Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

The people who complain about "governing with a minority" are, clearly, based upon the evidence of their own words, unfit to vote because they do not understand the basics of electoral democracy ... there are, of course, a few who do understand those democratic basics and claim "Conservatives govern without a majority" anyway: they are lying, and they know it.

No Canadian prime minister has governed with the support of 50%+1 of the voters since (Progressive Conservative) Brian Mulroney did it (with 50.03% of the popular vote) in 1984. Saint Pierre Trudeau never got 50% of the popular vote: the most he managed was 45.37% in 1968. Before Mulroney the last PM to win an election with more than 50% was (also Conservative) John Deifenbaker in 1958 who won with 53.67% of the popular vote in 1958 ...  before "Dief the Chief" King won with 51% in 1940.

So, 50% "wins" are very, very rare and 35-45% are the normal "mandates" for majority governments in a three, four or five party Westminster system.

People who claim that Conservatives lack legitimacy are either fools or liars, sometimes both. If that makes some Army.ca members fools and/or liars ... well, if the shoe fits, etc.

 

[Kilo_302]

rabble.ca is one of those sites where you should take a long hot shower after clicking on it.

I see less biased stuff on Al-Jazeera and RT when I am looking at outlets for contrasting information sources.

And I see you and they fell for the Young Dauphin's line about the oil industry. Just as a question Kilo; what percentage of Canada's economy does the oil industry constitute? If you knew the answer then you would also know that the "excellent" colunm is total BS. Maybe you should start doing your research on Al-Jazeera and RT. Even the CBC is a better source of information (and that is setting a pretty low bar).

No one here has actually engaged in what the article says about Harper's policies. Is this because the word "Conservative" is in party name? History has shown us where Harper is trying to take us. I would have thought the champions of freedom and liberty on this thread would recognize this.

 

[Remius]

This poll from three hundred eight dot com shows a projected Conservative minority government.  Things will change yes, I know that, but I find it interesting given recent events.  Lots to read into here.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/

Very tight results.

 

[Kilo_302]

We're a laughing stock. Sure this article is biased against Harper, but the facts are all correct.  I would argue that Canada and Canadians are worse off in just about every way after 10 years of a Conservative government. If there is any way in which things have got better in Canada, someone please tell me.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/crude-awakening-how-the-keystone-veto-dashes-canadas-superpower-dreams-20150224?page=3

 

[Cloud Cover]

No one here has actually engaged in what the article says about Harper's policies. Is this because the word "Conservative" is in party name? History has shown us where Harper is trying to take us. I would have thought the champions of freedom and liberty on this thread would recognize this.

I'm game, but what is to comment on? The article is an anti Harper rant (I'm fine with that) but lacks facts and I didn't really sbee and points that are substantive and worth discussion. Summay: the article was just as vague, ideological and politically jabbing as Harper himself. 

Not that I am going to vote conservative again, but I do think the leaders of the parties are mixed up. Mulclair would be an excellent leader for the Cons. Trudeau really is an NDP. Harper is just out of credibility but I do think  most of the government agenda on is sound, with the exceptions of income splitting, TFSA limits (raise the rrsp limit instead with a non-deductible government match up to $1000 for low incomes), and of course national defence- not a single dime should be added until substantial deep rooted purge and reform is completed, after which I suspect the defence budget will be found to be more than adequate for a small and diminishing power like Canada.

 

[Cloud Cover]

We're a laughing stock. Sure this article is biased against Harper, but the facts are all correct.  I would argue that Canada and Canadians are worse off in just about every way after 10 years of a Conservative government. If there is any way in which things have got better in Canada, someone please tell me.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/crude-awakening-how-the-keystone-veto-dashes-canadas-superpower-dreams-20150224?page=3

Well, for starters: I don' t have to register my guns. And one need not be blingual to hold a cabinet position. Quebec doesn't dictate foreign policy. Unions are going to be held accountable. I don't have to save anything on my hard drive or my mailbox because the CSE and CSIS have a copy. And I know for certain that my job and my future are entirely dependent on bad corporate head office planning, rather than interventionist central government planning. And, since I am in my late 40's, there never really was a social safety net to lose and so I get to enjoy working until the day I die. Absolute certainty makes us all better off, and that is something the Cons have delivered, and it is irreversible. Have a happy day!

 

[a_majoor]

No one here has actually engaged in what the article says about Harper's policies. Is this because the word "Conservative" is in party name? History has shown us where Harper is trying to take us. I would have thought the champions of freedom and liberty on this thread would recognize this.

Well, I did challenge you to defend your choice of article, but you sidestepped the point (again). BTW, the oil and gas sector make @8% of Canada's GDP, so if it is the "central pillar" of the Canadian economy or CPC's economic plans, then someone needs a short math primer (starting with the Young Dauphin, who started the collapsing pillar nonsense. "Nice Hair" apparently does not translate into numeracy). If you want to look at "central pillars", the manufacturing sector is @11% while real estate and rentals make up a bit over 12%. Health care and social assistance is @ 7% so is public administration.

As an Ontarian, I have seen a general collapse of standards of living due to the actions of Queen's Park, not Ottawa (and I suppose that the evil Conservatives have been running Ontario for more than a decade now?). In the sense that my Federal taxes have seen some reduction (by utilizing the various tax breaks offered by the Government), I have managed to come out a bit ahead, although I admit I would rather a general tax reduction than mining "botique" tax breaks. The main difference between now and the 1990's is the "botique" tax breaks offered in the 1990's were rarely accessable by lower and middle class Canadians.

I also applaude a foreign policy wich stands *for* individual freedoms, democracy and the rule of law, as opposed to the mealy mouthed anti-Americanism and general avoidance of principles that marked past governments.

 

[Kilo_302]

Well, I did challenge you to defend your choice of article, but you sidestepped the point (again). BTW, the oil and gas sector make @8% of Canada's GDP, so if it is the "central pillar" of the Canadian economy or CPC's economic plans, then someone needs a short math primer (starting with the Young Dauphin, who started the collapsing pillar nonsense. "Nice Hair" apparently does not translate into numeracy). If you want to look at "central pillars", the manufacturing sector is @11% while real estate and rentals make up a bit over 12%. Health care and social assistance is @ 7% so is public administration.

As an Ontarian, I have seen a general collapse of standards of living due to the actions of Queen's Park, not Ottawa (and I suppose that the evil Conservatives have been running Ontario for more than a decade now?). In the sense that my Federal taxes have seen some reduction (by utilizing the various tax breaks offered by the Government), I have managed to come out a bit ahead, although I admit I would rather a general tax reduction than mining "botique" tax breaks. The main difference between now and the 1990's is the "botique" tax breaks offered in the 1990's were rarely accessable by lower and middle class Canadians.

I also applaude a foreign policy wich stands *for* individual freedoms, democracy and the rule of law, as opposed to the mealy mouthed anti-Americanism and general avoidance of principles that marked past governments.

I don't think I have a habit of sidestepping questions at all. As for the 8% of GDP, this is correct, but the point is that Harper has MADE oil and gas a central pillar of his economic policy and it has oversized impact on Canadian economic policy.

The collpase of the standards of living you refer to is largely due to the "common sense" revolution of the Harris days. These policies are directly related to our federal government's line of thinking in terms of cutting services and cutting taxes. It's no mystery that when people have less access to services, standards of living drop. The idea that "liberal" policies are the cause of this is hogwash. Taxes are not a bad thing, and I'm sorry, but you paying a marginally lower tax rate is not what I would call an overall positive trend for Canadians in general. In just about every metric Canada is worse off than we were 10 years ago. Of course, this is now harder to track because our government in it's infinite wisdom canceled the long form census. Pesky things like facts get in the way of their ideology. You might want to try desconstructing conservative thought for a change.

A foreign policy that stands for individual freedom? We're selling weapons to the Saudis, one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Our government has principles when it suits them.

 

[a_majoor]

The long form census which asked me about my ethnic background and how many bathrooms I had in my house? Wow, by that metric I'm doing a stellar job.

Interesting that in your universe, a government which last enacted policies in the 1990's can receive the blame for outcomes like electrical energy rates increasing since the imposition of the Green energy program, scandals like ehealth, ORNG, closing two gas plants at a cost of over a billion dollars etc; all of which took place post 2003. And the levels of service in Ontario are crap despite the constant escalation of taxes since 2003. The exit of the manufacturing sector in Ontario is pretty directly tied to the increase in taxes, energy prices and regulatory burdens post 2003, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. I do remember a previous government run by a premier named Mike where Ontario was gaining jobs by the hundreds of thousands....

Since the real world evidently is not agreeing with you, and you hate the current government, maybe you should move to someplace more to your liking, although I'm a bit hard pressed to think of where such a place might be.

 

[larry Strong]

:goodpost:



Cheers
Larry

 

[GAP]

Since the real world evidently is not agreeing with you, and you hate the current government, maybe you should move to someplace more to your liking, although I'm a bit hard pressed to think of where such a place might be.

The U.S. ?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>As for the 8% of GDP, this is correct, but the point is that Harper has MADE oil and gas a central pillar of his economic policy and it has oversized impact on Canadian economic policy.

Another way to look at it is that Harper made the most of what was strong, while it was strong.  There are plenty of governments that managed to pass the time prior to 2008 and since digging their holes a little deeper.

 

[Scott]

The people who complain about "governing with a minority" are, clearly, based upon the evidence of their own words, unfit to vote because they do not understand the basics of electoral democracy ... there are, of course, a few who do understand those democratic basics and claim "Conservatives govern without a majority" anyway: they are lying, and they know it.

No Canadian prime minister has governed with the support of 50%+1 of the voters since (Progressive Conservative) Brian Mulroney did it (with 50.03% of the popular vote) in 1984. Saint Pierre Trudeau never got 50% of the popular vote: the most he managed was 45.37% in 1968. Before Mulroney the last PM to win an election with more than 50% was (also Conservative) John Deifenbaker in 1958 who won with 53.67% of the popular vote in 1958 ...  before "Dief the Chief" King won with 51% in 1940.

So, 50% "wins" are very, very rare and 35-45% are the normal "mandates" for majority governments in a three, four or five party Westminster system.

People who claim that Conservatives lack legitimacy are either fools or liars, sometimes both. If that makes some Army.ca members fools and/or liars ... well, if the shoe fits, etc.

Don't confuse Kilo with facts, you'll ruin his spouting of rabble.

 

[a_majoor]

Another real win for Canadians. Of course the article still goes with the fiction that money in our pocket is somehow a "loss" to the government; it is our money, and the veiwpoint that it somehow does not belong to the people who ear nit is both infuriating and terrifying (especially if those people can get their hands on the levers of government and have the means to take our savings and earnings):

http://business.financialpost.com/2015/02/24/canadians-are-finally-saving-money-why-stop-now/

Canadians are finally saving money. Why stop now?
Garry Marr | February 24, 2015 | Last Updated: Feb 24 6:21 PM ET

A day doesn’t go by without Canadians being told they’re not saving enough for retirement. The endless lecturing about debt levels, from the International Monetary Fund to the governor of the Bank of Canada, reinforces this idea we have too many liabilities and not enough assets.

But look at what the tax-free savings account has accomplished. Contributions grew to $33.5 billion in 2012, surpassing Registered Retirement Savings Plans deductions of $32.4 billion for that year. The market value of TFSAs was $18 billion at the end of 2009, but by mid-2014 it had climbed to $132 billion.

Now the debate is raging about what the program will actually cost Ottawa in the long run, in terms of lost taxes.

Jonathan Rhys Kesselman, the Canada Research Chair in Public Finance and an early proponent of TFSAs, published a paper Tuesday suggesting within 40 years TFSAs will cost the Canadian government about $24.5 billion annually and even more if the now annual contribution limit of $5,500 is doubled to $11,000 as the Tories promised they would do once the budget was balanced.

A report from the parliamentary budget officer, Jean-Denis Frechette, also out Tuesday, suggests doubling the TFSA annual limit could cost governments $39.3 billion by 2080 with benefits skewing towards “higher income, higher wealth and older households,” which of course has been interpreted to mean the rich.

Who are these rich? They are probably not as rich as you think. Of the $1.3 billion the 2015 TFSA currently costs in lost taxes, 34% of the benefit goes to high-income Canadians – those defined as making $72,000 or above.

The second and third segments of society, those described as the middle, make anywhere from $32,175 to $72,300 per year. Those two groups will save 51% of that $1.3 billion this year.

So what happens when you double the contribution levels?

Sure the highest-income Canadians benefit and the PBO says they’ll have 2.39% more in after-tax income by 2075. But those at the middle-income level will have between 2.76% and 2.9% more.
 
When you break down benefits by wealth, the richest segment of our society will save more money if contribution room doubles – but it’s not as if everybody else gets shut out.

There is an argument that there’s nothing in TFSAs for the poor, that bottom 20% of the population that has no money to save. But the reality is that people in Canada living below the poverty line often see their standard of living go up in retirement because of programs like Canada Pension Plan, Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement.

Jamie Golombek, managing director of tax and estate planning with CIBC, says what’s key to remember is that all money going into TFSAs is already taxed.

“The bottom line is if you can get Canadians looking out for themselves and saving for retirement, in general terms that means less reliance on government,” he says.

The federal government seems to have finally come up with a way to convince Canadians to save. The tax-free savings account is doing exactly what Ottawa wants – getting Canadians to put money away.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bone to the base, perhaps?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the Government’s intent to introduce legislation to keep Canadian families and their communities safe by ensuring that the most heinous criminals will be sentenced to life behind bars without possibility of parole.

(....)

This legislation will build on the Government’s tough-on-crime measures to keep our streets and communities safe by ensuring that criminals who are convicted of the most serious murders or those who are convicted of high treason will be imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives with no access to parole. This will include a mandatory sentence of life without parole for first degree murders involving:

• sexual assault;
• kidnapping or forcible confinement;
• terrorism;
• the killing of police officers or corrections officers; or,
• any first degree murders that are found to be of a particularly brutal nature.

(....)

 

[McG]

the killing of police officers or corrections officers;

It would be nice to see CAF members added to that list.

 

[cryco]

I just heard about that on the radio. There is a possibility of getting released after 35 years, but would require the cabinet to grant him/her their release.
Sounds like you said, bone to the base.
Almost think it's more humane to execute them  instead of leaving them behind bars for what could be 50 or 60 years...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It would be nice to see CAF members added to that list.

..........and Peace Officers

 

[The Bread Guy]

It would be nice to see CAF members added to that list.

Unless that all gets caught up, depending on circumstance, under the "terrorism" category.

..........and Peace Officers

I'm kind of surprised the proposal doesn't go that far, actually, given the traditional Blue support for that cohort.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

By using the term Peace Officer, they encompass everyone doing that sort of duty, and not limit it to a very narrow category.

The Criminal Code defines a Peace Officer as:

“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(c.1) a designated officer as defined in section 2 of the Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act, when

(i) participating in an integrated cross-border operation, as defined in section 2 of that Act, or

(ii) engaging in an activity incidental to such an operation, including travel for the purpose of participating in the operation and appearances in court arising from the operation,

(d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001, or a person having the powers of such an officer, when performing any duty in the administration of any of those Acts,

(d.1) an officer authorized under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,

(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,

(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft

(i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or

(ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft registered in Canada under those regulations, while the aircraft is in flight, and

(g) officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces who are

(i) appointed for the purposes of section 156 of the National Defence Act, or

(ii) employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-1.html