In terms of pipelines for example, I feel a lot more can be achieved if every province is on board as opposed to telling quebec to stick it. Especially when quebec is looking for a federal partner for Bombardier. 

Besides, let's face it. He has a majority, it's not like he can't pass legislation if certain forces don't want to negotiate or find common ground.

Also, he's been on the job a since November, what problem exactly has he not delivered to your satisfaction?


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Besides, let's face it. He has a majority, it's not like he can't pass legislation if certain forces don't want to negotiate or find common ground.



Which is exactly what Harper was demonized for, but its a viable tactic for Trudeau to use?


----------



## Altair (30 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Which is exactly what Harper was demonized for, but its a viable tactic for Trudeau to use?


If that's your go to, first step of getting something done,ya, he'll ya, it should be demonized.

If former PM Harper sat down with the premiers and tried to find common ground but was being stonewalled then that's different,  but how many time can you honestly remember that happening?

If PM Trudeau sits down with the premiers or premier or mayor ( all things he's done recently ) and there is no concensus to be had, then no, I won't demonize him for using his majority to make things happen.

Sometimes middle ground cannot be found, but to not even try to look for it is where I personally draw the line.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Apr 2016)

Leadership by consensus is called... following.


----------



## Altair (30 Apr 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Leadership by consensus is called... following.


I don't see getting everyone on the same page working together as following but to each their own.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Apr 2016)

With respect Altair,  and peculiarly enough I do actually respect your submissions even as we disagree, with respect I must point out that in practice consensus means the following:

Getting the leaders of the opposition and the Prime Minister to agree on a course of action
Getting 13 Premiers to agree with them
Getting 308 Members of parliament to agree with them
Getting an unknown number of MLAs to agree with them

And when the social licence concept of consensus is incorporated then you incorporate a large and indeterminate number of NGOs, 600 Aboriginal communities, similar order of magnitude of settler communities, thirty-five million Canadians, and if the past is any indicator, three hundred million Americans, a billion or so Chinese and virtually everybody else that wants to put an oar in.

Sooner or later somebody is going to be upset - either by the decision or by the decision not to decide.  It is inevitable.

In addition, meetings, while useful, are too often in the political world, mere opportunities for theater.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Sometimes middle ground cannot be found, but to not even try to look for it is where I personally draw the line.



Trudeau hasn't sought consensus or middle ground on some huge issues. He's already stated he wants to legalize pot, jumping over decriminalization without speaking to any mayors (some of whom have large inner city drug problems already). He's going to try to push electoral reform without referendum. He's set the fighter program back to square one without consulting the Canadian aviation industry that has a billion dollars in contracts thus far. He pulled CF-18s from the fight against ISIL despite 60% polling numbers indicating Canadians supported that mission.

Seems like a lot of stuff that didn't need a middle ground to get rammed through. He's formed the government, he has the right to push the legislation he wants. But to somehow try to spin his method of getting what he wants done as "fair", when the endstate is the same smacks of naivety. At the end of the day Trudeau and Harper both got/are going to get what they think is right, regardless of paying lip service to "public consultations".


----------



## Altair (30 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Trudeau hasn't sought consensus or middle ground on some huge issues. He's already stated he wants to legalize pot, jumping over decriminalization without speaking to any mayors (some of whom have large inner city drug problems already). He's going to try to push electoral reform without referendum. He's set the fighter program back to square one without consulting the Canadian aviation industry that has a billion dollars in contracts thus far. He pulled CF-18s from the fight against ISIL despite 60% polling numbers indicating Canadians supported that mission.
> 
> Seems like a lot of stuff that didn't need a middle ground to get rammed through. He's formed the government, he has the right to push the legislation he wants. But to somehow try to spin his method of getting what he wants done as "fair", when the endstate is the same smacks of naivety. At the end of the day Trudeau and Harper both got/are going to get what they think is right, regardless of paying lip service to "public consultations".


There is only so much flexibility one can have on election promises. He campaigned on the issues you mentioned,  hard to then open them up to consultation. But when you have premiers and mayors publicly feuding about a pipeline for example,then getting people on the same page is the best approach.

Also, what other issues are there that Trudeau is afraid to make people angry or is being a follower in some people's opinion? 





			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> With respect Altair,  and peculiarly enough I do actually respect your submissions even as we disagree, with respect I must point out that in practice consensus means the following:
> 
> Getting the leaders of the opposition and the Prime Minister to agree on a course of action
> Getting 13 Premiers to agree with them
> ...


It would help if I knew what specific issues we were discussing. 

Again, in terms of pipelines, why do the Americans factor into transmountain or energy east? Or the Chinese? 

13 Premiers are not needed, alberta would support any pipeline, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are on board, ontario and especially quebec are iffy, new Brunswick is on board. Two provinces to get on board total of 6 for energy east. Toss in native groups  and that's about it.

Transmountain alberta and BC. Toss in native groups.Easy. 

I don't see the massive issue with getting these groups to the table to find a deal that works for all of them


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Apr 2016)

Americans wish to stop the pipelines. (Tides Foundation et al)
Chinese wish to buy the gas, oil and coal.

With respect to the consensus - Yes, some of the 13 premiers are on board.  The rest have to be brought on board.

I find that I cannot share your optimism when you suggest that it will be easy to resolve the Transmountain issue with the natives at the table as well.  In fact I find it hard to believe that you will find consensus in the lower mainland for any pipelines.

With respect to the issue - that is largely immaterial - as if consensus is the governing principle then all issues are subject to resolution by consensus.  

I guess that would mean selecting the Prime Minister by consensus as well, wouldn't it?

Or perhaps some opinions are more worthy than others.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 May 2016)

Getting provinces onboard is easy.  Whichever direction a pipeline takes, there are only a few.  (And note that none of the territories are involved in either eastern, western, or southern routes.)  So the list of demands isn't difficult to enumerate.  Getting aboriginals on board is the hard part, because there are many more and there is a lot of nation-to-nation dick-waving involved.

>Being a leader doesn't always mean squashing dissent and ramming your agenda through.

It pretty much does, though.  If agreement already exists among the followers, no real leadership is needed - a child could lead the way.  If not, then some of the followers will have to be told to STFU and get in line or get out.  Why do you think the military (and some companies, and some other organizations) place so much stress on the importance of "once the decision is made, get behind it"?  It's to mitigate the need for overt dissent-squashing and agenda-ramming - if everyone pretends to be unswervingly loyal, everyone can pretend the leader isn't being a hard-ass.


----------



## Altair (1 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Americans wish to stop the pipelines. (Tides Foundation et al)
> Chinese wish to buy the gas, oil and coal.
> 
> With respect to the consensus - Yes, some of the 13 premiers are on board.  The rest have to be brought on board.
> ...


Americans,  sure. Can't do anything about Canadian pipelines though. Don't need a seat at the table.

Chinese buy stuff. Cool. Don't need to be at the table.

Again max of 6 premiers for one pipeline, 2 for the other. Which is really just pm trudeau being nice because pipelines are a federal jurisdiction. 

BC and alberta already have mutual interests, BC needs to sell its surplus electricity and alberta is phasing out coal power plants. Alberta needs a pipeline through BC to western ports. I trust grown adults can figure out a way that everyone is happy.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 May 2016)

I agree the Prime Minister has the authority to act in the absence of consensus.

I don't think the current Prime Minister is as prepared to be reviled as the previous Prime Minister was as a result of making decisions.

It happens to everybody.


----------



## Altair (1 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I agree the Prime Minister has the authority to act in the absence of consensus.
> 
> I don't think the current Prime Minister is as prepared to be reviled as the previous Prime Minister was as a result of making decisions.
> 
> It happens to everybody.


I simply don't think he's going to be reviled.

Every province has a price. Quebec is the biggest holdup in this whole process. Quebec need money for a bombardier bail out. If quebec doesn't play ball I see energy east passing with pm trudeau saying he tried his best to get everyone on board but some parties were being unreasonable. 

Again, this is a single issue. As puckchaser was so kind to point out, trudeau hasn't been ruling by concensus by in large.

Quote from puckchaser



> Trudeau hasn't sought consensus or middle ground on some huge issues. He's already stated he wants to legalize pot, jumping over decriminalization without speaking to any mayors (some of whom have large inner city drug problems already). He's going to try to push electoral reform without referendum. He's set the fighter program back to square one without consulting the Canadian aviation industry that has a billion dollars in contracts thus far. He pulled CF-18s from the fight against ISIL despite 60% polling numbers indicating Canadians supported that mission.


----------



## George Wallace (1 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I simply don't think he's going to be reviled.



You should broaden the circles in which you circulate.   [


----------



## George Wallace (1 May 2016)

From The Sun chain of newspapers:



NEWS CANADA:
New book on Trudeau's immigration policies

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> New book on Trudeau's immigration policies
> A look at Candice Malcolm's Losing True North
> POSTMEDIA NETWORK
> FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 2016 06:03 PM EDT | UPDATED: SUNDAY, MAY 01, 2016 09:06 AM EDT
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## Altair (1 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You should broaden the circles in which you circulate.   [


I don't think he's going to be reviled by people who don't already revile him for having good looks, his selfies,  having a wealthy father, and winning the election.

Some environmentalists sure, but they might already go NDP with their leap nonsense.


----------



## George Wallace (1 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't think he's going to be reviled by people who don't already revile him for having good looks, his selfies,  having a wealthy father, and winning the election.



I think that there are a large number of people who revile him for more concrete reasons than what you just imagined.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> From The Sun chain of newspapers:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's the same thing Blair and Brown did in the UK when they were PM, letting all and sundry into the country with freebies galore with the hopes and expectations of the thank you votes to follow.   All on the backs of the taxpayers.  No wonder the UK is the mess it is today.  We'll follow suit if we're not careful.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think that there are a large number of people who revile him for more concrete reasons than what you just imagined.



Agreed.

One problem that many people have is that they assume their opponents' concerns are not valid.  It can be quite comforting to assume that the opposition is irrelevant.


----------



## jmt18325 (1 May 2016)

Inner city drug problems are part of the reason for legalization.  It's better to regulate something than the make it quasi okay.  

Harper didn't put his proposed Senate changes to a referendum.  Trudeau campaign and won on several key issues.  To expect him to not deliver on those is to expect science fiction.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> One problem that many people have is that they assume their opponents' concerns are not valid.  It can be quite comforting to assume that the opposition is irrelevant.



I voted conservative, but lets be real. The conservatives were the same in power and actively tried to destroy the Liberal party. That the Liberals would be the same shouldn't be shocking. The liberals can afford to cater to their voters who, surprisingly, want the things they voted for. They can also afford to cater to basically anyone not-conservative since the conservatives are the only real alternative for federal leadership. 

And what's wrong with consulting on an issue like pipelines that clearly affect provinces they run through? The federal government should act as the "higher HQ" for inter-provincial issues. I think that the defence discussion with the public is basically a publicity grab, but the pipelines (and healthcare, federal transfers, inter-provincial trade, etc) are certainly fair ball.

At the end of the days, Conservatives lost, so if the Liberals want to think that their views are irrelevant, than they are in fact irrelevant (since nothing will come of them). Until the conservatives can find leadership who doesn't have the likeability of a prostate exam and stop running on policies that just get shot down by the supreme court (tough one crime) and reflect the changing society than their opinions will continue to be irrelevant.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Inner city drug problems are part of the reason for legalization.  It's better to regulate something than the make it quasi okay.
> 
> Harper didn't put his proposed Senate changes to a referendum.  Trudeau campaign and won on several key issues.  To expect him to not deliver on those is to expect science fiction.



You missed the point. I brought those examples up of not seeking consensus or differing opinions. Trudeau wanted legalized pot, so he's going to do it without consulting anyone but his cabinet. Harper also stopped trying to reform the Senate because he knew he wouldn't get a consensus from the provinces which is required by the Constitution.

Trudeau campaigned and won 40% of the popular vote. 2 years ago the left decried Stephen Harper for not having a popular vote majority and therefore did not have the right to change the moral compass of the nation. Apparently the opposite is not true for Justin Trudeau. He clearly has 40% and gets carte blanche to change our moral compass to pot-smoking, minimum income entitled snobs who hate fossil fuels.


----------



## Jed (1 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I voted conservative, but lets be real. The conservatives were the same in power and actively tried to destroy the Liberal party. That the Liberals would be the same shouldn't be shocking. The liberals can afford to cater to their voters who, surprisingly, want the things they voted for. They can also afford to cater to basically anyone not-conservative since the conservatives are the only real alternative for federal leadership.
> 
> And what's wrong with consulting on an issue like pipelines that clearly affect provinces they run through? The federal government should act as the "higher HQ" for inter-provincial issues. I think that the defence discussion with the public is basically a publicity grab, but the pipelines (and healthcare, federal transfers, inter-provincial trade, etc) are certainly fair ball.
> 
> At the end of the days, Conservatives lost, so if the Liberals want to think that their views are irrelevant, than they are in fact irrelevant (since nothing will come of them). Until the conservatives can find leadership who doesn't have the likeability of a prostate exam and stop running on policies that just get shot down by the supreme court (tough one crime) and reflect the changing society than their opinions will continue to be irrelevant.



That's all well and good. After Trudeau Sr policies were put in motion and then maintained by Chretein et al, the western provinces of SK and AB took a major economic kicking, made worse by leftist thinking provincial governments.  Liberals are a rare breed in these provinces and will become an even rarer breed unless things turn around. 

With Trudeau Jr emulating Obama up here, I expect that our country will begin to see the divisiveness that is very evident in the US right now.  A sure way to put a country in economic and morale decline.

Now more than ever we need our political leaders to show true, sustained leadership.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 May 2016)

I suppose roughly 40-50% of Canadians more or less revile Trudeau from the get-go, since 60% chose a non-Liberal candidate and most of the NDP supporters I know don't hold an opinion of Liberals much above the one they hold of Conservatives.

>Trudeau campaign and won on several key issues.  To expect him to not deliver on those is to expect science fiction.

Politicians fail to deliver on what they campaigned on, and manage to deliver on what they didn't campaign on, all the time.  The expectation is reasonable, not science fiction.  The Liberals will deliver what they choose to deliver and believe they can deliver without doing themselves a political mischief.


----------



## Altair (1 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You missed the point. I brought those examples up of not seeking consensus or differing opinions. Trudeau wanted legalized pot, so he's going to do it without consulting anyone but his cabinet. Harper also stopped trying to reform the Senate because he knew he wouldn't get a consensus from the provinces which is required by the Constitution.
> 
> Trudeau campaigned and won 40% of the popular vote. 2 years ago the left decried Stephen Harper for not having a popular vote majority and therefore did not have the right to change the moral compass of the nation. Apparently the opposite is not true for Justin Trudeau. He clearly has 40% and gets carte blanche to change our moral compass to pot-smoking, minimum income entitled snobs who hate fossil fuels.


Yeah, well,  those leftists were very very stupid or very very ignorant on how our electoral system works.

To base a argument on the stupid and ignorant isn't the best way to go in my honest opinion. 

What is the point of making a election promise if it isn't kept?

He said he would legalize weed. People voted for him because they want legalized weed. And now he's suppose to what, consult everyone and their mother before doing so? 

He said what his plan was, he told everyone what he would do if elected and now he's doing it. Same as the Conservatives or ndp would have done. 

Again, to those on the left who said that stephen harper wasn't legitimate because he only got 40 percent if the vote? Hypocritical, ignorant or idiots or perhaps all 3. Same as the CPC supporters who are saying that now.


----------



## Altair (1 May 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I suppose roughly 40-50% of Canadians more or less revile Trudeau from the get-go, since 60% chose a non-Liberal candidate and most of the NDP supporters I know don't hold an opinion of Liberals much above the one they hold of Conservatives.
> 
> >Trudeau campaign and won on several key issues.  To expect him to not deliver on those is to expect science fiction.
> 
> Politicians fail to deliver on what they campaigned on, and manage to deliver on what they didn't campaign on, all the time.  The expectation is reasonable, not science fiction.  The Liberals will deliver what they choose to deliver and believe they can deliver without doing themselves a political mischief.


The cynicism in politics is very evident when a politician is being criticized for doing exactly what they promised they would do if elected.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> What is the point of making a election promise if it isn't kept?
> 
> He said he would legalize weed. People voted for him because they want legalized weed. And now he's suppose to what, consult everyone and their mother before doing so?



We're not talking about keeping election promises. You said he would govern on consensus and work with people. I've provided big references where he hasn't. Fulfilling a campaign promise that 40% of Canadians may or may not have voted for (I didn't agree with all of the Tory campaign but they got my vote anyways) isn't a consensus.

You guys keep changing the topic and going onto tangents. Trudeau uses consensus whenever it suits him politically, not as his primary means of getting stuff done. If it was his primary means, he'd have public consultations on legalized marijuana, instead of imposing his view.


----------



## Altair (2 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We're not talking about keeping election promises. You said he would govern on consensus and work with people. I've provided big references where he hasn't. Fulfilling a campaign promise that 40% of Canadians may or may not have voted for (I didn't agree with all of the Tory campaign but they got my vote anyways) isn't a consensus.
> 
> You guys keep changing the topic and going onto tangents. Trudeau uses consensus whenever it suits him politically, not as his primary means of getting stuff done. If it was his primary means, he'd have public consultations on legalized marijuana, instead of imposing his view.


Everything you mentioned that he wasn't doing by concensus he promised during the election campaign.  

What is a potential leader to do,"I won't do an thing I promise to do during this election campaign without full concensus from everyone involved unless I get 50 percent plus 1 of the popular vote!"

I laugh because prime minister trudeau is using concensus on some issues, pushing through his agenda and election promises on others. He's getting flak for both. 

Cherry on top is that the former prime minister would only use one method and I don't remember you complaining about that then.


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I laugh because prime minister trudeau is using concensus on some issues....


Even then, he's so blatantly situating the estimate -- the Defence Policy Review as the most obvious example [acknowledging that's a whole separate thread].

Notwithstanding, the "comment guidance" skewing discussion towards 'OK kids, is it going to be peacekeeping or completely disband the military,' if he was remotely serious and/or being advised by less-politicized people, there's a clear requirement for:
- a security policy to first determine what threats and risks (yes, they're different things) Canada is facing and broadly how to address those; then
- a foreign policy review to determine where those problems can be addressed by diplomacy and development; only _then_
- a defence review, aimed ruthlessly at filling the remaining security gaps, NOT how can we get more money to Bombarier, _et al_. 

But the government isn't looking for a legitimate defence review, merely a shallow way to say "consensus" while slashing Defence.


Disclosure: I don't personally care about his hair, or selfies, who is paying for his nanny (or his kids' nanny either), or even whether people buy their pot from dubious people or their normal non-government sources.  Our country's security is pretty important to me, and thus far he's proven to be the dilettante others have claimed him to be.


----------



## dapaterson (2 May 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But the government isn't looking for a legitimate defence review, merely a shallow way to say "consensus" while slashing Defence.
> 
> 
> Disclosure: I don't personally care about his hair, or selfies, who is paying for his nanny (or his kids' nanny either), or even whether people buy their pot from dubious people or their normal non-government sources.  Our country's security is pretty important to me, and thus far he's proven to be the dilettante others have claimed him to be.



But is he more or less of a dilettante than his predecessor, who was equally disinterested in Defence, and who committed to multi-year, multi-billion dollar reductions to Defence?


----------



## Journeyman (2 May 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But is he more or less of a dilettante than his predecessor, who was equally disinterested in Defence, and who committed to multi-year, multi-billion dollar reductions to Defence?


But at least he was honest less dishonest about it.  He announced that his intent was to balance the budget; our current PM has announced that 'I campaigned on deficit spending, but I lied massively about just how indebted I intend to drive Canada.'  Now, in an attempt to claim "consensus" on gutting Defence, he has Minister Sajjan hawking this flawed Policy "Review."


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2016)

Just one comment:

There is the Prime Minister.  There is the Liberal Party.

I believe that the Prime Minister strives for consensus.  He doesn't want to upset people.  

The Liberal Party has no such compunctions. They have a demonstrated history of pragmatism.

The Prime Minister lives with the Liberal Party and Gerald Butts.  He does not live with Albertans.  

When push comes to shove and he has to decide who he is going to disappoint who is he most likely to side with?

The bigger issue may be how long can he keep faith with himself and his beliefs as the number of people he disappoints piles up.

I am willing to accept that the Prime Minister is a well-meaning individual who honestly believes that he can achieve his goals because they are so self-evidently obvious that nobody could reasonably oppose them.  I just don't happen to share his optimism or many of his views.


----------



## Altair (2 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Just one comment:
> 
> There is the Prime Minister.  There is the Liberal Party.
> 
> ...


If the prime minister wants to help pay for everything the liberal party and it's supporters want he needs economic growth. Or to raise taxes. The latter is politically risky. 

If economic growth is the way to go, kneecapping alberta isn't the way to go about it.

There were a couple of articles in the last week or two about how he's been talking about how to quickly get pipelines approved.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-trudeau-convinced-that-pipeline-strategy-must-be-top-priority



> Justin Trudeau has told his senior lieutenants to draw up plans to make the Energy East pipeline and the Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia a reality.
> 
> The prime minister has been convinced by his finance minister, Bill Morneau, and other influential voices around the cabinet table that the pipelines have to be built to achieve the ambitious economic growth targets his government has set.
> 
> ...


#leadership. 

Ya, really disappointing words for alberta right there. Let's not forget that energy east is incredibly popular in the maritimes as well, and the Prime minister may have swept all of that regions seats recently.

The man went to new York and praised pipelines to college students. How pipelines are good for the environment. 

I really doubt his plan is to stick it to alberta, especially when he needs alberta economy to rebound, his base in the maritimes wants EE to happen and that Notley needs a pipeline to happen or the next premier of alberta is certain to be a carbon tax/price destroyer pollution be damned Wildrose or PC member. Top it off with the recent political separation between the federal and alberta provincial NDP and the alberta  NDP being closer to the center where the federal liberals are and I really really doubt that Justin trudeau wants to stick it to alberta.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2016)

Can we just tone down the vocabulary a bit?

I never suggested he wanted to "stick it" to Alberta.  Although in the past he has voiced an affinity for Quebec that he apparently does not have with Alberta.  To be expected as that is where he grew up and lives.

As I take your point at face value, if he ends up achieving pipelines, for which I will applaud him and his party, then I am sure that there are many others who voted for him in 2015 who will be, at least, scratching their heads.

To decide is to make enemies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 May 2016)

This thread has become a very good one, with polite discourse and all around respect for other's opinions. We don't need to backslide with comments like:

"the next premier of alberta is certain to be a carbon tax/price destroyer pollution be damned Wildrose or PC member." 

Let's stop it right here and carry on properly.

---Staff---


----------



## Altair (2 May 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This thread has become a very good one, with polite discourse and all around respect for other's opinions. We don't need to backslide with comments like:
> 
> "the next premier of alberta is certain to be a carbon tax/price destroyer pollution be damned Wildrose or PC member."
> 
> ...


fair enough. My words were harsh and confrontational.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/wildrose-leader-vows-to-kill-the-ndp-3-billion-carbon-tax-if-elected



> “I can’t tell you that the Wildrose wouldn’t bring in a carbon tax in the future, but I can tell you this particular carbon tax would be eliminated because it is not a true carbon tax,” Jean said in a year-end interview. “It is just a back-door PST.
> 
> “Would it be difficult to eliminate? It might take some time to do so.”
> 
> ...


His words not mine.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 May 2016)

Tax increases tend to militate against economic growth.

I suppose that most western countries are enduring one of those periods during which "bad luck" has caught up - innovation and enterprise are losing ground to regulation creep.  Many governments are reduced to hoping that there is some magic button that will fix low growth.  I doubt one exists.  Meanwhile, they (governments) slowly strangle themselves in the belief that more decision-making power concentrated in their hands and more requirements imposed upon others will move the masses to prosperity (underpants gnome economics).

1. More government.
2. ???
3. Prosperity!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 May 2016)

Regulation creep is a function of a democracy, politicians are always looking for a way to one up their opponents and proposing new laws and regs to “fix something” is often the way they do it. Also Canadians are very much a “Someone needs to do something” (as in government) or “There should be a law against that” Followed by “I don’t know why I should comply with these laws, they were written for the other guy”
I have stopped blaming the politicians, really it’s the voters who are the problem. One good thing the CPC did is impose a 1 regulation in, 1 regulation out rule that helps limit regulation growth, has not been removed yet.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2016)

Colin, I have to disagree with you a little. Regulation creep is not a function of democracy, rather it is the antithesis of democracy. To my mind, regulation creep is where administrative bodies bring in ever more regulations and guidelines that have not been passed by the legislative organ of the state (ie: the EPA in the US). The result being that unelected bureaucrats ultimately decide what the people can and can not do (or say).

As to the rest of your observations... those I agree with.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 May 2016)

It may not have been the “intended result”, but it is the real result and a function of dealing with humans, emotions and immediate interests for the moment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 May 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> It may not have been the “intended result”, but it is the real result and a function of dealing with humans, emotions and immediate interests for the moment.


Some of that is also fed by the equation:  People see problem + ask government for solution = government acting =/= problem being solved

Meanwhile, as much as I'd like to cut some slack to the new-ish guy, I'll take "Better uses of the PM's time" for $400 ...


> Itinerary for the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, for Thursday, May 5, 2016:
> 
> Ottawa
> 
> ...


???


----------



## Journeyman (6 May 2016)

Parliament to debate  gender-neutral national anthem .



> ..... his private members' bill, which would amend a line in O Canada from "in all thy sons command" to "in all of us command."
> 
> *"By the way, Mr. Speaker, it is 2016" *.....


 
               :facepalm:

There's _always_ a silver lining; while it's costing taxpayers $$ to have these ass-clowns (of all Parties) diddling with bread and circuses, they're not screwing up the country with any significant legislation.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 May 2016)

Don't worry, the media is already demonizing the Conservatives for forcing the bill to have only one hour of debate and delayed it to the fall, while the Liberals got a free ride for limiting debate on assisted suicide. Good to see what's more important in society.


----------



## Altair (9 May 2016)

Seems the some of the CPC membership  might be taking a shot at the previous prime minister



> At the 2013 party confab in Calgary, it would have been difficult to find a card-carrying Conservatives publicly willing to back a proposal to put Stephen Harper’s leadership to a confidence vote, let alone suggest that his tenure should have a built-in expiration date.
> 
> But that’s exactly what delegates may find themselves discussing when they converge on Vancouver later this month for the first national convention since Harper and his government went down to defeat in the last federal election, according to a draft list of constitutional resolutions obtained by the Ottawa Citizen.
> 
> ...


----------



## RedcapCrusader (9 May 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Parliament to debate  gender-neutral national anthem .
> 
> :facepalm:
> 
> There's _always_ a silver lining; while it's costing taxpayers $$ to have these ass-clowns (of all Parties) diddling with bread and circuses, they're not screwing up the country with any significant legislation.



If you're going to try to change the anthem, at least be grammatically correct....  :-X :boke:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 May 2016)

The Civilian version of "Button and Bows"


----------



## PuckChaser (10 May 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Civilian version of "Button and Bows"


Bread and circuses. Or Pot and Anthems.


----------



## George Wallace (12 May 2016)

OK?   ???  WTF workload?  She has two nannies on the Public dole to take care of her kids.  She does not fill any Public office.  Any outside activities she partakes in is supposedly "Voluntary".  So?  WTF is she asking for?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> PMO looking at ways to ease Sophie Grégoire Trudeau’s workload
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> Published Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:26PM EDT
> ...



LINK


----------



## George Wallace (12 May 2016)

Got to love the internet and instant response:

Memes are already appearing......








Seriously.  Two nannies to take care of her kids.  She fills no Public Office.  Any activities she takes part in, outside accompanying her husband occasionally at State functions, are voluntary.   Sounds like she is an airhead unable to manage her own time.  Why should the nation fund another "assistant" to manage her time?  This begs the question, if the next request that will show up on the horizon in the future, will be for a "Dresser"?  Does the phrase: "Let them eat cake!" come to mind?


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK?   ???  WTF workload?  She has two nannies on the Public dole to take care of her kids.  She does not fill any Public office.  Any outside activities she partakes in is supposedly "Voluntary".  So?  WTF is she asking for?


*IF* she truly has only one person taking care of scheduling, travel and logistics for a growing load of solo invitations to events across Canada, give her the same number of staffers as Laureen Harper had.  Anybody know how many that was?

Otherwise, she should explain herself more clearly (and maybe Team Red should chip in if it's not for government business, as has been done for some Team Blue services in the past).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 May 2016)

It's not necessarily that black and white, Milnews.

They could ask to look at Mila Mulroney instead: She had more staff than anyone before her or since, but again, Mila was young, good looking and publicly engaged with her husband in ways that exceeded the engagement or public profile of Laureen harper. 

And, this is not truly "political", in the sense that these (God, I am cringing as these words come out of my ... computer) "First Canadian Ladies" are invited to all these good will charity events because they are the spouse of the Prime Minister, not the leader of a given party. And they have to act towards these organizations in a neutral and non political fashion. 

It's a difficult balance, but they would not have that work load were they not spouse of the PM, and to that extent that makes it work on behalf of the country.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's not necessarily that black and white, Milnews.
> 
> They could ask to look at Mila Mulroney instead: She had more staff than anyone before her or since, but again, Mila was young, good looking and publicly engaged with her husband in ways that exceeded the engagement or public profile of Laureen harper.


Maybe that IS a better comparison - good point.


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And, this is not truly "political", in the sense that these (God, I am cringing as these words come out of my ... computer) "First Canadian Ladies" are invited to all these good will charity events because they are the spouse of the Prime Minister, not the leader of a given party. And they have to act towards these organizations in a neutral and non political fashion.


Very true - "party political" function =/= "state" function or invite.  I was only offering the party-based solution as one that's been used to deal with "at the very edge of the line" stuff in the past.

P.S. - Also moving this into the Politics thread -- even though it is a WTF? kind of story -- given the "politics" (or not) of the position.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I was only offering the party-based solution as one that's been used to deal with "at the very edge of the line" stuff in the past.



Well, she is not a Senator, is she?  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, she is not a Senator, is she?  ;D


Yet ...  >


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 May 2016)

There are a number of pending issues that are going to test the promises made by the Liberals during the election and it is likely they are going to be seen by people that believed the Liberals will be different as failing those tests. I suspect this is going to bleed support from the Liberals come the next election. If the Conservatives don't make a hash of their next "rebirth" and bring in a Conservative message somewhere between Harper and Mulroney then they stand a good chance of winning.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 May 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> There are a number of pending issues that are going to test the promises made by the Liberals during the election and it is likely they are going to be seen by people that believed the Liberals will be different as failing those tests. I suspect this is going to bleed support from the Liberals come the next election. If the Conservatives don't make a hash of their next "rebirth" and bring in a Conservative message somewhere between Harper and Mulroney then they stand a good chance of winning.



Unless, of course, the Liberals change the system to stack it in their favour. It would not be beyond their arrogance. After all, they just decided that it is democratic to take away the right to vote of members of parliament participating in a parliamentary committee just because they are not part of a "recognized" party under the rules of the Parliament (they are from an official party recognized by the Chief Electoral Officer under the Elections Act). 

The Liberals won't stand for having different classes of citizens where terrorism is concerned, but its OK to have two different classes of Members of Parliament: voting and non-voting ones.


----------



## George Wallace (12 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Oldgateboatdriver said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well.  Following recent trends set South of the border; perhaps she will come back as a "Leader" of the Liberal Party in her move to become PM.   [


----------



## Remius (12 May 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> There are a number of pending issues that are going to test the promises made by the Liberals during the election and it is likely they are going to be seen by people that believed the Liberals will be different as failing those tests. I suspect this is going to bleed support from the Liberals come the next election. If the Conservatives don't make a hash of their next "rebirth" and bring in a Conservative message somewhere between Harper and Mulroney then they stand a good chance of winning.



A little early for making that kind of prediction.  I'd wait until they actually have a leader before making any predictions.  The one thing that Mr. Trudeau and his party have managed to do and do well is change the tone.  And I suspect that that is what most people wanted.  If the Liberals can maintain that tone, regardless of their performance, I doubt they will bleed that much as a result.  Likely they will be forgiven the failure to achieve some promises.  If they legalise marijuana and get the right to die legislation through and a few big ticket items then the rest won't really matter as long as it looks like they got some of it done..  

The problem the CPC is having or will have is their legitimacy in crying foul over things they themselves did.  Time allocation, lack of consultation etc etc.  The hypocrisy of their critisism is not going unoticed (look at the whole LAV/Saudi Arabia thing).  The Liberals might also suffer with their own hypocrisy as they are doing the same thing they railed against.   

What will matter is if the people who voted Liberal actually care or not.  They might just be happy to see the CPC get what they feel is their just desserts.

Personally I'm starting to see issues with things like time allocation and comitee work that I'm not liking.  I didn't like it when the CPC abused it and I don't like the LPC doing the same.  But I'm one of only a small percentage of Canadians that care about that.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> ... The one thing that Mr. Trudeau and his party have managed to do and do well is change the tone.  ....



You mean the press has changed the tone don't you?


----------



## Remius (12 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> You mean the press has changed the tone don't you?



I'm not so jaded as to think that the press sets the tone for everything.  Even conservative pundits acknowledge the change in tone from this government.

But you do bring up a good point in that by being more media friendly the LPC has managed to turn the media into their own PR machine.  Something the CPC refused to do to their detriment.  However you'll notice the CPC has been much more media friendly and are trying to adopt a new tone as well.  It is refreshing to see some of the talent in that party finally sound less like automotons and more like real people.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> ... you'll notice the CPC has been much more media friendly and are trying to adopt a new tone as well.  It is refreshing to see some of the talent in that party finally sound less like automotons and more like real people.


And that'll continue until they get back into power - and I'd bet a loony this'll happen with PMJT, too, as he eventually will have to govern, leading to less-than-100%-satisfaction-rating solutions.


----------



## Jed (12 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm not so jaded as to think that the press sets the tone for everything.  Even conservative pundits acknowledge the change in tone from this government.
> 
> But you do bring up a good point in that by being more media friendly the LPC has managed to turn the media into their own PR machine.  Something the CPC refused to do to their detriment.  However you'll notice the CPC has been much more media friendly and are trying to adopt a new tone as well.  It is refreshing to see some of the talent in that party finally sound less like automotons and more like real people.



'The medium is the message'    I think it is not a case of being 'so jaded' but more of a case of 'not quite ready to acknowledge the reality of the situation'.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 May 2016)

I would point out that the media had adopted the Liberal Party trope on Stephen Harper, that he was scary, while Paul Martin was still Prime Minister, back in 2004.  There seems to me to have been little reason for him to trust the same media to get his opinions out to the public.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I would point out that the media had adopted the Liberal Party trope on Stephen Harper, that he was scary, while Paul Martin was still Prime Minister, back in 2004.  There seems to me to have been little reason for him to trust the same media to get his opinions out to the public.


Which is why the party has to move beyond being seen as "Harper's Party" - it's still pretty early days when it comes to rebuilding the party, so we'll see how well they do.


----------



## George Wallace (12 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Which is why the party has to move beyond being seen as "Harper's Party" - it's still pretty early days when it comes to rebuilding the party, so we'll see how well they do.



Likely an indication of why he is keeping such a low profile in 'Ottawa circles'.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Which is why the party has to move beyond being seen as "Harper's Party" - it's still pretty early days when it comes to rebuilding the party, so we'll see how well they do.


Agreed to the extent that the party needs to present itself in a different light. In the same way that the Liberals had to shake off the images of Paul Martin (Mr. Dithers), Stephane Dion (feckless) and Michael Ignatieff (Just Visiting).

In my particular case I don't think that Mr. Harper has anything to apologize for, nor does the party.  But they do need a different image.  My concern is that the media and institutional Canada are overly comfortable with the Liberal Party in power.


----------



## krimynal (12 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Agreed to the extent that the party needs to present itself in a different light. In the same way that the Liberals had to shake off the images of Paul Martin (Mr. Dithers), Stephane Dion (feckless) and Michael Ignatieff (Just Visiting).
> 
> In my particular case I don't think that Mr. Harper has anything to apologize for, nor does the party.  But they do need a different image.  My concern is that the media and institutional Canada are overly comfortable with the Liberal Party in power.




what I really don't like is that when the Conservative party was talking about budget and that it would come up a bit higher than expected , everyone was yelling and calling them the worst party out there.
Now with the liberals , every one that knows a bit about mathematics knows that most of their prediction is plain wrong and that they are WAY off budget estimate ... yet a lot of canadians are acting like it's okay and that it's no big deal.
I might be really old fashioned ... but ... if you base the whole campaign on fixing things , making everything right and blah blah blah .... how is this not a problem for most people if it was such a big deal 2 years ago? 
Did we just come to accept that "hey it's the way it is, at least he's good looking" ....


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 May 2016)

Speaking of new images etc.  I have noticed how much Ms. Notley's direction has changed since she took power.  Gone are the kicking the oil patch in the gonads sounds and she comes across more like a Conservative-ish type of politician.  Reality must be a real bitch to deal with in a (recently) elected government like hers.


----------



## Altair (12 May 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Speaking of new images etc.  I have noticed how much Ms. Notley's direction has changed since she took power.  Gone are the kicking the oil patch in the gonads sounds and she comes across more like a Conservative-ish type of politician.  Reality must be a real ***** to deal with in a (recently) elected government like hers.


carbon tax, emission limits on the oil sands, money for the environment, getting rid of the flat tax?

That doesn't sound conservative in the least.

And for the record, she was always for pipelines, she just said it would be a easier sell once more stringent environment policies were in place.


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2016)

While the example is American, it fits exactly with the situation here, Any party which wants to try a new approach besides "Nice Hair" would do well to examine this aspect of out of control governance (as a bonus, eliminating costly and counterproductive regulation also mean getting rid of the bureaucracy that enforces these regulatory burdens, a long term saving for the taxpayer). Edward Campbell has long advocated for increasing productivity and innovation in the Canadian economy, as the article shows a deep streamlining of regulations would also unlock innovation and productivity as well:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/12/technological-progress-stagnation-regulatory-explosion-1970s-column/84225066/



> *Glenn Reynolds: Why we still don't have flying cars*
> Glenn Harlan Reynolds 12:03 p.m. EDT May 12, 2016
> After regulation exploded in 1970, innovation hit a sustained speed bump.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> In my particular case I don't think that Mr. Harper has anything to apologize for, nor does the party.  But they do need a different image.


Politics vs. optics - linked/overlapping, but slightly different fights, indeed.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> My concern is that the media and institutional Canada are overly comfortable with the Liberal Party in power.


I've had similar concerns - we'll see what happens when PMJT has to make decisions that aren't 100% popular, and see how it unfolds.


----------



## George Wallace (14 May 2016)

If the Liberals campaigned on Harper not having a sense of the pulse of Canadians, they really are throwing rocks in a fragile glass house.  

Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau has shown this on a grand scale.  My serious advice to Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau, who has NO official duties, holds NO official office, is NOT a Government Servant, and on and on; is to learn how to say "NO" to some of the requests she may have, as well, FIRE her current staff of four who are helping her manage her schedule and children.  Two nannies, a Chef and a Personal Assistant should be able to easily handle her needs.  If they are so incompetent as to not be able to, then FIRE them and hire people who can competently do so.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 May 2016)

She doesn't have to fire them, just pay for them herself. The Chef is fine as a taxpayer expense, I believe every Prime Minister has had one, and I'm OK with that.


----------



## Journeyman (14 May 2016)

According to CBC's idolizing drivel (a lame opinion piece that CBC has as their lead _news_  story), she's being picked on because she's some combination of "really smart, or really rich, or talented and famous, or.... really really really good looking."  Apparently Canadians don't like such people; that is the depth of CBC's self-proclaimed "analysis."   :not-again:


Thank you BBC and Al Jazeera, for providing real news and thoughtful, informed commentary.... rather than vacuous cheerleading masquerading as "news."  :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace (14 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> She doesn't have to fire them, just pay for them herself. The Chef is fine as a taxpayer expense, I believe every Prime Minister has had one, and I'm OK with that.



Point wasn't who is paying for them; but that they appear to be INCAPABLE of handling her scheduling.  If four people can not take care of her and her children, then more competent people should be hired and the the current staff let go.  That, and she needs to learn to say "NO!" to some of the requests for her appearance at functions.  

Numerous examples are coming out, in the media, of 'mothers' who are juggling jobs, family and other extra-circular activities with no hired assistants.  Other than the CBC and the 'diehard' Liberal supporters who would elect a dog or cat if it was a Liberal, most sensible people are looking at this as a negative showing on the part of the Trudeaus.  The silence from the PM does reflect poorly on him as well.


----------



## ueo (14 May 2016)

She "sorta" got slammed in todays TO Star. IMO as she has no official position beyond being the Younger's wife, she should get no official support. Also the optics of this request are terrible.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 May 2016)

ueo said:
			
		

> Also the optics of this request are terrible.



Not if you're like me and believe the new boss is worse than the old boss.  At least the old one gave an air of competence about him.


----------



## GAP (14 May 2016)

ueo said:
			
		

> She "sorta" got slammed in todays TO Star. IMO as she has no official position beyond being the Younger's wife, she should get no official support. Also the optics of this request are terrible.



bull.....she was raised on high as poor misunderstood waif who only wants to do good, vs that Laureen Harper woman.gritting her teeth because of her husband....et al.....


----------



## jmt18325 (14 May 2016)

ueo said:
			
		

> She "sorta" got slammed in todays TO Star. IMO as she has no official position beyond being the Younger's wife, she should get no official support. Also the optics of this request are terrible.



Every PMs wife gets 1 assistant as a matter of course.  We obviously expect something beyond what you're implying.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> She doesn't have to fire them, just pay for them herself. The Chef is fine as a taxpayer expense, I believe every Prime Minister has had one, and I'm OK with that.



They got rid of other staff positions to have them.  The household has the exact same budget as the Harper household did.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 May 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not if you're like me and believe the new boss is worse than the old boss.  At least the old one gave an air of competence about him.



Unlike the new boss, looking back, the old boss had an air of arrogance, and not much else.  Trudeau has, IMO, made smarter decisions, as he understands that on varying issues, there are smarter people in the room.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Unlike the new boss, looking back, the old boss had an air of arrogance, and not much else.  Trudeau has, IMO, made smarter decisions, as he understands that on varying issues, there are smarter people in the room.



Really? The old boss had an "aloofness" to him but certainly didn't appear arrogant. PMJT, on the other than, has went out and proclaimed "canada is back" (from what, I'm not sure). What is more arrogant than assuming that your election means that all manner of wrongs have been overturned? Add in continual photo ops (including the one with the invictus team which seemed more to do with the Obama-Prince Harry video than any actual care), a speech yesterday that focussed more on hypotheticals on what the conservatives would have done than any actual policy, and the general smugness he exudes and i would say that the old order was far less arrogant than the new one.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 May 2016)

The point was that Harper made decisions based on what he thought, no matter the subject.  Trudeau, Martin, Chretien, Mulroney, etc - were/are far more likely to defer to expert analysis.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The point was that Harper made decisions based on what he thought, no matter the subject.  Trudeau, Martin, Chretien, Mulroney, etc - were/are far more likely to defer to expert analysis.



Got any proof of this??


----------



## jmt18325 (14 May 2016)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Got any proof of this??



We can start with the long form census.  Statisticians everywhere were against its demise.

We can continue to Canada post.  Trudeau originally promised he'd restore door to door delivery.  It seems it's been explained to him that such a thing isn't possible while maintaining profitability.  Now, you see a wait and see approach combined with a study.

The military is unable to buy things - literally.  So, you see an approach of consultation on how we should move forward.

The Fort McMurray wildfires saw the government answer every singe request from the Alberta government, and had the PM acting in deference to people on the ground when it came to what kind of help they needed and wanted.

The assisted suicide bill was crafted with outside experts and a panel of MPs.  Though it doesn't go far enough for many, it goes further than what Harper was doing.  He had 3 people on a panel, all of which had spoken against the whole idea.

I could go on.  I'm sure you won't agree.


----------



## George Wallace (14 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Really? The old boss had an "aloofness" to him but certainly didn't appear arrogant. PMJT, on the other than, has went out and proclaimed "canada is back" (from what, I'm not sure). What is more arrogant than assuming that your election means that all manner of wrongs have been overturned? Add in continual photo ops (including the one with the invictus team which seemed more to do with the Obama-Prince Harry video than any actual care), a speech yesterday that focussed more on hypotheticals on what the conservatives would have done than any actual policy, and the general smugness he exudes and i would say that the old order was far less arrogant than the new one.



I tend to agree.  Add on the current question as to why Sophie can not handle her own schedules, with four people helping her, and I will say that the amount of arrogance being shown is by far anything we have witnessed in Canada since the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.  PS jmt18325....I would never in a million years think that this PM has made any decisions, nor is capable of doing so, other than parrot what he has been fed by his handlers, who may not be the right people for the job.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I tend to agree.  Add on the current question as to why Sophie can not handle her own schedules, with four people helping her, and I will say that the amount of arrogance being shown is by far anything we have witnessed in Canada since the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.



Mila Mulroney had 3 assistants.  There's nothing arrogant about speaking for charities and foundations.



> PS jmt18325....I would never in a million years think that this PM has made any decisions, nor is capable of doing so, other than parrot what he has been fed by his handlers, who may not be the right people for the job.



That has more to do with your pre conceptions of him than anything.  I was able to let those go (I used to think he was an idiot) as I'm somewhat open minded when it comes to politicians and my political leanings.


----------



## George Wallace (14 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Mila Mulroney had 3 assistants.  There's nothing arrogant about speaking for charities and foundations.



I must admit that my feelings towards that regime, are pretty much identical to this current regime.


----------



## Altair (14 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Mila Mulroney had 3 assistants.  There's nothing arrogant about speaking for charities and foundations.
> 
> That has more to do with your pre conceptions of him than anything.  I was able to let those go (I used to think he was an idiot) as I'm somewhat open minded when it comes to politicians and my political leanings.


Simplest solution to this is to pass legislation that gives the spouse of the prime minister a role and duties, thus coming with a office and staff if she or he should need them.

If not, the party picks up the bill. Our neibours to the south have a standard and this is never brought up because they know what to expect of the first lady, nomatter which party wins.

In Canada it's open to interpretation and thus open to criticism


----------



## Good2Golf (14 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> The point was that Harper made decisions based on what he thought, no matter the subject.  Trudeau, Martin, *Chretien*, Mulroney, etc - were/are *far more likely to defer to expert analysis*.



Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... :rofl:......oh......you were serious......  :not-again:


----------



## George Wallace (14 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Simplest solution to this is to pass legislation that gives the spouse of the prime minister a role and duties, thus coming with a office and staff if she or he should need them.
> 
> If not, the party picks up the bill. Our neibours to the south have a standard and this is never brought up because they know what to expect of the first lady, nomatter which party wins.
> 
> In Canada it's open to interpretation and thus open to criticism



So?  What was your opinion on "appointed Senators" again?  Are you not now suggesting that we create another "appointed position", just for the PM's wife?  

As I have stated before, her whole problem does not seem to be with having a staff to help her; but to have a "COMPETENT" staff to help her.  I can not fathom how she has two nannies, a Chef and a Personal Assistant to assist her in keeping track of her kids and her schedule.  Once again, I state that if they are so incompetent, then they should be FIRED, and competent persons hired.  She also has to learn how to say "NO" to some of the "requests for her presence".


----------



## GAP (14 May 2016)

uh....did we elect her?........


----------



## PuckChaser (14 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Simplest solution to this is to pass legislation that gives the spouse of the prime minister a role and duties, thus coming with a office and staff if she or he should need them.



Your simple solution is to make a law to fix a problem that shouldn't exist. She can say no to events. She CAN'T say no to events as part of a compulsion to stay in the media spotlight at all times. There is absolutely no need to have the "First Lady" have official duties, even if the First Spouse happens to be a man should we elect another female Prime Minister.

Sophie Trudeau has absolutely no need to tour around and promote herself as the Prime Minister's wife. As a feminist, she should be trying to step out of the shadow of her husband and say to the world she's more than just the First Lady, right? Unless of course that means turning off the gravy train of public funds.


----------



## George Wallace (14 May 2016)

By the way; what are the PM's comments on this?

Strategically silent?


----------



## Altair (14 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Your simple solution is to make a law to fix a problem that shouldn't exist. She can say no to events. She CAN'T say no to events as part of a compulsion to stay in the media spotlight at all times. There is absolutely no need to have the "First Lady" have official duties, even if the First Spouse happens to be a man should we elect another female Prime Minister.
> 
> Sophie Trudeau has absolutely no need to tour around and promote herself as the Prime Minister's wife. As a feminist, she should be trying to step out of the shadow of her husband and say to the world she's more than just the First Lady, right? Unless of course that means turning off the gravy train of public funds.


I gave two options thank you kindly.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I gave two options thank you kindly.



You can't leave it open. Look at the NDP and their partisan offices. They're fighting tooth and nail to not repay millions in illegal expenses.

Either its covered, or it isn't. If the Liberal Party wants to pay her for it, go ahead, but that agreement should not be in the House.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Simplest solution to this is to pass legislation that gives the spouse of the prime minister a role and duties, thus coming with a office and staff if she or he should need them.
> 
> If not, the party picks up the bill. Our neibours to the south have a standard and this is never brought up because they know what to expect of the first lady, nomatter which party wins.
> 
> In Canada it's open to interpretation and thus open to criticism



Simplest solution is for her to, oh, go thru life realizing she isn't "the First Lady" and be thankful for how easy her life actually is with the staff she has.  We've enough 'entitled to tax payers money' types in Canada as it is.

From a piece on FB that is off the BC Canada Politics fb page, that has been making the rounds...


From Meagan Heather Ward of Naicam, Saskatchewan, to Sophie Trudeau:

“Dear Mrs. Trudeau,

Let me introduce myself. I’m Meagan Ward – a 31 year old wife and mother to five incredible children, ages 13, 10, 9, 7 and 5.
 Majority of people would say I’m a single mother as my husband works away for extended periods of time. Sadly, he is gone more than he is home.

Our kids are actively involved in extracurricular activities that requires, not only funds to participate in these sports, but my time driving them to and from activities multiple times a week. Two of our sons have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. They are wonderful, great boys but parenting them requires a different approach than your average parenting and an immense amount of patience, structure and routine.
 We live on a farm with several types of animals that require me to do daily chores ( in rain or shine, -40 or +40 temperatures), along with a very large yard that requires intensive upkeep, snow to plow in the winter, grass to cut in the summer and a large garden to work, which is absolutely necessary with feeding a family of seven.

I am also employed full time as a CEO for an agency that provides residential and vocational supports to adults with intellectual disabilities. My position requires me to travel, educate surrounding communities, deliver educational presentations, crisis management, HR issues, financial budget planning, continually upgrading my education…just to name a few duties. I do love my job but it can be very taxing and it is an “around-the-clock” job. Emergency calls can happen in the middle of the night, major decisions may need to be made while I’m in the middle of cooking my children supper or while I’m cleaning the house. Truly, there are no days off as I’m on call 24/7.
 Even with the busyness of life, I still make it a priority to sit down and read with my children, teach them to cook and bake, have dance parties in the living room, make fun crafts together, listen attentively to their stories, take them on fun trips, play board games, take them to church and always tuck them into bed at night.

I am writing all this to you because you can imagine my disgust when I read your statement, "I need help. I need a team to help me..." You explained that you were overwhelmed and required more help around the house, with your children – there was even a quote from you stating “I need a break!” Now that you have read what an average Canadian mother does, because it’s certainly not just me that works around the clock, have multiple children with numerous commitments and responsibilities, how I feel that your statement was a slap-in-the-face. Frankly I think its hypocrisy. The first thing your husband did when elected was take away benefits from families who he deemed too rich. Cut Universal Child Care Benefits that helped Canadians pay for babysitters, slash fitness, art & music tax credits but now we should pay for additional staff for YOUR FAMILY? What is most disgusting is how terribly out of touch you can be with the realities that working women in Canada face today. Canadian women, on a daily basis, struggle with the costs of childcare and activities that are increasingly creating hardship for Canadian families. I’m talking about working women that struggle to find work-life balance. I’m talking about women who run themselves into the ground with ZERO help. And let’s be honest, you have no official duties. It’s YOUR choice to attend events and guest speak at charities. In actuality your job is to stay at home with your children and call your driver when you need to go somewhere, eat what your chef has prepared you and your family and make sure you don’t get in the way of your cleaning staff. Rude? Yes. But your warped sense of what “overwhelmed” and “needing a break” is, actually calls for something much more heinous, but I’m trying to be polite.

I would hope that you at least have the decency to make a public apology for your unbelievably selfish statement – not that it will help you to gain what little respect we have for you and your husband – but at least this will make you look a little less like a pompous jack ass.

Sincerely,

The mother who is PROUD to be working hard for her family”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd summarize that piece "_How about having a nice cup of get the fuck over yourself_".


----------



## Altair (14 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You can't leave it open. Look at the NDP and their partisan offices. They're fighting tooth and nail to not repay millions in illegal expenses.
> 
> Either its covered, or it isn't. If the Liberal Party wants to pay her for it, go ahead, but that agreement should not be in the House.


Yup.

In my opinion the party should pick up the tab but if the two main parties both agree to make the PMs spouse a position I wouldn't care too much either.

Either way, there should be a standard one way or another so this doesn't pop up every time there is a change of goverment/pm.

Again for clarity, I support that the parties pick up the tab if only because some spouses want to be in the limelight  (Mulroney, Trudeau) and some value their privacy (Harper). If the spouse has an office and staff and official duties that more or less forces them into a job they may or may not want.


----------



## Altair (14 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Simplest solution is for her


Simplest solution for political parties/prime ministers.

I don't care one way or the other about sophie.

Just make a standard, either they make it a position and it's all covered and political spouses are forced into public life or they don't and if the spouse chooses to enter public life the party picks up the tab. I prefer the latter but either way there should be a recognized standard so these silly little controversies don't pop up.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 May 2016)

Let's see jmt18325.

First of all, your post below is allegedly your answer for a proof that Harper made all the decisions by himself, while Trudeau jr. defers to experts.

Your posts provides no evidence of that whatsoever.

Moreover, I will add my comments in yellow to your post on what I believe the points you raise are irrelevant.



			
				jmt18325 said:
			
		

> We can start with the long form census.  Statisticians everywhere were against its demise.
> 
> And police officers everywhere argue they shouldn't need a warrant to enter a house and inspect it. That's why we don't let police officers dictate those rules. What if all statisticians said that they need laws to force people to answer their questions on voting intentions? Would that make such law right? And BTW, did you know that statistics Canada removed all questions on income from the census this year? Know why? Because they found out that the data given to Revenue Canada is better and more complete, so they will use that set of data. Now here is the interesting thing: the data for 95% of the questions asked on the census form is already in various government data bases, in more complete and precise form, and could be accessed by StatsCan if they wanted to. Does this sound like a good reason to force Canadian to participate in a census to get info the government already has under penalty of law - fines and prison, when, BTW, no other western country does?
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Simplest solution for political parties/prime ministers.
> 
> I don't care one way or the other about sophie.
> 
> Just make a standard, either they make it a position and it's all covered and political spouses are forced into public life or they don't and if the spouse chooses to enter public life the party picks up the tab. I prefer the latter but either way there should be a recognized standard so these silly little controversies don't pop up.



+1  :goodpost:


----------



## jmt18325 (14 May 2016)

I'm not going to respond to the tangential stuff that I got involved in earlier, as this will spiral into a long discussion.  If you wish, we can have that discussion at another time. 

What I will say about the party funding her - in the past, the government has provided the PMs spouse with one assistant - sometimes more.  That's the precedent.

I would only support the party picking up the tab for things she does for the party.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> In my opinion the party should pick up the tab but if the two main parties both agree to make the PMs spouse a position I wouldn't care too much either.
> 
> ...



I get where you're coming from, you're trying to find someone to pay for this. Problem is, she's rich and can afford it herself if she really wanted to do it.

An issue that I can see with the political party paying for her staff and by extension the events, is that she's going to be traveling with the PM to do some of these events. She's now using government resources (the plane) for partisan political purposes (because the party is paying for it, altruistic or not). We hung senators for $30k in expenses over decades. Sophie Trudeau has $100k a year in nannies already, and wants more staff. That would make her 4th on the list of Senators who owe money to the Crown...


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2016)

Is it a precondition that the Prime Minister be married?

I'm pretty sure that Trudeau Pere wasn't at the time he entered Sussex.

If there is no expectation of a Prime Ministerial spouse there can be no expectation of spousal duties.  Mme Gregoire-Trudeau is quite at liberty to stay home with the children.  She is also at liberty to hire somebody to fix the kids a PB&J if she chooses.  The Chef is provided for the use of the Prime Minister.  Likewise the chauffeur and the cleaning staff.

If she feels stultified with life as Mme Gregoire Trudeau then she is quite at liberty to volunteer her time as she sees fit.  

If the Liberal Party wishes to pay her to show up in loco Trudensis then that seems perfectly acceptable to me.

None of this requires a penny of taxpayer money being spent on Mme and the Trudeau children.


----------



## Altair (14 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm not going to respond to the tangential stuff that I got involved in earlier, as this will spiral into a long discussion.  If you wish, we can have that discussion at another time.
> 
> What I will say about the party funding her - in the past, the government has provided the PMs spouse with one assistant - sometimes more.  That's the precedent.
> 
> I would only support the party picking up the tab for things she does for the party.


There lies the problem. Sometimes it's one. Sometimes it's more. Whats the standard? One staff unless they wants more? That's not a standard.

Make a standard that everyone can agree upon and live by it and we don't need to have this conversation again for the rest of our lives.

The United states has a standard. They don't say anything about the first lady. Everyone knows what what to expect.  In Canada this discussion pops up far too often and there is mass hypocrisy from both parties. (Not the NDP because they have never had this problem)


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2016)

Other unmarried Prime Ministers

Sir Mackenzie Bowell
William Lyon Mackenzie King
R.B. Bennett
Kim Campbell


----------



## Altair (14 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is it a precondition that the Prime Minister be married?
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Trudeau Pere wasn't at the time he entered Sussex.
> 
> ...


meh. Every prime minister has had a household budget to spend on staff. 

So far the trudeau's aren't spending more than the harpers and that's good enough for me.

If sophie wants to get I volved in public life that's fine as well. If she needs taxpayer money higher than what the trudeau's already get in PM salary and household budget then they should get the liberal party of Canada to foot the bill.

Unless of course the Canadian political class decides that it needs the services of a first lady in which case make it a position, give the spouse an office and budget and be done with it.

Either way, make a standard and be done with it.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 May 2016)

Where's the proof either way that one PM had a larger staff than the other? You and JMT have trotted that out that Harper had a larger staff, but no substantiation. I find it hard to believe that Harper got a free ride from the media on a large household staff and Trudeau is being raked over the coals...


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 May 2016)

The problem appears to be that neither her nor whoever passes for her EA grasps the first rule of effective time management, which is only to commit oneself within one's capabilities and resources.  Allowing whining to slip out into the public arena to the effect that she can't do everything she wants to do isn't really a productive way of justifying a staff position.

For those inclined to spin off into Harper's decision-making process: do not assume he failed to do his homework (including consulting "experts") - he is as notorious as PE Trudeau for studying files and briefs; and do not assume he ignored the advice of consultants.  Consider the possibility that the factors he considered most important to his decisions were not those others believed to be important.  Example: cancel the long-form census because its questions are invasive, the merits of the data and opinions of the statisticians being uncontested.

Consultation is a convenient way of deferring a decision you don't want to make.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 May 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Consultation is a convenient way of deferring a decision you don't want to make.



Its how you disassociate from an unpopular decision, "Those guys picked this CoA".


----------



## Altair (14 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where's the proof either way that one PM had a larger staff than the other? You and JMT have trotted that out that Harper had a larger staff, but no substantiation. I find it hard to believe that Harper got a free ride from the media on a large household staff and Trudeau is being raked over the coals...


where did I say harper had a larger staff? I said PMJT is spending no more on household staff than PMSH


----------



## PuckChaser (14 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> where did I say harper had a larger staff? I said PMJT is spending no more on household staff than PMSH



Then why is the MSM making it an issue? I have never seen, in any article, that PMSH had a similar-sized staff, or that Laureen Harper required the same amount of support. If they did, its a non-issue. Since they're not citing anything of the sort, I think you're grasping at straws. PMSH had a chef and household manager which are basic entitlements to keep up 24 Sussex.


----------



## jmt18325 (14 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where's the proof either way that one PM had a larger staff than the other?



The PMO says that's the case.  Do you have evidence that contradicts that? 



> You and JMT have trotted that out that Harper had a larger staff, but no substantiation. I find it hard to believe that Harper got a free ride from the media on a large household staff and Trudeau is being raked over the coals...



He didn't have a larger staff, he had the exact same staff budget as everyone else did/does.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 May 2016)

I'm not the one who made the statement, it's up to you to prove your facts. I'm not going to sell your argument for you.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Unlike the new boss, looking back, the old boss had an air of arrogance, and not much else.  Trudeau has, IMO, made smarter decisions, as he understands that on varying issues, there are smarter people in the room.



Well, opinions are like assholes as they say.  Everyone has them.


----------



## Altair (15 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm not the one who made the statement, it's up to you to prove your facts. I'm not going to sell your argument for you.


I cannot  find anything yay or nay on it other than the liberals saying they would use the same budget as the previous prime minister.

So unless you are privy to some information that the rest of us are not them you'll need to take the liberals at their word.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2016)

The "10 billion deficit during election" that grew to "29 billion after election"?  _That_ Liberal word?

Pass.  I don't know if I'd believe them if they said the sky was blue during the day and air has oxygen in it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 May 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The problem appears to be that neither her nor whoever passes for her EA grasps the first rule of effective time management, which is only to commit oneself within one's capabilities and resources.  Allowing whining to slip out into the public arena to the effect that she can't do everything she wants to do isn't really a productive way of justifying a staff position.


That right there.


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where's the proof either way that one PM had a larger staff than the other? You and JMT have trotted that out that Harper had a larger staff, but no substantiation. I find it hard to believe that Harper got a free ride from the media on a large household staff and Trudeau is being raked over the coals...


Well, when it comes to "who elected them to work for the electorate?" type of staff, does PMO count?


> ... The increase in exempt staffing is even sharper in the Prime Minister’s Office.  In 2005, it took 68 exempt staff to run Martin’s PMO. This year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s command-and-control centre employs 94 people — 38 per cent more than Martin’s, according to the figures provided by Treasury Board Secretariat.  The number of PMO staff was even higher in 2010, when the office counted 109 exempt bodies ...


And this isn't from one of small-l-liberal, sandal-wearing media outlets, either.

As for wives of PM's, staff 'em up according to demand, or by formula for everyone.


----------



## Altair (15 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The "10 billion deficit during election" that grew to "29 billion after election"?  _That_ Liberal word?
> 
> Pass.  I don't know if I'd believe them if they said the sky was blue during the day and air has oxygen in it.


that's fine. 

Don't expect me to believe your truthiness however.

I'll chalk this up as insufficient evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion either way.


----------



## Journeyman (15 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm not going to respond to the tangential stuff that I got involved in earlier.....


By "tangential stuff," you mean where Oldgateboatdriver  showed, _point by point,_  that you didn't know what you were talking about?  Ya, good call walking away from that.
     op:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> that's fine.
> 
> Don't expect me to believe your truthiness however.
> 
> I'll chalk this up as insufficient evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion either way.



Truthiness??  Are you kidding?

Aug 2015 - Liberals promise $10-billion yearly deficits to kick-start economy 

"_The Liberal Party is promising to run deficits of up to $10-billion a year over the next three years_..."

March 2016 - Bill Morneau sets Canada on path for near-record deficits, growing to more than $29B over next fiscal year

Canada is headed for a string of near-record deficits...after eking out a $1.9 billion surplus in the previous fiscal year during the final months under the Conservatives, the Liberal party will return the country to shortfalls...growing to over $29 billion the next fiscal year.


----------



## ballz (15 May 2016)

Mrs Trudeau is a free human being who should be free to do what she wishes. She should not be tied to her husband's occupation, and have her life ruled by her husband's aspirations. The idea of someone suddenly having legislated official duties because of something their husband wanted / did is rather silly of us to even consider.

That said, if we acknowledge that she is a free human being who can decide for herself whether she wants to stay home with the kids, go pursue a career in something else, or use her husband's occupation as an excellent platform to influence things she believes are important... then we have to acknowledge that the taxpayer's don't owe her a dime to pursue whatever it is she wishes. She also doesn't owe the taxpayer's a second of her time in return.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well, when it comes to "who elected them to work for the electorate?" type of staff, does PMO count?



It does count.  A relevant question might be though was whether the PM felt he was getting suitable product from the neutral civil servants who were supposed to be assisting the Government of the Day.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> It does count.  A relevant question might be though was whether the PM felt he was getting suitable product from the neutral civil servants who were supposed to be assisting the Government of the Day.


Fair one, but that also then raises the question about how much political input from partisan supporters does any GoD need.  And how much do political appointees know about the machinery of government  (if partisan advice is replacing technical advice)?  And nobody calls for PMO people to be paid out of party coffers, either.


			
				ballz said:
			
		

> She also doesn't owe the taxpayer's a second of her time in return.


And stand by for the "she's too high-and-mighty to attend public function x" accusations right after taking that position.  Remember the "can't win" thing, like hubby with "go vs don't go to Ft. McMurray"?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2016)

Not going to Ft Mac = bad optics, lack of a GAFF about Harpers 'stompin grounds'.  Going to Ft Mac to take selfies with fire fighters - bad optics, appears like a campaign trail trip.

If he can't 'win either way', it because his actions have stereotyped him to date IMO.

I'd have been politely surprised if it had happened in a way that showed what (IMO) the PM should have shown;  concern for the residents, a sense of compassion and and understanding that THIS is the type of stuff we need to spend tax dollars on, not tossing it away to every hand that is out internationally.

 :2c:


----------



## Altair (15 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Truthiness??  Are you kidding?
> 
> Aug 2015 - Liberals promise $10-billion yearly deficits to kick-start economy
> 
> ...


No, I am not kidding.

The deficit is larger than they said it would be. Fine. That doesn't mean the trudeau's are spending more on their household than the harpers did.

Unless you can find something saying that they do, yes, to me me it's truthiness.


----------



## Altair (15 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not going to Ft Mac = bad optics, lack of a GAFF about Harpers 'stompin grounds'.  Going to Ft Mac to take selfies with fire fighters - bad optics, appears like a campaign trail trip.
> 
> If he can't 'win either way', it because his actions have stereotyped him to date IMO.
> 
> ...


The budget has a 6 billion dollar contingancy fund for just this kind of event.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd have been politely surprised if it had happened in a way that showed what (IMO) the PM should have shown;  concern for the residents, a sense of compassion and and understanding that THIS is the type of stuff we need to spend tax dollars on, not tossing it away to every hand that is out internationally.
> 
> :2c:



Sympathy for/impressed with the evacuees?  Check.
Federal commitment?  Says more EI's on the way for those affected by the fire - check and check.
“The federal government has your back ... Canada will be there for you.”?  Check - although admittedly still no details of how much/how it'll flow yet, so *very* much worth haunting him on.
Pretty-pro-Tory columnist in pretty Blue media outlet says, "not much to see here"?  Check.
Statement saying we should spend more on emergencies here than on foreign aid/support?  *Fail* - but there's something about walking and chewing gum @ the same time, too ... ***
*** - And no, it appears the feds may _not_ be spending more on Syrian refugees than on Fort McMurray.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> The deficit is larger than they said it would be. Fine.



I'm always impressed when Liberals non-chalantly dismiss the extra 19 billion dollars Trudeau is responsible for so far. Over 3 billion sent overseas in the first month of office alone. People need to relax and stop worrying about money so much, we have plenty to go around.


----------



## George Wallace (15 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm always impressed when Liberals non-chalantly dismiss the extra 19 billion dollars Trudeau is responsible for so far.



 [

Amusing isn't it.


----------



## Altair (15 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm always impressed when Liberals non-chalantly dismiss the extra 19 billion dollars Trudeau is responsible for so far. Over 3 billion sent overseas in the first month of office alone. People need to relax and stop worrying about money so much, we have plenty to go around.


I'll hold your hand on this one.

When I say the deficits are larger than they said it would be, fine, I was conceding the point to Eye in the sky.

Way to take it out of context though, we'll done.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm not the one who made the statement, it's up to you to prove your facts. I'm not going to sell your argument for you.



There is an official statement stating that they have the same household budget.  You're the one that needs to prove otherwise.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 May 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> By "tangential stuff," you mean where Oldgateboatdriver  showed, _point by point,_  that you didn't know what you were talking about?  Ya, good call walking away from that.
> op:



I have time today if you'd like.  I didn't then.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And police officers everywhere argue they shouldn't need a warrant to enter a house and inspect it. That's why we don't let police officers dictate those rules. What if all statisticians said that they need laws to force people to answer their questions on voting intentions? Would that make such law right? And BTW, did you know that statistics Canada removed all questions on income from the census this year? Know why? Because they found out that the data given to Revenue Canada is better and more complete, so they will use that set of data. Now here is the interesting thing: the data for 95% of the questions asked on the census form is already in various government data bases, in more complete and precise form, and could be accessed by StatsCan if they wanted to. Does this sound like a good reason to force Canadian to participate in a census to get info the government already has under penalty of law - fines and prison, when, BTW, no other western country does?



So lets peel away the straw men that begin your argument (as if somehow, the census is just like those other things - we can all come up with ridiculous hyperbole) and deal with the end.  Yes - they started using CRA data instead of asking their own questions related to income because there was better data available.  Don't you think then, that if there was better data available, that they could legally access, that they'd use it?  Delving into conspiratorial nonsense really adds nothing.



> Where do you get that this was explained to him. First of all it is not impossible: The easy straightforward answer of doing this while maintaining profitability has been given to Post canada: delivery on alternate days (i.e. every second day). What has been explained to Trudeau, and properly so, is that Post Canada is a Crown Corporation with it's own board: For him as Pm to interfere with their decisions on how to run their corporation would be illegal - in fact removing those operations from the boot of the political party in place is the very reason crown corporations were invented to start with.



And yet there was a promise to restore door to door.  In response to the Trudeau win, we saw the plan to end door to door pause, awaiting word from above.  Now we see that there will be a study, examining multiple options.  The study speaks to exactly what I'm talking about with this government - data is more important than foolish promises they made without the benefit of said data.



> Are you joking? The military purchases billions of dollars of stuff every year. Sure, some big ticket items (and smaller ones, like boots  :nod seem to get bogged down, but that does not mean that no purchases are ever made.



Some big ticket items?  It's more like every singe large procurement program, other than those that were single sourced.  That speaks to very poor management at both DND and Procurement.



> Moreover, you honestly think that the public should be consulted on the type of main battle tank we should purchase or the colour of our uniforms, or the amount of ammunition stocks we should have for a given weapons system?



Of course, I didn't say that, and the government isn't asking that.  The public consultations are also only a small part of the review.  Experts, allies, academics, and military leaders all all being consulted.



> And what requests did Alberta make of the government of Canada exactly?



Air support for transport.  In answer the government provided a CC-130j, and had a CC-177 and CC-150 on standby.  They also sent a CH-147 when logistics support that could get to more remote places was needed.  On top of this, the federal government sent emergency supplies, including 20,000 cots. 



> First of all, forest fires are not a Federal jurisdiction - as a result of which Canada has no resources to provide for those.



Funny that I never said that.  I'm not sure who you were aiming that at. 



> It is the various provinces that have agreements between them to share forest fire fighting equipment.



That's correct - it's coordinated through an office in Winnipeg. 



> Second of all, the Federal government has standing protocols to assist the provinces in disasters, including special funds, AND ALL OF THESE REQUESTS ARE PROCESSED BY THE CIVIL SERVANTS WHOSE JOB IT IS TO EXECUTE THESE PROTOCOLS (including assistance by the military). Absolutely nothing of that requires any intervention by the politicians whatsoever.



And yet it has to be approved by someone in the political chain. 



> These very same protocols and funds were used by the Conservatives, including Mr. Harper for the Calgary floods, and for international disasters (such as the earthquake in Tibet) exactly the same way. How does that prove that Harper acted on his own, while Trudeau listened to experts?



You mean Nepal, not Tibet.  In that case, there was most certainly political involvement from both countries, as the military can't go there without permission - so, no.



> Shows how little you know about bills. ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE bill put before parliament  is crafted by experts: They work for the government and are civil servants.



That's almost a funny statement.  If that were true of all Harper bills, you wouldn't see so many of them being shot down by the SCOC.



> No one else drafts bills, even if the advice of external experts is sought on the results of the bills.



I'm sure there's no political input whatsoever  



> Second, the Harper government had not yet tabled ANY legislation on the subject, though you may be certain that some had been crafted and prepared for introduction shortly after the election, so you have nO idea what a Harper bill would have proposed.



Harper had named a panel of 3 experts - all 3 of which spoke out in the SCOC court case against allowing assisted suicide. 



> Moreover, since the same civil servants helped draft both, and they were working from the same Supreme Court decision, I am willing to bet that there would be a 95% + commonality between the two.



In other words, you don't know.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> "_The Liberal Party is promising to run deficits of up to $10-billion a year over the next three years_..."



So, first of all, we now know that the deficit won't be that bing (though Fort McMurray will certainly make it less small that it would have been).  Many experts are now calling for a deficit in the $20B range.  

Second, the Liberals actually added less spending than they promised during the campaign.  Their infrastructure plan is smaller.  Their child benefit plan is smaller.  Many promises were deferred, etc.  That tells us that all 3 leaders were wrong with their projections.  It tells us that, taking out the Liberals ~$9 - 10B, that Harper would have been staring down a deficit in the ~$10B range, as would Mulcair.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not going to Ft Mac = bad optics, lack of a GAFF about Harpers 'stompin grounds'.  Going to Ft Mac to take selfies with fire fighters - bad optics, appears like a campaign trail trip.
> 
> If he can't 'win either way', it because his actions have stereotyped him to date IMO.



You realize, I hope, that it's only in certain circles (bitter New Democrats and Conservatives) that he can never win, right?



> I'd have been politely surprised if it had happened in a way that showed what (IMO) the PM should have shown;  concern for the residents, a sense of compassion and and understanding that THIS is the type of stuff we need to spend tax dollars on, not tossing it away to every hand that is out internationally.



So, lets examine what he did:

- made several speeches on the issue, about how Canadians were behind the people involved 
- immediately spoke to Premier Notley by phone to convey his support
- put his Public Safety Minister on the file, ensuring that all doors for assistance were open.
- said he wouldn't go to Alberta until his presence wouldn't cause a disruption.
- after 10 days (only 2 days later than the Premier of Alberta and the Mayor of Wood Buffalo), toured Fort McMurray and got a sense of everything that had happened.
- after 11 days, visited a refugee centre, taking no media with him (other than his own photographer and writer), and met with the affected people and the volunteers looking after them.
- pledged federal support to help rebuild.

He couldn't have handled it much better.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 May 2016)

You forgot this part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5Fgp-KihIA


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> You realize, I hope, that it's only in certain circles (bitter New Democrats and Conservatives) that he can never win, right?



So the 61% of Canadians who didn't vote for him? I could comment on how his 39% represents a clear mandate to implement a change to the political system, doctor assisted suicide, and legalized marijuana while the 39% vote for the conservative was an attack on democracy, but that's another discussion for another day.

First off, I voted Liberal this election... BUT... his reactions to the Paris attacks, Brussels attacks, and the Fort Mac situation have given me the impression that he is unable to think well on his feet aside from making snide remarks. He was able to meet Prince Harry for a photo op with wounded vets (though didn't go to the actual games) and a photo op with Alex Trebek while the Fort Mac situation was on. Than his wife complained how she needed more taxpayer funded help for whatever it is she thinks her job is while her husband was off talking to people who had lost their houses. Trudeau even had an awkward smile and treated his speech in Fort Mac like it was a campaign stop by focusing on the hypothetical of what the conservatives would have done.

Finally... they promised deficits of no more than $10 billion and delivered closer to $30 billion in deficits with no clear way back. For you to state that the NDP and conservatives would have been similar is silly since we'll never know what either did. We (since I voted Liberal) won the election, now it's time to own it and stop blaming the past government for everything and treating everything like a campaign stop. Trudeau's new to the job, and to be honest, seems awkward at actual governing and more at home with campaigning... people ought to give him a bit of a break on this, but he and his supporters have to own some too.

Harper was plenty vilified, so the same people that vilified him have little in compassion from me for crying that their champion is being vilified by the "bitter" people outside of their government.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So the 61% of Canadians who didn't vote for him?



His approval rating is near 60%, according to the latest poll by Forum research.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So the 61% of Canadians who didn't vote for him? I could comment on how his 39% represents a clear mandate to implement a change to the political system, doctor assisted suicide, and legalized marijuana while the 39% vote for the conservative was an attack on democracy, but that's another discussion for another day.



First - doctor assisted suicide has to be handled somehow, by court order (the Conservatives didn't bother).  Second, I wasn't one of the people who made that argument.



> First off, I voted Liberal this election... BUT... his reactions to the Paris attacks,



I would say his reaction there wasn't the best.  It was right after he started the job.



> Brussels attacks,



But in this case, he made all the right offers of support and help.



> and the Fort Mac situation



And in this case, he was on top of things from day one.   



> He was able to meet Prince Harry for a photo op with wounded vets (though didn't go to the actual games) and a photo op with Alex Trebek while the Fort Mac situation was on.



Right - he is, after all, the Prime Minister of Canada, not Fort McMurray.  Life went on everywhere else. He also made a Toronto Subway announcement.  He took about two minutes to meet with Trebek following a large donation to the University of Ottawa, and it would be poor form for the head of government to not meet part of Canada's royal family when they come here.



> Than his wife complained how she needed more taxpayer funded help for whatever it is she thinks her job is



That's actually not what happened, but it's irrelevant to what he was doing.



> while her husband was off talking to people who had lost their houses. Trudeau even had an awkward smile and treated his speech in Fort Mac like it was a campaign stop by focusing on the hypothetical of what the conservatives would have done.



If that's what you got from the speech, I can't help you.  He also met with evacuees without the media in toe.  Prime Minister's are not perfect.  They are people.



> Finally... they promised deficits of no more than $10 billion and delivered closer to $30 billion in deficits with no clear way back. For you to state that the NDP and conservatives would have been similar is silly since we'll never know what either did.



That's a convenient defence.



> We (since I voted Liberal) won the election, now it's time to own it and stop blaming the past government for everything and treating everything like a campaign stop.



I must be watching different news.



> Trudeau's new to the job, and to be honest, seems awkward at actual governing and more at home with campaigning... people ought to give him a bit of a break on this, but he and his supporters have to own some too.



There's really nothing to own when it comes to Fort McMurray, other than a successful support operation in support of Alberta.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> His approval rating is near 60%, according to the latest poll by Forum research.



ok. 39% still voted for him, not 60%. You seem to want to cherry pick your facts


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> First - doctor assisted suicide has to be handled somehow, by court order (the Conservatives didn't bother).  Second, I wasn't one of the people who made that argument.
> 
> I would say his reaction there wasn't the best.  It was right after he started the job.
> 
> ...



Wow..... you're full on irrational love fest. Once again, I voted for the government, but you cannot sincerely believe that everything he's done has been this amazing?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> So, first of all, we now know that the deficit won't be that bing (though Fort McMurray will certainly make it less small that it would have been).  Many experts are now calling for a deficit in the $20B range.
> 
> Second, the Liberals actually added less spending than they promised during the campaign.  Their infrastructure plan is smaller.  Their child benefit plan is smaller.  Many promises were deferred, etc.  That tells us that all 3 leaders were wrong with their projections.  It tells us that, taking out the Liberals ~$9 - 10B, that Harper would have been staring down a deficit in the ~$10B range, as would Mulcair.



Only $20 billion....or, in more accurate words...double the election promise?  

Try all you like, you can't paint a log of shit yellow, tell me in a banana and convince me its okay to take a bite....


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'll hold your hand on this one.


Thank Allah, I was worried you'd try and hold my wallet. You know to make up for that extra 19 BILLION  dollars.



> When I say the deficits are larger than they said it would be, fine, I was conceding the point to Eye in the sky.


I understand that you were. The problem is thats 19 billion F-ing dollars. It should elicit more than just a "fine you're right".


----------



## jmt18325 (15 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ok. 39% still voted for him, not 60%. You seem to want to cherry pick your facts



I would imagine that the people who approve of his work so far (58%) would be less likely to find fault with what he's doing than the other 42%, regardless of whether or not they voted for him.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Wow..... you're full on irrational love fest. Once again, I voted for the government, but you cannot sincerely believe that everything he's done has been this amazing?



I disagree with him on Iraq, the F-35 (mostly) and on the speaking for a fee he did before he became PM.  I also at one point thought he was an idiot.  

I'll also remind you that I voted Conservative in the two elections before this last one.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Only $20 billion....or, in more accurate words...double the election promise?



Circumstances change.  Those same circumstances existed no matter who was in power.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Circumstances change.  Those same circumstances existed no matter who was in power.



Circumstances like "Holy crap, our plan wasn't fully costed like we said, now we need to push these programs regardless of cost."? They over promised, under estimated cost, and got saddled with a $30B deficit.


----------



## Altair (16 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thank Allah, I was worried you'd try and hold my wallet. You know to make up for that extra 19 BILLION  dollars.
> I understand that you were. The problem is thats 19 billion F-ing dollars. It should elicit more than just a "fine you're right".


I personally want to see how canada does economically  with this budget before I make a judgement on it.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Circumstances like "Holy crap, our plan wasn't fully costed like we said, now we need to push these programs regardless of cost."? They over promised, under estimated cost, and got saddled with a $30B deficit.



Actually, the Liberals in many areas spent less than they promised.  I wish they would have stuck to their guns, personally, but they wanted to keep it under $30B.  It's simply that growth isn't as healthy as predicted in Budget 2015.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2016)

What's another $20B between friends right? You'll never have to pay it back, so who cares? Screw the next few generations. Liberals sure are great at spending other people's money.


----------



## Altair (16 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> What's another $20B between friends right? You'll never have to pay it back, so who cares? Screw the next few generations. Liberals sure are great at spending other people's money.


Conservatives never paid back their billions either, so what?


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2016)

At least they had a plan to do it, and were only forced into it by the largest economic crisis since the 30s. The Liberals went into deficit to throw money at every special interest group they promised it to, and had to cut short their hallmark infrastructure boost because they can't count. Fully costed = $20B over stated cap.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 May 2016)

It's pretty disingenuous to claim that they've increased spending by $30B.  The deficit probably won't be that large (as much as $10B less), but, growth did stall after January so it's now a possibility given the oil sands slowdown. 

Growth is slower than anticipated in budget 2015.  That means the balance line has changed no matter who is in power.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> His approval rating is near 60%, according to the latest poll by Forum research.



The poll I heard this morning is 52%.  OH MY GOD!......His approval rating has dropped.   [


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I would imagine that the people who approve of his work so far (58%) would be less likely to find fault with what he's doing than the other 42%, regardless of whether or not they voted for him.



Fools seldom differ.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The poll I heard this morning is 52%.  OH MY GOD!......His approval rating has dropped.   [



You're mistaken - his approval rating is 57%.  

The Liberal party is at 52%, about where it usually is:

http://m.ottawasun.com/2016/05/16/if-canadians-went-to-polls-today-liberals-would-get-supermajority-survey-says


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 May 2016)

Now, all these polls mean absolutely nothing at this stage.

We are barely six months into a majority government that replaced the previous party in power, leading to both opposition parties being leaderless until they can be replaced. Until those replacement happen, any poll is really meaningless (Best proof of this is, those polls are always presented as "if an election was held today". In practice, if a majority government imposed a new election on Canadians six months into its mandate, while the opposition is officially leaderless, the Canadians would seriously punish such government for waisting their time and money that way, leading to the opposite result of the "poll"). 

Under those circumstances, anyone could have written the "approval ratings" figures on a piece of paper, sealed in an envelope before the poll and get it right. All they had to do was to take 100% minus the core voters figures for the three main opposition party and write the result on that piece of paper. Failing a world crisis of epic proportion that the new PM was seen by all to screw up (cue PM Chamberlain   ), that's the only possible figure.

BTW, the late Jean Lapierre used to say that a government with an approval rating of less than 50% in the year leading to an election was in trouble, and if below 40%, in deep trouble. The Liberals seem to be starting at 52% after six months. They need to go up - not down - by the time the next election comes up to avoid trouble.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 May 2016)

I'm not sure where the parties were at this point in previous parliaments, but no leader in recent memory has had an approval rating as high as Trudeau.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 May 2016)

Sure he's as popular as that other Justin at the moment.  The day will come when the packs of voters will outside his gatehouse with pitchforks and torches, tar and feathers.  His cachet will smell like a unburied corpse that will have become his reputation with the voters.  Gloat while you can now, our day will come.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 May 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Sure he's as popular as that other Justin at the moment.  The day will come when the packs of voters will outside his gatehouse with pitchforks and torches, tar and feathers.  His cachet will smell like a unburied corpse that will have become his reputation with the voters.  Gloat while you can now, our day will come.



I'm sure that day will happen.  I'm not gloating, I'm simply pointing out that the prevailing view on this forum is the opposite of the prevailing view in the general public at the moment.  People should be mindful of that when making their various analysis.


----------



## Journeyman (16 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ..... the prevailing view on this forum is the opposite of the prevailing view in the general public at the moment.


Personally, I don't believe that there is a "prevailing view" here  (beyond 'whoever disagrees with me is simply wrong' ).  

I'd say there's about an equal percentage who are mindless cheerleaders as there are mindless haters;  I'm sure we could make a column for each team, write in 3-4 names, and most people would go, "ya, that's about right."  

Rather, the overwhelming majority "on this forum" seem divided between: 1) not an issue I care about;  2) wait and see; and  3) show me facts and I'll revisit as we go along (the 'opinion' versus 'informed opinion' crowd).
It's only a select, but largely numerically equal, repetitive bunch who are into the  ":deadhorse:" mode.



As for the "prevailing view in the general public," forgive me if I choose not to have my thinking dictated by sheep;  I will stick to Stevie Ray Vaughan over Justin Bieber, thanks.

But then, I may be simply wrong.           Enjoy  op:


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 May 2016)

And the very same general public thought that PMSH was the greatest thing since sliced bread when he was shiny and new too.  The public adoration doesn't mean a bloody thing in the long run quite honestly.  Perhaps the prevailing view that is here is not as gullible as the great unwashed.  After all, many of us here remember his Liberal and Conservative predecessors all too well, including the father.  I'm not going to be susceptible to Trudeau-mania, sorry.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 May 2016)

Journeyman: To paraphrase Lord Nelson:

"No poster can do very wrong if he sticks to Stevie Ray Vaughan over Justin Bieber."


Nelson would have said that be he still alive today, I am sure.  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (16 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Journeyman: To paraphrase Lord Nelson:
> 
> "No poster can do very wrong if he sticks to Stevie Ray Vaughan over Justin Bieber."
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm sure that day will happen.  I'm not gloating, I'm simply pointing out that the prevailing view on this forum is the opposite of the prevailing view in the general public at the moment.  People should be mindful of that when making their various analysis.



That would depend where you hang out. Don't forget the difference in votes for CPC vs the Libs is just 8%. The Libs are going to shed some of those votes as people becomes dissatisfied with them and they made lot's of big sweeping promises that are going to be difficult to fulfill. The Conservative get a chance to rebuild and Rona is doing a great job in giving them covering fire while they do.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 May 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And the very same general public thought that PMSH was the greatest thing since sliced bread when he was shiny and new too.  The public adoration doesn't mean a bloody thing in the long run quite honestly.  Perhaps the prevailing view that is here is not as gullible as the great unwashed.  After all, many of us here remember his Liberal and Conservative predecessors all too well, including the father.  I'm not going to be susceptible to Trudeau-mania, sorry.



That's why I pointed out that Harper never once enjoyed this level of support.  Certainly not for this long.  I'm sure it will end, but not soon.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 May 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> That would depend where you hang out. Don't forget the difference in votes for CPC vs the Libs is just 8%. The Libs are going to shed some of those votes as people becomes dissatisfied with them and they made lot's of big sweeping promises that are going to be difficult to fulfill. The Conservative get a chance to rebuild and Rona is doing a great job in giving them covering fire while they do.



Almost everyone around me is about as anti Trudeau as you could get. The prevailing public wisdom in the country is far better measured by polls using appropriate methods.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 May 2016)

"public wisdom"  now, there's an oxymoron for you.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> That's why I pointed out that Harper never once enjoyed this level of support.  Certainly not for this long.  I'm sure it will end, but not soon.


Stephen Harper had an approval rating of 61% after his election win in 2006 according to threehundredeight.com. Would you like to make any more unsubstantiated claims, or are you good now?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Almost everyone around me is about as anti Trudeau as you could get. The prevailing public wisdom in the country is far better measured by polls using appropriate methods.



and what methods would that be? Polling is likely to be one of the most affected professions by technology and social shifts. I have very little faith in it and the residual effect of corporate knowledge to interpret against historical polling data is going to fade.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2016)

So!  I would put this in the WTF files, but last time I did that it got moved here anyway;

Here are some truly "Ivory Tower Good Idea Faerie" moronic proposals, that are too unrealistic other than give a "Feel Good Feeling" and "Vote Buy" on the part of the Liberal Government:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Liberal Party Convention To Discuss Indigenous Peoples, Pushing Platform Further
> CP  |  By	Joan Bryden
> Posted: 05/14/2016 12:33 pm EDT Updated: 05/14/2016 12:59 pm EDT
> 
> ...




More on LINK.



So?

Among them, are resolutions to:

     -Rotate the appointment of the governor general between anglophones, francophones and aboriginals.

This is now setting up a "Quota System" in selecting the Governor General, where there is no need for one.

     -Grant official language status to aboriginal languages and provide necessary funding for language preservation.

How many "Official Languages" does Canada need?  Which aboriginal languages will be chosen and which will not?  

      -Pay for First Nations and Inuit peoples' dental, optical, prescription drug and other health-care costs not covered under universal medicare.

Is this not discriminating against the rest of the Canadian population and creating a CLASS SYSTEM that rewards some and penalizes others?

     -Require all Liberal MPs, candidates and nomination contestants to receive training regarding indigenous policy, history and culture before receiving a green light to run by the party.

Nice sentiment, but what about other cultures?  This is creating another form of "Discrimination" in hiring/selection.  We already have Language discrimination in many hiring practices in the country.

     -A guaranteed minimum income.

A "Socialist" pipe dream that only raises other costs and will create another need to raise minimum income that will again raise other costs, again raising an need to raise the minimum income, which......

     -Expansion of universal health care to include pharmacare, home care and palliative care.

If reports of free medical and dental service to aboriginals is on the table, why not for all citizens?  Or are we to create different Classes of Canadians?  Then again, these are Provincial responsibilities, not Federal.

     -Turning the federal portion of student loans into grants for low-income families in 2017 and for middle-income families in 2018.

We have covered this in other discussions and identified the fact that the Education Institutions still want their money, which means others will have to pay more.

     -Lower the voting age to 16.

Seriously?  Is someone on drugs?  Looking at the Criminal Code, sixteen year olds' are still treated as MINORS in the courts.  Which way will this go?  Will Minors get the Vote; or will sixteen year olds' not be treated as Adults in the Courts?

     -Repeal the previous Conservative government's anti-terrorism legislation, whereas the platform promised only to repeal or amend some provisions.

A truly frightening indication that this Government has no concepts of "National Security" and the many threats the are out there that may be threatening Canada.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2016)

I can't get French language training, but they're going to expect me to learn a First Nations language to get promoted? Do I get to pick which one of the hundreds there are?


----------



## Remius (16 May 2016)

Sorry George, but some of those ideas are not as crazy as you are making them out to be.  And keep in mind they are just resolutions to be debated upon not necessarily written in stone.

For one thing I could care less what they force their MPs and candidates to do in order to run.  Their party, their rules.  If they want to take sensitivety training let them fill their boots.

Some of them are a bit far fetched like guaranteed income.

But voting age to sixteen isn't all that far fetched.  At sixteeen you can drive, and chances are you are PAYING TAXES with your part or full time job.  At 16 you can join RMC and at 17 you can join the remainder of the CAF.  Your link to the criminal code is a bit far off when you look at the other things that justify it.  Studies also show that the earlier age that you vote, the more likely you are to be a regular voter for life.  

I would argue that with the Indian act we already are creating a different class of citizen.  Fact is, is that Indigenous peoples in canada have a lower life expectancy than the average Canadian.  I've seen first hand (In INUIT communities at least) the sorry state of dental care... 

Expanding universal healthcare is likely a response to an aging population.  Something we are very much not prepared for.  Homecare, palliative care etc is sorely lacking and something needs to be done.

I don't disagree with some of your points but I'll disagree on some of the others.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 May 2016)

I have no doubt that Natives in Canada have had and are still having a raw deal, and that this should be changed so they can reap the same benefits of being Canadians as every body else without having to renounce their ancestral roots, something we don't even ask immigrants to do (and in fact rather encourage to keep).

However, this idea of making Native languages "official" languages of Canada is sheer lunacy. I wonder if they understand that it would mean that every single one of those languages would be permitted use in Parliament, that every federal communication, document, federal court decision, conference, etc, etc would have to be translated or interpreted into these official languages. We already incur delays that are way too long in getting everything out in French and English. Adding Native languages would mean nothing would ever get out.

Moreover, StatsCan data* indicates this would be done for no more than 213,500 people in Canada who report Native language as their mother tongue and main language used at home. This number is split between more than 60 such Native languages, With Cree (84,000), Inutittut (35,500) and Ojibway (20,000) being the most prevalent, even though the experts claim that of all these, only Cree and Inutittut have any chance of surviving past 2050 (research done at Laval university - sorry, I can't find the link). To contrast this, also according to StatsCan, there are 13 languages spoken at home by immigrants to Canada that are spoken by more than 84,000 people each.

As for the idea of a Minimum Guaranteed Income, the idea has been discussed somewhere in our own forum, and as found then, is not necessarily a bad idea, in its function as a replacement for all the various support programs for the less favoured members of society. It is, however, a Provincial jurisdiction, as are, BTW, pharmacare, home care, and dental care. But it would not be a new thing for the Federal Liberals to invade provincial jurisdictions on the basis of the Federal spending power. I think the concept was invented by Trudeau senior - or at least abused the most by him if he didn't invent it. BTW, two provinces have always been vigorously opposed to use of such power by the Fed. and always fought it side by side: Quebec and Alberta!  

*: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-314-x/98-314-x2011003_3-eng.cfm


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> At 16 you can join RMC and at 17 you can join the remainder of the CAF.



I don't follow party politics, but, "Reserve Force - Applicants may be 16 years of age if they are also enrolled as a full-time high school student."


----------



## Remius (16 May 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I don't follow party politics, but, "Reserve Force - Applicants may be 16 years of age if they are also enrolled as a full-time high school student."



I think you can apply at 16 but need to be 17 for enrolment. 

Either way if you can serve the country you should be allowed to vote.


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I think you can apply at 16 but need to be 17 for enrolment.



I joined the militia when I was 16, but that was a long time ago.  There are many pages of discussion on here about the joining age in the PRes. 

You had to be 21 ( at that time in Ontario ) to drink though, so I can see your political point of view.  

But, you could smoke at age 16. Even younger if you went to a vending machine, ( or told the store they were for your mother ). Maybe that's why I was a smoker ( while still in short pants ), but was never much of a drinker?


----------



## Jed (16 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sorry George, but some of those ideas are not as crazy as you are making them out to be.  And keep in mind they are just resolutions to be debated upon not necessarily written in stone.
> 
> For one thing I could care less what they force their MPs and candidates to do in order to run.  Their party, their rules.  If they want to take sensitivety training let them fill their boots.
> 
> ...




Our 16 yr olds in present day society seem to display much less responsible, self sufficient tendencies than those in several previous generations.  So how will it do our society any good at all to give the vote to immature people who haven't been around enough or experienced life enough to use their vote intelligently?  In today's world most of the young adults now going to university have not matured sufficiently to even look after themselves let alone be responsible for their fellow man.

Even in the middle east were stupidity runs amok, the youth show more respect for the wisdom of their elders then in our North American culture.


----------



## Remius (16 May 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Our 16 yr olds in present day society seem to display much less responsible, self sufficient tendencies than those in several previous generations.  So how will it do our society any good at all to give the vote to immature people who haven't been around enough or experienced life enough to use their vote intelligently?  In today's world most of the young adults now going to university have not matured sufficiently to even look after themselves let alone be responsible for their fellow man.
> 
> Even in the middle east were stupidity runs amok, the youth show more respect for the wisdom of their elders then in our North American culture.



The sad truth to that is that previous generations have chosen to treat them that way and allow them to be that way.  If you treat them like kids they'll act like kids.  Like I said, at 16 you can get a job, pay taxes, join the CAF, consent to sex, drive a car etc etc.  I know plenty of responsible 16 year olds that can and should vote.


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> In today's world most of the young adults now going to university have not matured sufficiently to even look after themselves let alone be responsible for their fellow man.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 May 2016)

I was about to make a similar comment, but Remius beat me to it.

I blame us, the parents, not the kids, for this state of affairs.

I raised my boys from the start to make their own decisions, come up with their own solutions and live with the consequences. I let them go on their own to many places on the logic that I was allowed to go there on my own at that age.   They were both mature enough to deal with life and military service if need be, at age 16.

That, unfortunately, puts me in a minority of parents these days, and, had it been known, might have gotten me visited by horrified idiots of the Family Services Office or Child Protection Service, due to the "hovering-parents-movement" attitude of do-gooders supported by imbecilic police forces found in North America (though more frequently down South than here, thankfully). As if it's a life threatening situation for a 12 years old and his 14 years old sister to go to the local park, three blocks away, by themselves!!!


----------



## jmt18325 (16 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Stephen Harper had an approval rating of 61% after his election win in 2006 according to threehundredeight.com. Would you like to make any more unsubstantiated claims, or are you good now?



Sorry, I misspoke.  I should have compared their peak numbers, and numbers 6 months in.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Sorry, I misspoke.  I should have compared their peak numbers, and numbers 6 months in.



Btw - they're actually less far apart than I had though - Harper was about 3 points below Trudeau in both circumstances.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> mariomike said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now remember, they can enroll WITH their Parents' signed permission.


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now remember, they can enroll WITH their Parents' signed permission.



Right. I forgot to include that.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> At sixteeen you can drive,


  

Yes, but depending on the province, there may be some caveats (e.g) You can't drive at night, you have to have a co-driver (who in some cases has to have a regular license), etc)



> [a]nd chances are you are PAYING TAXES with your part or full time job.


  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you would only pay taxes if you pass a certain threashhold? And working at Macdonald's you are unlikely to pass that threashhold.



> At 16 you can join RMC and at 17 you can join the remainder of the CAF.


As already pointed out, you can only join the CF at 17 if you have your parents/gaurdians permission.



> I would argue that with the Indian act we already are creating a different class of citizen.



Agreed. They need to overhall the Act.


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> As already pointed out, you can only join the CF at 17 if you have your parents/gaurdians permission.



To apply to the Forces, you must:
1.Be a Canadian Citizen.
2.Be 17 years of age, with parental consent, or older, except: 
•Regular Officer Training Plan – Junior applications must be 16 or older.
•Reserve Force - Applicants may be 16 years of age if they are also enrolled as a full-time high school student.
http://www.forces.ca/en/page/applynow-100#who

Many, _many,_  pages of discussion on that subject.


----------



## Remius (16 May 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Yes, but depending on the province, there may be some caveats (e.g) You can't drive at night, you have to have a co-driver (who in some cases has to have a regular license), etc)
> 
> Except (in Ontario at least) that has nothing to do with age.  A 33 year old getting his licence has the same caveats
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I know plenty of responsible 16 year olds that can and should vote.



An interesting discussion about that,

Liberals Want Voting Age Lowered to 16
http://army.ca/forums/threads/80959.75.html
4 pages.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Retired AF Guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK?  According to that logic, they should be able to vote as long as they have their parents' written permission.    [


----------



## Remius (16 May 2016)

And just to be clear, I'm also in favour of 16 year olds being tried as adults.  At 16 you know right from wrong.


----------



## Journeyman (16 May 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> An interesting discussion about that,
> 
> Liberals Want Voting Age Lowered to 16
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/80959.75.html
> 4 pages.


Funny review.  Several people banned; a couple of people warned; a union tangent.....based on a potential _Provincial_  voting change.

At the Federal level, this could all just go away if the rhetoric was changed from "if you're old enough to serve, you're old enough to vote" to "if you _are_  serving, you're old enough to vote."  It would be dropped in a heartbeat because "those serving 'oppressed child mercenaries' can't be trusted to vote -- they're obviously brainwashed by the knuckle-dragging war-mongers." 

Starship Troopers -- become a Citizen.  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 May 2016)

>Either way if you can serve the country you should be allowed to vote.

What exactly is the chain of reasoning from which the latter follows the former?

"If you can tie your shoes, you should be allowed to carry a handgun in Parliament."

See, I can do it, too.


----------



## GAP (16 May 2016)

Hmmmm......seeing as the last election was based on shiny hair and marijuana.....imagine all the additional votes to be had by lowering the voting age to 16.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 May 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> Hmmmm......seeing as the last election was based on shiny hair and marijuana.....imagine all the additional votes to be had by lowering the voting age to 16.....



There it is.......and that's all the liberal thinking behind it. Stacking the vote, plain and simple.


----------



## Remius (16 May 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Either way if you can serve the country you should be allowed to vote.
> 
> What exactly is the chain of reasoning from which the latter follows the former?
> 
> ...



The same reasoning they lowered the age from 21 to 18, not just here but in many countries.  It is a debate not just limited to Canada.  If you can make a decision to sign on to join your country's armed forces and swear allegiance to the crown and serve it no matter whether you agree with who is in charge then are you saying that the same person cannot make an informed decision at age 16?


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 May 2016)

Christ almighty, there's plenty of idiots my age who cannot make an informed decision.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Christ almighty, there's plenty of idiots my age who cannot make an informed decision.



So age is clearly not the issue.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 May 2016)

Speaking of party resolutions, here's one the Conservatives are considering for a month-end conference coming up:


> ... That the party believes in a “mutual obligation in the form of a military covenant between the people of Canada and each individual member of the Canadian Forces ... this covenant recognizes that there is no equivalent profession to that of service in the Canadian Forces.” ...


Anyone know where to find the rest of the text of this one?  Looks interesting, in light of previous statements about this:


> ... "At no time in Canada's history has any alleged 'social contract' or 'social covenant' having the attributes pleaded by the plaintiffs been given effect in any statute, regulation or as a constitutional principle written or unwritten." ...


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> So age is clearly not the issue.



OK.  Point taken.  Question now may be:  When does one no longer need parental permission?   [


----------



## mariomike (17 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Question now may be:  When does one no longer need parental permission?   [



To add to that,

_Even with parental permission_,  "Under the National Defence Act, members of the Canadian Forces who have not yet reached the age of 18 may not be deployed to any theatre of hostilities, or indeed, any area where armed combat is a possibility. The Canadian Forces also do not permit persons under the age of 18 to be deployed in any domestic emergency where weapon use cannot be ruled out.”
http://www.refworld.org/docid/486cb0f026.html

"While the Canadian Forces enrol 16 and 17 year-olds, the Forces have a policy which precludes members under the age of 18 from participating in hostilities or from being deployed to hostile theatres of operations." 
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=proposed-amendment-to-the-national-defence-act-to-reflect-commitment-to-the-new-un-protocol-on-child-soldiers/hnmx18z3


----------



## dapaterson (17 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  Point taken.  Question now may be:  When does one no longer need parental permission?   [



Once we think you're mature enough, George, we'll let you know.  Until then, though, grownups are talking.   >


----------



## Remius (17 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  Point taken.  Question now may be:  When does one no longer need parental permission?   [



wait one.  I'll need to ask my parents... [Xp


----------



## mariomike (17 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> wait one.  I'll need to ask my parents... [Xp



 ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 May 2016)

We can drop th voting age to 16 for Municipal election, which should increase the number of people voting in them by .000016%


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 May 2016)

>If you can make a decision to sign on to join your country's armed forces and swear allegiance to the crown and serve it no matter whether you agree with who is in charge then are you saying that the same person cannot make an informed decision at age 16?

No.  I'm saying there is no obvious chain of reasoning from "may join armed forces" to "should be allowed to vote".

Youths are subject to various levels of supervision in matters of driving, joining the armed forces, things they do in the armed forces, etc.  Voting is an exertion of political power over others, and a secret ballot is unsupervised.


----------



## QV (17 May 2016)

I would suggest further that you have to be a contributing member of society to vote....and be 30 yrs old min.  When I say contributing member I mean not in jail, but I could be persuaded to add further caveats to that criteria too 😁.


----------



## Jed (18 May 2016)

It is interesting to compare this voting age discussion with that of the legal age for drinking.

Around the time of Trudeau senior they changed the age from 21 to 18. As an aside, in Sask it went from 21 to 18 then back to 19.

All this did was greatly increase the drunk drivers on the road and push alcohol abuse at a higher rate directly into the school age pupils.

Quite a price for society to pay so some political party can increase their voter stock.  Amazing how Trudeau Jr. is following into the footsteps of Trudeau Sr.


----------



## mariomike (18 May 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> All this did was greatly increase the drunk drivers on the road and push alcohol abuse at a higher rate directly into the school age pupils.



My uneducated guess is that it may have had something to do with the surge in popularity of drugs with Baby Boomers. ie: Maybe they thought it the lesser of the two evils would be to lower the drinking age?

That's just my guess. It would not be the first time I have been wrong.  

For those of us who remember the LCBO purchase order forms, it's amazing how much times have changed,

1. Customer will fill in purchase order form as to date, brand number, quantity, kind, unit price, amount, permit number and address.
 2. This form must be signed by the customer at the permit endorser’s wicket and in full view of the permit endorser.
 3. Hand purchase order and permit to permit endorser who will hand it back after making the necessary entries on the permit.
 4. Take purchase order to cashier’s wicket and pay for the goods. Purchase order will be received back from the cashier after being stamped by the cash register.
 5. Present purchase order at counter and take delivery of the goods from the counterman.

The stores were not the "boutique" style they have now, and if I recall correctly, bottle labeling was not as attractive as it is now.

They didn't call it the Liquor Control Board of Ontario ( LCBO ) for nothing.


----------



## Jed (18 May 2016)

Saskatchewan, or at least small town Sask. used to follow behind the trend by a couple of years. Drug use didn't really take off until after they lowered the drinking age. I'm not sure how things went in T.O. or points east and west.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 May 2016)

I just want to say I'm very impressed with the Prime Minister today.  While he's pointed out he's a feminist _numerous_ times and came up with tidbits of wisdom like stop interrupting women, it was only after he elbowed MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau along side "manhandling" Gord Brown that I thought to myself he really does believe in treating women the same as men.  

Great stuff.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-conservative-whip-1.3588407


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 May 2016)

Fuddle duddle!


----------



## Remius (19 May 2016)

;D


http://www.thebeaverton.com/national/item/2690-entire-ndp-caucus-arrive-in-neck-braces-wheelchairs-to-house-of-commons-after-trudeau-s-assault


----------



## mariomike (19 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> 
> http://www.thebeaverton.com/national/item/2690-entire-ndp-caucus-arrive-in-neck-braces-wheelchairs-to-house-of-commons-after-trudeau-s-assault



Haven't seen a political knockdown since we lost Mayor Ford. RIP


----------



## Altair (19 May 2016)

So lost in the MMA match on the Commons floor yesterday, NEB has approved Transmountain pipeline. 

157 conditions but whatever, approval is approval,right?


----------



## PuckChaser (19 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> So lost in the MMA match on the Commons floor yesterday, NEB has approved Transmountain pipeline.
> 
> 157 conditions but whatever, approval is approval,right?



ddddddddouble spin. I was wondering when someone was going to try to make a flippant remark about the PM being at minimum unprofessional, but realistically acting like my 3 year old when he doesn't get his way. You also managed to spin approval from NEB for a badly needed pipeline into something horrible for us. Its like you feel its completely impossible to both produce/use fossil fuels and be environmentally responsible.


----------



## jmt18325 (19 May 2016)

Trudeau should have stayed in his seat.

The NDP shouldn't have barricaded Brown.

Brown shouldn't have pretended he was being barricaded.

The Liberals shouldn't have introduced the motion.

The opposition shouldn't have delayed the bill that has to become law very soon.

And on, and on.

Trudeau was wrong, but he's certainly not a woman abuser.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 May 2016)

They must have been watching too many soccer matches as inspiration on how to get a yellow or red card. :nod:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 May 2016)

Agreed- the elbow to the chest was totally incidental contact. The NDP look like morons spinning it as "an attack on women". But, I suppose it does play to the victim mentality of a certain portion of their base.

Trudeau, OTOH, should never have gotten out of his seat; should never, ever have crossed the floor; should never, ever, EVER have dropped the F bomb and touched another MP.

In one fell swoop, he actually validated every single one of the Conservative "just not ready" election ads; turned his Party's parliamentary agenda for the week into a shambles and may yet face personal disciplinary sanction from the board of internal economy.

Nice work Prime Minister...


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 May 2016)

I'd like to see Trudeau try and man handle someone like Jody Mitic.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Trudeau was wrong, but he's certainly not a woman abuser.



Absolutely, the contact was incidental, but she acted like a european soccer player. 

The issue is, there is absolutely 0 place for another in the House, let alone the Prime Minister, to lay hands on ANYONE. It doesn't matter who was doing what. He's the leader of the damned country, and campaigned on making the House have more decorum and respect. This is the complete opposite.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 May 2016)

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, 7 days before the Prime Minister of Canada confused his job description with that of the Master-at-Arms, the Prime Minister of New Zealand was ejected from the House by the Speaker for failing to obey a call to order.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36264258

I guess Speaker Regan is cut from different cloth than the Kiwi Speakers.


----------



## jmt18325 (19 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely, the contact was incidental, but she acted like a european soccer player.
> 
> The issue is, there is absolutely 0 place for another in the House, let alone the Prime Minister, to lay hands on ANYONE. It doesn't matter who was doing what. He's the leader of the damned country, and campaigned on making the House have more decorum and respect. This is the complete opposite.



Oh, I agree.  I'd feel even more badly if not for the game that the NDP (and likely the Conservative Whip) were playing.  Sans the elbow, no one would really be talking about this.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 May 2016)

Just thinking - it was only a couple of weeks ago I was moaning about the Prime Minister being a consensus politician.  

I wuz wrong.  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (19 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Oh, I agree.  I'd feel even more badly if not for the game that the NDP (and likely the Conservative Whip) were playing.  Sans the elbow, no one would really be talking about this.



Without the elbow, we'd be able to focus on the complete lack of professionalism and childish actions of a head of state. Another reason why the NDP tanked in the last election, they're even more not ready to lead than Trudeau.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Without the elbow, we'd be able to focus on the complete lack of professionalism and childish actions of a head of state.



Government, not state.



> Another reason why the NDP tanked in the last election, they're even more not ready to lead than Trudeau.



Well, using that theory, Trudeau should have tanked too.

Trudeau should have stayed in his seat, but he certainly wasn't the one who started the unprofessional mess that happened.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 May 2016)

xx


----------



## PuckChaser (20 May 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Government, not state.
> 
> Well, using that theory, Trudeau should have tanked too.
> 
> Trudeau should have stayed in his seat, but he certainly wasn't the one who started the unprofessional mess that happened.


I've seen less spin in a washing machine. You're desperately trying to disassociate guilt and find someone else to blame to take the heat off.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I've seen less spin in a washing machine. You're desperately trying to disassociate guilt and find someone else to blame to take the heat off.



He shouldn't have done what he did - that doesn't make the incident that led to his mistake right.  More than one thing can happen at a time.  The world is rarely black and white.


----------



## Altair (20 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ddddddddouble spin. I was wondering when someone was going to try to make a flippant remark about the PM being at minimum unprofessional, but realistically acting like my 3 year old when he doesn't get his way. You also managed to spin approval from NEB for a badly needed pipeline into something horrible for us. Its like you feel its completely impossible to both produce/use fossil fuels and be environmentally responsible.


I want pipelines, I have no idea what you're going on about.


----------



## jmt18325 (20 May 2016)

https://youtu.be/VxNObkzjQ8M

Elizabeth May explains the gaggle of NDP in the isle.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Agreed- the elbow to the chest was totally incidental contact. The NDP look like morons spinning it as "an attack on women". But, I suppose it does play to the victim mentality of a certain portion of their base.
> 
> Trudeau, OTOH, should never have gotten out of his seat; should never, ever have crossed the floor; should never, ever, EVER have dropped the F bomb and touched another MP.
> 
> ...




 :goodpost:


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The issue is, there is absolutely 0 place for another in the House, let alone the Prime Minister, to lay hands on ANYONE. It doesn't matter who was doing what. He's the leader of the damned country, and campaigned on making the House have more decorum and respect. This is the complete opposite.


 :nod:


----------



## Journeyman (20 May 2016)

Noting another piece of CBC "Analysis", it wasn't the Prime Minister's fault:


> But the real reason is the tone in the Commons remains toxic.  [Government House leader Dominic] LeBlanc and government whip Andrew Leslie, the two people responsible for ensuring an orderly work flow in the Commons.... haven't done the job.
> 
> It could be arrogance..... Or perhaps it's inexperience, especially in the case of Leslie...
> 
> ...


Or, as noted in the same article by interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, the  "government doesn't want a government and an opposition... They want a government and an audience."




			
				Altair said:
			
		

> I want pipelines, I have no idea what you're going on about.


And that, sadly, is likely the truth.


----------



## Lumber (20 May 2016)

Come oooooooon!

Doesn't any body else like where this is going?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 May 2016)

Actually, for once, I thought the National's At Issue panel did a good - neutral - job on this problem last night. I particularly appreciated the fact that Andrew Coyne seems to be one of the few journalist/analyst who spotted the PM's action the same way I saw them: He acted like a school teacher dealing with troublesome students on the steps of the school. Basically, it was the arrogance of authority over their "charges".

Amazingly enough, the government got a scolding from the Bard on the Rock on electoral reform in the same showing of the National. I am attaching it here for those who may have missed it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTXeGdz8txs

I stayed out of this thread until now, but personally, I am squarely on the side of those that say that the PM had absolutely no business whatsoever of getting up from his seat. And for those around here who deride the elderly crowd in these fora when we tell you to wait and see and the Liberal's arrogance as the "natural" governing party will come through: this is one of those instances.

The PM and the government are not in charge of the commons (or the whole Parliament for that matter). They do not rule it. In fact it's the other way around as government derives its powers from the assent of Parliament. 

So who rules the Commons? The Speaker of the House does, and he has a Master-at-arms, clerks, pages and so forth to control it (Funny enough, the Speaker is the only member of Parliament that can be manhandled - on one specific occasion, when he/she is taken to his/her seat - by "faked" force he/she is supposed to "resist" - by the leaders of every party right after he/she is elected to the position). If PM Trudeau was unhappy with the situation, all he had to do was to address himself to the Speaker asking him to solve the matter, and then live with the Speaker's decision.

I know that some "unconditionally" Liberal supporter have tried to put the onus of the events on the NDP for blocking the way of the Conservative whip. However, that is taking things completely out of context. The house was assembling to dispose of a government motion, which the opposition couldn't block, that was about to deprive the opposition of its capacity in advance of debating a highly charged issue put before them. Delaying tactics was all they had, and in all probability, the Conservative whip was either in on it or happy to oblige. After all, any idiot that looks at the video can see quite clearly that, if the whip had wanted real bad to get to his seat, all he had to do was go around the clerk's table on the government side: it's not illegal - he has as much right to walk on that side as anybody else in the commons.


----------



## FSTO (20 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, for once, I thought the National's At Issue panel did a good - neutral - job on this problem last night. I particularly appreciated the fact that Andrew Coyne seems to be one of the few journalist/analyst who spotted the PM's action the same way I saw them: He acted like a school teacher dealing with troublesome students on the steps of the school. Basically, it was the arrogance of authority over their "charges".
> 
> Amazingly enough, the government got a scolding from the Bard on the Rock on electoral reform in the same showing of the National. I am attaching it here for those who may have missed it.
> 
> ...



Totally agree OGBD. 
Trudeau is the author of his own problem in this matter. If he had just stayed in his seat. :facepalm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 May 2016)

BTW, here is a further point that I have not seen made anywhere:

When PM Trudeau gets up the second time, allegedly to go and apologize to the member he elbowed accidentally (and on that point, I fully agree that this was accidental - not intentional at all), he choses to go, once again, right through the NDP crowd when all he had to do to avoid  further confrontation was to go by the government side of the aisle, which was again completely clear.

That is his choice but he selected for a second time the course of action that creates the most disturbance, in a look at me, I am the boss and I am not afraid of the opposition type of attitude. The fact that he then gets into a shouting match with Mulcair seems to me to indicate that's what he was seeking all along, another opportunity to put Mulcair "in his place" for delaying the vote.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, for once, I thought the National's At Issue panel did a good - neutral - job on this problem last night. I particularly appreciated the fact that Andrew Coyne seems to be one of the few journalist/analyst who spotted the PM's action the same way I saw them: He acted like a school teacher dealing with troublesome students on the steps of the school. Basically, it was the arrogance of authority over their "charges".



And that's why.  He is to many, myself included, just a jumped up elementary school teacher.  As someone else pointed out, his behavior clearly confirmed the CPC ads of the election.  "Just not ready"  I believe the wheels of the trolly, that is he professional politician persona, will come off more and more as time marches on.  Should be fun to watch  He's already "Fuddle Duddling" in the house just like dear old dad.  op:


----------



## FSTO (20 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> BTW, here is a further point that I have not seen made anywhere:
> 
> When PM Trudeau gets up the second time, allegedly to go and apologize to the member he elbowed accidentally (and on that point, I fully agree that this was accidental - not intentional at all), he chooses to go, once again, right through the NDP crowd when all he had to do to avoid  further confrontation was to go by the government side of the aisle, which was again completely clear.
> 
> That is his choice but he selected for a second time the course of action that creates the most disturbance, in a look at me, I am the boss and I am not afraid of the opposition type of attitude. The fact that he then gets into a shouting match with Mulcair seems to me to indicate that's what he was seeking all along, another opportunity to put Mulcair "in his place" for delaying the vote.



I noticed that as well. The man that became the head of government on the basis of consensus and listening to all Canadians certainly displayed the worst aspects of his father. 
"Just watch me." 
Some of us have been watching you Prime Minister and to quote the Queen. "We are not impressed."


----------



## Lumber (20 May 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And that's why.  He is to many, myself included, just a jumped up elementary school teacher.  As someone else pointed out, his behavior clearly confirmed the CPC ads of the election.  "Just not ready"  I believe the wheels of the trolly, that is he professional politician persona, will come off more and more as time marches on.  Should be fun to watch  He's already "Fuddle Duddling" in the house just like dear old dad.  op:



I thought this site established a while ago that the country didn't elected a government lead by a Prime Minister, but rather the country elected a government lead my a committee (cabal?) of pie-fingering bourgeoisie with a Prime Minister as a figure head? Maybe the Junta of _Señor Butts_ needs to find a better leesh for use in the commons...


----------



## Journeyman (20 May 2016)

Some of you are still using words that are too big.

How about......






       op:


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 May 2016)

Pretty sad watching all the left-wingers _rally 'round their king_ and go on the offensive against  Ruth Brosseau. 
Calling her a bitch and dropping enough C-bombs to make a Brit blush. Standard accusations about her promiscuity and of course threats of violence.


----------



## Altair (20 May 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Noting another piece of CBC "Analysis", it wasn't the Prime Minister's fault:Or, as noted in the same article by interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose, the  "government doesn't want a government and an opposition... They want a government and an audience."
> 
> And that, sadly, is likely the truth.


And here I was thinking that with the new rules around here, everyone was to be respectful and stick to the issues. I guess not.

How about this. Keep your stupid little comments to yourself, okay? Good.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 May 2016)

???


----------



## Lumber (20 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> And here I was thinking that with the new rules around here, everyone was to be respectful and stick to the issues. I guess not.
> 
> How about this. Keep your stupid little comments to yourself, okay? Good.



Well I know where this is headed...



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Pretty sad watching all the left-wingers _rally 'round their king_ and go on the offensive against  Ruth Brosseau.
> Calling her a ***** and dropping enough C-bombs to make a Brit blush. Standard accusations about her promiscuity and of course threats of violence.



I must have missed this part on the CBC news article. Did these "C-Bombs" happen to appear in the comments section?


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 May 2016)

Some here seem to be living in glass houses with their comments and apparently won't follow their own advice to others.  Not surprised at it, to be quite frank.


----------



## Altair (20 May 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Some here seem to be living in glass houses with their comments and apparently won't follow their own advice to others.  Not surprised at it, to be quite frank.


What post have I made that is solely a insult to someone without even pretending to comet on the issue at hand? 

I'm curious to see.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 May 2016)

Civility used to be a really simple concept.  

You said something.  If the person you said it to didn't like it he punched you in the face.  Learning opportunity eventuated.  You moderated your words the next time.

You wrote something. If the person you said it to didn't like it he sued you.  Learning opportunity eventuated.  You moderated your words the next time.

These days avatars, pseudonyms, and buffers of electrons grant an anonymity that permits uncivil utterances with no consequences.


----------



## FSTO (20 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> And here I was thinking that with the new rules around here, everyone was to be respectful and stick to the issues. I guess not.
> 
> How about this. Keep your stupid little comments to yourself, okay? Good.


So an observation is a stupid little comment? You seem to be awfully thin skinned when it comes to the actions of our PM.


----------



## Lumber (20 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> What post have I made that is solely a insult to someone without even pretending to comet on the issue at hand?
> 
> I'm curious to see.



Ahem:



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> ...
> How about this. Keep your stupid little comments to yourself, okay? Good.



Where in there did you pretend to comment on the issue at hand?

Unless this is a quote from the House of Commons I missed somewhere!


----------



## Altair (20 May 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Ahem:
> 
> Where in there did you pretend to comment on the issue at hand?
> 
> Unless this is a quote from the House of Commons I missed somewhere!


Brilliant detective work. 

When it's clear that nobody around here is even going to pretend to enforce respectful dialog and I respond in turn, that's your brilliant example. Well done mate, well done.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 May 2016)

And alas, confirms why I have some on ignore.  Shall have to continue this trend, I think.


----------



## George Wallace (20 May 2016)

It is Parliament.  The House of Commons follows the rules of Parliament in conducting its business.  Someone was worried that a delayed vote would cause them to be late for another 'commitment'.  Someone lost their temper and common sense and crossed the Floor, grabbed someone by the arm and guided them through a crowd instead of around, and elbowed someone in the chest.  Then they proceeded to once again go through the crowd, instead of around, in an attempt to apologize, but landed up shouting obscenities at another member.   Shades of the Election phrase "He is just not ready".  Definitely not following Parliamentary Procedure in any of those actions.........But we land up with one promise being kept:


----------



## Altair (20 May 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> So an observation is a stupid little comment? You seem to be awfully thin skinned when it comes to the actions of our PM.


Okay, let's see if we can make sense of this.

I said



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> So lost in the MMA match on the Commons floor yesterday, NEB has approved Transmountain pipeline.
> 
> 157 conditions but whatever, approval is approval,right?



Puckchaser said



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ddddddddouble spin. I was wondering when someone was going to try to make a flippant remark about the PM being at minimum unprofessional, but realistically acting like my 3 year old when he doesn't get his way. You also managed to spin approval from NEB for a badly needed pipeline into something horrible for us. Its like you feel its completely impossible to both produce/use fossil fuels and be environmentally responsible.



I said



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> I want pipelines, I have no idea what you're going on about.


Journeyman said


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> And that, sadly, is likely the truth.



I said



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> And here I was thinking that with the new rules around here, everyone was to be respectful and stick to the issues. I guess not.
> 
> How about this. Keep your stupid little comments to yourself, okay? Good.



Where in all of this did I show I was thin skinned about the prime minister?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 May 2016)

The Liberal Cabinet still has to approve it

_The National Energy Board (NEB or the Board) has issued a 533-page report recommending Governor in Council approve the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (Project), subject to 157 conditions._


----------



## Remius (20 May 2016)

Partisans will remain partisans.  

If you disliked The prime minister you probably still do. If you liked him you probably still do. 

I mentioned in previous posts that the Liberals had managed to change the tone.  They did.  But in as short as a week they managed to undo that.  

The elbow and even the "man handling" are minor issues in the grand scheme.  Although one must admit that if Stephen Harper or one of his ministers had done that, all those Liberal Trudeau cheerleaders would be calling for his head.  See my first and second lines as to why that that is.  In fact I truly believe that opposition and NDP are playing this up way too much.  

No, the real issue here is how the Liberals are beginning to try and get their agenda through. LImiting time allocation and stifling debate. And more importantly the ridiculous and tyrannical motion 6 they were about to table were it not for the Prime Minister's outburst.  These are the sort of tactics I came to expect from the last government.  The very tactics that the Liberals maintain they would change.  THIS on its whole is what essentially led the PM to do what he did and where we stand now.

This is likely not going to hurt Mr. Trudeau in the long run.  It may be something that will be looked back on as an anomaly for most.  That being said, I doubt that he will get too many get out of jail free cards.  If not from the voters then perhaps from his very own party.  Summer shut down is looming so maybe the reprieve will allow for things to simmer down.

In the end though if the elbow and the manhandling is what the focus of people's attention is then they are missing the bigger picture...


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 May 2016)

This mess is just another demonstration of the devolution of maturity among contemporary adults.  People raised to adore snarky rude irreverent childish "gotcha" journalism and late evening comedy shows are going to be snarky rude irreverent childish adults in their dealings.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 May 2016)

Plenty of blame to go around, for sure.

Highlights? 

Biggest critique to the Speaker for failing to maintain (enforce) decorum an respectful conduct.  If no compliance, have the Seargant-At-Arms take the Mace and collect the pages, and suspend the session for the day.

Biggest (such as it is) kudos to...Uugh, can't believe I'm about to say this...Elizabeth May for an attempt to get people to look introspectively and, procedure contravention by the PM notwithstanding, avoid stooping to 'World Cup soccer' standard of knee-clutching, diving and rolling around on the pitch after perceived targeted personal attack.

Canadian citizens deserve more from their elected representatives...ALL of them!


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> Biggest critique to the Speaker for failing to maintain (enforce) decorum an respectful conduct.  If no compliance, have the Seargant-At-Arms take the Mace and collect the pages, and suspend the session for the day.
> 
> ....



Amen to that one.  As I noted upthread, other speakers, in other parliaments have had no difficulty chucking members out on their heads.  I'm concerned that Speaker Regan, Liberal, reflexively thinks of PM Trudeau as his boss and not that MP Trudeau sits at the sufferance of the House and its Speaker.

The other thing that attracted my attention was in Round 2, when the PM went back to the NDP benches and intentionally waded through the crowd that he could have bypassed, the number of Liberal members who left their benches to take the floor while the PM and Tom Mulcair were exchanging words.   Hockey is apparently embedded in the Canadian psyche.

Lots of screw ups here, but the biggest ones are by a combative PM and an ineffectual Speaker.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 May 2016)

Certainly makes one question the Speaker's presumed neutrality.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 May 2016)

About as neutral as Spain in 39.


----------



## Altair (25 May 2016)

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-polls-elbow-1.3599179


> The altercation in the House of Commons last week between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and members of the opposition captured Canadians' attention, but two polls published this week suggest a majority of those Canadians have shrugged it off like a wayward elbow on a crowded subway.
> 
> The latest poll, conducted by Ipsosfor Global News, shows that 63 per cent of Canadians feel the tusslewas "no big deal," a "momentary lapse of judgment" on the part of the prime minister, and that "we should all just move on."
> 
> ...


 Ya don't say


----------



## George Wallace (25 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-polls-elbow-1.3599179
> 
> Ya don't say



OK.


Here is another one for you.  I wonder if similar data collection was done?


https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/733225580152285/

Complete BS, as Windmills and Solar Farms only produce a fraction of Germany's electricity, while nuclear and fossil fueled plants still provide the majority of Germany's power.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Here is another one for you.  I wonder if similar data collection was done?
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/733225580152285/
> ...


A Facebook meme not based on facts?


----------



## Altair (25 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.
> 
> 
> Here is another one for you.  I wonder if similar data collection was done?
> ...


look, distraction!


----------



## George Wallace (25 May 2016)

No distraction.  Just a sample of data that was collected; that is FALSE.


----------



## Altair (25 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No distraction.  Just a sample of data that was collected; that is FALSE.


I'm sure that two separate polling firms, ipsos and Abacus were both very wrong.

That is clearly the most likely scenario, nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.
> 
> 
> Here is another one for you.  I wonder if similar data collection was done?
> ...



Your argument was to bring up an arbitrary issue and state it's wrong without providing proof yourself? Well done.....


----------



## George Wallace (25 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Your argument was to bring up an arbitrary issue and state it's wrong without providing proof yourself? Well done.....



Not saying it is wrong.  Just making a commentary on the fact that these data collection methods are not always what they seem.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not saying it is wrong.  Just making a commentary on the fact that these data collection methods are not always what they seem.



I think polling companies are different than Facebook memes.... trudeau's popularity has been sustained since they've managed to market him well. Nothing has managed to throw them off their intent, which helps too. That said, I don't understand the discontent with the "sunny ways"....why is being positive a bad thing?


----------



## PuckChaser (25 May 2016)

The media has taken to calling him teflon in a few articles. There's so many of his faithful that would make excuses for him pushing a child into traffic. The red herring arguments about the NDP MP overreacting were fantastic. Not that this case is anywhere as serious as a sexual assault, but its the exact same culture that victim shames instead of making the sane decision that he was in the wrong, and that an "overreaction" doesn't negate that fact.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The media has taken to calling him teflon in a few articles. *There's so many of his faithful that would make excuses for him pushing a child into traffic. The red herring arguments about the NDP MP overreacting were fantastic. Not that this case is anywhere as serious as a sexual assault, but its the exact same culture that victim shames instead of making the sane decision that he was in the wrong*, and that an "overreaction" doesn't negate that fact.



I think you nailed it on a bunch of points.

1. Trudeau's fanbase are still in love with him and fanatic enough that they won't let a little assault deter them.

Guaranteed the crowd that are saying it's no big deal would change their tune pretty quick if it was a matter of their spouse's supervisor grabbing them by the arm to move them or accidentally elbowing them while they were manhandling someone else. 

2. Right again about attacking the victim. She used to be a barmaid so she should be used to it. She got in the way on purpose. "I'll come find you and smash you in the face then you'll have something to cry about you stupid **nt". Lots of classy reactions.


----------



## Altair (26 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think you nailed it on a bunch of points.
> 
> 1. Trudeau's fanbase are still in love with him and fanatic enough that they won't let a little assault deter them.
> 
> ...


attacking the victim? People on the Internet I'm guessing? Because people on the Internet on both sides of the spectrum are incredibly classy I guess. 

The most I've seen in print is talking about how ridiculous regular Canadians will find the opposition making impact statements and how they feel unsafe at work now. Or that beautiful Lisa Raitt tweet on how it's supposed to be about believing women, intentionally or unintentionally linking trudeau with ghomeshi.

The worst thing about this is that Elizabeth may came out of this looking like the most responsible person in parliament that day.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 May 2016)

So you're equating death threats with people saying they feel unsafe at work? You realize if he did that at a civilian employer he'd be fired, right? We don't even physically accost people in the CAF anymore, and we're in a profession that is supposed to be able to kill people. Focusing on others instead of the individual involved is just an attempt to disassociate guilt. We get it, people over reacted. People always overreact. That doesn't change one ounce of what happened, and how wrong it was.

There's a reason the sides of the house are separate by a certain distance, so members couldn't draw swords and fight. If Trudeau can't control himself, he shouldn't be in the Commons.


----------



## Altair (26 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So you're equating death threats with people saying they feel unsafe at work? You realize if he did that at a civilian employer he'd be fired, right? We don't even physically accost people in the CAF anymore, and we're in a profession that is supposed to be able to kill people. Focusing on others instead of the individual involved is just an attempt to disassociate guilt. We get it, people over reacted. People always overreact. That doesn't change one ounce of what happened, and how wrong it was.
> 
> There's a reason the sides of the house are separate by a certain distance, so members couldn't draw swords and fight. If Trudeau can't control himself, he shouldn't be in the Commons.


Sure he was wrong. He then apologized repeatedly. The member who was hurt accepted. Issue over.

Humans make mistakes.

As for death threats, you should see some of things PC WR members in Alberta want to do to rachel notley.

There are wackos in all parties,  people with no accountability on the Internet. Why are they even talked about?


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... its the exact same culture that victim shames instead of making the sane decision that he was in the wrong, and that an "overreaction" doesn't negate that fact.


 :nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> attacking the victim? People on the Internet I'm guessing? Because people on the Internet on both sides of the spectrum are incredibly classy I guess.


Deflection.  
Considering the number of people that both have access to the internet today and those that chime in on this stuff the distinction between "real life people" and "people on the internet" is pretty thin. 

Regardless if she pulled a European football player drama show or not an unsettling number of people attacked her over it with threats of violence, sexual assault and personal attacks.   People are in love with Trudeau and will either justify or fluff off behavior that is unacceptable.



> The most I've seen in print is talking about how ridiculous regular Canadians will find the opposition making impact statements and how they feel unsafe at work now. Or that beautiful Lisa Raitt tweet on how it's supposed to be about believing women, intentionally or unintentionally linking trudeau with ghomeshi.


Of course political opposition will react, or overreact, about anything they can which gives them spotlight time. 

Taking an "Oh ya well so and so did this" when faced with something like this is more deflection. It's not a who misbehaved worse contest.  The PM fucked up. His apology was very mealy mouthed and seemed very insincere.

Our politics and politicians have turned into a reality TV show.


----------



## Remius (26 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Deflection.
> Considering the number of people that both have access to the internet today and those that chime in on this stuff the distinction between "real life people" and "people on the internet" is pretty thin.
> 
> Regardless if she pulled a European football player drama show or not an unsettling number of people attacked her over it with threats of violence, sexual assault and personal attacks.   People are in love with Trudeau and will either justify or fluff off behavior that is unacceptable.
> ...



The problem is that the over reaction overtook what he did.  There was likely some political gain that the opposition parties could have made but it was squandered with hyperbolic statements about assault, sexual assault and drunk drivers.  That's when people who've seen the video roll there eyes and stop listening.  If you didn't like him before your likely the ones beating a dead horse over this.  If you liked him then he could do no wrong and the opposition are playing shenanigans.

Another issue that highlights what's wrong with critics of Trudeau is what they are criticising him for.  Talk radio on CFRA last night made the same point.  For years now his detractors have mentioned his hair, his wife, his father, his selfies, his vacations, his money, his yoga prowess and how the world seems to fawn over him.  Over and over again.  It's become white noise.  This why the attacks ads in the last election failed. Detractors (even here in this thread) see these things as having little substance and they are correct.  Which is why no one cares.  The criticism is just as hollow.  

"I hate Trudeau"
"Why?"
"His hair."

Or whatever.  

Elbowgate or whatever dumb ass thing they are calling this is just another example.  In the grand scheme, as polling is showing, most people don't care. 

The opposition needs to come up with a better strategy to oppose.  If they keep focusing on the fluffy stuff they hate so much no one is going to listen.  

Focus on the budget fudging they are doing, focus on their hypocrisy in how they are ram rodding legislation using closure.  Let's call them on pipelines and the green energy plan etc etc.  

Essentially get off the light fluffy stuff and get serious about attacking the LPC and Trudeau policies because the LPC is outmanoeuvering both the NDP and the CPC without having to do very much.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 May 2016)

Light fluffy stuff is how you get elected, look at Trudeau. You can focus on the issues all you want, but the Canadian public is only paying attention to Kardashian-esque antics. Float some sunshine, rainbows and legalized pot, and the general electorate can pretend oil price drops, global terrorist threats and massive cost of living increases don't exist anymore. Look at Tim Hudak - hard, blunt talk on issues, populace didn't care. Now Ontario is broke, and Canada is run by the same advisors that broke Ontario.


----------



## Remius (26 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Light fluffy stuff is how you get elected, look at Trudeau. You can focus on the issues all you want, but the Canadian public is only paying attention to Kardashian-esque antics. Float some sunshine, rainbows and legalized pot, and the general electorate can pretend oil price drops, global terrorist threats and massive cost of living increases don't exist anymore. Look at Tim Hudak - hard, blunt talk on issues, populace didn't care. Now Ontario is broke, and Canada is run by the same advisors that broke Ontario.



It's also what gets you defeated.  Like it or not, the CPC 's almost obsessive attack ads didn't help.  They really didn't offer much and they focused on trivial things like hair.  

Hudak lost for more reasons than that.  He poorly communicated his plan and failed to connect which is something the CPC needs to avoid.   if you can't communicate you won't win the votes you need.  That is something the LPC was able to do regardless of the effectiveness of their policies.  Neither Stephen Harper nor Tim Hudak was able to effectively communicate why they were the right choice.  Wynne and Trudeau did.


----------



## George Wallace (26 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Neither Stephen Harper nor Tim Hudak was able to effectively communicate why they were the right choice.



That there sums up the failure of both Federal and Ontario PC Parties in their respective election bids.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Neither Stephen Harper nor Tim Hudak was able to effectively communicate why they were the right choice.  Wynne and Trudeau did.



I remember when Wynne was running one of the biggest things she had going for her was that she was female and gay. When I was creeping around other sites and forums the cult following she had based solely on being a gay female was incredible. Trudeau? I wonder how many votes he got simply on the premise that he was going to legalize pot. Pretty important in the greater scheme of things.

Whats our promised 10 billion deficit up to now? Who cares it's just numbers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I remember when Wynne was running one of the biggest things she had going for her was that she was female and gay. When I was creeping around other sites and forums the cult following she had based solely on being a gay female was incredible. Trudeau? I wonder how many votes he got simply on the premise that he was going to legalize pot. Pretty important in the greater scheme of things.
> 
> Whats our promised 10 billion deficit up to now? Who cares _it's just numbers_.




And speaking of numbers ...

After six months in office and in the wake of "elbowgate" Prime Minister Trudeau's popularity, and that of his party, remain astonishingly high.

Canadians voted for change and they are still persuaded that Justin Trudeau is going to bring it.

I have my doubts, but I think that, for now, a majority of Canadians (he's poling at 50%+) like Prime Minister Trudeau and either don't understand or just don't care what he's doing.

How long until the bloom is off the rose?  :dunno:  From a Conservative perspective any time before late spring of 2019 will do (i.e. when they suddenly realize that he can't balance the budget) ...


----------



## Eaglelord17 (26 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Whats our promised 10 billion deficit up to now? Who cares it's just numbers.



The other day I did some rough number crunching. With our current debt we are paying about 30 billion debt a year in interest (federally I don't even want to look at Ontarios numbers). If we go back 10 years and for arguments sake saying the interest payments were 30 billion for each year (just some rough numbers), we have spent 300 billion on just interest alone. That 300 billion is roughly half of Canadas federal debt (about 624 billion dollars at the moment). And this wasn't even to pay down the debt, just keep it steady. 

The argument I have to make to people is think of how much we could have now if we weren't paying that interest. There would currently be no deficit, and might actually be a small surplus. Think of how many things we have lost out on by the older generations pushing there debt on to there children (and my generation helping to push it on to my children).


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 May 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have my doubts, but I think that, for now, a majority of Canadians (he's poling at 50%+) like Prime Minister Trudeau and either don't understand or just don't care what he's doing.



The number of people, especially in academia, who think this guy is a saviour is predictable but depressing. The number of female students in university and college who chuck their brains and vote on the eye candy principle is depressing.  The number of male students in university, college and prison who cannot wait to legally smoke pot in the parking lot before driving home is astounding. I'm going to start selling photo shopped JT in a Speedo poster sets complete with adam/eve toys, potato chips and other munchies in the orange pass parking lots, and retire in 2 years or less.


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The number of people, especially in academia, who think this guy is a saviour is predictable but depressing. The number of female students in university and college who chuck their brains and vote on the eye candy principle is depressing.  The number of male students in university, college and prison who cannot wait to legally smoke pot in the parking lot before driving home is astounding. I'm going to start selling photo shopped JT in a Speedo poster sets complete with adam/eve toys, potato chips and other munchies in the orange pass parking lots, and retire in 2 years or less.


Depressing why?

Because someone finally took the time to try and court the under 30 voters that parties have ignored for years because young people don't vote? 

Young people engaged in politics, depressing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Depressing why?
> 
> Because someone finally took the time to try and court the under 30 voters that parties have ignored for years because young people don't vote?
> 
> Young people engaged in politics, depressing.



Not that they are 'engaged' but over what issues are bringing them TO politics.  Pot, puppies and butterflies.  Nothing of substance, for sure.  Well, not in any numbers worth mentioning.

Todays generation can't get off their smartphones and celebrity following long enough to care or understand things beyond the superficial.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Depressing why?



Do you think people voting on a single issue like legalizing drugs is a beneficial thing to our country as a whole?


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 May 2016)

The issues that appear to be bringing them to vote are not politics as we would think about the subject, but politics as they think about it. A chance to get some sugar from the government. Ok, fine that could still be a good thing if what they are thinking about is actually something that is not flashed by Snapchat or a frigging tweet. Read a book for fucks sake's. For a half generation whose older brothers and sisters fought a war - or at least had the opportunity and reason to do so- (Afghanistan) a lot of this crop who were aged between 3 and 6 when 9/11 occurred, appear to choose to not even try to understand and seem to go out of their way to learn nothing but they are sure up to date on yoga wear or how the latest Apple update will make their life better. 

Check that. Foreign students- Korean, Indonesian, Malaysian, Chinese, any place from the Middle East and Africa- they pay attention to our politics and culture, and wonder why the sword has not been taken to us yet.


----------



## Remius (27 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you think people voting on a single issue like legalizing drugs is a beneficial thing to our country as a whole?



Can anyone provide any facts as to whether or not that is the case or is this just a guess or an opinion?  Seriously, I'm wondering if there is anything out there that supports this argument?


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not that they are 'engaged' but over what issues are bringing them TO politics.  Pot, puppies and butterflies.  Nothing of substance, for sure.  Well, not in any numbers worth mentioning.
> 
> Todays generation can't get off their smartphones and celebrity following long enough to care or understand things beyond the superficial.


That dismissive attitude towards young people is the exact reason you don't understand why they voted liberal. Also, if they/we can't get off our smartphones for  anything beyond the superficial I'm sure we wouldn't have found time to stand in line and vote.

So let's ignore the legalization of pot.

Let's ignore the liberals running a possible campaign on hope instead of the negative approach taken by the conservatives.

Let's ignore that the liberals were far more interested in the environment, something young voters care about.

Let's ignore the liberal campaign promises  revolving around helping young Canadians with jobs and post secondary education

Let's ignore the liberals using social media to reach young voters that the conservatives and ndp didn't

Lets ignore that the liberals were not standing for hijab bans and barbaric hotlines,  and that younger Canadians are more in favor of multiculturalism and inclusion.

Yeah, 45 percent of young voters voted for pot, puppies and butterflies. In record numbers not seen since 1997. That makes a heck of a lot more sense.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Can anyone provide any facts as to whether or not that is the case or is this just a guess or an opinion?  Seriously, I'm wondering if there is anything out there that supports this argument?



I'm basing that off a lot of comments I've seen people make on social about never voting before or legalizing pot being the only reason they're voting.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> That dismissive attitude towards young people is the exact reason you don't understand why they voted liberal.



I understand why they voted, don't kid yourself.  It is also the same thing that worries me.  I am not out of touch with todays generation;  I see them exactly for what they are.  Not all of them, but the average one?  Yup.  Fuckin scary. 

All of those other things you listed...some of them buzzwords, some of them real issues...are ALL things you and your kids will be paying for over and over again.  I don't want the bill for all the $ the PM and Liberals are handing out, but hey...its just gov money!

The average person forgets the gov $ comes from their pay cheques.  There is no Harry Potter Bottomless Bag of Cash.

How the Liberals succeeded?  A smiling face.  Your "young liberal voters", as I have said before, elected a Prom King, not voted for a federal government.


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Can anyone provide any facts as to whether or not that is the case or is this just a guess or an opinion?  Seriously, I'm wondering if there is anything out there that supports this argument?


http://clubzone.com/blog/why-canadas-youth-voted-for-trudeau/

Informal 420 person Internet poll

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/spike-in-young-voters-helped-liberals-win-federal-election-report-1.2864902



> Employment, student debt key issues for youth
> 
> The data suggests lack of employment and the cost of post-secondary education were among the most important issues to young people.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jed (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> That dismissive attitude towards young people is the exact reason you don't understand why they voted liberal. Also, if they/we can't get off our smartphones for  anything beyond the superficial I'm sure we wouldn't have found time to stand in line and vote.
> 
> So let's ignore the legalization of pot.
> 
> ...



No one of the Conservative persuasion is ignoring those items on your ignore list.  Generally, it is a matter of hard earned life experience that is being ignored by the current youthful society that has no respect or appreciation of those that did the heavy lifting to make life easier for them.

Pull the baby soother out of your mouth before you talk to your elders and the brain activated earplugs out of your ears and you might learn something.


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> No one of the Conservative persuasion is ignoring those items on your ignore list.  Generally, it is a matter of hard earned life experience that is being ignored by the current youthful society that has no respect or appreciation of those that did the heavy lifting to make life easier for them.
> 
> Pull the baby soother out of your mouth before you talk to your elders and the brain activated earplugs out of your ears and you might learn something.


That reminds me.

That whole, just not ready attack ad? Something every young person who has wanted a job or looking for advancement has probably heard before. Too young, just not ready, not enough experience.  That probably didn't help the conservatives with the under 30 voters.


----------



## MARS (27 May 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And speaking of numbers ...
> 
> After six months in office and in the wake of "elbowgate" Prime Minister Trudeau's popularity, and that of his party, remain astonishingly high.
> 
> ...



As you and I have discussed, he wot be any worse for us than Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton will be for the United States.  In 4 or 8 years the United States will be in roughly the same position they are now.  In x years, so will we.  Marginally better or worse but nothing drastic.  

Besides, as is already being reported from the convention, the senior mandarins of the liberal party will course correct whatever they need to if they think "their" party is being hijacked by policies try disagree with, regardless of what the celebrity-obsessed voters think.  There I so o much at stake - that is, The Liberal Party, to leave its fate and future in the hands of the average Joe.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> That reminds me.
> 
> That whole, just not ready attack ad? Something every young person who has wanted a job or looking for advancement has probably heard before. Too young, just not ready, not enough experience.  That probably didn't help the conservatives with the under 30 voters.



Never thought of that.  But...way back in the late 80's, I also heard that stuff to because, well I didn't have any experience.  I just didn't except a job or advancement to fall into my lap, I worked for them.  

But still, good catch, I never made that connection on the possible reverse effect it may have had.

You know, you always beat the same drum, but I have to say kudos for doing it in a civil manner on here.  BZ.  I didn't say its not annoying...just so you know that too.   ;D  Had to change that after the "I don't give a damn about old Canadians" comment to follow.


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Never thought of that.  But...way back in the late 80's, I also heard that stuff to because, well I didn't have any experience.  I just didn't except a job or advancement to fall into my lap, I worked for them.
> 
> But still, good catch, I never made that connection on the possible reverse effect it may have had.
> 
> You know, you always beat the same drum, but I have to say kudos for doing it in a civil manner on here.  BZ.  I didn't say its not annoying...just so you know that too.   ;D



Yes, EITS; but you did not come from a generation that felt as entitled as following generations.   [


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes, EITS; but you did not come from a generation that felt as entitled as following generations.   [



Yes, the days where after school, if I didn't load the woodbox by the stove in the basement, I didn't get my 30 minutes of time on Atari after my homework was done.  That was in elementary school.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> That dismissive attitude towards young people is the exact reason you don't understand why they voted liberal. Also, if they/we can't get off our smartphones for  anything beyond the superficial I'm sure we wouldn't have found time to stand in line and vote.
> 
> So let's ignore the legalization of pot.
> 
> ...



I will agree with you that they ran on those points, I can tell you that they won’t live up to many of them. Site C and TMX are going to be considered watershed moments for the First Nations and environmentalists to see if the promises made in the elections are mere words. Each of those decisions have consequences regardless of which way they go and people aren’t buying the “it’s the old governments fault” 

There will be a significant buyers remorse for the non-traditional Liberal voter. How much goes to the NDP and how can the CPC recover, really depends.


----------



## Jed (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> That reminds me.
> 
> That whole, just not ready attack ad? Something every young person who has wanted a job or looking for advancement has probably heard before. Too young, just not ready, not enough experience.  That probably didn't help the conservatives with the under 30 voters.



Sooner or later Altair, you realize that arguing with an old fart like me is just like grabbing the pig in a pig wrestling contest. Old farts like me enjoy rolling in the mud; we like it. ;-)


----------



## dapaterson (27 May 2016)

Sort of like John Candy in Stripes?


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Sooner or later Altair, you realize that arguing with an old fart like me is just like grabbing the pig in a pig wrestling contest. Old farts like me enjoy rolling in the mud; we like it. ;-)


I was on the debate team in school I do this for fun.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 May 2016)

MARS said:
			
		

> As you and I have discussed, he won't be any worse for us than Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton will be for the United States.  In 4 or 8 years the United States will be _in roughly the same position they are now.  In x years, so will we_.  Marginally better or worse but nothing drastic.
> 
> Besides, as is already being reported from the convention, the senior mandarins of the liberal party will course correct whatever they need to if they think "their" party is being hijacked by policies try disagree with, regardless of what the celebrity-obsessed voters think.  There I so o much at stake - that is, The Liberal Party, to leave its fate and future in the hands of the average Joe.




That's correct ... as far as it goes.

The problem with Messers Trudeau and Trump and/or Ms Clinton is that they will, _I fear_, leave their countries in worse shape than they need to have been in, given half decent fiscal/policy management. (Edit to add: the "opportunity costs", thing) But we (almost 40% of the 70% who voted, anyway) made a choice based,_ in my opinion_, on a great Liberal campaign. The themes, the style and the promises all worked ... Prime Minister Harper's campaign, by contrast, was erratic, poorly presented and disjointed ... it lacked a central theme and it descended into downright nastiness.

So, we bought the sizzle and now we are left to sift through the embers looking for the steak ... ditto for our American friends in the coming years.

Meanwhile, other countries will be making their own political choices, and some will make better choices than say Australia, Britain, Canada and America have or are likely to make in the next few years. We make the choices we do because we do not "see" that things are neither as rosy as anyone (Stephen Harper or Justin Trudeau) makes out, nor a bad as they paint them ... but we (and the Americans) have some serious underlying, structural problems that are rarely if ever discussed, excerpt in a few editions of the _Financial Post_ or _Report on Business_ that Joe and Jane Voter wouldn't understand even if they did read them. We are not careening wildly towards hell in our hand-basket, but we are adrift, and the election of Justin Trudeau (and the fact that the Americans will make a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump) is just a symptom of our having "lost the plot," politically.

My  :2c:


Edited to add one phrase.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 May 2016)

[quote author=Altair]

So let's ignore the legalization of pot.[/quote]
right, because it's good to go through life all fucked up and not giving a shit.



> Let's ignore the liberals running a possible campaign on hope instead of the negative approach taken by the conservatives.


Hope is the first step on the path to disappointment. Just kidding. Hope as a political platform is great.



> Let's ignore that the liberals were far more interested in the environment, something young voters care about.


The environment huh? Like when IFLS posts something about the environment and 4000 people respond without even reading the article. Climate change and all that.



> Let's ignore the liberal campaign promises  revolving around helping young Canadians with jobs and post secondary education


Where young Canadians want free education or want their student loans, which lets face it a lot went to booze, forgiven lol



> Let's ignore the liberals using social media to reach young voters that the conservatives and ndp didn't


Wanna get high?



> Lets ignore that the liberals were not standing for hijab bans and barbaric hotlines,  and that younger Canadians are more in favor of multiculturalism and inclusion.


Farkhunda Malikzada would probably have approved if she wasn't physically torn apart and burned to death for (not really) burning a book



> Yeah, 45 percent of young voters voted for pot, puppies and butterflies. In record numbers not seen since 1997. That makes a heck of a lot more sense.


it's great the leadership of our country was voted in for drugs and pretty selfies. Says a lot about us.


----------



## ballz (27 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not that they are 'engaged' but over what issues are bringing them TO politics.  *Pot*, puppies and butterflies.  Nothing of substance, for sure.





			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do you think people voting on a single issue like legalizing drugs is a beneficial thing to our country as a whole?



I'd like to fire Justin Trudeau tomorrow, but the wasteful war on drugs that constantly criminalizes adults who have done no harm to anyone is hardly something of no substance. If you think the long-gun registry was a waste of money, it is spit-in-a-bucket to the war on drugs.



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> the current youthful society that has no respect or appreciation of those that did the heavy lifting to make life easier for them.



Go pound sand.

Today's 30 year olds and under have been voting for less than 11 years. They have at most voted in 4x federal elections, the vast majority less.

The federal debt was racked up to $523,648,000,000 before they could even vote. In the 13 years since, they have voted less than anyone else. Is racking up all that debt doing "the heavy lifting?" Seems like the older generations made things easy for themselves at everyone else's expense to me. If today's youth are doing the same, they learned from those who were the very best at it: those who turned 18 around 1980, when today's 30 year olds weren't even alive.


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> right, because it's good to go through life all ****ed up and not giving a crap.
> Hope is the first step on the path to disappointment. Just kidding. Hope as a political platform is great.
> The environment huh? Like when IFLS posts something about the environment and 4000 people respond without even reading the article. Climate change and all that.
> Where young Canadians want free education or want their student loans, which lets face it a lot went to booze, forgiven lol
> ...


http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/spike-in-young-voters-helped-liberals-win-federal-election-report-1.2864902


> Employment, student debt key issues for youth
> 
> The data suggests lack of employment and the cost of post-secondary education were among the most important issues to young people.
> 
> ...


 Yup, drugs, all drugs. Totally drugs.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 May 2016)

Well, at least my generation can be thankful that you young ones out there left us Sex and Rock-and-Roll  ;D [ [lol:


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 May 2016)

> More than 60 per cent of those surveyed said the rising cost of tuition and bleak employment prospects were having a negative impact on their lives.
> 
> Only 20 per cent of those who were employed at the time of the survey said they were happy with their job.



You mean people weren't landing $100'000 a year jobs after studying 4 years of 'Woymns studies'? WTF!



> And nearly half of respondents said they wouldn’t be able to afford a home within five years of graduating from university or college.


What bullshit.
This reminds me of my 22 year old nephew who graduated grade 12 and only making $20 an hour walking up and down a pipeline who feels he's entitled to waaaaaay more.

I'm entitled to 4 years of Queer Musicology, Art Hostory and Philosophy for free.


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You mean people weren't landing $100'000 a year jobs after studying 4 years of 'Woymns studies'? WTF!
> What bullshit.
> This reminds me of my 22 year old nephew who graduated grade 12 and only making $20 an hour walking up and down a pipeline who feels he's entitled to waaaaaay more.
> 
> I'm entitled to 4 years of Queer Musicology, Art Hostory and Philosophy for free.


stay classy mate.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> stay classy mate.



yeah, really....

However, my problem with universal university education being funded is that university degree's don't necessarily produce a net gain to society. We are currently short on tradespeople and labourers, so as a society there is a loss for some,who might otherwise go into the trades, to be put through university (why it wasn't free in the first place). That said, I am for fully funding education that is in fields identified as a neccessity that provide a net benefit for society (which Irish/Women's/etc studies doesn't provide, IMHO). 

That said, if people put themselves through a degree that has less than stellar chances of producing a well paying job I dont think that they have the right to complain. No one forced anyone to do any degree or education. The question is then, why do I have to pay taxes so that someone can get a degree that doesn't produce a net benefit to the nation? Isn't the point of taxes to benefit the whole? (the argument against TFSAs?)


----------



## Good2Golf (27 May 2016)

> Isn't the point of taxes to benefit the whole?



To quote a famous group of PhD-qualified critical thinkers, "Emmanuel Kant, was a real piss-ant..."


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 May 2016)

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45] 

That said, if people put themselves through a degree that has less than stellar chances of producing a well paying job I dont think that they have the right to complain. No one forced anyone to do any degree or education. The question is then, why do I have to pay taxes so that someone can get a degree that doesn't produce a net benefit to the nation? Isn't the point of taxes to benefit the whole? (the argument against TFSAs?)
[/quote]
Exactly.


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> yeah, really....
> 
> However, my problem with universal university education being funded is that university degree's don't necessarily produce a net gain to society. We are currently short on tradespeople and labourers, so as a society there is a loss for some,who might otherwise go into the trades, to be put through university (why it wasn't free in the first place). That said, I am for fully funding education that is in fields identified as a neccessity that provide a net benefit for society (which Irish/Women's/etc studies doesn't provide, IMHO).
> 
> That said, if people put themselves through a degree that has less than stellar chances of producing a well paying job I dont think that they have the right to complain. No one forced anyone to do any degree or education. The question is then, why do I have to pay taxes so that someone can get a degree that doesn't produce a net benefit to the nation? Isn't the point of taxes to benefit the whole? (the argument against TFSAs?)


Who is talking about free post secondary?  I think the problem a lot of graduates run into is (based off friends and family) is they walk away with a degree in whatever, 20-50 k in debt and can't find a job in their field while needing to start paying back their sizeable debt.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-increase-financial-aid-for-students-ease-debt-repayment-rules/article29353822/?service=mobile



> Changes to financial aid include allowing low-income graduates to defer their student loan payments until they make more than $25,000 a year, and providing a 50-per-cent increase to federal grants to $3,000 from $2,000 for low-income students. (Middle-income students will see an increase to $1,200 from $800.)



Nowhere in there do I see free tuition.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Who us talking about free spot secondary?  I think the problem a lot of graduates run into is (based off friends and family) is they walk away with a degree in whatever, 20-50 k in debt and can't find a job in their field while needing to start paying back their sizeable debt.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-increase-financial-aid-for-students-ease-debt-repayment-rules/article29353822/?service=mobile
> 
> Nowhere in there do I see free tuition.



True in that article. However, having taken part in annual student marches in Halifax while a student and the overwhelming consensus was that post-secondary should be fully funded and was a right. Ditto for when I was on my masters (though I didn't do the marches by then).

However, if they can't find jobs in their fields perhaps they need new fields, ie- the trades. Once again, no one forced anyone into any program.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 May 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> To quote a famous group of PhD-qualified critical thinkers, "Emmanuel Kant, was a real piss-ant..."



"who could drink you under the table"   ;D


----------



## Eaglelord17 (27 May 2016)

Well what about us who are actually taking courses for in demand jobs but can't get hired because of currently broken system?

Many of my friends and I have taken programs for in demand jobs. Things like Computers, Electrical, Trucking, and other Skilled Trades. We are unable to get a job because no one wants to hire apprentices, or wants you to have 5 years experience right off the back (which you can't get when no one will hire you in the field). We have not taken Liberal Arts degrees and expected something, we have taken needed courses and get nothing due to most the industrial jobs being exported under the watch of the previous generation and the refusal to train anyone new, instead relying on a older trained body (baby boomers), who are finally aging out. 

Personally I have next to no respect for people that say my generation has it 'easy'. The previous generations got the benefit of being able to get decent paying jobs out of high school (sometimes not even needing high school), with benefits and a pension, and being able to afford a house early in life. Not to mention racking up billions of dollars in debt which they never intended to pay back, and have pushed it forwards on to the next generation (really thanks for that, nothing says selfish like giving your kids 500 billion in debt to deal with, well getting none of the benefits of it).

To top it off our cost of living is higher than the previous generations, which might have a fair bit to do with people being unable to leave home as early as other generations (coupled with a lack of decent paying jobs, you move out and struggle just to survive). Yes my generation has a lot of apathy, but that is because we realize we are pretty much screwed no matter what happens.


----------



## Jed (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Who is talking about free post secondary?  I think the problem a lot of graduates run into is (based off friends and family) is they walk away with a degree in whatever, 20-50 k in debt and can't find a job in their field while needing to start paying back their sizeable debt.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-increase-financial-aid-for-students-ease-debt-repayment-rules/article29353822/?service=mobile
> 
> Nowhere in there do I see free tuition.




How about those who walk away leaving their parents, or themselves a 20k - 50k debt? People should suck it up and pay their own debts for their own poor choices.

I have a hard time feeling sorry for whiners of any generation who create their own problems and then foist it upon anyone else. Especially when it happens to be the big, bad, mean government (and eventually the taxpayers)  Too many people forget that there is no such hing as a 'free lunch'.

And, Ballz; this goes for your pound salt comment. It is not about the age or generation of any individual, it is about their personal character and / or lack thereof.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 May 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Well what about us who are actually taking courses for in demand jobs but can't get hired because of currently broken system?
> 
> Many of my friends and I have taken programs for in demand jobs. Things like Computers, Electrical, Trucking, and other Skilled Trades. We are unable to get a job because no one wants to hire apprentices, or wants you to have 5 years experience right off the back (which you can't get when no one will hire you in the field). We have not taken Liberal Arts degrees and expected something, we have taken needed courses and get nothing due to most the industrial jobs being exported under the watch of the previous generation and the refusal to train anyone new, instead relying on a older trained body (baby boomers), who are finally aging out.
> 
> ...



When I graduated from college almost 35 years ago, it was the same for me too.  There is as they say, "nothing new under the sun".  It's always challenging starting out and you will find your traction in time just as I and countless others did.


----------



## mariomike (27 May 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> The previous generations got the benefit of being able to get decent paying jobs out of high school (sometimes not even needing high school), with benefits and a pension, and being able to afford a house early in life.



I graduated Grade 12, took the subway downtown, wrote the civil service exam, did the medical / physical. Bought a new blue suit for the interview ( that was stressful - oral board they called it ) Hired on just as that same summer was ending.
I was 18 and still living at home.
It all seemed so simple. Live your life, do your work, as simple as all that.


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Well what about us who are actually taking courses for in demand jobs but can't get hired because of currently broken system?
> 
> Many of my friends and I have taken programs for in demand jobs. Things like Computers, Electrical, Trucking, and other Skilled Trades. We are unable to get a job because no one wants to hire apprentices, or wants you to have 5 years experience right off the back (which you can't get when no one will hire you in the field). We have not taken Liberal Arts degrees and expected something, we have taken needed courses and get nothing due to most the industrial jobs being exported under the watch of the previous generation and the refusal to train anyone new, instead relying on a older trained body (baby boomers), who are finally aging out.
> 
> ...



Cry me a fucking river.... I worked my way through university.  I had to go looking for a job.  I landed up joining the CF. Your sense of entitlement and "whoa is me" is a sign of weakness on your part; and not the fault of my, or any other, generation.


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> True in that article. However, having taken part in annual student marches in Halifax while a student and the overwhelming consensus was that post-secondary should be fully funded and was a right. Ditto for when I was on my masters (though I didn't do the marches by then).
> 
> However, if they can't find jobs in their fields perhaps they need new fields, ie- the trades. Once again, no one forced anyone into any program.


There is a party that promises free post secondary. The green party.

Under 30s didn't really flock around that party for some reason. 

So forgetting the overwhelming concensus of students who want free post secondary I think it's safe to say most students are more or less satisfied with a helping hand when it comes to their employment and debt rather than just handouts.





			
				Jed said:
			
		

> How about those who walk away leaving their parents, or themselves a 20k - 50k debt? People should suck it up and pay their own debts for their own poor choices.
> 
> I have a hard time feeling sorry for whiners of any generation who create their own problems and then foist it upon anyone else. Especially when it happens to be the big, bad, mean government (and eventually the taxpayers)  Too many people forget that there is no such hing as a 'free lunch'.
> 
> And, Ballz; this goes for your pound salt comment. It is not about the age or generation of any individual, it is about their personal character and / or lack thereof.


And they will pay. Nowhere does it say they won't.  They will just start paying it back when they can afford it and the low bar of 25000 annual income isn't exactly hard to meet even for someone at the low end of the employment ladder.

But if someone is living on 24999 or less with 20-50k of student debt unable to find a job in their field or starting at a really low salary to be expected to be paying back that debt is a legitimate concern and in this case, an election issue.

Do you need to give a rats ***? God no. Do political parties need to start giving a rats ***? Judging on this election, yes, probably. 54 percent of young Canadians voted this time around 45 percent of them for the liberals, 20 percent for the NDP, and the liberals had more under 30s vote for them in every single province except for alberta. That's a big voting bloc to be pissing off.

For example, I don't give a damn about older Canadians personally. I don't care about the things that effect older Canadians like retirement age or door to door delivery. But politically, I can see the sense in courting older Canadians. Same way you should see the sense in courting younger Canadians for the political gain of your political party.


----------



## mariomike (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> For example, I don't give a damn about older Canadians personally. I don't care about the things that effect older Canadians like retirement age or door to door delivery.



Get off my lawn!


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (27 May 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Well what about us who are actually taking courses for in demand jobs but can't get hired because of currently broken system?
> 
> Many of my friends and I have taken programs for in demand jobs. Things like Computers, Electrical, Trucking, and other Skilled Trades. We are unable to get a job because no one wants to hire apprentices, or wants you to have 5 years experience right off the back (which you can't get when no one will hire you in the field). We have not taken Liberal Arts degrees and expected something, we have taken needed courses and get nothing due to most the industrial jobs being exported under the watch of the previous generation and the refusal to train anyone new, instead relying on a older trained body (baby boomers), who are finally aging out.
> 
> ...



The circular experience thing has been going on for awhile and it is certainly a dilemma. That said, you are right that many of those good paying jobs that you decry the older generations for getting were in manufacturing and other trades. With the reduction in the manufacturing centre and the creation of a services-centric economy, those jobs are largely gone.

As for home ownership, according to Stats Canada, home ownership amongst people 20-34 has actually INCREASED from 36% in 1971 to 46% in 2006.

So what's the solution? The current solution seems to be to go MORE into debt further screwing the next generation and pushing concepts such as fixed minimum income which only serves to further drive up costs and ensure that Canada remains uncompetitive. The trick is getting the good manufacturing jobs back, which can't be done unless Canadian industries can compete with other nations.


----------



## Jed (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> There is a party that promises free post secondary. The green party.
> 
> Under 30s didn't really flock around that party for some reason.
> 
> ...



So, are you a big fan of Soylent Green, Altair?  I guess that is where we differ. I am a big fan of younger Canadians, at least the ones that truly care about the other folks and that are not obsessed with their personal appearance and sunny ways.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> For example, I don't give a damn about older Canadians personally. I don't care about the things that effect older Canadians like retirement age or door to door delivery. But politically, I can see the sense in courting older Canadians.



Man, that is harsh and that attitude is _exactly_ what concerns me.  The ME ME ME generation.

Some of those older people you don't give a damn about sacrificed more for Canada and Canadians than you, if you cared enough, could ever dream of.  

I am hoping you meant that in jest or something...



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> stay classy mate.



*Irony*


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> For example, I don't give a damn about older Canadians personally. I don't care about the things that effect older Canadians like retirement age or door to door delivery. But politically, I can see the sense in courting older Canadians. Same way you should see the sense in courting younger Canadians for the political gain of your political party.



I feel sorry for you then, that you can not plan past the tip of your nose.  You may think you are "invicible" now, but when you reach 50 or 60, if you have not planned well, then you are truly screwed.  That has already started with many who are now in their 40's and early 50's who did not plan for their retirements, hoping that the Government will take care of them.  Sorry.  Not going to happen.  And you don't give a damn about those over 50......That will come back to bite you in the ass....But what does an old guy like me know?


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> So, are you a big fan of Soylent Green, Altair?  I guess that is where we differ. I am a big fan of younger Canadians, at least the ones that truly care about the other folks and that are not obsessed with their personal appearance and sunny ways.


I said I don't care, not that I hate them.

Although if I put my mind to it, 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/please-dont-hate-me-im-a-senior/article24101585/?service=mobile



> Canadian senior citizens are among the most affluent people in the world. Fewer than 5 per cent of seniors live below the poverty line – one-third the rate of children who do. Since 1999, the median net worth of seniors has jumped 70 per cent. We are better off financially than our parents, and we’re way, way better off than the struggling 30-year-olds who will never enjoy the job security, the pension plans, and the high house prices and stock returns with which we’ve been blessed. We’ve worked hard for what we have. But we also stepped on a 40-year-long escalator that went straight up.
> 
> So when budget time comes around, who gets the goodies? We do! This week’s federal budget has been called a seniors’ budget, and for good reason. We got twiddles to our RRIFs and expansions to our TFSAs. Our government cheques for OAS and GIS and CPP just keep rolling in, even if we don’t need the money. We can hire financial planners to manipulate our affairs in clever ways so that our tax bills will be much, much lower than everybody else’s. No matter how loaded we are, our health care and drugs are pretty well free. Now we can even get a tax break for our walk-in shower.
> 
> ...


 Napoleon once said that religion was all that keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

I don't think that applies today. Swap out religion with social media, poor with young people and rich with boomers


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> The previous generations got the benefit of being able to get decent paying jobs out of high school (sometimes not even needing high school), with benefits and a pension, and being able to afford a house early in life. Not to mention racking up billions of dollars in debt which they never intended to pay back, and have pushed it forwards on to the next generation (really thanks for that, nothing says selfish like giving your kids 500 billion in debt to deal with, well getting none of the benefits of it).




So you are against the portion in yellow?  And speaking out against it.  Yes??  Did you vote Liberal and/or support that party?

Think about it for a minute, in terms of what is happening right now in Canada.

1.  It wasn't my generation, or my fathers, who 'racked up the debt'; it was the government of that time who did.

2.  Cost of living is higher, so are wages/salaries.  

3.  I worked for everything I had, and I created and took advantage of opportunities.  No one handed anything to me, or my father.  We made it happen for ourselves, and had some 'right time right place' luck.  I am not working in any of the 3 'dream jobs' I had in my mind while growing up.  I got over it, because I accepted I was not able to put the things in place to make any of them happen.


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 May 2016)

[quote author=Altair]

For example, I don't give a damn about older Canadians personally. I don't care about the things that effect older Canadians like retirement age or door to door delivery. But politically, I can see the sense in courting older Canadians. Same way you should see the sense in courting younger Canadians for the political gain of your political party.
[/quote]

So you'll essentially pay lip service to their concerns just in order to get their votes?  "Classy"  You're right though I guess, that's exactly what the Liberals did.
Just like how the Liberals will "withdraw our fighter jets out of Iraq in weeks rather than months".  They used the same sneaky-sneaky trick with misleading young Canadians to vote for them when it came to all that tuition crap. "Well we didn't exactly say that, you just conveniently drew conclusions from our obtrusive language".

By all means I think the Liberals were genius when it came to luring young Canadians to vote for them, can't argue with their success. They nailed it.


----------



## ballz (27 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Some of those older people you don't give a damn about sacrificed more for Canada and Canadians than you, if you cared enough, could ever dream of.



I find it funny that when people speak of social spending on younger people, like post-secondary education programs, that the youth are being "entitled" and want to be spoiled, etc etc etc. But when the older generations want more stuff from the same pot, it is somehow not a sense of entitlement. They just *deserve* it more from their perspective, for all their hard work in racking up the federal debt I guess.

We seriously need a split from this thread to truly discuss this older vs younger generational crap. I'm happy to debate it all but its not a "politics 2016" issue (despite its obvious impacts on all of our lives).


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So you'll essentially pay lip service to their concerns just in order to get their votes?  "Classy"  You're right though I guess, that's exactly what the Liberals did.
> Just like how the Liberals will "withdraw our fighter jets out of Iraq in weeks rather than months".  They used the same sneaky-sneaky trick with misleading young Canadians to vote for them when it came to all that tuition crap. "Well we didn't exactly say that, you just conveniently drew conclusions from our obtrusive language".
> 
> By all means I think the Liberals were genius when it came to luring young Canadians to vote for them, can't argue with their success. They nailed it.


What, am I suppose to care heart and soul about every single line of the liberal platform?

They had stuff in there for old people, young people, native people people with disabilities,people with kids, people with low incomes, ect.

God forbid I don't personally love every single one of these policy decisions.

If the liberals promise stuff to old people so old people vote for them so that things they promise to young people come to fruition then so be it. Follow through. Just don't expect me to care/love it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 May 2016)

What saddens me the most is learning that for Eye in the Sky, hunting submarines from the air was not even a top three "dream job". His top "dream jobs" must have been awesome !!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> I find it funny that when people speak of social spending on younger people, like post-secondary education programs, that the youth are being "entitled" and want to be spoiled, etc etc etc. But when the older generations want more stuff from the same pot, it is somehow not a sense of entitlement. They just *deserve* it more from their perspective, for all their hard work in racking up the federal debt I guess.
> 
> We seriously need a split from this thread to truly discuss this older vs younger generational crap. I'm happy to debate it all but its not a "politics 2016" issue (despite its obvious impacts on all of our lives).



Well, I guess the difference is, the 'older' generation has been paying into things like CPP, OAS, income taxes, pensions etc for generations.  The other group...not so much.

My old man, like many others, paid for the benefits he is drawing now.  The government of the day was the one who 'racked up the debt', he was busy doing other stuff on an Argus.  Like everyone else, he got to vote during the election and then pay for whatever they did after.

Fast forward XX years, I'm flying on an even older Aurora, voting during election day and then paying for whatever is done after.  

 :2c:


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't think that applies today. Swap out religion with social media, poor with young people and rich with boomers



Since when are all the YOUNG poor, and all the RICH  "Boomers"?

Take responsibility for your own actions.  Stop blaming others.  

(By the way, what has the governing Party been for the majority of years since the Korean War?

1935 - 1948 William Lyon Mackenzie King      (LIB)  13 years.
1948 - 1957 Louis St. Laurent  (LIB)                   9
1957 - 1963 John Diefenbaker   (PC)   6                
1963 - 1968 Lester B. Pearson  (LIB)                   5
1968 - 1979 Pierre E. Trudeau  (LIB)                  11
1979 - 1980 Joe Clark               (PC)    1
1980 - 1984 Pierre E. Trudeau  (LIB)                     4
1984 - 1984 John Turner          (LIB)
1984 - 1993 Brian Mulroney       (PC)     9
1993 - 1993 Kim Campbell         (PC)
1993 - 2003 Jean Chretien        (LIB)                   10     
2003 - 2006 Paul Martin            (LIB)                     3
2006 - 2015 Stephen Harper       (PC)    9
2015 -         Justin Trudeau       (LIB)                     1   

PC's were in power for 25 years.
Liberals were in for 43 years. (56 years if you want to include William Lyon Mackenzie King)

So the LIBERALS have been in power most of this time and yet you still blame it on the PC and the "BOOMERS".  Nice analyst job of our political past.)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What saddens me the most is learning that for Eye in the Sky, hunting submarines from the air was not even a top three "dream job". His top "dream jobs" must have been awesome !!!



1.  SAR Tech (screwed my back on Basic Para in '92)  2.  Flight Engineer (but didn't think I'd like being an AVN for XX years and 3.  English professor (I rely on spellcheck  :blotto.

But, yup, there's nothing like driving in on a riser or a wall-banger on MAD.  Not so fun times include spilling your coffee, getting lit up by someone when you're close to their backyard and anything that involves someone saying "E-handle number X".   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> I find it funny that when people speak of social spending on younger people, like post-secondary education programs, that the youth are being "entitled" and want to be spoiled, etc etc etc. But when the older generations want more stuff from the same pot, it is somehow not a sense of entitlement. They just *deserve* it more from their perspective, for all their hard work in racking up the federal debt I guess.
> 
> We seriously need a split from this thread to truly discuss this older vs younger generational crap. I'm happy to debate it all but its not a "politics 2016" issue (despite its obvious impacts on all of our lives).



I don't see your point.  On one hand you are saying that we complain that the young who have yet to contribute much need "welfare programs" so that they can become educated, yada, yada, yada; and then you are upset that people who have worked all their lives to build this country, feel that their hard work should mean more than someone who has not done any work yet towards building the nation.  You do not see the "ENTITLEMENT" that some who have yet to contribute are demonstrating, yourself included?


----------



## ballz (27 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Well, I guess the difference is, the 'older' generation has been paying into things like CPP, OAS, income taxes etc for generations.



They had not been paying for those things nearly as much as they were collecting. See the 500+ billion dollars of debt I referenced earlier. It makes no sense to say "well they've been paying taxes their whole life" when in fact they were taking out much more than they were paying in.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> My old man, like many others, paid for the benefits he is drawing now.



While we can't speak to each individual, that generation as a whole _underpaid_ by a large margin over the course of their taxpaying years, so no one can claim they paid for the benefits they are collecting now. They didn't even pay for the benefits they collected back then.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The government of the day was the one who 'racked up the debt', he was busy doing other stuff on an Argus.  Like everyone else, he got to vote during the election and then pay for whatever they did after.



That generation of taxpayers voted for those governments and those policies, just the same as this current _*stoopid *_generation of taxpayers is doing the same thing. No high ground for either side on this one.


I can barely stand to hear the average person's perspective on government spending these days. But the folks before today's "average person" were no more fiscally prudent. I would say, considering we are now servicing the interest on their debt, we are being more fiscally prudent than they were, which is pretty scary.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't see your point.  On one hand you are saying that we complain that the young who have yet to contribute much need "welfare programs" so that they can become educated, yada, yada, yada; and then you are upset that people who have worked all their lives to build this country, feel that their hard work should mean more than someone who has not done any work yet towards building the nation.  You do not see the "ENTITLEMENT" that some who have yet to contribute are demonstrating, yourself included?



Other than contributing to the massive federal debt, what "nation building" have taxpayers over the last decades done exactly? You can't say you "built the nation" when you built it on a foundation of debt. That's not "hard work," that's the exact opposite.

Youth have a sense of entitlement for thinking that taxpayer's should pay for all their wants, absolutely. 

The older generations have a sense of entitlement for thinking they are entitled to spend the government's money after paying taxes their whole life, when in fact they were collecting more than they were paying their entire taxpaying lives. Add a touch of arrogance for doing this and claiming they "built the nation."

Like I've said, no high ground for the older generations to stand on here.


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Man, that is harsh and that attitude is _exactly_ what concerns me.  The ME ME ME generation.
> 
> Some of those older people you don't give a damn about sacrificed more for Canada and Canadians than you, if you cared enough, could ever dream of.
> 
> ...


Some of them did. Most of them didn't. We have a day for the ones who did.

As for the me me me, well I'm deeply sorry about not caring deeply about every demographic in the country. I apologize. 

Back to reality however, and you'll see me not caring about them as a neutral thing, not a love or hate thing. I'm indifferent,  and last I saw that's not a crime.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> They had not been paying for those things nearly as much as they were collecting. See the 500+ billion dollars of debt I referenced earlier. It makes no sense to say "well they've been paying taxes their whole life" when in fact they were taking out much more than they were paying in.
> 
> While we can't speak to each individual, that generation as a whole _underpaid_ by a large margin over the course of their taxpaying years, so no one can claim they paid for the benefits they are collecting now. They didn't even pay for the benefits they collected back then.
> 
> That generation of taxpayers voted for those governments and those policies, just the same as this current _*stoopid *_generation of taxpayers is doing the same thing. No high ground for either side on this one.



George already laid out who was in power over what timeframes.  While all of those wizards were making policy and shaping the future, my old man was doing this and paying taxes:







Vice doing this, and spending taxes:






Stop pointing the finger at the tax_payers_ who were, as they are now, at the mercy of government policy and practices (the tax_spenders_).  The guys my father flew with had as much influence on what the government did and what they spent money on then as you do today.  Basically, SFA.

The taxpayers have had in the past, same as now, very little ability to direct anything in Ottawa.  They can only hope and pray that promises are kept.  How's the worked out over history?


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> George already laid out who was in power over what timeframes.  While all of those wizards were making policy and shaping the future, my old man was doing this and paying taxes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Taxpayers have a say every 4 years. They are not innocent in all of this. Trudeau doesn't get elected if the the taxpaying public at the time doesn't vote him and his party into power.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Some of them did. Most of them didn't. We have a day for the ones who did.
> 
> As for the me me me, well I'm deeply sorry about not caring deeply about every demographic in the country. I apologize.
> 
> Back to reality however, and you'll see me not caring about them as a neutral thing, not a love or hate thing. I'm indifferent,  and last I saw that's not a crime.



Hey, here's something to consider.  If your generation represents a trend, and that is how you feel about the "retired generation Canadians", just think how well looked after and cared about _you _will be in your later life.  They'll likely sell you off as slaves or just put you on an ice flow.  Whatever, as long as you aren't wasting resources other younger people need/want, like air or water.

But, whatever, they'll just be equally as 'not caring about every demographic in the country' as you are, only indexed over time like inflation or the COL is!!

Now I don't feel so bad as I've remembered..._What goes around, comes around_.


----------



## ballz (27 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Stop pointing the finger at the tax_payers_ who were, as they are now, at the mercy of government policy and practices (the tax_spenders_).  The guys my father flew with had as much influence on what the government did and what they spent money on then as you do today.  Basically, SFA.
> 
> The taxpayers have had in the past, same as now, very little ability to direct anything in Ottawa.  They can only hope and pray that promises are kept.  How's the worked out over history?



I suppose when you consider that 1/3rd of Canadian adults doesn't pay any income taxes, then you can say that taxpayer's don't have 100% of the influence. They do have 67% of the influence though. But, I guess, I may be too optimistic in thinking that our democracy is not just a farce that the overlords are using to distract us from reality. If that's the way you feel, then sure, but then you should be conceding that the youth have no influence on government spending and therefore are victims of our overlords just like everybody else. Taxpayer's are not victims of youth entitlement, but victims of our overloads, just like everybody else.


----------



## Jed (27 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> I suppose when you consider that 1/3rd of Canadian adults doesn't pay any income taxes, then you can say that taxpayer's don't have 100% of the influence. They do have 67% of the influence though. But, I guess, I may be too optimistic in thinking that our democracy is not just a farce that the overlords are using to distract us from reality. If that's the way you feel, then sure, but then you should be conceding that the youth have no influence on government spending and therefore are victims of our overlords just like everybody else. Taxpayer's are not victims of youth entitlement, but victims of our overloads, just like everybody else.


Thats true balls. It is just that the youth are too naive and inexperienced to know it so they get sucked in by whatever party spews the best line of BS.


----------



## dapaterson (27 May 2016)

And on Friday night, the Tories had a costume party. No Photoshop involved.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/paulmcleod/shit-got-weird-at-the-conservative-convention-friday-night?utm_term=.ongy761N9#.fvEGdg2e0


----------



## dapaterson (27 May 2016)

Whereas in Manitoba, that "Quack quack quack" you're hearing isn't a duck, but rather the head of the provincial NDP.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/interim-ndp-leader-has-been-handing-out-natural-medicine-from-her-legislature-office-381169571.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Taxpayers have a say every 4 years. They are not innocent in all of this. Trudeau doesn't get elected if the the taxpaying public at the time doesn't vote him and his party into power.



They do have a vote.  In the fall of 2015, they voted on a promise of "10 billion max, promise!".

How long did that max 10 billion last?

Hence, my point;  I took a variety of factors into consideration before posting it.  One of them is 'promises made' and 'promises kept'.  

Canadian politicians (of any party) will continue to act the way they do until the greater Canadian populace holds them to account.  Today, people are more concerned with other things like who wore what dress to the Oscars and  :blah: than real life issues.

"We will remove the CF-18s!"  yay!  go Liberals!!!!!!

"We are putting helicopters in on the ground with weapons on them!"  "Hey look, our PM is doing yoga!"






Whats the big deal that he acts more like a celebrity than a politician and our PM?

http://www.shape.com/celebrities/news/we-officially-have-fitness-crush-canadian-pm-justin-trudeau



> Justin Trudeau has quickly become Canada's hottest Prime Minister. And it turns out that along with being blessed with exceptional looks, J.T. is also a famed feminist, advocate for refugees, and yogi.
> 
> Before his days as a renowned world leader, Justin Trudeau was a snowboarding instructor in the 1990s and even taught as a high school drama teacher for a hot second. Seriously, is there anything wrong this man?



Wow, even a high school drama teacher eh?  I am EQUALLY as impressed!!   :

THIS shows how and what the average ding-dong out there uses as their "support/don't support" criteria.  

They (most of his supporters) see him exactly the same and support him for equally meaningless reasons.  That's my  :2c:.  It's not _that_ they are supporting him, it's _why_ they are.  I just hope the 'crush' wears off before too long.  Maybe once people see the hand go into their wallet, they'll go 'hey!'.  Maybe not.


----------



## Altair (27 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Hey, here's something to consider.  If your generation represents a trend, and that is how you feel about the "retired generation Canadians", just think how well looked after and cared about _you _will be in your later life.  They'll likely sell you off as slaves or just put you on an ice flow.  Whatever, as long as you aren't wasting resources other younger people need/want, like air or water.
> 
> But, whatever, they'll just be equally as 'not caring about every demographic in the country' as you are, only indexed over time like inflation or the COL is!!
> 
> Now I don't feel so bad as I've remembered..._What goes around, comes around_.


Pfft, like boomers care greatly about young Canadians.  

Looking at this thread alone, and we are all pot head, women study taking freeloaders.

The liberals offer young Canadians a modest student debt relief until they make 25000 or more and it's talk of how young people need to live with bad choices and they should suck it up.

Give me a break.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And on Friday night, the Tories had a costume party. No Photoshop involved.
> 
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/paulmcleod/shit-got-weird-at-the-conservative-convention-friday-night?utm_term=.ongy761N9#.fvEGdg2e0



 :facepalm:  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh man.  :facepalm:

I'll just do 2 facepalms, but they represent about 100 actually facepalms each.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Pfft, like boomers care greatly about young Canadians.
> 
> Looking at this thread alone, and we are all pot head, women study taking freeloaders.
> 
> ...



Offering student debt relief.  Who is paying for that actual debt relief?

We all are.  

FWIW, I care about the good of all Canadians, not just people like my retired parents, and that includes the younger generation, but you have to be willing to consider our experience, this isn't our first rodeo and we've seen party after party makes and break promises.

We "old(er) folks"   also have to listen to your hopes and wishes, but much like you probably did in CFLRS/Basic...the experienced ones are always going to want to teach their experience to the next ones up.  Natural way of things.

Honestly, I think the more unfortunate thing that has happened in recent years was the loss of Mr Layton, and I've never voted NDP in my life.  I lost touch with the PC message towards the end and almost didn't vote;  I saw no real choices I could stand behind.

Our future relies on your generation; we don't want to see you vote based on smiles, selfies and yoga poses.  On here, you are kinda the de facto "young liberal supporter" rep.  I see a 'but I am watching and will judge' component to your posts, I just hope you aren't still dazzled by "sunny ways" come the next election.


----------



## Altair (28 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Offering student debt relief.  Who is paying for that actual debt relief?
> 
> We all are.
> 
> ...


The money is paided back, i doubt many post secondary graduates will go on to not make 25k or more a year for the rest of their lives. Unless they have a tragic short life in which case the debt wouldnt be repaid anyways.

That depends entirely on who end up leaders of the three other parties, their platform and how the liberals do.But as I said before, and will say again, young Canadians had legitimate issues beyond pot and hair and they voted en mass for the party that tried to address them. The other two parties, IMHO wrote off young Canadians as a bloc that does not vote and thus didn't deserve their attention. We shall see if the other parties change their tune before 2019 but I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> I suppose when you consider that 1/3rd of Canadian adults doesn't pay any income taxes, then you can say that taxpayer's don't have 100% of the influence. They do have 67% of the influence though. But, I guess, I may be too optimistic in thinking that our democracy is not just a farce that the overlords are using to distract us from reality. If that's the way you feel, then sure, but then you should be conceding that the youth have no influence on government spending and therefore are victims of our overlords just like everybody else. Taxpayer's are not victims of youth entitlement, but victims of our overloads, just like everybody else.



Our political system, if a farce, is so more because our voting populace doesn't hold the government of the day to account for broken promises and fuck-ups.  They only get away with it because we enable them to.  That they take advantage of that "lack of accountability" is our fault as a whole as well IMO; for creating the conditions for it to happen in the first place, and for doing nothing to prevent it in the future.

Overall, I am less concerned with the Liberal party (or any party for that matter) than I am on what I see as a very fickle, superficial voting population in Canada who make decisions based on whatever they see on FB and Twitter.  A generalization, but you get the point I think.

ABC/The Voice of REAL CHANGE/Harper is BAD...BAD!!!

If you don't see the point I'm making with the video, watch it anyways.  This thread needs some humour and I still think that is some funny shit right there.   8)


----------



## TCM621 (28 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Pfft, like boomers care greatly about young Canadians.
> 
> Looking at this thread alone, and we are all pot head, women study taking freeloaders.
> 
> ...



 I paid my student loans,  so why shouldn't everyone else? And if the student spends 10s of thousands of dollars on useless courses, while becoming a student activists with no intention of working for the man? Should he/she get debt relief indefinitely? Yes, most people aren't like that but enough are. And their are Starbucks, and other minimum wage jobs, everywhere full of people with  liberal arts degrees. College is not, and not should it be, a given. There are plenty of good,  we'll paying jobs which don't require a degree. Granted you might have to work your ass off but the pay is good. As a society, we push people who have no need, no desire and no business there, into post secondary. 

As a parent if you want to force your kid I to school,  then pay for it. The government has a wonderful program called a RESP. If you plan you can take most of the burden off your child. Students, if you really want to go to university you will find away. Work full time and go to school, lots of people do it. If university is too hard for you while your working, maybe explore other options. 

BTW, the people who have the real problem aren't the boomers. They didn't need university. It's everyone else between the ages of 35 and 50.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> The money is paided back, i doubt many post secondary graduates will go on to not make 25k or more a year for the rest of their lives. Unless they have a tragic short life in which case the debt wouldnt be repaid anyways.



I'll present to you something to consider about education;  federal government support (in the form if funding) to support marginalized adults who have sub-standard literacy skills and can't partake in adult education (formal, non-formal, or informal). 

Flyn, Brown, Johnson, & Brown (2011) offer:
For those “invisible” members of our society who attempt to succeed in the face of adversity, education is not viewed in the same light as it would be by a privileged person. To the disadvantaged, education may be a luxury pursuit, an endeavor that may or may not lead to a means of supporting oneself and one’s family. Furthermore, the inequality still prevalent in Canadian society often acts to prevent the disadvantaged from excelling academically and thus obtaining a functional literacy level. (p. 55).

These *disadvantaged *people are Canadians.  Some are immigrants, some were born here, all are caught in a cycle of poverty, crime and 'the welfare cycle'.  Many of them (e.g. - single mothers) are not able to get a basic education for lack of things such as child care at the learning facility.  This would include the young people who are now entering the 'marginalized adults' group WRT adult education.  If they were able to break the cycle they are in, they would also become tax-paying citizens (less stress on the welfare and social systems), they would likely be very thankful to the government that dedicated the funding to their futures and apt to support them for an extended period of elections.  Of course there is the side benefit for these people as well;  the ability to live a decent life away from poverty and the welfare cycle.  

Are they not more of a priority than those who have an education but can't get a job (that they want, right out of school, right off the bat)?  
Or do 'Sunny Ways' stop short of reaching these Canadians?  

The students praying for debt relief have SFA to worry about and deal with compared to marginalized adult Canadians who don't have the basic literacy skills to sign their name, apply for a drivers licence of even get a job as a janitor because they can't read.  Until they are supported, there can be no conduit of change for them.  I'll save my concern for those Canadians, vice the folks who just got their degree and have to start working outside their field of study, sorry.  There are people with far greater needs;  real, basic life needs.  

Where is the Liberal Party voice for these people?  Or, are they too "not your concern", like the elderly?  


Flynn, S., Brown, J., Johnson, A., & Rodger, S. (2011). Barriers to education for the marginalized adult learner. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57(1), 43-58.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2016)

The rankings people give to a list of issues, and the issues and/or causes that move people to vote, are not necessarily tightly coupled.  I suspect in the case of young voters there is no particular correlation.

For several election cycles I have noticed in the US and Canada that young voters will cheerfully rank shopping lists of issues for pollsters, and still not necessarily turn out to vote.

In the recent past, young voters turned out in large numbers for Obama and Trudeau.  Going back, I'd guess (without checking numbers) that Trudeau senior enjoyed a bulge of support among young voters.

My conclusion is young voters tend to turn out in larger numbers when they feel like they can vote for the prom king (or queen).  Giving them a little more credit for not being irretrievably shallow, perhaps they turn out when there is a novelty issue which attracts them.  They may say they care about free post-secondary education (as has been the case for, oh, at least the past 40 years), but the prospect of pot legalization is what actually drags them off the couch to the polls.


----------



## Altair (28 May 2016)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I paid my student loans,  so why shouldn't everyone else? And if the student spends 10s of thousands of dollars on useless courses, while becoming a student activists with no intention of working for the man? Should he/she get debt relief indefinitely? Yes, most people aren't like that but enough are. And their are Starbucks, and other minimum wage jobs, everywhere full of people with  liberal arts degrees. College is not, and not should it be, a given. There are plenty of good,  we'll paying jobs which don't require a degree. Granted you might have to work your *** off but the pay is good. As a society, we push people who have no need, no desire and no business there, into post secondary.
> 
> As a parent if you want to force your kid I to school,  then pay for it. The government has a wonderful program called a RESP. If you plan you can take most of the burden off your child. Students, if you really want to go to university you will find away. Work full time and go to school, lots of people do it. If university is too hard for you while your working, maybe explore other options.
> 
> BTW, the people who have the real problem aren't the boomers. They didn't need university. It's everyone else between the ages of 35 and 50.


stolen from  Eaglelord17 earlier in thread



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Well what about us who are actually taking courses for in demand jobs but can't get hired because of currently broken system?
> 
> Many of my friends and I have taken programs for in demand jobs. Things like Computers, Electrical, Trucking, and other Skilled Trades. We are unable to get a job because no one wants to hire apprentices, or wants you to have 5 years experience right off the back (which you can't get when no one will hire you in the field). We have not taken Liberal Arts degrees and expected something, we have taken needed courses and get nothing due to most the industrial jobs being exported under the watch of the previous generation and the refusal to train anyone new, instead relying on a older trained body (baby boomers), who are finally aging out.


 Yeah, not all women's studies fools


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2016)

Federal debt has had a greater opportunity cost than most people think.

From 1975 to 2015, the sum of operating deficits (money we had to borrow to pay program expenses) was about $95 billion.  During that same interval, the sum of public debt charges was about $1.2 trillion.  (Nominal, not adjusted dollars, and I didn't take time to plug the FRT into a spreadsheet - just did some rough addition.)

$1.2 trillion is a lot of foregone program spending, no matter how important that $95 billion was.


----------



## Altair (28 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll present to you something to consider about education;  federal government support (in the form if funding) to support marginalized adults who have sub-standard literacy skills and can't partake in adult education (formal, non-formal, or informal).
> 
> Flyn, Brown, Johnson, & Brown (2011) offer:
> For those “invisible” members of our society who attempt to succeed in the face of adversity, education is not viewed in the same light as it would be by a privileged person. To the disadvantaged, education may be a luxury pursuit, an endeavor that may or may not lead to a means of supporting oneself and one’s family. Furthermore, the inequality still prevalent in Canadian society often acts to prevent the disadvantaged from excelling academically and thus obtaining a functional literacy level. (p. 55).
> ...


I'm indifferent, but who's saying both groups cannot be helped?

I'm not saying and have never said give students and young people x by taking away or denying "insert group" y.


----------



## Altair (28 May 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The rankings people give to a list of issues, and the issues and/or causes that move people to vote, are not necessarily tightly coupled.  I suspect in the case of young voters there is no particular correlation.
> 
> For several election cycles I have noticed in the US and Canada that young voters will cheerfully rank shopping lists of issues for pollsters, and still not necessarily turn out to vote.
> 
> ...


So I present evidence and you dispute it. Cool. You don't present any evidence and instead rely on truthiness.  Got ya.

As a side note, the only major party, and I use that term lightly here, to offer free post secondary was the green party.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm indifferent, but who's saying both groups cannot be helped?
> 
> I'm not saying and have never said give students and young people x by taking away or denying "insert group" y.



Great!  So...what are the Liberals doing and going to do about it?

op:


----------



## Altair (28 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Great!  So...what are the Liberals doing and going to do about it?
> 
> op:


What was any party going to do about it?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> What was any party going to do about it?



Completely irrelevant to reality.  There is a government elected now and this is their responsibility.  They are giving out money to others like we crap it out;  what are they doing for our very own disadvantaged citizens?  Or do we just not give a fuck about our own who aren't shining like stars?  

They wanted the power, the responsibility comes with it.  All of it.  Not the good stuff, also the bad.


----------



## Altair (28 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Completely irrelevant to reality.  There is a government elected now and this is their responsibility.  They are giving out money to others like we crap it out;  what are they doing for our very own disadvantaged citizens?  Or do we just not give a frig about our own who aren't shining like stars?
> 
> They wanted the power, the responsibility comes with it.  All of it.  Not the good stuff, also the bad.


when it come to the reality of what party to vote for for what issue, it makes perfect sense.

I will admit, I know nothing about this issue, and I'm assuming the liberal party is going to do jack all about it. I may be wrong, but if the prime minister cared about it he probably would have hugged someone related to it by now and I haven't seen any pictures of that on twitter.

That all said, I heard nothing about this from other the CPC and the NDP.

So when you get right down to it, if all three major parties have no coherent strategy or plan for how to deal with that issue, I call it a wash and move on to other things that there is some difference on.

As for the present, I don't expect much to be done on the issue. I can only imagine whatever funding existed probably didn't get cut when the federal government is running a 30 billion dollar deficit. 

But on a whole, with the new CCB, tax cut to the middle class, money for first nations, debt relief for students, I think they are doing pretty well.

I think they have many areas to improve on, namely post secondary for veterans, return to lifetime pensions and stop suing the veterans over it, a decision on a fighter jet, being more forthcoming in question period, making pipelines a reality, and a plan to return to a balanced budget.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 May 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The rankings people give to a list of issues, and the issues and/or causes that move people to vote, are not necessarily tightly coupled.  I suspect in the case of young voters there is no particular correlation.
> 
> For several election cycles I have noticed in the US and Canada that young voters will cheerfully rank shopping lists of issues for pollsters, and still not necessarily turn out to vote.
> 
> ...



I suspect (rather sadly) that you're closer to being right than are most analysts.

I go back to my earlier point. The Liberals ran a GREAT campaign ... they "earned' their win by telling enough Canadians, including, especially, those young Canadians who too rarely bother to vote, something that would make them come out and vote Liberal. Sometimes it was promises to spend in very popular ways that I, personally, believe are unproductive; sometimes it was promises to stop fighting, bombing or buying expensive jet fighters; sometimes it was promises to do something that appealed to one 'demographic' or another; it many cases the implicit promise was, simply, not to be Stephen Harper ~ who had been carefully and skilfully demonized over the past decade plus.

It worked and there is no point in crying over spilled milk ... Conservatives need to learn from what the Liberals did well and from what they, the CPC, did poorly.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 May 2016)

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/05/27/police-chief-talks-about-marijuana-raids.html



> It was meant as a calm follow-up, to showcase drug seizures and justify the raids on pot dispensaries, complete with smashed door glass, of the day before.
> 
> Instead, Friday’s police news conference turned to turmoil as marijuana advocates hurled questions at Chief Mark Saunders while he laid out the figures of “Project Claudia.”
> 
> Officers hit 43 unlicensed marijuana dispensaries across the city Thursday. They slapped criminal charges on 90 dispensary owners and employees and confiscated more than 270 kilograms of pot. Among the spoils were $160,000 in cash, 127 kilograms of oils and spreads, and 142 kilograms of pot-infused cookies.



I agree the Liberals ran a master-level campaign and they earned (sleigh of handed) their spot on top. 

When I see stories like the one above though I can't help but think some of the Canadians who were excited about the whole legalizing pot platform may not put too much critical thinking into it. Lots of people putting the cart before the horse I guess.   If they voted Liberal I wonder how they feel about their vote? Probably the same as me when it comes to Conservatives and firearms.


----------



## mariomike (28 May 2016)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> BTW, the people who have the real problem aren't the boomers. They didn't need university. It's everyone else between the ages of 35 and 50.



Where I used to work, recruits are now better educated than when I was a "probie". 

Some also have more "Life Experience", as they call it.

The custom when I hired on was that the job should not be the second career of a man ( as it was entirely back then ). 
Also, that young men hired straight out of school were more "moldable" than older more experienced men to the subculture. And, since most were recent high school graduates and unmarried ( probably still living with their parents even ), that their backgrounds were pretty empty. 

Besides that, the younger you got in, the sooner you could max-out your pension and get out.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2016)

I hark back to the words of JFK:  "Ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for your country."

What I see today is more "Me, Me, Me!" than anything else.  "Let's blame someone else for our lack of integrity, responsibility, and initiative."

Blaming your elders for your failures in any of the above, says nothing of you.  It only confirms what is being said.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2016)

So!  He who wins gets to write history.....or rewrite history....Whichever way you prefer to take it.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Joe Oliver: The Liberals spent $9B in a single month, just so they could say there was a deficit
> Joe Oliver, Special to Financial Post
> May 27, 2016 10:05 PM ET



So.  From the Department of Finance's Fiscal Monitor, it has been revealed that a deficit of $2 billion for 2015-16 is due to a blockbuster $9.4 billion spending in the last month of the year alone.  Every month since the October election, the monitor turned up a budgetary surplus, resulting in a culminated surpluse of $7.5 billion for the 11 months from April 2015 to February 2016.  In order to generated a deficit for the full year, the LIBERALS HAD TO GO INTO THE HOLE several billion more than that $7.5 billion in just the month of March.  Bill Morneau was up to the challenge.  And so the LIBERALS have REWRITTEN history.  Will the younger generation absorb this or will they continue to march on following the sounds of this drum?

More on LINK.


----------



## ballz (28 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Will the younger generation absorb this or will they continue to march on following the sounds of this drum?



Some of the anti-Liberals on this site have become unbearable at this point :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Some of the anti-Liberals on this site have become unbearable at this point :facepalm:



Sorry if the truth hurts.

It can also be said that "Some of the "Hate Harper" or "Hate Conservatives" on this site have become unbearable at this point :facepalm:"


 [Xp

Sorry that I am not infatuated with one ego over all others.  My apologies.


----------



## ballz (28 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> [Xp
> 
> Sorry that I am not infatuated with one ego over all others.  My apologies.



No, you're infatuated with your own age group, most of whom voted Liberal. Weren't you spouting off about integrity and blaming others for your problems in the other thread? Perhaps you should look in the mirror and stop blaming the younger demographic for the election results when your own demographic is just as guilty.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ... If they voted Liberal I wonder how they feel about their vote? Probably the same as me when it comes to Conservatives and firearms.


Or vets.


----------



## Jed (28 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> No, you're infatuated with your own age group, most of whom voted Liberal. Weren't you spouting off about integrity and blaming others for your problems in the other thread? Perhaps you should look in the mirror and stop blaming the younger demographic for the election results when your own demographic is just as guilty.



Pot this is kettle, Over.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2016)

I am surprised that you so easily believe the lies from the Liberal gang, even when the facts are placed right in front of your eyes.  

As I said, the victor gets to write/rewrite history as they see fit.  If people want to believe the lies, then they will be the ones who suffer in the end.  The fiscal records of the nation are documented and archived.  Future historians will debate this scheme of creating a deficit by the Liberals and debate its ethical and moral values.  Perhaps in thirty years, you can be in on that debate and justify the actions taken by Bill Morneau.


----------



## mariomike (28 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I hark back to the words of JFK:  "Ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for your country."



I believe / hope most people on here feel that way. Sure, it's a job to earn a living. But, it's more than that. For many, it's a calling.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I hark back to the words of JFK:  "Ask not what your country can do for you; but what you can do for your country."
> 
> What I see today is more "Me, Me, Me!" than anything else.  "Let's blame someone else for our lack of integrity, responsibility, and initiative."
> 
> Blaming your elders for your failures in any of the above, says nothing of you.  It only confirms what is being said.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am surprised that you so easily believe the lies from the Liberal gang, even when the facts are placed right in front of your eyes.
> 
> As I said, the victor gets to write/rewrite history as they see fit.  If people want to believe the lies, then they will be the ones who suffer in the end.  The fiscal records of the nation are documented and archived.  Future historians will debate this scheme of creating a deficit by the Liberals and debate its ethical and moral values.  Perhaps in thirty years, you can be in on that debate and justify the actions taken by Bill Morneau.




 :

George you are so infatuated with Bashing the liberals, you even can't post a neutral post, without following up with some assinine attack on the Liberals and PM Trudeau.  Give it a rest.


----------



## Altair (28 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am surprised that you so easily believe the lies from the Liberal gang, even when the facts are placed right in front of your eyes.
> 
> As I said, the victor gets to write/rewrite history as they see fit.  If people want to believe the lies, then they will be the ones who suffer in the end.  The fiscal records of the nation are documented and archived.  Future historians will debate this scheme of creating a deficit by the Liberals and debate its ethical and moral values.  Perhaps in thirty years, you can be in on that debate and justify the actions taken by Bill Morneau.


amusing.

The liberals post a projected deficit of 29 billion dollars and Canadians barely bat an eye yet you believe that the liberals using funny accounting to make a 2 billion dollar deficit  for the last year will be the source of great future debate?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (28 May 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So you are against the portion in yellow?  And speaking out against it.  Yes??  Did you vote Liberal and/or support that party?
> Think about it for a minute, in terms of what is happening right now in Canada.
> 1.  It wasn't my generation, or my fathers, who 'racked up the debt'; it was the government of that time who did.
> 2.  Cost of living is higher, so are wages/salaries Inflation of wages hasn't kept up with the inflation of everything else, one fully qualified machinist I know who is about to retire says the point he made the most for his money was in the 1970s, 40 years ago..



No I did not vote Liberal, I honestly see them as a fairly corrupt political party. Personally I am a Classical Liberal (the beliefs of which Canada and most modern democracies were born), and as such there is no real party that represents what I believe in. If you must know I voted Conservative, I am just not tied to one particular party, I see the good and bad in all. 

What I want from government, is less control in peoples lives, less regulations, no corruption, removal from the UN, lower taxes*1, less restrictive firearms laws, some direct democracy*2, yearly elections*3, legalization of pot*4, fixing of the trades system *5, proper financial management (i.e. having a deficit should be illegal), and a home buying loan*6. If you can find me a political party which wants these beliefs let me know.

For those that are saying acknowledging that we do have a shorter end of a stick is whining, then yeah we are whining. Personally I am doing what I can to actually get a job which is not government dependant, however acknowledging we have some broken systems (like the trades) is a step towards actually solving problems facing my generation (and future generations). My generation will work longer hours, longer years (pensionable age is only going up), and receive less benefits for those jobs. Maybe I am a little bitter that a fair bit of our discomfort is caused by the previous generations. Things like the exporting of jobs thanks to the free trade agreements (free trade equalizes the playing field, however until our standard of living drops, or it shoots up in other countries, those jobs won't be returning with out government help), changing of the trades system (less qualified people means you can make more money as a individual), chasing the all mighty dollar (caused companies to cut back on benefits, and training to increase profit margins), and national and provincial debt.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Cry me a fucking river.... I worked my way through university.  I had to go looking for a job.  I landed up joining the CF. Your sense of entitlement and "whoa is me" is a sign of weakness on your part; and not the fault of my, or any other, generation.



Congrats. I am currently working my way through my education as well, and I have no student debt as I have paid for all my education myself. Working in the CAF isn't a great accomplishment to be 100% honest. It is fairly easy to get in, remain in, and it pays very well (not to mention great benefits). Not saying it isn't difficult (trust me I know it can be absolute hell), but there is a reason some civvies call it working welfare. I am not against the military by any means, just noting that it can be a much easier path to follow (I did it when I was 18 with only high school, so will many others).

So as you can tell I am not the average youth voter. I have made plans to get into decent paying jobs through proper education (as much as they will let me take), and realistically I don't care about many of the same issues my generation does (I am actually starting to turn into a Luddite, tempted to get rid of my cellphone, I am making quite a few things by hand without power tools, and I still read paper books). 

*1 which are simplified preferably in a flat tax manner say 20% of income for all levels past about 25,000 a year, no tax reductions for any specific group, either everyone receives a tax reduction or no one does
*2 I would love to see a system much like Switzerland, you collect 50,000 signatures within say a one month time period you can have a referendum on any law currently in existence, and once the referendum is held, if the majority of people want the law gone the government gets one month to try and re-write it if they wish to, another referendum is then held on the re-written law and if it fails the law is stricken down. 
*3 Every year elect a quarter of the government, that way you have stable government changes and you can hold the government accountable as they do things, instead of waiting 4 years and having a big election, by which time issues that were important say 4 years ago (maybe a corruption scandal, maybe something else) have been forgotten.
*4 I personally don't smoke it, and I have no interest in smoking it, but the amount of tax money lost, and amount of money spent on prosecuting someones poor choices is ridiculous 
*5 The trades system is broken, how is it we are desperately short skilled trades people yet people refuse to take apprentices? Countries to look at for a successful trades system are Germany and Britain. 
*6 We are willing to give people student loans for 100k for a Liberal arts degree (something I would also like to see changed, place a system where in demand trades and courses are given for free, well the other ones are no longer subsidized), why not make a loan for those who do not go to school and waste the money, and instead let them buy a reasonable priced home. Worst case scenario they default on it, and the government gets the collateral aka the house. Best case scenario someone who would have been unable to afford a house through the traditional route, can now get one. You are also not screwed like if someone with 100k of student debt defaults as there is no collateral.


----------



## ballz (28 May 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Pot this is kettle, Over.



 :facepalm: I have been saying the entire time both the old and the young show an equal sense of entitlement and stupidity in voting for parties such as the liberals. 

You are too busy trying to bash "the younger ones" to realize that I am not actually arguing with you, just pointing out that you are a hypocrite for pretending your own older demographic isn't guilty of the same thing.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am surprised that you so easily believe the lies from the Liberal gang, even when the facts are placed right in front of your eyes.



And the same for you. Too caught up in blindly blaming everybody else to realize I am not arguing with you, but pointing out that you are a hypocrite.

I would fire the Liberals in a heartbeat. Just because I don't sit here and be your cheerleader while you embarrass every fiscally conservative person in the country with your hypocrisy, doesn't mean I support the Liberals. I am actually criticizing you on behalf of Conservative supporters, not on behalf of Liberal supporters.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2016)

>So I present evidence and you dispute it. Cool. You don't present any evidence and instead rely on truthiness.  Got ya.

As you say, you presented evidence - regarding two unrelated sets of facts, between which you failed to draw a line of causation.  Again, my evidence and argument go something like this: all of the issues people ranked as important are perennial; over time many parties at either the federal or provincial level make promises to favourably address one or more of the issues; voter turnout never seems to be notably deflected by those promises; therefore, some factor other than promises to address those issues drives changes in voter turnout.

You want to assume a newfound interest in voting on everlasting issues and promises; I want to assume the introduction of a different factor.

And to support my particular hypothesis - the novelty bandwagon candidate - I can point to Barack Obama.

There is a flip side to that: turnout driven not by the cool candidate, but by the desire to turn out the uncool candidate.  But that is the other side of the same coin: the scary Harper bandwagon is just the mirror of the cool Trudeau bandwagon.  And since Bush was term-limited, we know (unless they are deeply ignorant of term limits) that young voters in the US who flocked to Obama did not do so to turn out the uncool candidate.


----------



## mariomike (28 May 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> My generation will work longer hours, longer years (pensionable age is only going up), and receive less benefits for those jobs.



Not where I worked. They get things now that we never dreamed of. Meal breaks, meal allowance, PTSD leave, minimum car counts, specialist pay, etc...

They get a better pension too,

Accrual Rate  Ours: 2.0%   Theirs: 2.33%   
Earnings Used in the Pension Formula   Ours: “Best Five”   Theirs: “Best Three”  

Edit to add: Not to say times are better or worse then or now. Just different. 

"Times change. People don't."


----------



## ballz (28 May 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Not where I worked. They get things now that we never dreamed of. Meal breaks, meal allowance, PTSD leave, minimum car counts, specialist pay, etc...
> 
> They get a better pension too,
> 
> ...



Is this with the City of Toronto (what your profile indicates) or a private sector emergency service that was on contract with the City of Toronto?


----------



## mariomike (28 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Is this with the City of Toronto (what your profile indicates) or a private sector emergency service that was on contract with the City of Toronto?



City.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Some of the anti-Liberals on this site have become unbearable at this point :facepalm:





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry if the truth hurts.
> 
> It can also be said that "Some of the "Hate Harper" or "Hate Conservatives" on this site have become unbearable at this point :facepalm:"
> 
> ...



We're not about to send another thread into a spiral by letting this nonsense happen here also. Get back on track and stop the incessant stupidity of generational blame and party loyalties.


----------



## ballz (28 May 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> City.



And the reason I ask is, it appears that despite the economic climate, government compensation has outpaced inflation, where in most of the private sector I assume its stayed with inflation at best. I am currently executing the exit plan from the CAF, and despite New Brunswick's massive debt and deficit, the government pays junior accountants about 25% more for salary (haven't compared other benefits) than private firms*.

I would argue a properly functioning government, at any level, should be paying less than the private sector, since they offer better benefits, certainly more job security, and more steady hours than a private sector competitor. Indeed, I was even taught this in school, but the theory has not added up to reality. 

It shows me just how unsustainable our government operations are. At all levels of government, we have massive debt and deficits, and yet government jobs are becoming the golden egg in the market.

*This is normal in accounting. Your "ceiling" salary in accounting is much higher in the private sector. However, 25% more starting out is an awful lot, and the "ceiling" isn't that low in the public sector for CPAs.


----------



## mariomike (28 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> And the reason I ask is, it appears that despite the economic climate, government compensation has outpaced inflation, where in most of the private sector I assume its stayed with inflation at best. I am currently executing the exit plan from the CAF, and despite New Brunswick's massive debt and deficit, the government pays junior accountants about 25% more for salary (haven't compared other benefits) than private firms*.
> 
> I would argue a properly functioning government, at any level, should be paying less than the private sector, since they offer better benefits, certainly more job security, and more steady hours than a private sector competitor. Indeed, I was even taught this in school, but the theory has not added up to reality.
> 
> ...



In Ontario at least, the municipalities say it's the arbitration system,
https://www.amo.on.ca/AMO-PDFs/Backgrounders/2013/2013AMOAribitrationProposedImprovementsFinal.aspx

BTW Ballz, I'm sorry to hear you may be releasing. I've followed your career with some interest. You worked hard to get where you are.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 May 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> ... I would argue a properly functioning government, at any level, should be paying less than the private sector, since they offer better benefits, certainly more job security, and more steady hours than a private sector competitor...


I may be oversimplifying, but, as others here with more public service experience have said in the past, if you decide to pay peanuts, you can't complain about employing monkeys.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I may be oversimplifying, but, as others here with more public service experience have said in the past, if you decide to pay peanuts, you can't complain about employing monkeys.




I'm going to grossly oversimplify and suggest that a compensation package has several factors, each with a value:

     Salary ~ very easy to measure;

     Benefits ~ a bit harder to measure but still, fairly clear;

     Job security ~ has very real value but can be hard to measure accurately.

My impression was that up until _circa_ 1970: 

     Civil service:     low salaries, good benefits, great job security; vs

     Private sector: high salaries, fair benefits, poor job security.

On balance, despite the low salaries, the federal civil service (and provincial and local governments, too) was a good place to work.

Starting in the 1970s, when the public sector was unionized, governments were slow to see the costs of doing business and we ended up with:

     Civil service:     high salaries, adequate benefits, great job security; vs

     Private sector: high salaries, fair benefits, poor job security.

The "trade-off" which had existed between the private a public sectors ~ salary vs job security ~ was gone. There were still many reasons to prefer the private sector, including flexibility and career progression, but the salary incentive was gone.

The problem wasn't/isn't "greedy unions;" it is that governments are not very good at bargaining in a free, open labour market.


----------



## mariomike (28 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I may be oversimplifying, but, as others here with more public service experience have said in the past, if you decide to pay peanuts, you can't complain about employing monkeys.



It also helps when there's no other competition in town. ( A little fear-mongering now and then doesn't hurt either. )


----------



## PuckChaser (28 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I may be oversimplifying, but, as others here with more public service experience have said in the past, if you decide to pay peanuts, you can't complain about employing monkeys.



If you have rock solid job security, there's no incentive to work hard or do anything above/beyond because you'll never get fired.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 May 2016)

Interesting ERC : since I left private sector:
- I work the same hours, but have more vacation
- I have a DB pension that costs me 1565/ month whereas in private sector I had RRSP and TFSA matching (up to 8 percent and 2500 respectively), stock options and RSU.
- I have extended health care @ 85 percent but in private sector is was 100 percent
- I have solid job security vs no private sector job security. I private sector I had 18mo severance vs a few weeks weeks public sector
- my public sector salary is 65 percent less than private,but still above sunshine list
- I have 500 percent more job satisfaction and am happier- something that money can't buy. My union tells me I should be angry? I tell them I work to live, not live to work. I have every weekend off. Every stat holiday off, no BlackBerry on call. 
Comparing the two I would say the public sector university and College teaching gig is a more serene but less financially rewarding deal - money isn't everything.
Cheers


----------



## mariomike (28 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you have rock solid job security, there's no incentive to work hard or do anything above/beyond because you'll never get fired.



I knew guys who got fired. All the union rep could do was hold their hands. 

After that, the final decision was up to the arbitrator.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you have rock solid job security, there's no incentive to work hard or do anything above/beyond because you'll never get fired.


-- Having worked in the private sector, I can tell you it's not immune from seducers of the canine.
-- In my experience, most problem children in the public sector don't get dealt with ruthlessly is because bosses are reluctant to take all the steps consistently.  When _all_ the steps have been taken, and due process followed, even the union will say, "nothing more we can do".


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> -- In my experience, most problem children in the public sector don't get dealt with ruthlessly is because bosses are reluctant to take all the steps consistently.  When _all_ the steps have been taken, and due process followed, even the union will say, "nothing more we can do".



 :nod:

I even saw the Union bring out the 10-foot pole for the individual.  Lots of paperwork, but worth it, especially when the Union leadership gave the team a head nod, and 'well done' as they left the final meeting. 

G2G


----------



## mariomike (28 May 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> -- In my experience, most problem children in the public sector don't get dealt with ruthlessly is because bosses are reluctant to take all the steps consistently.  When _all_ the steps have been taken, and due process followed, even the union will say, "nothing more we can do".



Union members can also be let go for off-duty conduct,

Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both employers and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal. 
http://www.hrreporter.com/blog/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession#sthash.m9jwCMuY.dpuf


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 May 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ... Lots of paperwork ...


From what little I've seen, I think that, and a reluctance to have the "hard chat", is what keeps many public sector managers from being able to deal with baddies.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (28 May 2016)

Finally, some move back to the "Progressive" conservatives. It's time that the Conservatives dump "losing" policies against gay marriage, assisted suicide, and the legalization of marijuana. The sooner the conservatives can move back to a focus on small government and economic prudence and away from issues like these the better.


http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/conservatives-vote-to-end-official-opposition-to-gay-marriage/ar-BBtB0Uh?li=AAggNb9


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Finally, some move back to the "Progressive" conservatives. It's time that the Conservatives dump "losing" policies against gay marriage, assisted suicide, and the legalization of marijuana. The sooner the conservatives can move back to a focus on small government and economic prudence and away from issues like these the better.
> 
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/conservatives-vote-to-end-official-opposition-to-gay-marriage/ar-BBtB0Uh?li=AAggNb9



My own :2c: is that the Conservatives were doomed at the next election when Stephen Harper reneged on his deal with Peter MacKay to hand over after two rounds, to respect the addition of the PCs to the Alliance's ranks, without which the rebranded Conservatives would likely have had a much greater time challenging Paul Martin's Liberals.  I think that was a large part of why Peter MacKay extracted himself from the degrading state of Conservatives' cling to power.

G2G


----------



## PuckChaser (28 May 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Finally, some move back to the "Progressive" conservatives. It's time that the Conservatives dump "losing" policies against gay marriage, assisted suicide, and the legalization of marijuana. The sooner the conservatives can move back to a focus on small government and economic prudence and away from issues like these the better.



I agree with you except for legalized marijuana. The Conservatives can carve themselves out a niche here with a hybrid theory of decriminalized small amounts (set fine, no record) and pushing for more scientific research so that THC-derived medicines can be produced without making another mind-altering substance that people can drive around using and get a slap on the wrist. There is still no viable roadside screening yet, and the Liberals want to completely legalize next year.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 May 2016)

I certainly think that the middle ground is the right approach. As much as I am philosophically opposed to marijuana, I can understand that the horse has left the barn on the subject. I think if we decriminalized small amounts, then we could save lots of money in administrative costs that can be directed elsewhere. 

On the medical front, I support greater research. That being said, there are a number of cannabis derived medications that work very well, but none for pain, or any of the other supposed miracle cures. I'm willing to keep my mind open that there is something good yet to be found, but I think if "big pharma" was able to isolate the proverbial golden bullet, they would have done so by now. They would be able to manage the legal implications of the research, despite the illegal nature of the parent drug.

But that's a whole other discussion.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 May 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I certainly think that the middle ground is the right approach. As much as I am philosophically opposed to marijuana, I can understand that the horse has left the barn on the subject. I think if we decriminalized small amounts, then we could save lots of money in administrative costs that can be directed elsewhere.
> 
> On the medical front, I support greater research. That being said, there are a number of cannabis derived medications that work very well, but none for pain, or any of the other supposed miracle cures. I'm willing to keep my mind open that there is something good yet to be found, but I think if "big pharma" was able to isolate the proverbial golden bullet, they would have done so by now. They would be able to manage the legal implications of the research, despite the illegal nature of the parent drug.
> 
> But that's a whole other discussion.



Its a whole other discussion, but likely appropriate here as the Liberals have used marijuana to make political hay and a hallmark promise (although they said day one, here we are well past day 100). We have harmful drugs like Oxy, Morphine, other opiates given as a medicine in controlled doses as they are highly addictive. There's no reason we can't have a similar system for medical THC, and can prove once and for all whether its a placebo effect or does have properties that would be viable as medicine for certain conditions. I feel, however, that the legalize marijuana lobby won't like that answer, because instead of wanting medicine to heal people, a lot would rather just rolling a fatty and getting baked for a weekend.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I agree with you except for legalized marijuana. The Conservatives can carve themselves out a niche here with a hybrid theory of decriminalized small amounts (set fine, no record) and pushing for more scientific research so that THC-derived medicines can be produced without making another mind-altering substance that people can drive around using and get a slap on the wrist. There is still no viable roadside screening yet, and the Liberals want to completely legalize next year.




PLease, don't make statements as if you are knowing what you talk about.

Not one country has been succesful with THC derived medicines, as there are other terpenes involved medicinally, such as CBD.  The natural plant has been proven to be the most effective treatment, nations like Isreal have been at the forefront of these studies since the 80's, and using them for their military, both serving and retired.

Please don't comment on what you know Zero of.  And don't give me any of the opionion crap either.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Its a whole other discussion, but likely appropriate here as the Liberals have used marijuana to make political hay and a hallmark promise (although they said day one, here we are well past day 100). We have harmful drugs like Oxy, Morphine, other opiates given as a medicine in controlled doses as they are highly addictive. There's no reason we can't have a similar system for medical THC, and can prove once and for all whether its a placebo effect or does have properties that would be viable as medicine for certain conditions. I feel, however, that the legalize marijuana lobby won't like that answer, because instead of wanting medicine to heal people, a lot would rather just rolling a fatty and getting baked for a weekend.



Again, I advise shutting it.

You know zero how people medicate,and I dont' appreciate you commnenting with derogatory statements.  We don't roll fatties to get baked.

Sort yourself the fuck out, and stay in you lanes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Again,_* I advise shutting it*_.
> 
> You know zero how people medicate,and I dont' appreciate you commnenting with derogatory statements.  We don't roll fatties to get baked.
> 
> Sort yourself the fuck out, and stay in you lanes.




I advise shutting this whole, _Politics_, page.

Maybe we could have a _Strategy_ page that would allow for some, limited, discussion of partisan political issues in so far as they impact on the elements of a grand strategy: economic/fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy, foreign policy, defence policy ...

As far as I'm concerned, this page goes on   :ignore:  as do some of the people who pushed it there.


----------



## larry Strong (29 May 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I advise shutting this whole, _Politics_, page.
> 
> Maybe we could have a _Strategy_ page that would allow for some, limited, discussion of partisan political issues in so far as they impact on the elements of a grand strategy: economic/fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy, foreign policy, defence policy ...
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this page goes on   :ignore:  as do some of the people who pushed it there.




Thanks for that


 :goodpost:

Cheers
Larry
 :goodpost:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 May 2016)

Ok here is a little lighthearted humor to calm this place down.  An Australian comparison of Canadian Politics to Australian Football:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj7pBOdtEGI

Disclaimer:  Australians like to swear  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2016)

Before the baby goes out with the bathwater ERC - and I share Mr. Campbell's "enthusiasm" for the quality of much of the discussion here - perhaps we can have another go at civil debate?

On Facebook, a friend of mine, whose politics happen to be entirely opposite to mine posted this:







And today I read in the National Post:



> Government does not have a place in your bedroom’: Conservatives vote to accept same-sex marriages



which puts them in the same place as this fellow:






Also on Facebook another friend posted a comment about Orwell and T.S. Eliot and from that I found a commentary by Orwell on Kipling that included this observation:



> Although he had no direct connexion with any political party, Kipling was a Conservative, a thing that does not exist nowadays. Those who now call themselves Conservatives are either Liberals, Fascists or the accomplices of Fascists. He identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition.



That was printed in 1942.

http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/kipling/english/e_rkip

In Eisenhower's time the Democrats were southern conservatives and the Republicans supported the working class.

In Orwell's time he had seen the Conservatives shift to start encompassing their old foes the Liberals as the totalitarian fight between Communists and Fascists played itself out.  Today I have seen it argued that many NDPers and UK Labour members are actually conservatives, just as Orwell's Liberals were seen as Conservatives, because they wish to conserve the gains/changes that they had already made.

Now in Canada we see Conservatives swinging.

Throughout all of these swings we have tribal loyalties that tie people to their colours regardless of the policies of the institution.

It suddenly dawns on me that the best analogy for institutional battles is rugby, in particular the scrum.  In searching for advantage it is common for one side of the scrum, blind or open, to dominate the other.  The scrum then pivots and unless the ref blows it down the scrum can find itself pushing its opponents towards its own end, potentially scoring an own goal.  This isn't allowed to happen because, as noted, the rugby ref will blow the shift down.

But in the real world their is no ref.  The scrum wheels and pivots and pushes and people keep cheering on their own side regardless of where it goes on the field, or even if it goes out of bounds.  

The blind battle of the scrum takes over and moving the ball on the field is forgotten.

Can we break apart from the scrum long enough to play the ball?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 May 2016)

I am actually not surprised by this. As I have mentioned before, in the US, the main parties (Rep and Dems) have always been electoral machines - not ideological ones. Their aim is to get their candidates elected - not to impose an ideology on the US.

Lately, ideological sub groups of both the Dems and Rep have taken over the driving of the party agenda in their respective party, which has left the national political discourse in Washington highly polarized, to the horror of the non-ideologically driven members of both parties. 

The good thing, however, is that since there are no real underlying ideology to each party, swinging back to the centre or even the opposite "side" over a certain amount of time is possible as it always has been (it starts with debate at conventions, with someone basically saying on point x, we have gone too far - so I propose we ease bit by making y our policy on this point. Majority agrees, leaving some to "abandon" the party but attracting others, and slowly increment by increment, policy position evolve and swing to opposite. Trump has managed that over the course of a few months for his own positions  ;D). The other benefit, is that, when (sometimes even minute) changes in policy clears the party of the influence of those small sub groups trying to impose ideology on the party, the tone of politics in Washington can get back to a collaborative effort that can only benefit the nation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I advise shutting this whole, _Politics_, page.
> 
> Maybe we could have a _Strategy_ page that would allow for some, limited, discussion of partisan political issues in so far as they impact on the elements of a grand strategy: economic/fiscal policy, monetary policy, trade policy, foreign policy, defence policy ...
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, this page goes on   :ignore:  as do some of the people who pushed it there.



Sometimes, it's important to realize that not everyone sees things thru the same looking glass or cares about the same issues.  Lot's of threads and discussions here go for speed wobbles, nothing new is it?

However, if the discussion isn't to _your_ 'standard', there's always the option of just not reading it, or skipping over the parts or people you choose to.

Cheers


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 May 2016)

This is a thread about Canadian politics..........not US. There is a proper thread if you wish to discuss that.

THIS thread is SUPPOSED to be POLITE discourse on CANADIAN politics.

There has been many times that this thread has almost been shut down because certain individuals can't play nice. There has even been people banned because of this thread.

It has taken more Mod oversight and time than almost any thread in the forum.

If posters can't be civil, if they can't move past their partisan feelings and discuss things like adults, then maybe, it might be time to sink it.

After all, there is a forum _standard_ that has been sorely lacking here in an attempt to let individuals have _their_ unfettered say and it's not working.


----------



## Altair (29 May 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This is a thread about Canadian politics..........not US. There is a proper thread if you wish to discuss that.
> 
> THIS thread is SUPPOSED to be POLITE discourse on CANADIAN politics.
> 
> ...


Instead of the scorched earth campaign against this thread why ban the offending parties? 

There are a few bad apples who seem to be able to grab all of the attention however most of the people here can keep it civil most of the time.

Off the top of my head I can think about 3 maybe 4 people who go over the line on a regular basis but most of the 20 or so regulars here can keep it mostly civil for the most part. 

I also don't want to have to flood puckchaser inbox if this thread goes down. Think of the children!


----------



## PuckChaser (29 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I also don't want to have to flood puckchaser inbox if this thread goes down. Think of the children!



Although we'd likely have a good debate of actual facts?


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Although we'd likely have a good debate of actual facts?



Unforutnately, you lasts posts on MM were not factual, as I previosly stated.


----------



## Altair (29 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Although we'd likely have a good debate of actual facts?


For at least a post or two  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2016)

Another alternative - so as to keep Mike Bobbit's name in good standing,  after all it is his site and we are all here as his guests - perhaps Mike could put up a separate Politics board much as he has done for Army, Navy and Air Force and MilNet, only different.

Same membership but a different look and feel and no association with the military.


----------



## Altair (29 May 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Unforutnately, you lasts posts on MM were not factual, as I previosly stated.


There are ways to disagree and rebut that are civil and respectful, and as much as I agreed with the point you were attempting to make, the way in which you did it was hostile, confrontational and showed no respect to anyone who posts here, not just puckchaser.


----------



## Altair (29 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Another alternative - so as to keep Mike Bobbit's name in good standing,  after all it is his site and we are all here as his guests - perhaps Mike could put up a separate Politics board much as he has done for Army, Navy and Air Force and MilNet, only different.
> 
> Same membership but a different look and feel and no association with the military.


Probably a good solution. I don't think shutting this thread is the best idea. I've seen that happen on other boards and the discussions that would normal take place here start to hijack other threads. This thread does go into the gutter on occasion but at least it keeps the muck in here.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Another alternative - so as to keep Mike Bobbit's name in good standing,  after all it is his site and we are all here as his guests - perhaps Mike could put up a separate Politics board much as he has done for Army, Navy and Air Force and MilNet, only different.



Unfortunately the backend of a forum takes a lot of resources. Milnet.ca takes up a lot of server space, even a small politics forum on its own would take up way more space that just a carefully moderated sub forum here.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> There are ways to disagree and rebut that are civil and respectful, and as much as I agreed with the point you were attempting to make, the way in which you did it was hostile, confrontational and showed no respect to anyone who posts here, not just puckchaser.



Unfortunately,

When a person, that has chased me on this forum using PMs, Milpoints, and outright snarky remarks to me, I have not time for decorum when the same person is spouting lies, and innuendos, that stygmatizes a medication used by Veterans.  I appreciate your observation, but there is a larger picture involved.

I don't mince my words, when I see someone pontificating on seomthing, that can cause harm to others.

THank you for the observation though, you are one of few people who's posts I do enjoy on army.ca


----------



## PuckChaser (29 May 2016)

You've been on ignore for weeks, and I'm pretty sure I've never PM'd you, other than a response to your sadness over being docked milpoints. Its a beautiful day, get outside and relax a little bit.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You've been on ignore for weeks, and I'm pretty sure I've never PM'd you, other than a response to your sadness over being docked milpoints. Its a beautiful day, get outside and relax a little bit.



Says the man sitting in his basement.  

Lies will get you no where, and you were caught on one.  Instead of owning up, you whine on how I delivered the message.

Get out, it will do you pale skin good, chase some beach volley balls instead of pucks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 May 2016)

Political forum is more of a boxing ring than debate venue. No one is going to change their views.

I'd prefer to see it turfed but I contribute to the shenanigans when I'm bored so I can't complain.

I've no sympathy for members being banned because of the politics forum; more often than not arguing politics seems to be the only reason they're here.


----------



## Altair (29 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Political forum is more of a boxing ring than debate venue. No one is going to change their views.
> 
> I'd prefer to see it turfed but I contribute to the shenanigans when I'm bored so I can't complain.
> 
> I've no sympathy for members being banned because of the politics forum; more often than not arguing politics seems to be the only reason they're here.


There isn't a heck of lot going on forces wide at the moment.


----------



## observor 69 (29 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Politiforum is more of a boxing ring than debate venue . No one is going to change their views.
> 
> I'd prefer to see it turfed but I contribute to the shenanigans when I'm bored so I can't complain.
> 
> I've no sympathy for members being banned because of the politics forum; more often than not arguing politics seems to be the only reason they're here.



Hence, in spite of my love of politics, I rarely if ever contribute to this forum.

I'll let Altair be my spokesperson.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 May 2016)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Hence, in spite of my love of politics, I rarely if ever contribute to this forum.
> 
> I'll let Altair be my spokesperson.



IF this thread stays up, I second that going forward!


----------



## RedcapCrusader (29 May 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Unforutnately, you lasts posts on MM were not factual, as I previosly stated.



Instead of actually providing something of substance to the discussion and posting the * "real"* facts for proper debate, you instead threw up your defenses and started slinging insults. 

Majority of your posts in political themed threads have been nothing but childish retorts, political cartoons, hostility, but nothing that actually adds substance to the discussion. 

Maybe before being so quick to pull the trigger on someone else, you should consider your own level of participation. 


Just my observation.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 May 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Instead of actually providing something of substance to the discussion and posting the * "real"* facts for proper debate, you instead threw up your defenses and started slinging insults.
> 
> Majority of your posts in political themed threads have been nothing but childish retorts, political cartoons, hostility, but nothing that actually adds substance to the discussion.
> 
> ...



That is a very good post.

Seen.  I will stand down, so I don't interfere.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 May 2016)

Time for a break.

---Staff---


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2016)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/how-pm-justin-trudeau-s-missing-signature-landed-his-campaign-in-court-1.2994593


Minor stuff but could have bigger implications if his people don't get their act together.


----------



## CougarKing (16 Aug 2016)

:facepalm:

Enough with the shirtless photobombs already!

Toronto Star


> *Shirtless comedian photobombs Justin Trudeau*
> 
> Comedian Mark Critch pounced on the opportunity during Trudeau’s visit to Newfoundland on Monday.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Aug 2016)

Congratulations Canada, we have a Kardashian as Prime Minister: constant media attention for doing absolutely nothing. Lost in the shirtless photo bomb? Single largest job losses in a month since recession in 2008.


----------



## Lightguns (16 Aug 2016)

"We seek him here, we seek him there
 Those Taxpayers seek him everywhere!
 Is he in BC? Or is he in Norman Wells?
 That dammed Elusive shirtless Pimpernel?"


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2016)

Shiver!.......Norman Wells......The HORROR!

One Ex I prefer to forget.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Aug 2016)

OK, so this thread is clearly a potential end-run around the previously locked "Politics 2016" and "PMJT First 100 Days."  So here's what I'll offer:

- I will avoid this thread, and not contribute to the inevitable anti-Trudeau dogpile, with the equally attendant 'oh, oh _ya!'_  retorts by his supporters.

- In exchange, the people who know absolutely nothing about security policy and defence procurement will avoid posting in those threads.

Deal?   :nod:


Come on, you know it's a good deal.  ;D


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Lost in the shirtless photo bomb? Single largest job losses in a month since recession in 2008.



I guess that big fire somewhere west of Toronto had nothing to do with that....


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OK, so this thread is clearly a potential end-run around the previously locked "Politics 2016" and "PMJT First 100 Days."  So here's what I'll offer:
> 
> - I will avoid this thread, and not contribute to the inevitable anti-Trudeau dogpile, with the equally attendant 'oh, oh _ya!'_  retorts by his supporters.
> 
> ...


You starry-eyed optimist, you  ;D


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Aug 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I guess that big fire somewhere west of Toronto had nothing to do with that....



I think he fired all of those people himself - at least that's what I understand from reading this website.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> OK, so this thread is clearly a potential end-run around the previously locked "Politics 2016" and "PMJT First 100 Days."  So here's what I'll offer:
> 
> - I will avoid this thread, and not contribute to the inevitable anti-Trudeau dogpile, with the equally attendant 'oh, oh _ya!'_  retorts by his supporters.
> 
> ...



As long as people post things contradicted by things I read, I can't let it go.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Aug 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> As long as people post things contradicted by things I read, I can't let it go.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Aug 2016)

We're not doing this again.

---Staff---


----------



## gryphonv (9 Sep 2016)

So our current government is still riding the honeymoon period. Getting a free pass on a lot of issues because they were the 'saviours' from the big bad 'cons'. 

I still see ministers use the excuses 'it takes time to fix the mistakes of the previous government', 'that was the previous government ' or whatever. Basically using it to shirk off responsibility. 

We are coming up on the first year anniversary, my question is how long until they have to stop with the excuses and actually accept more responsibility. I know they will do it as long as the public allows. But it is getting tiring when you see Minister X dodge media questions with the overplayed excuses.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Sep 2016)

I find the PS is generally forgiving for the first 6 months of new governments. I can see the shine is already off judging by comments I hear.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Sep 2016)

cough: failure to fix phoenix :cough


----------



## mariomike (9 Sep 2016)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> So our current government is still riding the honeymoon period.



From reading the other discussions, it looks to me like the honeymoon - if there ever was one - is over,

Politics in 2016  
47 pages.
Locked.

PMJT: The First 100 Days  
35 pages.
Locked.

Justin Trudeau in the Media  
Locked.

etc...


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Sep 2016)

At leaste let the Governement Break the one year period before we start commiserating about how the people have been hard done by them.

How many "I want to be criticial of the Liberal Government" Threads do we reallly need here?

 :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Sep 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> cough: failure to fix phoenix :cough



to be fair the CPC started us down the road and it takes time to realize the scope of the problem, particularly when so many senior managers are attached to the problem and they are all attempting to avoid blame.

As for blaming the Liberals, they are busy digging the holes they will fall into soon enough.


----------



## mariomike (9 Sep 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> How many "I want to be criticial of the Liberal Government" Threads do we reallly need here?



Including provincial?


----------



## Altair (9 Sep 2016)

So this isn't going to turn into a politics 2016 thread.....how? 

A thread which was banned last I heard.

As if the peacekeeping thread hasnt been turned into a bash Trudeau as it is.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> So this isn't going to turn into a politics 2016 thread.....how?
> 
> A thread which was banned last I heard.



We don't really "BAN" threads.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> As if the peacekeeping thread hasnt been turned into a bash Trudeau as it is.




Ummmmmm?  Bashing Trudeau?  I see more disillusionment in hasty announcements, with no real detail, by our Government and hatred of the UN policy keepers than anything else.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> How many "I want to be criticial of the Liberal Government" Threads do we reallly need here?
> 
> :facepalm:



I heard no such comments about the number of similar Threads about the Government prior to this Liberal Government.  Are you suggesting we change somehow?


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> So this isn't going to turn into a politics 2016 thread.....how?
> 
> A thread which was banned last I heard.
> 
> As if the peacekeeping thread hasnt been turned into a bash Trudeau as it is.



typed while humming "Kum ba yah"......    :


----------



## gryphonv (9 Sep 2016)

One thing I have to admit, people seem to get a free pass on Bashing Mr. Harper, but others cry foul if anything is said about PM Trudeau.

The way I look at it, we are all stake holders in a company (Canada) and the CEO is our (PM). We all have a right to question the CEO to look after our own interests. Political stripe aside, no PM should be immune from Criticism. 

I have to thank our PM though for taking the high road when Mr. Harper retired from politics, instead of trying to score some easy points. Some of the Vitriol that has been cast at Mr. Harper has been pretty embarrassing. 

A side tangent, but this is one of my main problems with our political system, its more about punishing a party you oppose than supporting another party platform. Well that is how I feel.

Back to the CEO analogy, if a companies stock tanked 1 month into a new CEOs hire, they wouldn't be able to shrug it off onto his predecessor to the stakeholders. They would have to own it and show they still have the will to make things better. 

I'm not a fan of Trudeau, but I'm willing to give him a chance. I don't put blinders on because they don't match my stripe. But the reverse is true also. I don't put blinders on for my own political stripe either, I was very critical of Mr. Harper on a lot of issues when he was our PM.

Maybe this is backwards thinking, but I think the best support any PM could have is have people who question him on things, rather than turn a blind eye to any short comings they have.


----------



## Altair (9 Sep 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> typed while humming "Kum ba yah"......    :


Hey, I would love a politics 2016 thread. 

It's locked. So I've largely left politics alone on here. If this thread is a place to have at, it let me know


----------



## gryphonv (9 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Hey, I would love a politics 2016 thread.
> 
> It's locked. So I've largely left politics alone on here. If this thread is a place to have at, it let me know



Well this is Canadian Politics sub forum, and the date is 2016. I mean if we want no political discussions at all this year, should we just remove the sub forum?


----------



## Altair (9 Sep 2016)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Well this is Canadian Politics sub forum, and the date is 2016. I mean if we want no political discussions at all this year, should we just remove the sub forum?


I don't run the place, take it up with the powers that be.

I just fail to see how this topic doesn't degenerate into the mess all the other politics threads do and how this isn't locked within a day.


----------



## gryphonv (9 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't run the place, take it up with the powers that be.
> 
> I just fail to see how this topic doesn't degenerate into the mess all the other politics threads do and how this isn't locked within a day.



I really didn't think my post would of went on that tangent. I confess I never really followed the political thread on here at all. This thought I have was just something that's been irking me for some time. I am a political junky and I felt I had seen one too many questions being dodged by certain ministers, by blaming the Conservative Government. One as recently as a few days ago.


----------



## cupper (9 Sep 2016)

My wife said the honeymoon was over when I walked in and took a dump while she was still in the bathroom.  ;D


----------



## gryphonv (9 Sep 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> My wife said the honeymoon was over when I walked in and took a dump while she was still in the bathroom.  ;D



If you waited until after marriage to do that, you are a more patient man than me.


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I heard no such comments about the number of similar Threads about the Government prior to this Liberal Government.  Are you suggesting we change somehow?




Oh PUhleeze, you are in no position to start playing the neutral member of the site.  You are usually in the lead to bash the left, especially Trudeau.

Don't try to make the state of this place in the last couple of years as sitting on the side lines watchng.  More Conservative rhetoric has been spewed on these means, than the bilge poured into the St. Lawerence by Montreal, and you lead the charge on most of them!


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Sep 2016)

Liberals have begun doing the things they've criticized the Conservatives for.  Honeymoon will be over in 2 months.


----------



## mariomike (9 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I just fail to see how this topic doesn't degenerate into the mess all the other politics threads do and how this isn't locked within a day.


----------



## gryphonv (9 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Liberals have begun doing the things they've criticized the Conservatives for.  Honeymoon will be over in 2 months.



This is true, very few people realize that in the end political stripe matters very little unless the bureaucrats change, or are forced to change.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Liberals have begun doing the things they've criticized the Conservatives for.  Honeymoon will be over in 2 months.



Depends when the media gets over tweets by Rihanna. It'll be interesting to see the spin when we're $120B further in the hole, and no further ahead with growth and job creation.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Sep 2016)

Note from Harper to Trudeau:

'In your top drawer you will find three envelopes....."


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Depends when the media gets over tweets by Rihanna. It'll be interesting to see the spin when we're $120B further in the hole, and no further ahead with growth and job creation.



Word from Al Jazeera the street is that the Prime Minister will be visiting CFB Petawawa soon. It'll be interesting to see if he ventures beyond the ring of eager subbies and talks to the troops.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Word from Al Jazeera the street is that the Prime Minister will be visiting CFB Petawawa soon. It'll be interesting to see if he ventures beyond the ring of eager subbies and talks to the troops.


I wonder if I'll get charged for asking why people are going to be selected for deployment based on their gender and not professional skills/quals.


----------



## gryphonv (9 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I wonder if I'll get charged for asking why people are going to be selected for deployment based on their gender and not professional skills/quals.



Wondering about doing something and having the fortitude to do it are two different things. If you had such fortitude to do this, if you ever ran for politics you would have a lot of fans.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Sep 2016)

According to new government policy, I'm a white, protestant, male; I don't have a career anyways. Won't really screw much up if I get demoted, might even open up cooler jobs with less responsibility.


----------



## mariomike (9 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I wonder if I'll get charged for asking why people are going to be selected for deployment based on their gender and not professional skills/quals.


----------



## Loachman (9 Sep 2016)

And locked, as many expected.


----------



## McG (20 Sep 2016)

Summer is over.  Time to see what fall will bring.


> *Trudeau should enjoy his popularity while it lasts, because come fall all bets are off*
> Michael Den Tandt
> National Post
> 15 Sept 2016
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-den-tandt-trudeau-should-enjoy-his-popularity-while-it-lasts-because-come-fall-all-bets-are-off


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Sep 2016)

An outlander's view :



> Canadian liberal or alien robot? It was difficult to say
> He spoke as if programmed using algorithms based on back issues of the Economist
> Jeremy Clarke



http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/canadian-liberal-or-alien-robot-it-was-difficult-to-say/

Moderators:  I am sorry.   ;D


----------



## Altair (22 Sep 2016)

Upon reflection, and knowing what the responses to my posts will be, I have decided that I will no longer post in the politics 2016, or any other year thread.

Hopefully without me posting here it has a chance of remaining civil.

Enjoy.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Sep 2016)

It's one thing if the peanut gallery here say's something anti-Lieberal, but for an outsider like Mr. Clarke to make comment.  Well, if the shoe fits perhaps...


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Sep 2016)

I'll just leave this right here:

*Trudeau’s top aides billed taxpayers more than $200,000 in moving expenses, according to report*

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail is reporting taxpayers were billed more than $200,000 in moving expenses for two of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s top aides.

A source told the newspaper that *Gerald Butts*, the prime minister’s principal secretary, and *Katie Telford, *his chief of staff, were reimbursed for moving their families from Toronto to Ottawa.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/trudeaus-top-aides-billed-taxpayers-more-than-200000-in-moving-expenses-according-to-report


----------



## Lightguns (22 Sep 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I'll just leave this right here:
> 
> *Trudeau’s top aides billed taxpayers more than $200,000 in moving expenses, according to report*
> 
> ...


  Anyone know what Blue Team cost?  I am having a hard time finding it to compare.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Sep 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Upon reflection, and knowing what the responses to my posts will be, I have decided that I will no longer post in the politics 2016, or any other year thread.
> 
> Hopefully without me posting here it has a chance of remaining civil.
> 
> Enjoy.


I bet you my Steven Harper  autographed picture you can't resist.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Anyone know what Blue Team cost?  I am having a hard time finding it to compare.



Harper capped his PMO moves to under $30k for chiefs of staff, $10k for others.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/top-trudeau-aides-butts-telford-expensed-over-200000-for-moving-homes/article31995512/



> Although there is no publicly available information about relocation costs under Stephen Harper’s government, one former aide said such expenses were rarely approved.
> 
> “I can confirm that our government’s practice with respect to moving expenses was very different. They were infrequently covered at all, and at a much lower level than appears to be the case currently,” Rachel Curran, Mr. Harper’s former policy director, said in an e-mail Wednesday.
> 
> One Conservative source said Mr. Harper’s PMO capped moving expenses at $30,000 for chiefs of staff, and under $10,000 for senior aides.



Also, note this article:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pmo-staff-reimbursing-64-000-in-moving-expenses-1.3084408

They got caught and they're going to pay some of it back. Cute little line at the bottom:



> Trudeau has asked Treasury Board President Scott Brison to create a new policy governing relocation expenses, Butts said in the post.



NJC Relocation Directive will be changed, can be expect knock-on effects again of taking away even more compensation from CAF members?


----------



## McG (22 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> NJC Relocation Directive will be changed, can be expect knock-on effects again of taking away even more compensation from CAF members?


Conceivably, there will simply be additional constraints applied to the compensation given to political staff.  I am sure the respective parties can cover other costs if they really want thier guy working in Ottawa.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Sep 2016)

Ah yes, where's Dingwall when you want him.... entitled to their entitlements time has arrived at last.  Surprised it took this long to come out.  What was that Cindy Lauper tune,  "I see your true colours come shining through...."  Gotta love majority governments, eh.


----------



## rnkelly (22 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> NJC Relocation Directive will be changed, can be expect knock-on effects again of taking away even more compensation from CAF members?



I think this could be the spark to revise the CF IRP benefits, ever since MND Bob Nicholson threw Leslie under the bus for his cross town move that cost the tax payer a hefty sum I've thought that it's a matter of time.  There does have to be some sort of cap on moves though, Leslie's $72,000 move a few kilometres away and Butt's $127,000 move from Toronto to Ottawa is ridiculous.  I realize that a service member and a non-elected PMO staffer are two different things but these costs to the tax payer are both unreasonable.  

No idea how the cap would be calculated but obviously geographic location would have to be considered.  Not sure at what price point luxury housing would be defined in the various cities but costs above a certain amount for realtor fees and land transfer tax should not be covered.  Tax payers should not be on the hook for individual's real estate speculation activities.

Hopefully the guy who developed the PLD formula won't be involved!


----------



## cavalryman (22 Sep 2016)

Political staff shouldn't be moved at taxpayers' expense.  The party needs to pay for them, period.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Sep 2016)

If the conservatives wouldn't have got wind of it those two wouldn't have said shit, let alone return money.  $18'000 to rent an apartment and $20'000 in incidentals? Must be nice.


----------



## Lightguns (23 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> If the conservatives wouldn't have got wind of it those two wouldn't have said crap, let alone return money.  $18'000 to rent an apartment and $20'000 in incidentals? Must be nice.



That lasted long [  Oddly enough this one is the deserving of praise to the MSM, specifically the Globe and Mail.  18,000 for an apartment in Ottawa, in a location of his social class is very likely.  Not that we should pay that out but is likely.  He should have went unaccompanied and stay at Cartier Suites like the rest of us slobs.  $20K incidentals is tres incred!


----------



## dapaterson (23 Sep 2016)

Careful - the "incidentals" line includes the PS equivalent of the Posting Allowance - two weeks pay.  Are you suggesting that the Posting Allowance should not be paid to military members who are moved?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Sep 2016)

It looks like the shine is starting to wear off slowly, that's for sure!

I was so happy to watch the National "At Issue" yesterday ("Canada's most watched political panel" according to Mansbridge - "Canada's most pro-Liberal political panel" according to me   ) where they had no choice but to call on the PM's most recent press conference and state - all of them - that "transparent" government is one thing, but to call a press conference where you say nothing and basically avoid answering any of the questions you are asked by skating around is a bloody waste of time for  every one.

I think even the MSM journalists are beginning  to see that this government has been all about sound bites that say nothing, but no action whatsoever on any front (except the right to die thing - where they felt they had no choice but come up with a law within the deadline imposed by the Supreme Court, and somehow letting 25,000 refugees into the country quickly).


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Sep 2016)

Just like a gigantic fart.  All wind and noise with no substance at all and an unpleasant, lingering, after scent.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Sep 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Careful - the "incidentals" line includes the PS equivalent of the Posting Allowance - two weeks pay.  Are you suggesting that the Posting Allowance should not be paid to military members who are moved?



Telford is getting paid $607,698 per annum and Butts is getting $540,774?

$23,373 x 26 and $20,799 x 26 ?

As someone who has been moved by my employer in the past - and has reasonable knowledge of what relocation contracts in the private sector may include - I have seen some really attractive international contracts - I don't dispute the terms.  

But if you are suggesting that 2 weeks is the standard then Telford and Butts are being paid more than the PM - and maybe that is appropriate.

The optics of this are bad.  It is worse when it involves people committed to providing service to the nation at large for altruistic reasons.  As I am sure is the case here.


----------



## Lightguns (23 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Telford is getting paid $607,698 per annum and Butts is getting $540,774?
> 
> $23,373 x 26 and $20,799 x 26 ?
> 
> ...



No one in politics is committed to anything altruistic.  Even the most idealistic politicians I met promote ideas that will assist their careers. You want altruistic politicians?  Make 'em one term only, pay them peanuts, disallow all political donations over $1000 and no pension plan.  They will come, pass bills as directed by their neighbours and get on with their lives.  I think it is Vermont that does not pay it's state politicians and sets term limits, they get expenses to come to the capital for a month at a time to sit, that's a good model that served very well in our national youth.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Telford is getting paid $607,698 per annum and Butts is getting $540,774?



Not at all.  The amount includes the "posting allowance", but is not exclusively that amount.  So, for example, if they were to be paid $234K per year (not unreasonable for the level they are at, which is at or about what a Deputy Minister is paid), then they would receive $9K for that allowance.  The balance would be for other expenses IAW the relocation directive.  Not having the detailed breakdown, I can't say what was what, or what things were rolled together.  But righteous outrage is rarely constrained by "I lack sufficient information".

It is interesting that people (1) want government to be more like business - business thinks nothing of compensating very senior personnel for relocating in the interests of the company; (2) in this forum, people get irate for non-military members getting a package that is less generous than that provided to military members (these folks receive two weeks pay; married military members get a month's pay for moving); and (3) want the best and brightest to serve government - yet begrudge reimbursement and thus seem to only want the independently wealthy to be able to afford to serve.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Sep 2016)

I think the biggest problem is that in business it is a given that all transactions are mercenary.  People may choose jobs/careers because they enjoy the challenge but ultimately they stay, or change, for the money.  People are in it for themselves - and that is good - and that is acceptable.

However people who set themselves up as supplying services out of purported altruism must expect a little push back when they claim they need to be compensated sufficiently to keep them out of the grasp of the mercenary private sector.

The push back might be a little more severe when these well compensated altruists feel it necessary to keep informing us greedy mercenaries that we must do more, pay more, sacrifice more.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Sep 2016)

They didn't have PS jobs before being staffers, why do they get paid to move when they applied for a job not in their town?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## dapaterson (23 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They didn't have PS jobs before being staffers, why do they get paid to move when they applied for a job not in their town?



Because the rules brought in in 2011 say they do.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Sep 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Careful - the "incidentals" line includes the PS equivalent of the Posting Allowance - two weeks pay.  *Are you suggesting that the Posting Allowance should not be paid to military members who are moved?*



Yes.
And stop posting members when they don't want to be posted. Divorces go down, retention goes up. I just saved us a lot of money  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (23 Sep 2016)

Good.  But don't complain when you don't get promoted because you lack the depth of experience because you refused to move.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Sep 2016)

What happens if you slow down the career cycle so that everybody spends 3 or 4 years in a single position?


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Sep 2016)

Or put your effort into people who want to be promoted/posted. No reason we can't have CFLs in NCM and officer ranks.


----------



## the 48th regulator (23 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or put your effort into people who want to be promoted/posted. No reason we can't have CFLs in NCM and officer ranks.



Acceptance of mediocrity is what is killing the public service, and this includes CAF.


----------



## McG (23 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They didn't have PS jobs before being staffers, why do they get paid to move when they applied for a job not in their town?


Because MPs require staff, and that staff should not be public servants.  But where that staff is necessary to the function of government, it does not seem unreasonable that the government pays with the same compensation model as is applied to the PS.  When a constituency elects a new MP, that MP needs to get some staff to Ottawa.  When Parliament selects an new PM, that individual should be entitled to bring in a slightly bigger staff too.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What happens if you slow down the career cycle so that everybody spends 3 or 4 years in a single position?


You would be getting into a topic for another thread; something for a military board as opposed to the political board of this site.

Moving to some other ideas ...  This was an entertaining article, though I don't agree with the premise that we should shy away from complicated solutions/initiatives for fear that Canadian's either not smart enough or not educated enough to understand.


> *Introducing the Liberals’ all-new middle-class moron tax*
> William Watson
> Financial Post
> 22 Sep 2016
> ...


http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/william-watson-introducing-the-liberals-all-new-middle-class-moron-tax


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Sep 2016)

>MP needs to get some staff to Ottawa

Or hire them there.  I propose a new model: MPs needing staff post job notices like everyone else; people wanting to work as staff will either move to Ottawa after successful application (on their own dime), or set up digs there and keep barking for a place at the table.

I'm still waiting for an un-muddled and correct explanation of the actual changes to CPP.  I'm pretty sure the widely reported +1%/+1% point employee/employer contribution increase on the amount under whatever the "old" threshold was ($58K?) is correct, but keep reading different interpretations on what is above that.  The most common explanation I have found is that it is only 4%/4% (not 5.95%/5.95% to match the bottom amount) on the amount up to $80-whateverK ($82.7K?).

The increases are scheduled to arrive over several years - the whole $3K+ lump (a bit larger than the $671 tax cut for that one income tax bracket, neh?) isn't going to land on everyone with a teacher-sized income in one year.

The IRR for CPP is something like 1.7-2.5 % depending on whose estimates and calculations you accept.  Is that on par with what federal pension plans provide?  Or did the government just stick a lot of people with a higher bill for their (net) federal pensions?

Policy-wise: in general, tax increases (payroll or other, doesn't matter) promote job losses and economic contraction; tax decreases promote job growth and economic growth.  We seem to be experiencing the perfect storm at present: many large governments in Canada running consumption spending deficits; tax increases militating against economic performance; aging (hence shrinking) work force; not particularly impressive productivity.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Sep 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> When a constituency elects a new MP, that MP needs to get some staff to Ottawa.



Anybody have an idea about the staff an MP would have in Ottawa? I would think that most of the work is done back at his/her office in their constituency.



> When Parliament selects an new PM, that individual should be entitled to bring in a slightly bigger staff too.



Isn't that what the PMO is for?


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Anybody have an idea about the staff an MP would have in Ottawa? I would think that most of the work is done back at his/her office in their constituency.
> 
> 
> Each MP has both an assistant in Ottawa and a small constituency office back home. Parliamentary Secretaries have larger staffs and Ministers larger, still.
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Sep 2016)

The facts don't matter here, just the optics. The Liberals were more than happy to go after Mr Duffy for 90K which was repaid. They can't now expect a free ride for their own poor performance is this area. To argue differently is to take the public for fools.


----------



## FJAG (24 Sep 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The facts don't matter here, just the optics. The Liberals were more than happy to go after Mr Duffy for 90K which was repaid. They can't now expect a free ride for their own poor performance is this area. To argue differently is to take the public for fools.



Once again the Wynne shows how anti-business she is.

Ontario Water-Taking Rules Need To Change, Premier Wynne Says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/24/ontario-water-nestle_n_12170854.html



> TORONTO — The bottled water industry in Ontario is facing renewed government scrutiny after a small township was outbid by multinational giant Nestle in its attempt to purchase a well to secure water supply for its growing community.
> 
> Premier Kathleen Wynne said Friday her government will look for ways to put community needs ahead of bottled water corporations.
> 
> ...



It's not like Nestle's water is being used for fracking or anything. It's a drinking supply for people. The fact that it's not the locals makes very little difference. 

I'm not a great believer in bottled water. Like Keurig cups I think it's a ridiculously expensive product and can easily be replaced by cheaper alternatives (bulk ground coffee and tap water) But that said, the Aberfoyle aquifer provides a good (albeit very hard) water supply for quite a number of municipalities including Guelph.  Unlike the municipalities that draw water there, almost 100% of Nestle's water goes down peoples' throats while the vast bulk of the municipalities' water goes down toilets or sink/shower/bathtub drains or on lawns, golf courses etc. 

Nestles isn't the bad guy here; the way municipalities waste water is. Once again, Wynne with her twisted environmental agendas is jumping on what she thinks will be a voter bandwagon  :2c:

 :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman (25 Sep 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> To argue differently is to take the public for fools.


Are they not justified in that belief?   Where's the outcry?  

If it even makes it to the Party's attention as any sort of serious issue, they know that the attention span will last maybe two days.... less if there's cute selfies, like the PM's kid on a backyard trampoline behind the Chinese Premier.  As it is, they're saying 'ok, we got caught; some of it is promised to be returned.  Anyone who says anything now is just a CPC apologist -- haters gonna hate.'

And they carry on blissfully, knowing their sheeple audience.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Sep 2016)

No Trudeau mania here...  ;D

Sorry, one doesn't high five with commoners: Canada's PM is left hanging as he attempts an awkward greeting with a VERY unimpressed Prince George at the start of the Royal tour

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805952/Welcome-Canada-Kate-Wills-George-Charlotte-touch-Victoria-royal-tour-family-four.html#ixzz4LHWRMLZy 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2016)

LOL!  Just thought of what a crusty old Sgt Major would say about this tie:


----------



## Occam (25 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL!  Just thought of what a crusty old Sgt Major would say about this tie:



Fortunately, fashion changes and crusty old Sgt Majors retire...

http://www.ties.com/how-to-tie-a-tie


----------



## dimsum (25 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL!  Just thought of what a crusty old Sgt Major would say about this tie:



When I first saw those series of pics on FB, first thing I thought was "hey, they found Carmen San Diego!"


----------



## YZT580 (25 Sep 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No Trudeau mania here...  ;D
> 
> Sorry, one doesn't high five with commoners: Canada's PM is left hanging as he attempts an awkward greeting with a VERY unimpressed Prince George at the start of the Royal tour
> 
> ...


from Reuters: 
Prince George just wasn't going to be charmed by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
  
Landing in Canada on Saturday on a weeklong official visit with parents Prince William and Kate Middleton, George, holding his father's hand, ignored Trudeau 
Already he shows discernment and he is only three.  He is demonstrating far greater wisdom than most of the press.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL!  Just thought of what a crusty old Sgt Major would say about this tie:



Being a somewhat decent human and fully sensitized to some one taking offence, I can I say what it is. Rhymes with Regina?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2016)

I more often heard a less edumacated in medical terminology, four letter word, used in that instance.   [


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2016)

Does anyone at all really care how anyone above the rank of OCdt knots their tie?






There's a reason the whole "Politics" page needs to be taken down and tossed into the cyber-scrap bin.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Sep 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Does anyone at all really care how anyone above the rank of OCdt knots their tie?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm currently on YouTube trying to figure out how to tie a tie.... 
Do we use the Windsor or half Windsor or something else? 

Wholy unrelated but quite important


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Sep 2016)

Come on, Edward, you remember how we used to cringe at the prospect of another Subalterns' Couth Lecture based on a wartime Brit book on how to develop OLQs (Officer Like Qualities) in the lower classes dragooned to be junior officers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Come on, Edward, you remember how we used to cringe at the prospect of another Subalterns' Couth Lecture based on a wartime Brit book on how to develop OLQs (Officer Like Qualities) in the lower classes dragooned to be junior officers.




Yes, I do, but the second pip made us immune to all that crap, didn't it?

Yes, I taught my nephew how to tie a proper Windsor knot (not the half version I see today, including on HRH) but he and I are probably the only two people left on earth who tie one on a regular basis ... I can name a couple of generals who, I am 99% certain, never untie their ties. The knots are all grubby and "greasy" looking ... probably 'cause they cannot tie a tie like a man.*  :

_____
* By which I mean a soldier/NCO, not an officer, when Old Sweat and I were young, and the dinosaurs roamed the planet our ID cards read "Man" and then, later, for he and I, "Officer," with all the attendant wisecracks about officers being somewhat less than manly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm currently on YouTube trying to figure out how to tie a tie....
> Do we use the Windsor or half Windsor or something else?
> 
> Wholy unrelated but quite important




Gentlemen use a full Windsor knot ... I'm not sure what CF members are supposed to do.  [Xp


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2016)

*Mods*: please do not delete or move this tie knot discussion ... it's the most civil thing that's been in the Politics page for weeks.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Sep 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Gentlemen use a full Windsor knot ... I'm not sure what CF members are supposed to do.  [Xp



Full Windsor for the CF too, hopefully without the crease in the middle ala JT.


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There's a reason the whole "Politics" page needs to be taken down and tossed into the cyber-scrap bin.


Maybe.  But with the page up, we have a sacrificial anode to minimize the nonsense corroding the remainder of the site.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Sep 2016)

Appears as though the PM is starting to lose his patience with the media. I wonder if he realizes he's biting the hand that got his honeymoon dragged out over an entire year?

http://www.cknw.com/2016/09/25/lets-just-get-this-over-with-video-of-justin-trudeau-with-royals-gains-attention/


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Sep 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Gentlemen use a full Windsor knot ... I'm not sure what CF members are supposed to do.  [Xp



Thanks; I will champion the full Windsor in your honour.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Sep 2016)

Many moons ago when I held the distinction of being a 'Man' as evidenced by said designation on my I card my father tried to show me how to tie a full Windsor. Much to his eternal shame I did not succeed, his other shame was that I wore green not blue...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Sep 2016)

A full windsor is very classy, and I used to tie one every time I dressed to come to the mess after work. In my golden age I have convinced myself a T-Shirt is an adequate substitute, but I am living in Kemptville outside the circle of power.

p.s. One thing that bothered me when I was an officer cadet was the how to live in the mess lecture from the permanent mess secretary, one Captain R. He was an ex-coastal artillery officer who occupied one of the suites in the officers' quarters and really was a fussy guardian of living in the mess. I was 21 and he was a Second World War veteran who did not get overseas, so he had no more than five to ten years to serve. I often wondered how he coped with life after he retired.

Anyway, when next I return to the RCSA, it was for the IG Course. After graduation I moved into a small apartment in Brandon and taught myself how to exist in civil life. So I taught myself to cook, clean and generally maintain myself, which did a lot for my sense of independence. Admittedly, being looked after had its advantages, but . . . None of my colleagues attempted the same, but they eventually seemed far too insular.

And my girl friend (DND teacher) from Germany and I finally hooked up. When I retired I took over grocery shopping and preparing the evening meals. It worked and we are still together after forty plus years.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2016)

Better get that same SM after Prince William, then, if you're judging ties in the Politics thread...





What kind of royalty is this that can't tie a tie properly, right?  

Cropped & attached for better comparison/detailed discussion below.


----------



## cavalryman (26 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Better get that same SM after Prince William, then, if you're judging ties in the Politics thread...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And he's a Windsor!  >


----------



## GR66 (26 Sep 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> And he's a Windsor!  >



Technically he's only a half-Windsor (and half Spencer)


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Technically he's only a half-Windsor (and half Spencer)


----------



## Scott (27 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL!  Just thought of what a crusty old Sgt Major would say about this tie:



Glad you get a laugh out of it. That's some real low hanging fruit there.


----------



## mariomike (27 Sep 2016)

He looks like a movie star!


----------



## Lightguns (27 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> He looks like a movie star!



No, I am sorry he does not.  He looks out of place and a little enamored with how everyone loves him.


----------



## mariomike (27 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> No, I am sorry he does not.  He looks out of place and a little enamored with how everyone loves him.



Not to argue with you. Because I don't follow party politics one way or the other. I don't love, or hate, him. 

I am guessing  it is mostly guys on these 50 pages.

I wonder how many women voted for him?


----------



## Lightguns (27 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Not to argue with you. Because I don't follow party politics one way or the other. I don't love, or hate, him.
> 
> I am guessing  it is mostly guys on these 50 pages.
> 
> I wonder how many women voted for him?



Quite a large number judging from my daughters Facebook, most under thirty or over 55.  The women I know in between seem to consider him an unaccomplished lightweight.  One lawyer know called him a political gigolo.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Sep 2016)

Scott said:
			
		

> Glad you get a laugh out of it. That's some real low hanging fruit there.



Perhaps we did just find Carmen Sandiego?


----------



## mariomike (27 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> One lawyer know called him a political gigolo.



I think my mother voted for him!  Definitely in the well over 55 category.  

I'm just a gigolo
Everywhere I go
People know the part
I'm playing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_824699&feature=iv&src_vid=CodmlmxpZeQ&v=F4q8_2q44CQ


----------



## Scott (27 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Quite a large number judging from my daughters Facebook, most under thirty or over 55.  The women I know in between seem to consider him an unaccomplished lightweight.  One lawyer know called him a political gigolo.



Well I happen to know plenty of women outside of those demographics who voted for the dude, and that's worth the same as your citing Facebook as a source. I also know plenty of men who voted for him, and who would again.

Is this another JT the first XXX days thread?


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Sep 2016)

Sigh.... my wife thinks he's fabo and won't stand for any shit talking about him for that matter.  Delusional woman.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Sep 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Sigh.... my wife thinks he's fabo and won't stand for any shit talking about him for that matter.  Delusional woman.


Well, consider her taste in men, right?  >

 :whiteflag:


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Sep 2016)

She must have been on drugs or something that addled her thinking, in my case.  :not-again:  I'm more flabo than fabo.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Sep 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm more flabo than fabo.


In that case, you're in good company.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Does anyone at all really care how anyone above the rank of OCdt knots their tie?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was under the impression that issues like short back and sides and tying ties "correctly" was only an issue for the parvenu.  A gentleman dresses as he damned well pleases.

Behold the gentleman:






And if he's not good enough for you, I offer the 7th Marquess of Bath


----------



## YZT580 (27 Sep 2016)

He'd better watch where he puts his right hand. That does not look good.  
'd


----------



## Scott (27 Sep 2016)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> He'd better watch where he puts his right hand. That does not look good.
> 'd



I'm kind of shocked that wasn't picked up first.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Sep 2016)

Scott said:
			
		

> Well I happen to know plenty of women outside of those demographics who voted for the dude, and that's worth the same as your citing Facebook as a source. I also know plenty of men who voted for him, and who would again.
> 
> Is this another JT the first XXX days thread?



Thank you Scott,

Very well said, and I speak as a huge fan of the PM,and one that voted for the Liberals.

Let's kill this debate, as it has been hashed over before!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Sep 2016)

Scott said:
			
		

> I'm kind of shocked that wasn't picked up first.



Here's something else no one in the fashion police seem to have picked on:

In the picture, the woman behind JT is obviously accompanied on her right by man, who is almost completely hidden from sight. I say almost because, between JT's legs you can see that that other man is wearing khaki pants and the single most gawd awful golf socks I have seen in a long time .. to meet royalty !!!!

 [

Forget about ties ... we need a golf socks thread!


----------



## Lightguns (28 Sep 2016)

How do you become a fan of a politician?  I voted for a party because of an issue but I don't consider one politician in any party worthy of fanship.  They are politicians, they would sell you, me or anyone for a vote or perk.  They would send you to war and then deny you medical care or even call you a war criminal for going to the war they sent you to if it meant re-election votes.  No sir, never been a fan of any, not going to do that.  I never understood political partisans, particularly the ones that go around stump for their party for free.  Ya go on facebook or twitter and there are these people on there screaming at other people on there that their party is better.  None of them are better just a different bunch of backroom boys and girls at the trough.  In NB, we say you can tell whose in power by whose getting the dump truck contracts that year.    That's politics in 2016.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Sep 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here's something else no one in the fashion police seem to have picked on:
> 
> In the picture, the woman behind JT is obviously accompanied on her right by man, who is almost completely hidden from sight. I say almost because, between JT's legs you can see that that other man is wearing khaki pants and the single most gawd awful golf socks I have seen in a long time .. to meet royalty !!!!
> 
> ...



I had noticed the sock and marvelled at what passes for taste and decorum. At least I have finally seen a pair that are grosser than my St Barbara's pattern gunner socks.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Sep 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here's something else no one in the fashion police seem to have picked on:
> 
> In the picture, the woman behind JT is obviously accompanied on her right by man, who is almost completely hidden from sight. I say almost because, between JT's legs you can see that that other man is wearing khaki pants and the single most gawd awful golf socks I have seen in a long time .. to meet royalty !!!!
> 
> ...



It is the left coast, after all... that's probably his Sunday best.


----------



## Lightguns (28 Sep 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I had noticed the sock and marvelled at what passes for taste and decorum. At least I have finally seen a pair that are grosser than my St Barbara's pattern gunner socks.



Long time ago after my BBA, I took a course in men's dress.  It cost me $300 but covered all the various types of dress and how to match a suit to every occasion from garden tea to funeral to formal dinner.  I was thinking the other day that these folks could use the course.  If anyone is interested the book of the course was "Dress for Success".  Here's the latest version:  https://www.amazon.com/John-Molloys-New-Dress-Success/dp/0446385522


----------



## Journeyman (28 Sep 2016)

And yet, I keep looking at the women.  Clearly I'm missing out on something.  :dunno:


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... between JT's legs you can see that that other man is wearing khaki pants and the single most gawd awful golf socks I have seen in a long time ...


Yet another indicator of Trudeau's ability/lack thereof to rule!!!!!!!!


----------



## FSTO (28 Sep 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here's something else no one in the fashion police seem to have picked on:
> 
> In the picture, the woman behind JT is obviously accompanied on her right by man, who is almost completely hidden from sight. I say almost because, between JT's legs you can see that that other man is wearing khaki pants and the single most gawd awful golf socks I have seen in a long time .. to meet royalty !!!!
> 
> ...



That was Premier Clarke's son. He had his hands in his pockets for the longest time! Arrrrggghhh!!!! ;D


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> That was Premier Clarke's son. He had his hands in his pockets for the longest time! Arrrrggghhh!!!! ;D



Just a sign that he had "nothing to do".


----------



## McG (28 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just a sign that he had "nothing to do".


Nothing to do?!  There was clearly one individual who needed help achieving his quota of high-fives for the day.
How can one have nothing to do when standing next to such obvious need.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> How do you become a fan of a politician?  I voted for a party because of an issue but I don't consider one politician in any party worthy of fanship.  They are politicians, they would sell you, me or anyone for a vote or perk.  They would send you to war and then deny you medical care or even call you a war criminal for going to the war they sent you to if it meant re-election votes.  No sir, never been a fan of any, not going to do that.  I never understood political partisans, particularly the ones that go around stump for their party for free.  Ya go on facebook or twitter and there are these people on there screaming at other people on there that their party is better.  None of them are better just a different bunch of backroom boys and girls at the trough.  In NB, we say you can tell whose in power by whose getting the dump truck contracts that year.    That's politics in 2016.



Says the person with the most politically biased posts on this thread......

This is 2016, and we do own a scroll button onour mice.

 :2c:


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Sep 2016)

Great video of what Justin Trudeau thinks of Albertan's and their whining and complaining about job loss. 



https://youtu.be/2BpsLJhkz1g


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> How do you become a fan of a politician?  I voted for a party because of an issue but I don't consider one politician in any party worthy of fanship.  They are politicians, they would sell you, me or anyone for a vote or perk.  They would send you to war and then deny you medical care or even call you a war criminal for going to the war they sent you to if it meant re-election votes.  No sir, never been a fan of any, not going to do that.  I never understood political partisans, particularly the ones that go around stump for their party for free.  Ya go on facebook or twitter and there are these people on there screaming at other people on there that their party is better.  None of them are better just a different bunch of backroom boys and girls at the trough.  In NB, we say you can tell whose in power by whose getting the dump truck contracts that year.    That's politics in 2016.



You mean people like Michael Blais, who stumped for the Liberals under the guise of representing vets and now he's all outraged that he's not getting his way? I bet he thought he'd get a nice PS job as a kickback for his support, or maybe some photo-ops with the PM. Unfortunately, he's learning the hard way that once your vote is cast, you're useless until the next election.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Great video of what Justin Trudeau thinks of Albertan's and their whining and complaining about job loss.
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/2BpsLJhkz1g



That was totally uncalled for and did not in any way address the question.  I have seen several CPAC videos of Question Period where questions have been addressed to the PM, and he has sat back turned while someone in his Caucus spoke, but again not answering the question.  Needless to say, I am less than impressed with what I am seeing in the House.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... I am less than impressed with what I am seeing in the House.


Twas ever thus -- as someone smarter than me once said here, it's called "Oral Questions", not "Oral Answers."


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Sep 2016)

I've seen one conservative estimate that places Alberta's suicide rate up 30% this year,  another estimate I've seen was up 52% I believe.  It's wondering that the prime minister responds like  bully (a LA remember where you are,  boy)  instead of addressing a serious life or death matter.  That response shows his true character.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've seen one conservative estimate that places Alberta's suicide rate up 30% this year,  another estimate I've seen was up 52% I believe.  It's wondering that the prime minister responds like  bully (a LA remember where you are,  boy)  instead of addressing a serious life or death matter.  That response shows his true character.




Links would be neat.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've seen one conservative estimate that places Alberta's suicide rate up 30% this year,  another estimate I've seen was up 52% I believe.  It's wondering that the prime minister responds like  bully (a LA remember where you are,  boy)  instead of addressing a serious life or death matter.  That response shows his true character.



Kind of reminds me of somebody,






http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/a-b-c-museum-says-its-preserved-the-railcar-from-which-pierre-trudeau-gave-the-finger-to-protesters


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Sep 2016)

Google is really hard to use:
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/suicide-rate-alberta-increase-layoffs-1.3353662


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2016)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suicide-rate-alberta-increase-layoffs-mental-health-review-1.3355868

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/08/alberta-suicide-rate_n_8740202.html

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/broaching-suicide-and-mental-health-desperately-important-for-men-in-the-trades


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Links would be neat.



Perhaps they may be found somewhere in here:   http://www.cpac.ca/en/digital-archives/


----------



## Occam (29 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You mean people like Michael Blais, who stumped for the Liberals under the guise of representing vets and now he's all outraged that he's not getting his way? I bet he thought he'd get a nice PS job as a kickback for his support, or maybe some photo-ops with the PM. Unfortunately, he's learning the hard way that once your vote is cast, you're useless until the next election.



Blais wasn't looking for a PS job; nor was he looking for money, recognition, or any other favour.  He's already a Pension Act recipient; he stands to gain nothing personally from a return to compensation similar to the Pension Act.  He wanted a return to an option for a lifelong disability pension for those injured after 1 April 2006; nothing more, nothing less.  If you believe otherwise, then you need to question where you're getting your information from.  This infighting between veterans groups has to stop.

I guess if we're useless after the votes are cast, then all the veteran's advocacy groups, including the RCL, are pretty much useless with a view to improving the veteran's lot, no?


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2016)

http://debatepost.com/2016/09/26/liberals-withdrawal-their-30-m-donation-to-fort-mcmurray-fires-victims/


> Wildfire in the Fort McMurray area have burned down nearly 2000 buildings, many of which were homes. 88,000 people have been evacuated from the region making it the single largest exercise in the provincial history.
> 
> The Liberal government has matched Red Cross donations to the tune of $30 million, but just a few months later introduced the anti-dumping tax on drywall is making the construction projects and rebuilding of Fort McMurray more expensive. Customers are staring down the barrel as they have to meet the 200% increased tax on the dry wall.



If Fort McMurray residents want to bitch and complain they should remember they're not in Ottawa.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (2 Oct 2016)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-reminds-kenney-he-s-not-in-alberta-yet-1.3774490

This is easily the most arrogant thing I've seen these !@#$& Liberals say yet....


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Oct 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-reminds-kenney-he-s-not-in-alberta-yet-1.3774490
> 
> This is easily the most arrogant thing I've seen these !@#$& Liberals say yet....



In Trudeau's defense he ALMOST tries to expand on what he said, but hearing the jeers and cheers of his Liberal acolytes he just smiles smugly and sits down proud of his unassailable fortress.


----------



## cavalryman (2 Oct 2016)

Being  the Natural  Governing Party (tm) means never having to say you're sorry >  Da proof is da proof is da proof


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2016)

CombatMacgyver said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-reminds-kenney-he-s-not-in-alberta-yet-1.3774490
> 
> This is easily the most arrogant thing I've seen these !@#$& Liberals say yet....



Indeed is was an arrogant and asinine reply.  He did not even address the question put to him.  The only good thing I can say, is that at least this time he rose to answer a question put to him, and not ignored it, relying on a Caucus member to give a nonsensical reply that in no way answered the question from the Floor.  

If only 'the Canadian Voter' had the ability to judge character; as shown by Prince George.     [


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> He did not even address the question put to him.


It's called "Oral Questions," not "Oral Answers" for a reason  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2016)

He really needs a 'Capt Obvious' to clue him in.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2016)

And here I thought it was "oral" because of how much it sucked.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2016)

Team Red v. 35 thru 38 dropped the ball on this one, Team Blue v.39-41 didn't make any progress, let's see how far Team Red v.42 can carry the ball - I'm SURE it'll _all_ be good news for the lumber industry if nobody can be quoted or identified ...


> October 12, 2016 - Global Affairs Canada invites media to a technical briefing with officials on the expiration of the standstill period of softwood lumber and the next steps.
> 
> Global Affairs Canada will answer questions on a deep background, not-for-attribution basis only (no quotes or references to government officials). Audio recording of the briefing for the purpose of broadcast is strictly prohibited.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2016)

Softwood update - still talkin' ...


> ... “In our effort to reach a new agreement on softwood lumber, we and our officials have been intensively engaged in government-to-government sessions, in meetings with our respective producers and other stakeholders, and in dialogue with state and provincial governments.
> 
> “While our engagement has yet to produce a new agreement, our governments will continue negotiations though the standstill period has expired ...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2016)

Coming up for Thanksgiving, and election day, in an election between two purportedly "anti-trade" candidates appealing to the "anti-trade" proclivities of their constituents on a subject that has been out of the headlines for a decade.

And over an industry that has one of the strongest protectionist lobbies going.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Coming up for Thanksgiving, and election day, in an election between two purportedly "anti-trade" candidates appealing to the "anti-trade" proclivities of their constituents on *a subject that has been out of the headlines for a decade*.


Maybe in big cities, but not in towns close to forests ...



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And over an industry that has one of the strongest protectionist lobbies going.


 :nod:


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2016)

It has been just over a year since the election.  How are the winners doing?


> *Liberals risk letting first-year success go to their heads: Hébert*
> On three recent occasions, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has short-circuited negotiations between his ministers, the provinces or the opposition parties.
> Chantal Hébert
> The Star
> ...


https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/10/20/liberals-risk-letting-first-year-success-go-to-their-heads-hbert.html


----------



## Scott (23 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Indeed is was an arrogant and asinine reply.  He did not even address the question put to him.  The only good thing I can say, is that at least this time he rose to answer a question put to him, and not ignored it, relying on a Caucus member to give a nonsensical reply that in no way answered the question from the Floor.
> 
> If only 'the Canadian Voter' had the ability to judge character; as shown by Prince George.     [



There's a lot of talk right now about him just repeating everything the previous government did. Just saying.

Them there approval ratings are still pretty decent, y'know.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Oct 2016)

There doesn't need to be a vote about going to Africa because it was a part of the Liberal platform and they got voted in so it's clearly want people want.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Oct 2016)

With twelve of two hundred twenty three polls reporting, the Conservatives have a comfortable lead in the Medicine Hat by-election.  CPC 965 votes, Liberals 176, Rhino 15, Christian Heritage 14, Libertarian 12 and, in last place, NDP with 10 votes.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Oct 2016)

Done deal now. CPC 69.4% (21,355) Lib 25.9% (7,977)


----------



## Ostrozac (25 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> With twelve of two hundred twenty three polls reporting, the Conservatives have a comfortable lead in the Medicine Hat by-election.



It's not really a surprise result, though. The riding has gone either Conservative or Reform in every election since 1972.


----------



## larry Strong (25 Oct 2016)

I wonder if Notley is paying attention.....353 votes out of 77,000! Granted it was a federal by-election, however I believe there was a message sent.....




Cheers
Larry


----------



## Journeyman (25 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Rhino 15.....NDP 10 votes


        
Sometimes it's hard to tell one farcical party from another.  ;D


----------



## dapaterson (25 Oct 2016)

Every time I watch a by-election I am reminded that Blackadder was documentary, not fiction.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Every time I watch a by-election I am reminded that Blackadder *and Yes, Minister/Prime Minister* was documentary, not fiction.



There you go... :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2016)

Interesting opinion piece:  former Tory PM spokesperson says it's time for a nicer plane for the PM:


> The irony gods surely would have died had Prime Minister Justin Trudeau missed the CETA signing ceremony last month because of faulty European technology. After almost losing the long-delayed Canada-EU free-trade agreement to last-minute Walloon gum-flapping, Trudeau's European-built Airbus was forced to return to Ottawa shortly after takeoff for Brussels because of a flap fault of its own. Fortunately for all involved, Trudeau's wings weren't clipped and the problem was quickly resolved.
> 
> Of course, it would be churlish to blame the Europeans for a piece of equipment that's been in Canadian hands for over 30 years. Yes, our "flying Taj Mahal" — as it was dubbed by then Liberal opposition leader Jean Chrétien — is older than Guns N' Roses' Appetite for Destruction, and over the years it's brought many government staffers to their knees praying for an upgrade. The media too.
> 
> ...


That'll make Canada look better - a nicer plane?


----------



## dapaterson (7 Nov 2016)

Question: is he registered to lobby on behalf of anyone?  I'm sure Bombardier would love to sell the government a C-300 or four to replace the Airbuses - maybe add in half a dozen Challengers to replace that fleet as well...

EDIT: To answer my own question, no, he is not a registered lobbyist.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Nov 2016)

Just what we need, a plane to replace the CC-150 that's 50ish seats smaller and has never been used as AAR before, to porkbarrel another failing Canadian company.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Question: *is he registered to lobby on behalf of anyone*?  I'm sure Bombardier would love to sell the government a C-300 or four to replace the Airbuses - maybe add in half a dozen Challengers to replace that fleet as well...


Unless he's using his middle name in the Registry, nope - and the attached shows in his pre-PMO life, no obvious aviation links, either.  According to LinkedIn, he's a flack on pat leave since January - may just be getting a touch restless  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2016)

I'm glad they are focusing on the "real" issues (notice how the fact the fleet is 30 years old gets a quick line and never mentioned again).

If we are actually serious about doing something about this, I'd nominate buying 6 Boeing 787's to replace the 6 Airbuses, since the actual running costs of these new generation jets will be so much lower.

As for flying in the Taj Mahal, I have done so a few times, and the sort of whiners who complain about the seating etc. have obviously _never_ flown Air Canada coach, much less in the back of a C-130...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm glad they are focusing on the "real" issues (notice how the fact the fleet is 30 years old gets a quick line and never mentioned again).


Funny how his old boss never seemed to notice either, right?


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Nov 2016)

> Auditor General slams incompetence, indifference and neglect in federal government: ‘Deja vu all over again’
> 
> OTTAWA – Canada: Your federal government is an old, slow behemoth, largely concerned with itself, indifferent to improving the lives of its citizens and, though it has been told time and again to change, sticks stubbornly to its inward-looking ways.
> 
> ...



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/deja-vu-all-over-again-a-g-uncovers-more-federal-government-incompetence-indifference-and-neglect


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Nov 2016)

Having timelines becomes a pointless exercise, when your staffing is tied to a budget which is not aligned to those timelines. Then the exercise becomes one of appearing to meet the timelines with less focus on the actual result. A bit like a helpdesk that gets a ticket completed regardless whether they helped or not. We tried timelines, but due to budget cuts gave up trying to meet them.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Nov 2016)

Liberals approve Kinder Morgan and the Line 3 expansions, but kill the Northern Gateway pipeline. More here from the Canadian Press, re-printed under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.



> Liberals say yes to controversial Trans Mountain pipeline project in B.C.
> 
> By Bruce Cheadle , The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Nov 29 2016
> 
> ...



 Article Link

And in related news,  Elizabeth May, vows she is willing to go to jail to protest the Kinder Morgan expansion. 

I wonder how Liz would look in an orange jumpsuit.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Nov 2016)

What about Energy East?


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> What about Energy East?



I don't believe that was on the table this time.  I wonder how many more towns will have to burn as the next Lac-Megantic before there's no opposition to Energy East or other lines.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Nov 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I wonder how Liz would look in an orange jumpsuit.



Thiner! Isn't orange the new black?  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> What about Energy East?


Still on hold without a review panel, but any delay will reportedly (allegedly?) be "modest".

Meanwhile, what rocket surgeon thought THIS would be OK?!?


> Military men and women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces are being offered boxing gloves signed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as part of a campaign to raise money for a charity. Other federal departments are also participating by offering the prize gloves to civilian public servants.
> 
> CFRA news has obtained an internal email that encourages military men and women to participate in a silent auction benefiting young people, using an image of what appears to be a star-struck young woman.
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, what rocket surgeon thought THIS would be OK?!?




That brought gales of laughter and derision in the office today.  What a joke.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Nov 2016)

Credit where credit is due- the Liberals made a tough (right) decision on Kinder Morgan and line 3 today. It will almost certainly cost them seats west of the Rockies in the next election.


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Nov 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Credit where credit is due- the Liberals made a tough (right) decision on Kinder Morgan and line 3 today. It will almost certainly cost them seats west of the Rockies in the next election.



But make many in AB happy,


----------



## George Wallace (30 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, what rocket surgeon thought THIS would be OK?!?




I sure do not think that that "rocket surgeon" has the pulse of the CAF.  That or the amount of "arrogance" in that clique is reaching well beyond the outer stratosphere.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I sure do not think that that "rocket surgeon" has the pulse of the CAF.  That or the amount of "arrogance" in that clique is reaching well beyond the outer stratosphere.


Not much comfort, but it appears the CAF isn't the only federal department who got this email - I say no more ...  Here's to rocket surgeons everywhere who get a bad name from decisions like this!  :facepalm:


----------



## Journeyman (30 Nov 2016)

> CFRA news has obtained an internal email that encourages military men and women to participate in a silent auction benefiting young people, using an image of what appears to be a star-struck young woman.


If you scroll down at the CFRA site, the picture of the enthused blonde woman is also used above the heading, "Prizes."

I'll comment no further; I guess Op Honour works.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Nov 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> If you scroll down at the CFRA site, the picture of the enthused blonde woman is also used above the heading, "Prizes."
> 
> I'll comment no further; I guess Op Honour works.


Can't blame Op Honour - this appears to be an e-mail that was sent from "The Centre" to at least two government departments, CF being only one of them.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Can't blame Op Honour....


But _maybe_  it caused me to hold my tongue.  :nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Nov 2016)

Is it weird I want to win those boxing gloves and just spend all day smelling them and rubbing them all over my face? He's so dreamy. What a leader!


----------



## Lightguns (30 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I sure do not think that that "rocket surgeon" has the pulse of the CAF.  That or the amount of "arrogance" in that clique is reaching well beyond the outer stratosphere.



When you been ordained "messiah", it is hard to see the needs and sins of the little people.  Can't wait until we start building pyramids for our god-PM.  Personally, I think I will recite the Torah for Bat Mitzvah and avoid this new religion.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2016)

I wonder just how far Canadians will allow themselves to be pushed before we see the sort of backlash like the Brexit or Trump come and penetrate the comfortable bubble the "Laurentian Elites" are living in?


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Is it weird I want to win those boxing gloves and just spend all day smelling them and rubbing them all over my face?


As long as it's _just_ your face ...  >


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Nov 2016)

I wonder if anyone here has a direct contact info for our PM. I want to get past his entourage and pass this directly to him so he will be in the know:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/11/29/samsung-galaxy-s8-could-revolutionize-selfies.html
*
Samsung Galaxy S8 could revolutionize selfies*


I also note the revolutionize fits in with his Castro image.


----------



## McG (2 Dec 2016)

Should we expect a change of tone for 2017?


> *The Justin Trudeau honeymoon is over*
> Justin Trudeau was booed at the Grey Cup game. He should get used to it.
> macleans.ca
> November 30, 2016
> ...


http://www.macleans.ca/news/the-justin-trudeau-honeymoon-is-over/


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2016)

Occasionally I feel like I'm visiting from a parallel universe. The very open gaffes and blunders during his introduction to politics and as an MP should have disqualified him immediately from any serious consideration as party leader, much less Prime Minister, yet there he is.....

It is annoying that people are acting like this is a surprise _now_.


----------



## FJAG (6 Dec 2016)

Anyone else taken the Liberals' somewhat weird survey on electoral reform?

National Post article here: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/terence-corcoran-liberals-baffling-electoral-survey-needs-reform

Survey here: https://www.mydemocracy.ca/

 :facepalm:

 :subbies:


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Anyone else taken the Liberals' somewhat weird survey on electoral reform?
> 
> National Post article here: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/terence-corcoran-liberals-baffling-electoral-survey-needs-reform
> 
> ...



Yep -  Came up "Guardian"  - Is that another way of saying conservative?


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Dec 2016)

I came up:

*Pragmatists*

My democracy is balanced and straight-forward

Pragmatists generally want governments to strike a balance between decisive action and compromise. They tend to prefer a clear line of accountability to voters, but not at the expense of collaboration between parties. 

Pragmatists are split about whether special measures are needed to help increase the diversity of representation in Parliament.

Pragmatists typically prefer that election ballots are easy to use and to understand.

Pragmatists generally view voting as a democratic duty rather than a personal choice and are slightly more inclined to support mandatory voting. They are among the least likely archetypes to support online voting.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Dec 2016)

Guardian.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Dec 2016)

Challengers - My democracy is should be responsive and transparent

Challengers typically believe that, above all, democracy should be responsive [*_added_ and accountable...really accountable...not just they say they are...] to citizens. They tend to be more skeptical of government and thus open to ideas that could enhance accountability of governments and give voters more control. They generally prefer governments that are decisive and are less likely to prioritize compromise with other parties. They usually expect parties to take responsibility for their decisions and for voters to have more ways to influence politics.

To that end, Challengers are generally interested in voters having more options or additional ways to express their choices on the ballot during an election.

Challengers are less likely than most to believe that special measures are needed to increase diversity in Parliament and are more likely to see voting as a personal choice than a duty of citizenship. They are split on the question of whether Canadians should have the option to vote online.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2016)

I'm a Co-operator - although my spot on the continuum is closer to Pragmatist than Co-operator.

Interesting questions - am I the only one seeing this setting people up for loads o' coalitions?  Or is that just my read as a "co-operator"?  ;D

#ProportionalRepresentationStillLivesForTeamRed


----------



## Journeyman (6 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Anyone else taken the Liberals' somewhat weird survey on electoral reform?


I think it's sweet that one can keep doing it over and over and over.  No chance of stacking the deck with a survey designed like that.    :facepalm:

Anyone taking wagers that the results line up with what the Liberals have been proposing?



Not that I'm attributing to malice what can readily occur through incompetence.


----------



## larry Strong (6 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting questions - am I the only one seeing this setting people up for loads o' coalitions?  Or is that just my read as a "co-operator"?  ;D



I got that gut feeling as well.


Cheers
Larry


----------



## jmt18325 (6 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Yep -  Came up "Guardian"  - Is that another way of saying conservative?



No - I came up as one too.


----------



## jmt18325 (6 Dec 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think it's sweet that one can keep doing it over and over and over.  No chance of stacking the deck with a survey designed like that.    :facepalm:
> 
> Anyone taking wagers that the results line up with what the Liberals have been proposing?
> 
> ...



That seems like it would be a real waste of time....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Dec 2016)

Guardian, apparently   :subbies:

But honestly, what does it mean in terms of voting system? 

If this is supposed to get the government to decide what voting system Canadians want, be it to remain as is or a new system, how does this survey help. I am willing to bet most Canadians don't know what answer leads to which system, and since they are not asked directly, won't know if they are being sold a bridge if the government suddenly comes out with: "overwhelmingly, people want a full proportional system" or  "Canadians by and large want no change".

In fact that whole survey is totally useless and other than being amusing like the one they developed for the CBC for the elections, cannot provide any proper factual information to support any policy. The two most glaring missing matters: It does not ask whether people are dissatisfied with the current system (they would find that by and large, people are satisfied with the current system - which is why in proper surveys on issues of interest to people, it usually rates only a few percentage point way down the list of issues of import); Secondly, it does not ask people to rate voting systems directly, after explaining how each one would specifically work.

It is really  a "touchy-feely" survey that one can make come out whichever way you want, just like the old surveys the school counsellors used to make us take to help determine what we wanted to do in life. Just to enrage them, I used to tell them in advance what I was going to make the survey say about my "choices' before even taking the test - and it always came out the way I said, regardless of my actual interests. In the present case, I turned out to be aGuardian, as I am willing to bet anything that it corresponds (in their book) with FPTP.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Dec 2016)

Just got my "postcard" in the mail about this survey. 

Very interesting. Here is the totality of the text:

"Have your say about our democracy.

The Government of Canada invites you to explore how your opinions about our democracy compare to those of other Canadians. Visit [website] or call [phone #] before December 30, 2016 and take part in the national conversation on electoral reform."

So this is just a "conversation", not  survey on various types of voting system. Moreover its purpose is apparently to "explore how [my opinions] compare to those of other Canadians". Well that's a bloody waste of time. Having used the site, I would like to know how it lets me effect this comparison: I don't see anybody else's "opinion" on the site to compare mine with. How do I see how many other "guardians" there are? etc. etc.

On top of that, while the Government invites me to do this "exploration", nowhere does it say that this will lead to any change of policy or that it is even related to implementing any type of change.

What a waste of taxpayer's money.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Dec 2016)

Everyone other than the Guardians get full disclosure from the Government.  

Guardians have their houses and cell phones "not added" to CSE's watch list...


[/joking]



[...or am I]


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2016)

Well, well, well....I am a Guardian.



> Who are Guardians?
> 
> MEDIAN AGE
> 56
> ...



Seems they have figured out "OTHER" yet.


----------



## PanaEng (6 Dec 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I sure do not think that that "rocket surgeon" has the pulse of the CAF.  That or the amount of "arrogance" in that clique is reaching well beyond the outer stratosphere.



Meh, I would donate money for the one that he used to kick Brazeau's butt.

lol


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2016)

Ummmmm?  Can anyone explain this statement for me?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/trudeau-metro-morning-leitch-trump-1.3880437


> More people should engage in politics so 'no party gets to run against Muslim Canadians'  - Justin Trudeau says


----------



## YZT580 (6 Dec 2016)

None of the questions explain context.  The questions lead to either a pure majority or some form of coalition government.  Didn't finish as I didn't want to have selected the wrong choice inadvertently because they will use it.  Emphasis on will


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Dec 2016)

I would like the government to continue sending millions and millions of dollars away to foreign countries and find new ways and things to tax Canadians on in order to pay for it.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I would like the government to continue sending millions and millions of dollars away to foreign countries and find new ways and things to tax Canadians on in order to pay for it.



You have Aladdin's Lamp and rubbed it didn't you.  You got your wish.


----------



## FJAG (6 Dec 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think it's sweet that one can keep doing it over and over and over.  No chance of stacking the deck with a survey designed like that.    :facepalm:
> 
> Anyone taking wagers that the results line up with what the Liberals have been proposing?
> 
> Not that I'm attributing to malice what can readily occur through incompetence.



I see both malice and incompetence and expect it will come to the conclusion that Dear Leader wants.

Who in their right mind would do this test more that once. You couldn't pay me to take it again.

Incidentally; Guardian, as well.

 :subbies:


----------



## FJAG (6 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I would like the government to continue sending millions and millions of dollars away to foreign countries and find new ways and things to tax Canadians on in order to pay for it.



Come to Ontario. January 1st and we get a brand spanking new Energy Tax Cap and Trade Program.  :Bday Dancer:

 :subbies:


----------



## YZT580 (6 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Come to Ontario. January 1st and we get a brand spanking new Energy Tax Cap and Trade Program.  :Bday Dancer:
> 
> :subbies:


  Have you read the auditor's report?  Total cost to Ontario residents for our energy programme over the next 3 years is estimated at 8 billion in extra charges.  Electricity up by over 20% again.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Come to Ontario. January 1st and we get a brand spanking new Energy Tax Cap and Trade Program.  :Bday Dancer:
> 
> :subbies:



$70 increase for the year ($5.83) based on my last year's usage of Natural Gas. Net decrease in emissions? Absolutely 0.


----------



## FJAG (6 Dec 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> $70 increase for the year ($5.83) based on my last year's usage of Natural Gas. Net decrease in emissions? Absolutely 0.



What's $8 billion when you're Kathleen Wynne and you are revelling in your 15% approval rating. I was sure what with the various scandals before the last election that she and the Liberals were toast -- but then: Toronto. The trouble is I can't see either of the other parties exciting the voters.

Anyway we have to stop this ongoing campaign to turn Ontario into a third rate province. It became a powerhouse through cheap energy for it's industries and there is virtually nothing left to entice major companies to come here or stay here.  :2c:

 :subbies:


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2016)

An interesting interview with Andrew Breitbart from way back in 2010. Although it speaks of the American political system, it strikes me that Canada's "Laurentian Elites" are probably just as interconnected with academia, media and business as Andrew Breitbart tells us Washington is. It is pretty clear people like Wynn, her advisors and the sorts of people in the back rooms of most political parties view *us* in much the same way the American ruling class views "Red State" Americans as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ldrQKYuSWA


----------



## FJAG (6 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An interesting interview with Andrew Breitbart from way back in 2010. Although it speaks of the American political system, it strikes me that Canada's "Laurentian Elites" are probably just as interconnected with academia, media and business as Andrew Breitbart tells us Washington is. It is pretty clear people like Wynn, her advisors and the sorts of people in the back rooms of most political parties view *us* in much the same way the American ruling class views "Red State" Americans as well:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ldrQKYuSWA



Not a Breitbart fan but this is exactly the reason why I haven't voted Liberal in four and a half decades. If you'd ever lived in Winnipeg and had to deal with Axworthy you'd understand how far the :Laurentian Elite" could spread.

 :subbies:


----------



## Journeyman (7 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Who in their right mind would do this test more that once.


"Fellow travellers" was once in vogue.  Students who fit the "rebel without a clue" model, wishing to ensure 'Dear Leader' continues his access to hair products.  Hell, "political interns" (in government or academe), who 'want to do what's right proper.'

You'll note I never suggested either the mentally handicapped or those being blackmailed with food-bank access unless they contribute; that would be cruel.     :nod:


----------



## Halifax Tar (7 Dec 2016)

Gerald Butts...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/ontario-disaster-architects-1.3884108


It is uncontroversial to call Ontario's energy situation a disaster. As Premier Kathleen Wynne has herself conceded: Ontarians are now having to "choose between paying the electricity bill and buying food or paying rent."


Wynne's polling numbers suggest that most Ontarians know where to square the blame, with a pitiful 15 per cent approval rating and 58 per cent of the electorate believing she should resign.


However, Wynne alone shouldn't bear the burden for the fact that hydro bills for the average consumer have skyrocketed over recent years; it was former premier Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal team from 2003 to 2012 — including his former principal secretary and "policy guru" Gerald Butts — who set Ontario on this financially bleak, dead-end road. And now, Butts is headed on the same path, leading not the premier, but the prime minister, on the way down.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Dec 2016)

Sitting here in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona as a temporary refugee from the Green Energy Paradise of Ontario, I would like to note that the state hydro rates are going to drop slightly on 1 January.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Dec 2016)

I found this law very disturbing and shocked that this would even find traction in Canada.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/07/canadian-law-erasing-moms-dads-state-documents-reduces-children-chattel/

Nobody has a mother or a father, according to a certain Bill 28 recently passed in the legislature of Ontario, Canada. Got that? The law’s official title is: “An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act, the Vital Statistics Act and various other Acts respecting parentage and related registrations.”

Basically, the law scrubs the words “mother” and “father” from documents, and replaces them with the neutered term “parent.” The law also raises the number of legal parents to as many as four per child. In other words, the government of Ontario will cease to legally recognize the natural origins of any of its citizens.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Dec 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Basically, the law scrubs the words “mother” and “father” from documents, and replaces them with the neutered term “parent.” The law also raises the number of legal parents to as many as four per child. In other words, the government of Ontario will *cease to legally recognize the natural origins of any of its citizens*.


For better or worse, it's not as simple as one-mom-one-dad anymore.   

Infertile couple A+B has a baby via surrogate mom C?  Which combination of A, B or C constitutes the "natural origin" parents?  

Or a couple A+B using C's sperm and/or eggs (or, to really make it complex, sperm from C and egg from D) to impregnate wife B?  Which are the "natural origin" parents?


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Dec 2016)

People in Ontario should stop complaining and just do more to save money like don't turn on Christmas lights this year. Christmas is offensive anyways and reeks of privilege.


 :gottree:


----------



## CountDC (7 Dec 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Sitting here in the Sonoran Desert of Arizona as a temporary refugee from the Green Energy Paradise of Ontario, I would like to note that the state hydro rates are going to drop slightly on 1 January.



Rub our nose in it

and I was starting to think you were a decent person.


----------



## CountDC (7 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> People in Ontario should stop complaining and just do more to save money like don't turn on Christmas lights this year. Christmas is offensive anyways and reeks of privilege.
> :gottree:



Interestingly enough I don't use Christmas lights yet my bill and usage for Dec always goes way up no matter what province we are living in.  Called them one year enquiring why my bill was so high and that was their first response - Christmas.  Then when I pointed out we don't do it they switched it to heating for the colder weather.  Oops - it was actually unusually warmer in Dec, heat was gas and we were out of the house most of the month other than breakfast and bedtime so had the heat low.  of course never did get any satisfaction on that one.  This year I am taking a picture of the meter today and tracking what it shows every week to ensure their records correspond.  

The electric cost itself isn't what bothers me the most - it is the fees that at least doubles the bill.


----------



## FJAG (7 Dec 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Gerald Butts...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/ontario-disaster-architects-1.3884108
> 
> ...



No arguments from me on that one.

 :subbies:


----------



## FJAG (7 Dec 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough I don't use Christmas lights yet my bill and usage for Dec always goes way up no matter what province we are living in.  Called them one year enquiring why my bill was so high and that was their first response - Christmas.  Then when I pointed out we don't do it they switched it to heating for the colder weather.  Oops - it was actually unusually warmer in Dec, heat was gas and we were out of the house most of the month other than breakfast and bedtime so had the heat low.  of course never did get any satisfaction on that one.  This year I am taking a picture of the meter today and tracking what it shows every week to ensure their records correspond.
> 
> The electric cost itself isn't what bothers me the most - it is the fees that at least doubles the bill.



The daylight is shorter so you use more lights, your furnace runs more and the fan motor draws more power, much of that in the higher priced peak usage periods. I'm lucky (?????) because my pool pump in the summer balances out the bills through the year. No big winter shocks that way.

It used to drive me stark raving mad when I lived on the shores of Lake Erie that my "delivery" charge was always equal or more than my "usage" charge especially when there was a bloody big wind farm turbine one kilometer from my house. I bloody well could have carried the power home in a bucket.

 :subbies:


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2016)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-quarterly-polls-nov2016-1.3883456

Recent polls suggest that the Liberal honeymoon is not over.  However, I get the feel from various articles that the appeal is starting to wear-off amongst the media.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-quarterly-polls-nov2016-1.3883456
> 
> Recent polls suggest that the Liberal honeymoon is not over.  However, I get the feel from various articles that the appeal is starting to wear-off amongst the media.



Im not sure much can be expected yet as the opposition is still re-organizing.  Once they get set things may change. 

Its a shame Rona Ambrose cant lead the Cons, she's doing a good job.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Dec 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-quarterly-polls-nov2016-1.3883456
> 
> Recent polls suggest that the Liberal honeymoon is not over.  However, I get the feel from various articles that the appeal is starting to wear-off amongst the media.



Because we know how accurate the polls were on Brexit, and Trump.  >


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Dec 2016)

MyDemocracy.ca seems like a fun way to not answer whether or not you want to change the Canadian voting system. Sounds almost like picking a dungeons and dragons character class. 

I got level 10 guardian  :knights:



> This week, the federal government channelled Cosmopolitan with the launch of MyDemocracy.ca. Instead of a “What’s your sex style?” quiz, however, Canadians got to determine their “democracy style”—whether they’re “innovators,” “co-operators,” “pragmatists,” “challengers” or “guardians,” each described like a horoscope, but with less science.
> 
> The farcical project, billed as “an innovative way to join the national conversation on electoral reform,” is neither interactive nor focused on electoral reform: participants aren’t even asked which voting system they’d prefer. How the information will be marshalled is unknown. Backlash, in the House of Commons and on social media, was swift.
> 
> The reaction isn’t only to Liberal backtracking on a topic in equal parts glaze-inducing, fractious and vital. The episode also appears to mark a tipping point in Justin Trudeau’s avatar as the nation’s progressive, swoon-worthy boyfriend. Suddenly, he’s the guy who orders for his date without asking what she wants then ignores her ensuing protest.



http://www.macleans.ca/politics/justin-trudeau-is-just-not-that-into-you/


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> MyDemocracy.ca seems like a fun way to not answer whether or not you want to change the Canadian voting system. Sounds almost like picking a dungeons and dragons character class.
> 
> I got level 10 guardian  :knights:



I ended up with a 100 Charisma Bard with 0 intelligence. Was promptly emailed by the President of the Liberal Party of Canada asking if I was interested in being their next leader.


----------



## CountDC (12 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The daylight is shorter so you use more lights, your furnace runs more and the fan motor draws more power, much of that in the higher priced peak usage periods. I'm lucky (?????) because my pool pump in the summer balances out the bills through the year. No big winter shocks that way
> 
> :subbies:



Except as I mentioned we were out most of the time so were using less lights and heat. In fact we have noted that even after the change over we do not use any more lights than before. Even if we didn't turn down the furnace which we did the fan motor would hardly account for anywhere near the increase of a few hundred dollars.


----------



## FJAG (12 Dec 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Except as I mentioned we were out most of the time so were using less lights and heat. In fact we have noted that even after the change over we do not use any more lights than before. Even if we didn't turn down the furnace which we did the fan motor would hardly account for anywhere near the increase of a few hundred dollars.



Far be it for me to defend the cockamamie hydro system here in Ontario but I don't think that the rates have changed since January 1st at which time we lost the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit and had the Ontario Electricity Support Program charge added. The one thing is that the Time-of-use rates do change from summer to winter structure on Nov 1st making the morning and evening rates more expensive. You might want to check if the previous bills were estimates and whether there was a "catch up" on an actual reading. I tend to follow my bills month to month to see if there are any significant changes to my usage, delivery and other charges components. The bills are fairly granular in providing you details on all of the components on your bill.

 :subbies:


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2016)

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/canada/canadian-politics/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/money-began-to-rain-on-trudeau-foundation-once-justin-took-over-liberals-analysis-shows



> Money began to rain on Trudeau Foundation once Justin took over Liberals, analysis shows



Lots of foreign donations to the  Clinton    Trudeau foundation.  I'm sure it's out of a sense of philanthropy and not trying to gain political favor.  It's not like the liberals put an actual price tag on sitting down to talk with them.


----------



## Lightguns (13 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> MyDemocracy.ca seems like a fun way to not answer whether or not you want to change the Canadian voting system. Sounds almost like picking a dungeons and dragons character class.
> 
> I got level 10 guardian  :knights:
> 
> http://www.macleans.ca/politics/justin-trudeau-is-just-not-that-into-you/



Guy I know on twitter is the farthest you can get to into the Guardian spectrum.  He is a mucho libertarian.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2016)

Okay so I was wrong about liberals not putting a price tag on sitting to talk with them,  however,  I believe Trudeau when he says he only has Canada's best interest in mind. 


> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau acknowledged Monday that people lobby him at Liberal Party cash-for-access fundraisers, but said he ultimately makes up his own mind on what is good for Canada.
> 
> It is the first time the Prime Minister has admitted that government business is being discussed at partisan Liberal money-raising events. * This activity runs contrary to the very rules the Liberal Party made public earlier this year * where it said government business is not discussed at pay-to-play fundraisers.


He's allowed to change his story, it's not like he's under oath or anytning. 


https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-hes-lobbied-but-not-influenced-at-liberal-fundraisers/article33297922/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile


----------



## FJAG (13 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Okay so I was wrong about liberals not putting a price tag on sitting to talk with them,  however,  I believe Trudeau when he says he only has Canada's best interest in mind.
> He's allowed to change his story, it's not like he's under oath or anytning.
> 
> 
> https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-hes-lobbied-but-not-influenced-at-liberal-fundraisers/article33297922/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile



Lying under oath is perjury; lying when not under oath is still lying.

 :subbies:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Dec 2016)

For a person in a position of power to place himself/herself in a situation where the only way to know whether they were influenced or not in their decision process is to rely on their own unproven/undisprovable statement that they were not,  is the very definition of "appearance of conflict of interest". (When you can demonstrate they were influenced, it is an actual conflict of interest, or even worse).

To do so after that person has been the very one stating that under no circumstances would they put themselves in such a position is not only lying and dishonest, it automatically casts an even bigger shadow on the credibility to be afforded their statement that "they were not influenced".


----------



## GAP (13 Dec 2016)

Ah, but a proof is a proof......etc


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2016)

Womyns got a right to renovate.  

http://www.therebel.media/liberal_status_of_women_minister_has_right_to_spend_1_1m_on_new_office


> Patty Hajdu, Minister of the Status of Women, has decided that instead of renovating a building where her department is located, she’ll spend $1.1 million building a new office suite.



I'm not too sure what a minister for the status of women does anyways but she's sure going to be comfortable doing it.  Good for her.


----------



## Lightguns (21 Dec 2016)

We are banning off shore Oil and Gas in the Arctic.  Justin making more friends in wrong places.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/12/20/trudeau-obama-arctic_n_13751712.html

Can't find the article but someone forgot to ask the NWT Premier on his thoughts, he shared them anyway after the fact.  I guess he and his territorial government are livid as their economic strategy is built around an "Arctic Gateway" for oil and gas.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Womyns got a right to renovate.
> 
> http://www.therebel.media/liberal_status_of_women_minister_has_right_to_spend_1_1m_on_new_office
> 
> I'm not too sure what a minister for the status of women does anyways but she's sure going to be comfortable doing it.  Good for her.


What the story doesn't say is that the cheaper renovation was for an office @ Canadian Heritage, while this one was for an office where department *staff* are located***, putting the Minister in the same building as ... the ministry staff doing the work.

The money remains big, and the "Daddy Warbucks" optics remain the same, but it's interesting to see what information some media ignore edit for space to make their point.

*** - And before the "HuffPo=Liberal shills=fake news=spawn of the devil incarnate" countercommentary begins, the story is a Canadian Press story based on documents CP obtained via ATIP.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Dec 2016)

> Hajdu chose to have the new offices built instead of renovating a space at the building housing Canadian Heritage, the department that contains the Status of Women Canada agency within its portfolio, the documents indicate.
> 
> That option would have cost about $400,000, with a much earlier completion date and a location directly across the street, but emails suggest it was never seriously considered.



I had a boss who was a one minute walk down a hallway and they still emailed me for everything including small talk.   
I doubt moving her office across the street will really impact effiency.   Besides isn't the article saying the building she's in already dedicated to the agency that the status of women is under?   


The minister didn't care about public criticism or where the money was even going to come from -  seems about right for liberals in government these days doesn't it?


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I had a boss who was a one minute walk down a hallway and they still emailed me for everything including small talk.
> I doubt moving her office across the street will really impact effiency.


Then you know how ... empowering it is to be managed by email  ;D (And I _*do*_ know how that feels.)



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Besides isn't the article saying the building she's in already dedicated to the agency that the status of women is under?


There's ministerial staff there, but the worker bees delivering the program are in the other site.  Not a _perfect_ parallel, but is the battalion commander best based with the battalion, or at brigade HQ?



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The minister didn't care about public criticism or where the money was even going to come from -  seems about right for liberals in government these days doesn't it?


Don't get me wrong:  I think she could have saved the money and stayed where she was.  I just threw in the extra info to let folks make a more informed decision on whether they agree/disagree with her move.

Funny, though, how one man's "doesn't care about public criticism" and "using their majority to just do what they want" can be another man's "doing what they think is right" and "leading and not necessarily just following the herd" ...


----------



## Loachman (21 Dec 2016)

I've watched a few of this woman's videos:

Body Language: Justin Trudeau https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJbLTkdcaFA


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Dec 2016)

I kind of thought the $1500 a pop was low. 

Sounds like there's a couple hidden fees. 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cash-for-access-organizers-sought-payments-that-exceeded-federal-contribution-limits/article33409043/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile



> Members of the Chinese community have been asked for payments of as much as $5,000 to attend private cash-for-access functions with the Prime Minister, amounts that exceed federal contribution limits.
> 
> As part of an ongoing review of fundraising activities by the Liberal Party of Canada, The Globe and Mail spoke with invitees who described requests that suggest significant discrepancies between official ticket prices and the actual cost of entry.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Dec 2016)

A couple of illegal hidden fees.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> *** - And before the "HuffPo=Liberal shills=fake news=spawn of the devil incarnate" countercommentary begins, the story is a Canadian Press story based on documents CP obtained via ATIP.



And that's supposed to make us feel better?   > >


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And that's supposed to make us feel better?   > >


Only just a titch ...  ;D


----------



## YZT580 (22 Dec 2016)

not to mention the cost of operating a CC-144 back and forth to Toronto or Vancouver so 'Selfie' can attend.  The ethics of piggy-backing the meet and greet onto no wait it is piggy backing a govt. public relations trip onto the meet and greet isn't it?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Then you know how ... empowering it is to be managed by email  ;D (And I _*do*_ know how that feels.)
> There's ministerial staff there, but the worker bees delivering the program are in the other site.  Not a _perfect_ parallel, but is the battalion commander best based with the battalion, or at brigade HQ?
> Don't get me wrong:  I think she could have saved the money and stayed where she was.  I just threw in the extra info to let folks make a more informed decision on whether they agree/disagree with her move.
> 
> Funny, though, how one man's "doesn't care about public criticism" and "using their majority to just do what they want" can be another man's "doing what they think is right" and "leading and not necessarily just following the herd" ...



She should have opted for a Workplace 2.0 cubicle to show leadership by example.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Dec 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> She should have opted for a Workplace 2.0 cubicle to show leadership by example.


I like!


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Dec 2016)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/28/nationalism-vs-internationalism-mapping-new-political-axis-turning/

UK  - not Canadian - but it addresses some concerns that are internationally widespread



> The new political axes
> 
> Left wing	                                          Right wing
> NATIONALIST
> ...



As in everything else nuance, details and definitions matter - but the broad strokes are identifiable.


----------



## Scott (20 Apr 2017)

No need to update when we have a dedicated thread to politics in 2017: http://army.ca/forums/threads/124900.475.html

There's another thread where I think it's almost universally agreed that Leith's chance to become leader of the CPC have been harmed by more than just her stance on pot.


----------

