# Gomery Report - Now that you know, how would you vote?



## simon (Nov 2, 2002)

The Gomary Report was released this morning exonerating Martin but not the Liberal party, if an election was called today - how would you vote?

Would you believe Martin and give the Liberals another chance or would you be party to the Liberal devisation in the Gomery fallout.


----------



## capitalK (Oct 21, 2003)

Would it change my vote? No.

Am I going to tell you what my vote would be? No


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

why not?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The election is still in the near future, but I have yet to make up my mind fully. It depends upon who is running here in St.John's East.

Sadly, with all of that money wasted, we are now closer to Quebec leaving the country than ever before. Even sadder, none of the money shall ever be recouped, nor will anyone spend even a day in jail. I told my wife that we could keep two of the doxie pups, instead of the intended one, if money was recouped from any of the ad agencies, or if anyone spent time in a Federal prison. We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It never ceases to amaze me how the majority (and likely easterners) will continue to support a corrupt and dishonest party. Will they ever see the light and get rid of the scum?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Sinc 

You already know the answer to your question. Of course they won't.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> It never ceases to amaze me how the majority (and likely easterners) will continue to support a corrupt and dishonest party. Will they ever see the light and get rid of the scum?


So you didn't read the report?

You see, this is democracy. A majority would rather vote for a party that has some bad individuals (who will be removed) that is going in the direction they want, than vote for a party that bears no relation to what they want.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

It sounds like Gomery came down hard on Chretien. It will be interesting if the RCMP will pursue charges after release of his report. Hopefully, there won't be any political interference.

I imagine criminal charges against Chretien would increase the rift in the Liberal Party.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC, I believe the prevailing feeling in Ontario is that Harper is extremist and untrustworthy. It's not so much about keeping the Liberals in as it is about keeping Harper out. 

I think the Conservative party severely underestimates the intense dislike this side of the country has for their leadership--to the point where in the last election, many Ontario voters, while acknowledging the corruption, still chose to vote to keep Harper out because they trusted him less than the Liberal party.

Mind you, under more moderate leadership, I think you would see a huge difference in how Ontario votes. 

My own opinion is that from a campaign strategy point of view, the Conservatives need to spend less time attacking the Liberals and more time selling their own merits over here. The "vote for us because the other guys are corrupt" doesn't work when your audience thinks you're untrustworthy too. 

On the other hand, I think this kind of mudslinging between the Liberals and Conservatives is the best campaign the NDP ever had.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

SINC said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how the majority (and likely easterners) will continue to support a corrupt and dishonest party. Will they ever see the light and get rid of the scum?


And put who in their place? Stephen Harper's version of "Boneheads and Bastards", or Jack Layton's?

Stockwell Day as Finance Minister?!  Libby Davies as Justice Minister?!


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Saw the coverage of the report this morning....

Oh My Gawd... Politicians getting kickbacks to award contracts..

Never saw that comming. Never saw that from other political parties...

Someone call 
Sinclair Stevens and tell him all is forgiven...

Finally the conservatives might have a chance to "once again belly up to the trough"...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm also undecided and will wait to see what the parties do.

If the Conservatives come out with clear statements in support of progressive social policies and demonstrate the ability not to behave like children, I would consider them.

If the Liberals aggressively pursue many things in a meaningful manner, I'll consider them. They're a longshot for me and my expectations are probably beyond their ability to act.

Not voting NDP.

Considering Greens if the Conservatives and Liberals don't impress me. This is the most likely outcome.

Also considering just showing up and spoiling my ballot. I really wish Canada would adopt a 'none of the above' option so people could clearly communicate their desire to vote but disatisfaction with the choices available.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Beej said:


> I really wish Canada would adopt a 'none of the above' option so people could clearly communicate their desire to vote but disatisfaction with the choices available.



I'd vote for that...


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

Beej said:


> I really wish Canada would adopt a 'none of the above' option so people could clearly communicate their desire to vote but disatisfaction with the choices available.


I love this idea.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, you need to define "easterners". People in Halifax could be considered "westerners" to us here in NL. Right now, I find the sitting MP, Norm Doyle, a Conservative for many years, but an honest man who won over my vote when he said that he would not take one dime of his NL Pension from serving in the House of Assembly. He donates all of his pension each month to various charities in blocks of $500 to $1000. He publishes this list in his newsletter every couple of months to keep us informed. He has no charisma, or political ambition to "get to the top", just common sense and basic goodness. 

I am not sure how Paul Martin will get out from under this whole mess, much of which is Jean C's making. I am angered that tax dollars that many of us worked hard to earn for the Canadian government went to line the pockets of Liberal supporters and ad agency executives. For the Liberals to regain my vote, they are going to have to pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat. We shall see.


----------



## duosonic (Jan 7, 2004)

I hope to see a minority government again next time around – gets at least some of the parties working together (or at least talking to each other) some of the time to deliver policies and programs that under a majority government would never see the light of day. Government is not about serving ONLY the majority – I love the current situation that makes the Libs pay some attention to other agendas.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Sinc, you need to define "easterners". People in Halifax could be considered "westerners" to us here in NL.


Then lets call them central Canadians.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

If Harper is, as Sonal contends, not trustworthy, would many vote for the Conservatives with another leader? 

Here is the least likely leader of the Conservatives.................not because he would not be effective, but because he would not want to be thrown into the "lion's den" of public opinion. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/bio.asp?Language=E&query=9150&s=M&md=1

Of course, then every one west of St.John's East would be a westerner.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, that is better. Central, to me, is Ontario and Quebec, with the Maritimes being NS, NB and PEI, and the Atlantic provinces being NS, NB, PEI and NL.


----------



## MacAndy (May 17, 2004)

Not having heard anything on this yet but having read this thread... I am hoping that the report exposes Chretien's government for what it was, a corrupt old boy's network of political swine. If the RCMP pursue legal channels I will be right there following the process and cheering on the prosecution. Chretien is the most despised prime minister I can think of. If anything, a report like this should caution any and all politicians that their legacy could be a 1400 page document of shame.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

Read the Report! 
Gomery Report


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

VC, seems to order a copy we need to pay $50. I thought that my hard earned tax dollars already went to various people in the Quebec Liberal party and to various other "insiders", as well as to pay for the commission as well. Guess I was wrong. 

I wonder if the ad agencies paid taxes on the money they received for no work? It does not seem right that if they did not work for the money that they should have to pay tax on this money. After all, you and I work hard for our pay, and thus, work hard for our tax contributions. How hard is it to pass on a check and to skim a heafty commission off of the top of this fee? And of course, I don't think that any of the money in those envelopes should be taxed. It is only fair. I helped out a neighbor with some yard work and she gave me a $10 bill for my weekend efforts, supposedly for beer, which I did not buy. I am not going to report this as income, so why should these co-conspirators be hounded to pay tax on these "gifts"?

I say, we should now forget the whole thing. It is behind us. The money has been spent. Let it be done with once and for all. Get on with our lives. Get back to working hard for the next paycheck.

However, I am starting to wear a poppy once again. Thus, "lest we forget"......"those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat this history time and again." We shall see.

Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I stand corrected. I have redirected to the various sites that house the transcripts of the hearings. I have been in error to ever doubt the efficiency of our current government. Mea culpa.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

What is sad is that many hardworking politicians, of all parties, and honest government bureaucrats are being "tarred" with the same brush. This angers me just as much as all of this corruption and looting of OUR money by a handful of people. Add to this the situation that may be upon us all due to another vote in Quebec re separation, and we see the consequences of what might happen.

My Canada includes Quebec....................and honest citizens.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The Liberal Party of Canada is in BIG trouble when it loses voters like me, as well as angers me to the point of posting four consecutive posts, none of which contain the "d" word.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

"Bad Government, Bad!" (slaps government on wrist)


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacAndy said:


> Chretien is the most despised prime minister I can think of.


Doesn't that honour go to former PM M...........?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

krs said:


> Doesn't that honour go to former PM M...........?


 It depends on your politics, but if a vote were taken Mulroney would probably still win the ignoble title.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Interesting poll results so far. Strong Liberal support, roughly equal NDP and Conservative. 

I hope more people comment, because a lot more have voted than commented. I'm always interested in how people view their political options.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RicktheChemist said:


> Would have been nice to include one of the most popular parties in Quebec in your list.. the Bloc Quebecois; they actually have more support than the NDP in Canada.


The NDP has more support overall than the Bloc, but fewer seats...the PR thread discusses alternatives to this outcome of our electoral system.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Pelao said:


> So you didn't read the report?
> 
> You see, this is democracy. A majority would rather vote for a party that has some bad individuals (who will be removed) that is going in the direction they want, than vote for a party that bears no relation to what they want.


I'd support the Liberals direction if I thought:
-prostitution was a dignified, healthy career choice for my son or daughter, or any man or woman.
-drugs for sale at the LCBO/corner store etc. would be a benefit to society and have absolutely no consequences.
-I'd like the option to knock off my sick parents or defective children.
-it was fine for a 14 year old boy or girl to have sex with a 40 year old man 
-natives drink water contaminated with feces was no big deal. 
-I enjoyed reading a good book between vomits during the 3 or 4 hour waits at emergency.
-government programs that spend billions and do nothing (ie. gun registry) were a good use of the overtaxed Canadian publics money.
-being ranked 34th in terms of personnel contributions to Peace Keeping behind Bangladesh, Zambia and Uruguay was something to be proud of.
-it was OK we were being spanked by the Americans when it came to making progress fighting pollution.

If I thought that way I could join the majority and vote Liberal but I don't share the enthusiasm the majority seem to have with their direction.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

We should show a little more respect for other's political choices. 

We may not agree, but in most, if not all, cases each person has good reasons for their choices. 

I'm not sorry to be a broken record on this: we do not need to use political rhetoric, hyperbole and derogatory inuendo here. We can and should have more respectful and understanding discussions.


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

What has the world come to?
Are we as dishonest as those 'Merican politicos south of the border?
Alas, we are not. 
There were no dirty tricks, just sleight of hand (money vanishing), no war waged and really the only harm was lots of taxpayer's money going to Liberal leeches. 

The intrigue really is Canadian in nature.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I agree, the Bloc Quebecois should have been one of the choices in the poll. You can always select 'other', nobody has voted for that yet.

I lived more than half of my life in Quebec and visit there regularly now at least twice each month.
All I can say is that the Bloc on the federal level (and the Parti Quebecois on the provincial level) have created an incredible mess in Quebec over the years. The economy is in shambles, the infastructure is crumbling to the point where they can't even fix potholes in the street (big issue in the municipal elections coming up), taxes are much higher than in Ontario for instance, so are prices.
Quebec is further away than ever from being able to support itself as a separate country, even Lucien Bouchard admitted that not too long ago.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm not sure we're less dishonest. I like the Ben Johnson analogy: we are as dishonest, but less capable at getting away with it (like Carl Lewis did).

On the world stage this can be expanded to less relevant and with less to gain from dishonesty.

Canada seems to have a natural political and social position between the Europeans and U.S., but much of our moral highground seems to come from not having the same responsibilities or history. Regardless, our role is important and can be of great value to a world that instantly distrusts either the EU or the US, based on their past actions.

I seem to have wandered off and lost the topic...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> We should show a little more respect for other's political choices.
> 
> We may not agree, but in most, if not all, cases each person has good reasons for their choices.
> 
> I'm not sorry to be a broken record on this: we do not need to use political rhetoric, hyperbole and derogatory inuendo here. We can and should have more respectful and understanding discussions.


The problem is not that the lack of logic in some people's ways of thinking, but rather that the logic is based on a set of values that may cause problems. I can understand and respect the logic of voting Conservative if one thinks a certain way. But I find most of that way of thinking abhorrent. Viewed through my lens, voting Conservative, or supporting those values, is a very difficult thing to consider intelligent. So yes, I agree with you, in one sense. It does us all good to remember that no one has the same lens on life as anyone else, and to try and understand that. But remembering that fact is not going to change the way I feel about certain value systems, not about my desire to challenge them, vociferously if necessary, at any given opportunity.

My vote would largely be unchanged from the last election. I knew that the Liberals were crooked then, and that the Conservatives frighten me. I had been thinking of a shift to the Green party, but their latest slide to the centre along with everyone else has made me decide to not bother. I'll stick with the party that will never govern, but still manages to hold power every now and then. Even if they elected the wrong leader last time.

For the Quebecers - I can understand voting for the party that will do the most for your provincial agenda on the national stage. But two questions - should not your priorities be in electing the party that will do most for the NATION? and, does it not worry you that voting for the Bloc Federally adds support to the separatist movement Provincially? Or am I off base on that last bit?


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

ErnstNL said:


> What has the world come to?
> Are we as dishonest as those 'Merican politicos south of the border?
> Alas, we are not.
> There were no dirty tricks, just sleight of hand (money vanishing), no war waged and really the only harm was lots of taxpayer's money going to Liberal leeches.
> ...


_lots of taxpayer's money going to Liberal leeches_

Ok - I might get shot for this, but......................

57 million in kickbacks (1.14 M for the Liberals) may seem a lot of money, but if you put it in perspective, it's only 0.0003 percent of the annual federal budget.
I agree it shouldn't have happened, but in no company I ever worked for would an amount like that ever make it even close to the radar screen. For the 1.14 'liberal' amount, move the decimal two additional places to the left.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> For the Quebecers - I can understand voting for the party that will do the most for your provincial agenda on the national stage. But two questions - should not your priorities be in electing the party that will do most for the NATION? and, does it not worry you that voting for the Bloc Federally adds support to the separatist movement Provincially? Or am I off base on that last bit?


Not at all, formed in 1991, the Bloc Québécois is the Canadian federal party whose primary objective is the sovereignty of Quebec. (straight copy from the net - not my own words)
Trouble is neither the Bloc nor the Separatists (Parti Quebecois) have done anything positive for Quebec, nor for Montreal or Quebec City for that matter. They destroyed Quebec's economy - anyone remember the huge exodus of companies in the 70's and beyond?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> The problem is not that the lack of logic in some people's ways of thinking, but rather that the logic is based on a set of values that may cause problems. I can understand and respect the logic of voting Conservative if one thinks a certain way. But I find most of that way of thinking abhorrent.


We disagree strongly on many things (like the current farmer's welfare thread I started), but I don't think you're mentally deficient for your views and, unless pushed, try not to treat anyone that way. I have no problem with your values, I just disagree and feel that, despite values being a matter a personal judgement, my values would contribute to a better nation. That's personal politics -- versus public politics which is made up of words intended to do the most harm with the least meaning.

I try not to treat Conservative supporters like viscious ********, Liberal supporters like corruption enthusiasts, or NDP supporters like naive fools (the other parties were excluded because the previous three cover most voters). It may happen for time to time, but the effort is made. 

Challenging someone's individual views and even their values seems far more valuable than pointing out their voting preferences as evidence for their inferiority. Arguably, everyone who votes is stupid, considering the consistently bad outcomes.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

krs, "57 million in kickbacks (1.14 M for the Liberals) may seem a lot of money...". That IS a great deal of money. Take it personally. That is vastly more than the amount of tax that ALL of us combined will ever pay into the federal coffers in our lifetimes. Thus, you were working hard your entire life.........all of us are working hard, or were working hard, for our entire lives to see these tax dollars "sucked away by leeches". I think of all the hungry children that might have been fed with this money. Yes, in the grander scheme of things it is a small percentage, but it does not make my anger any the less vitriolic. Unless we take such matters personally, there is no reason why it shall not happen again and again and again.


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

Pelao said:


> So you didn't read the report?
> 
> You see, this is democracy. A majority would rather vote for a party that has some bad individuals (who will be removed) that is going in the direction they want, than vote for a party that bears no relation to what they want.



Unless you live in BC, where parties are voted out instead of voted in.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Although in itself, Adscam was a small percentage of government spending, I believe it gives insight into how our government has been run. This isn't the an isolated event. Our government pisses away massive amounts of money each year and the Liberal Party is a part of this corruption. Mulroney's Ottawa was also corrupt. If you want to see corruption, let the Auditor General audit the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. 

If we want to fix the problem, we need to:

1. Get rid of patronage;
2. Make government more accountable;
3. Increase the power of the Auditor General;
4. Aggresively pursue and charge people who abuse taxpayers money; and finally,
5. Turf the Liberals out of power.

If you can't live with the Conservative Party, then vote NDP, Bloc or Green. Please, for the love of this country send the Liberal Party a message similar to the message that was sent to Mulroney.

I am glad that Paul Martin has been found to have little involvement with adscam. I always felt Chretien was corrupt. But, Paul Martin should take responsibility for being inept. He was the seniormost Liberal Party member in Quebec and he was the Finance Minister while this happened. 200 Million does not pass under the radar.

Good job Gomery for actually coming up with a clear conclusion.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> If you can't live with the Conservative Party, then vote NDP, Bloc or Green. Please, for the love of this country send the Liberal Party a message similar to the message that was sent to Mulroney.


Vandave, I believe the fear is that if you vote for a smaller party to send a message to the Liberals, the Conservatives would get in. Much like the fear in the US about "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush".

My ex-husband was torn last election between voting with his conscious (NDP) or voting Liberal to keep the Cons out. He ended up going Liberal since he was worried it would be a tight race. (NDP had virtually no chance in our riding.) 

But as I said--this Liberal-Conservative bickering seems to be the best campaign the NDP ever had.

I fully believe the Conservatives would do better with a positive "vote us in" campaign than a negative "vote out the corrupt government" campaign. It's time they walked the high road. Judging from my impression of the last election, Ontario doesn't need a reason to vote the Liberals OUT--they need a palatable leader in another party to vote IN, who has a viable chance of winning federally. I think a moderate Conservative could do it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I fully believe the Conservatives would do better with a positive "vote us in" campaign than a negative "vote out the corrupt government" campaign. It's time they walked the high road. Judging from my impression of the last election, Ontario doesn't need a reason to vote the Liberals OUT--they need a palatable leader in another party to vote IN, who has a viable chance of winning federally. I think a moderate Conservative could do it.


Bang on analysis Sonal. 

I wish for an alternative and unfortunately there just isn't one. The fact that with everything that has happened that the conservatives are no closer to ousting the liberals speaks volumes for the current conservatives leadership and agenda.

The real question is... who is that moderate conservative? I would have thought Stronach at one point, but with her out of the picture there really isn't anyone is there?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The real question is... who is that moderate conservative? I would have thought Stronach at one point, but with her out of the picture there really isn't anyone is there?


 There is Jim Prentice (Calgary, I think), one of the handful of Conservatives that voted for gay marriage. He was also a leadership candidate for the old PC party (him and Brison had some interesting ideas but the Orchard-MacKay deal ended that and ended the party).

As for Grimsby, check up on your local candidate. There is the occasional moderate Conservative and maybe voting for the individual (and clearly telling them why) could support socially liberal forces within the party.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Sheila Copps, Anyone watch her little segment on CTV yesterday?
Now there's someone that knows exactly what is what or will be what. (One funny lady)


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> There is Jim Prentice (Calgary, I think), one of the handful of Conservatives that voted for gay marriage. He was also a leadership candidate for the old PC party (him and Brison had some interesting ideas but the Orchard-MacKay deal ended that and ended the party).
> 
> As for Grimsby, check up on your local candidate. There is the occasional moderate Conservative and maybe voting for the individual (and clearly telling them why) could support socially liberal forces within the party.


Our local MP is Dean Alison (C). Unfortunately I have seen no indication that he would support more moderate approaches given his OpEd articles in the local newspapers.


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

My buddy Stevo and I debated about voting to keep another party out. He will vote Liberal to keep the Conservatives out, and I will vote NDP because I believe strongly in Democracy (actually more of a democratic socialism is what I would like to see, where kids can get a secondary level of education for free). If all the people who wanted to vote NDP, but didn't because they felt that they would not get in, well... that may just be enough people to get the NDP into power! I will not make a vote based on strategy... to me, that does not benefit the Democratic system.

de·moc·ra·cy 
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected
representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a 
Community.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Is the identity of your local candidate really very relevant in our system? I don't think so. The most they can do is leave the party, if they want to vote their own conscience, but that does nothing to change the actual outcome.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Local candidates have limited power, but they do provide internal pressure in a party. 

If more local candidates in the Conservatives were moderate, they could force the hand of the leader, especially if the leader is perceived as weak. If the leader is strong, like Chretien was, they have much less relevance. With a minority government balanced as tightly as our current government, they have much more power.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Local candidates have limited power, but they do provide internal pressure in a party.
> 
> If more local candidates in the Conservatives were moderate, they could force the hand of the leader, especially if the leader is perceived as weak. If the leader is strong, like Chretien was, they have much less relevance. With a minority government balanced as tightly as our current government, they have much more power.


I see your point, but I am sufficiently jaded about our current party structure, that I don't think the members have much power, even in this situation. It continues to be the back room advisors who call the most shots. Witness the release of this report - Martin got it the night before. And whom did he share it with? Not the other members, only his advisors.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> Witness the release of this report - Martin got it the night before. And whom did he share it with? Not the other members, only his advisors.


Does this come as a big surprise to anyone? 

Let me present a quick scenario: Gomery report comes in, Martin's name is associated with the scandal. He is surrounded by his members. His spin doctors turn it into something positive for the press in the morning. However, one of the members decides to tell the truth (I know, I know, the concept of a politician telling the truth is somewhat mindboggling) to further his career (or, for about a thousand other reasons) to the press a day, week, month later. Cat's out of the bag, Martin's career is toast.

With only his advisors present, he can build a quick CYA story and no one of any consequence is any the smarter.

And no, the contents of the Gomery report won't change my vote.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> And no, the contents of the Gomery report won't change my vote.


Well, that was a surprise.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Does this come as a big surprise to anyone?


I trust I didn't imply I was surprised.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> I trust I didn't imply I was surprised.


No, RevMatt, you didn't. I guess it's just my "jaded"-ness coming out as well.

And, SINC, any time your political aspirations decide to take root, you've got my vote. Even though we may disagree on a few key items...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> And, SINC, any time your political aspirations decide to take root, you've got my vote. Even though we may disagree on a few key items...


Alas I am far too honest a man to be a politician. I have turned down citizens committees asking me to run for mayor here on two occasions.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sadly, it is the people like Sinc who we need in federal/provincial/local politics -- honest and with some common sense.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Just an ironic thought this morning... the Conservatives have been begging the rest of the country to send a message to the Liberal party to show that corruption will not be tolerated.

And yet, Ontario votes Liberal.

I think that is sending a message that extreme right Conservatism under the likes of Stockwell Day or Steven Harper will not be tolerated.... despite corruption in the other most viable option. It surprises me that the party apparently fails to see this. 

And with the BQ holding so many seats in Quebec, it's virtually impossible to win an election without strong support from Ontario. The numbers don't work out.

I do think that Ontario would be receptive to a change from the Liberal party, but as da_jonesy points out, the problem is a lack of an acceptable alternative. 

I do think that Harper would do better if he stopped (pardon the pun) harping on the gay marriage issue. It's harder for people to accept taking something away than granting it in the first place--I think you will have more people more strongly objecting to taking away same-sex marriages than people who were for allowing them in the first place. 

Though I think Harper's stance on this is too well-entrenched and too unyielding for him to back away from it now.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Just an ironic thought this morning... the Conservatives have been begging the rest of the country to send a message to the Liberal party to show that corruption will not be tolerated.
> 
> And yet, Ontario votes Liberal.


I wouldn't be so quick to discount the Conservatives. They got about 30% of the vote in the last election, while the Liberals got around 36 to 37%. This isn't as dramatic a difference as some people like to make it.

Now that the gay marriage issue is behind us, the Conservatives will be able to offer a more moderate social policy. 

Will they win a majority? I doubt it, but I also doubt the Liberals are going to get a majority anytime soon either. Hopefully, Liberal + NDP < 50% of seats.

The NDP don't have the guts to call an election right now, so I guess we'll have to wait till spring. The Liberals have serious corruption issues. I don't understand why Layton isn't willing to put this issue to the electorate. The only positive of waiting for the next Gomery report is that all political parties will be forced to support its findings during the next election. Whereas, the Liberals will just bury it if they win a minority with the NDP this year.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

I must admit I only follwed the Gomery inquiry casually, but I never realized that there would be two reports - or a report in two parts. Or am I wrong in that too and there is a third and fourth part coming?
In any case - I never expected an election call until the end of this year at the earliest......and that's bad news, who wants to tredge to the polls in the middle of winter.
As far as corruption is concerned - I don't think the Conservatives are any better than the Liberals...one of the key questions is who do you want as Prime Minister representing Canada all over the world?
Martin
Harper
Layton

Not much of a choice in my humble opinion


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

krs said:


> Not much of a choice in my humble opinion


Agreed.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> ...The NDP don't have the guts to call an election right now, so I guess we'll have to wait till spring. The Liberals have serious corruption issues. I don't understand why Layton isn't willing to put this issue to the electorate...


Why would Jack Layton -- or any NDP leader -- ever side with the Tories? Layton's doing the right thing: squeezing as much as he can get from the Liberals on health care while he still has some leverage. A Christmas election would only make the neocons happy, and is still no guarantee of voting out "the scum" (as another poster so elegantly stated previously). Better to go to the polls in spring -- "new brooms" would likely have a more significant impact at that point, IMO.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Mac Yak said:


> Why would Jack Layton -- or any NDP leader -- ever side with the Tories? Layton's doing the right thing: squeezing as much as he can get from the Liberals on health care while he still has some leverage. A Christmas election would only make the neocons happy, and is still no guarantee of voting out "the scum" (as another poster so elegantly stated previously). Better to go to the polls in spring -- "new brooms" would likely have a more significant impact at that point, IMO.


I don't see how taking down the government is siding with the Tories. 

In my opinion Layton is being political. He wants to see what the latest polls are going to say. He has a big stake in the amount of support for the Liberals. He knows the NDP will never get into power, so a minority situation is the best they can ever hope for. If the Liberal support were to creep upwards of 40%, they would start to get worried about a Liberal majority and would consider calling an election. If the Liberal support were to drop significantly, they would also be scared because the amount of Liberal and NDP seats would be less than 50%. Therefore, they would no longer hold the balance of power.

However, if the NDP numbers go up and the Liberals only drop a little bit (i.e. Liberal + NDP > 1 month ago), I bet he starts to get interested in calling an election. But, the window for doing this is only about 1 week.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't see how taking down the government is siding with the Tories.
> 
> In my opinion Layton is being political. He wants to see what the latest polls are going to say. He has a big stake in the amount of support for the Liberals. He knows the NDP will never get into power, so a minority situation is the best they can ever hope for. If the Liberal support were to creep upwards of 40%, they would start to get worried about a Liberal majority and would consider calling an election. If the Liberal support were to drop significantly, they would also be scared because the amount of Liberal and NDP seats would be less than 50%. Therefore, they would no longer hold the balance of power.
> 
> However, if the NDP numbers go up and the Liberals only drop a little bit (i.e. Liberal + NDP > 1 month ago), I bet he starts to get interested in calling an election. But, the window for doing this is only about 1 week.


So Layton is being political and Harper is not? Harper is above all that, eh?

And just a question here, how does the Conservative Party of Canada get to be called "Tories"? Wasn't that the nickname for the now defunct 130 year or so old PC party? Is it just spoils from the Reform party takeover, like getting the office furniture?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Just an ironic thought this morning... the Conservatives have been begging the rest of the country to send a message to the Liberal party to show that corruption will not be tolerated.
> 
> And yet, Ontario votes Liberal.


The Conservatives aren't well liked in Ontario, Just ask anyone from Walkerton,
The disabled, The welfare mom with her starving kid, The bum that's sleeping on a grating,
Anyone who uses highway 407


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to discount the Conservatives. They got about 30% of the vote in the last election, while the Liberals got around 36 to 37%. This isn't as dramatic a difference as some people like to make it.
> 
> Now that the gay marriage issue is behind us, the Conservatives will be able to offer a more moderate social policy.
> 
> ...


I'm not so quick to discount the Conservatives. My general feeling is that most of Ontario is getting pretty sick of the Liberals federally, and are ready for a change, but don't see another option they like. 

I think with more moderate leadership and some smart campaigning, the Conservatives could take a majority. 

Of course, that means they would need to ensure that the vocal extremists in the party kept their mouths shut. There's a fear that the Conservatives would preach moderate policy, and then come into office with an extremist agenda. Everyone in the party would have to stick to the party line in the media. So far, the strongest impression I have about the Conservative policies are "We aren't corrupt like the Liberals and gay marriage is wrong." That's not much of a platform. I know they have more to it, but they need to really start pushing that, and drop the rest of it.

Also, I don't think gay marriage is really behind us yet--I keep hearing stories that the Conservatives want to try to yank it if they get into power. They have to quash that rumour pronto.

Otherwise, it's going to be a slow inching backwards and forwards with every issue. Hard to say where it will go. I can't yet say with confidence that the Liberals will take Ontario again, but I also don't think the Conservatives will gain as much of a foothold as they need. Current prediction: mess.

The impact of the Gomery report is not going to be felt in the polls for a few months yet. Honestly, the first I heard of it was on ehMac. Not a lot of people I know around here are talking about it much--largely because I don't think a lot of people were incredibly surprised by the results.

I think Layton is being smart by letting Harper do the dirty work of attacking the Liberals--I think by doing this, he comes off as above all the bickering and more concerned with other issues of government. The NDP are still a long way from leading federally--their best hope is the slow gain of support while confidence in both the Conservatives and Liberals wanes.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Vandave said:


> I don't see how taking down the government is siding with the Tories.
> 
> In my opinion Layton is being political. He wants to see what the latest polls are going to say. He has a big stake in the amount of support for the Liberals. He knows the NDP will never get into power, so a minority situation is the best they can ever hope for. If the Liberal support were to creep upwards of 40%, they would start to get worried about a Liberal majority and would consider calling an election. If the Liberal support were to drop significantly, they would also be scared because the amount of Liberal and NDP seats would be less than 50%. Therefore, they would no longer hold the balance of power.
> 
> However, if the NDP numbers go up and the Liberals only drop a little bit (i.e. Liberal + NDP > 1 month ago), I bet he starts to get interested in calling an election. But, the window for doing this is only about 1 week.



I don't follow your logic at all.

If the Liberal support dropped significantly, why couldn't the NDP hold the balance of power by supporting the Conservatives assuming NDP+Tories>50%.

If you look at the numbers, to get a Conservative majority government would mean the Liberals would have to loose about 60 seats with 57 (or so) of those going to the Conservatives. Not very likely. The Bloc has a firm grip on its seats in Quebec, the Liberals have 21 seats there as well. I don't think the Conservatives have a hope of getting any seats in Quebec.
That would mean most of these 57 seats the Conservatives need would have to come out of Ontario.

I think we're going to have a Liberal minority or majority government for a while yet - just look at the numbers.


----------



## pimephalis (Nov 29, 2004)

Beej said:



> I'm also undecided and will wait to see what the parties do.
> 
> ...
> 
> Also considering just showing up and spoiling my ballot. I really wish Canada would adopt a 'none of the above' option so people could clearly communicate their desire to vote but disatisfaction with the choices available.


In a way, we do have a 'none of the above' option. If you present yourself at the polls, and then refuse your ballot, you end up doing just that. A refused ballot is counted (unlike a spoiled ballot), and registered with no candidate. This is one of the reasons you often seen vote percentages adding up to something under 100%.

I have done this several times in previous elections for two reasons: first, I had no party that I could vote for and still sleep at night; second, I was certain of the outcome of the election, and couldn't stand any of local candidates.

So, if we're driven to the polls in the very near future, I'll do my patriotic duty (again) and remind everyone I know that they should go to the polls, and if they so desire express their disillusionment through refusing their ballot. If you don't show up, how can you get anyone to notice if you're unhappy?


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

From today's news:

OTTAWA (CP) - The federal NDP warns it could help defeat the minority Liberals unless it sees progress in talks on medicare by Thursday. But the prospect of a 2005 election sounds remote as NDP Leader Jack Layton remains non-committal to toppling the government. The Tories sound equally hesitant about triggering an election, saying they don't want to interrupt the Christmas holidays with a campaign. Still, Layton seemed determined Wednesday to use his party's 18 votes in the Commons to extract concessions from the Liberal government.

Full story:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/11/02/1289612-cp.html

Did someone say "leverage"?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So Layton is being political and Harper is not? Harper is above all that, eh?
> 
> And just a question here, how does the Conservative Party of Canada get to be called "Tories"? Wasn't that the nickname for the now defunct 130 year or so old PC party? Is it just spoils from the Reform party takeover, like getting the office furniture?


Harper is being political for sure, but at least he has an opinion and he is sticking to his guns. Layton is just sitting on the fence to see which direction favours him the most. That's not what I want politicians to do. I want them to stand up for their own beliefs, rather than be governed by opinion polls. It's no secret the Conservatives have been lower in the polls than they have wanted to be. I don't see a big move in opinion polls from this report due to fatigue with the whole Gomery inquiry. So, I don't think Harper is really being that opportunistic. I think he really believes, as I do, that the Liberal Party is corrupt and should be taken to task by the electorate.

I only used the term Tories because Mac Yak used it. It should stop using it as it carriers the baggage of Mulroney.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

krs said:


> I don't follow your logic at all.
> 
> If the Liberal support dropped significantly, why couldn't the NDP hold the balance of power by supporting the Conservatives assuming NDP+Tories>50%.
> 
> ...


If the Liberals + NDP are less than 50%, then they require a third party to pass legislation. At the moment, the Liberals + Bloc > 50% and Liberals + Conservative > 50%. Thus, if the Liberals required a third party to govern, the NDP are totally irrelevant.

So, a swing of Liberal voters to either the Bloc or Conservatives is bad for the NDP. But if the NDP + Liberal support remains similar to what it is now, then the NDP doesn't have to fear losing the balance of power they currently have. 

The NDP would rather work with the Liberals than the Conservatives for obvious reasons. Politically, the Liberals are closer to their ideology. 

I agree with you about the Conservatives (as I said earlier) in that they are unlikely to win a majority. Voters seem too apathetic about the Gomery issue. But, the anger could be enough that the Liberal and NDP coalition gets taken down. That's what the NDP fears and that's why Jack Layton is a fence sitter. 

It is very feasible that the Bloc and Conservatives could form a coalition.


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Harper is being political for sure, but at least he has an opinion and he is sticking to his guns. Layton is just sitting on the fence to see which direction favours him the most. That's not what I want politicians to do. I want them to stand up for their own beliefs, rather than be governed by opinion polls. It's no secret the Conservatives have been lower in the polls than they have wanted to be. I don't see a big move in opinion polls from this report due to fatigue with the whole Gomery inquiry. So, I don't think Harper is really being that opportunistic. I think he really believes, as I do, that the Liberal Party is corrupt and should be taken to task by the electorate.
> 
> I only used the term Tories because Mac Yak used it. It should stop using it as it carriers the baggage of Mulroney.


In my view, Harper's Conservatives would make more of an effort to topple the government if the holidays weren't just around the corner. Asking people to consider politics at Christmas/New Years -- and demanding they trudge through the snow to vote -- could be regarded as a trifle heavy-handed.

By the way: the Tories are the Tories and will remain so, inasmuch as the term has been the traditional epithet (like "Grits" for the Liberals) applied to the right-of-centre party, and has nothing to do with Mulroney:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tories


----------



## batman_dan (Oct 31, 2005)

*Ndp Ndp Ndp !*

I don't think the Conservatives will be anymore dependable, if they are not more corrupt. I like the NDP, but am contented by the Liberal party and their policies (although Mr Martin is not the greatest leader). that is my 2cents


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

I am hoping that the Green Party will get a seat or two this time around. Just to give the House of Commons something new, maybe shake things up a bit.

Liberal/Convservatve, Conservative/Liberal. I really do not see much of a difference. They're both look to their own needs before that of the country. 

NDP are not my cup of tea. Too much spending not enough 'where the hell are we going to get the money for all these programs'.

Bloc. Yay for democracy and all but I'd rather they'd be chained to barge and sunk in the St. Lawrence. That's just emotion talking, not logic.

So that leaves me begging for a none of the above. If that option was ever given, MPs would be voted in with 5 or 6 votes.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Mac Yak said:


> By the way: the Tories are the Tories and will remain so, inasmuch as the term has been the traditional epithet (like "Grits" for the Liberals) applied to the right-of-centre party, and has nothing to do with Mulroney:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tories


Thanks for the wiki link. 

So according to the author(s) there is still a lot of debate about whether Tory applies to the new Conservative Party. If the logic that a Tory was a generally right-of-centre person, then all the old Reform/Alliance member would have been Tories along with the PC's. I saw the "merger" as not much more than an attempt at re-branding the Reform/Alliance to increase electability. To me, using Tory to refer to a member of the new Conservative Party is only helping them in their re-branding attempt.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It is very feasible that the Bloc and Conservatives could form a coalition.


It may be possible, as in, they are capable of forming a coalition, but realistically what could such a government accomplish? The Bloc, outside of the fact that their agenda includes Quebec's ultimate separation, is a left-of-centre party, similar to the NDP. The only thing that both parties have in common is hatred of the Liberal government.

Would Harper be willing to horse-trade with the Bloc and surrender on issues that involve weakening the federation and hasten Quebec separation?

I don't really see how a minority Conservative government could function at all, unless they were willing to give up on their conservative agenda.

What many are saying here is true, unless the Conservative Party moves to the centre, somewhere into the area that Joe Clark occupied, which likely involves ditching Harper, then they don't have much chance of forming a government, or at least one that could work. With the current Liberal weakness they have the best chance that they will likely ever get, I don't understand why they don't see it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> What many are saying here is true, unless the Conservative Party moves to the centre, somewhere into the area that Joe Clark occupied, which likely involves ditching Harper, then they don't have much chance of forming a government, or at least one that could work. With the current Liberal weakness they have the best chance that they will likely ever get, I don't understand why they don't see it.


Yep, Harper is yesterday's man. When the Cs realize he is a bigger deterrent than an advantage they will begin to gain ground. Too bad that might be far too long.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Would Harper be willing to horse-trade with the Bloc and surrender on issues that involve weakening the federation and hasten Quebec separation?
> 
> I don't really see how a minority Conservative government could function at all, unless they were willing to give up on their conservative agenda.


The Bloc and Conservatives would definately make for strange bedfellows. But, both parties have advocated change (aka Reform) in Ottawa. Many of the provinces are not happy with the current amount of power that Ottawa exerts. Most provinces seem to want more control. I think the Bloc and Conservatives could find some common ground here. 

What is weakening the federation? Provincial / federal relations have not improved under the Liberals. If we don't make necessary changes we risk losing the federation altogether. I believe that weakening Ottawa will actually strengthen the federation. Ottawa should get out of education, health care delivery, housing, intraprovincial infrastructure amongst other things. The provinces and municipalities are in a better position to deliver these services.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And giving in to the separatist Bloc Quebecois would help? 
The change that the Bloc wants is nothing short of the break-up of Canada as it is now.

Weakening of Ottawa will only help the break-up of Canada - Quebec already has many concessions from the federal level and it has not helped the federation.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Vandave said:


> It is very feasible that the Bloc and Conservatives could form a coalition.


You must be kidding?
Do you really think any of the major national parties wants to be accused of contributing to the break up of Canada by getting into bed with the Separatists?


----------



## Strimkind (Mar 31, 2005)

I see nothing changing after this. All the Gomery report was restate what we already knew except I expected to see martin more involved. Either way, I have always been impartial about the liberals and expect some good things and some crap like this. Maybe if Ontario started voting NDP then we might get something new but that will not happen. Personally I vote green in hopes to see a green party member finally make it to parliment.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Ottawa should get out of education, health care delivery, housing, intraprovincial infrastructure amongst other things. The provinces and municipalities are in a better position to deliver these services.


I thought education and health care delivery are already under provincial jurisdiction, Ottawa just contributes some dollars - not sure what you mean by housing, etc.

In my mind, health care should be totally controlled by Ottawa, not the provinces at all. Right now, doctors and clinics in Ontario don't accept the Quebec Health Card, Same goes for doctors and clinics in Quebec who don't accept the OHIP card. 
This is totally ridiculous, this is supposed to be one country, not a bunch of provincial jurisdictions cobbled together.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> It is very feasible that the Bloc and Conservatives could form a coalition.


I posted the following once before, when similar speculation about the Bloc and the Cons getting into bed together was broached. Sorry, couldn't resist posting my joke again. 
---
Should be really interesting if the new lovers get themselves a minority government and have to start playing house together. I wonder what kind of happy home the socialist Bloc and neo-con Cons will be able to build together? 

_She was a passionate party, full of dreams of independence and a happy left-wing French-speaking home of her own, where she would no longer have to answer to that evil witch Ottawa. He was a cold and calculating party, who dreamed of upward mobility in a corporate dominated world, since his days back in Alberta on his daddy Preston's knee. Driven into each others arms by a seething hatred of the Liberals. Yes, but theirs was but an ill-fated one night stand, full of passion, and alarming bedroom gymnastics, only to be found sad and wanting in the cold light of day._

Should produce some weird looking offspring, though.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

More like incest, the Bloc was a PC splinter.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Harper is being political for sure, but at least he has an opinion and he is sticking to his guns. Layton is just sitting on the fence to see which direction favours him the most. That's not what I want politicians to do. I want them to stand up for their own beliefs, rather than be governed by opinion polls.


That is crap, Layton is standing up for Canadians. What he is demanding is not catering towards business or interest groups. How can you even consider that seeing an increase in healthcare spending for Canadians as being anything else? If the NDP catered to opinion polls we'd be in an election now. Give your head a shake. 



Vandave said:


> It's no secret the Conservatives have been lower in the polls than they have wanted to be. I don't see a big move in opinion polls from this report due to fatigue with the whole Gomery inquiry. So, I don't think Harper is really being that opportunistic. I think he really believes, as I do, that the Liberal Party is corrupt and should be taken to task by the electorate.


If Harper REALLY believed his own BS then he and his cronies would step down and put a more moderate group in charge of the leadership of the Conservative party. At issue here is his larger than life ego and the fact that his arrogance is what is preventing Canada from having a viable alternative.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

In response to Vandave's rant you said...



krs said:


> You must be kidding?
> Do you really think any of the major national parties wants to be accused of contributing to the break up of Canada by getting into bed with the Separatists?


Well the conspiracy minded could see that... Think about where the Conservatives look to for their political advice (the Republican Party). By creating an alliance with the Bloc both parties get what they want. The Conservatives get to push their harsh social/financial agenda and the separatists get to separate. The US Neocons would like nothing more than the failure of Confederacy here in the north. The US would be able to pick off provinces one by one and assimilate them as new states. There is a lot to be said about controlling one of the richest resource based economies without even firing a shot. 

Now of course that is entirely fiction... but I ask you at what price do we oust corruption?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

krs said:


> I thought education and health care delivery are already under provincial jurisdiction, Ottawa just contributes some dollars - not sure what you mean by housing, etc.
> 
> In my mind, health care should be totally controlled by Ottawa, not the provinces at all. Right now, doctors and clinics in Ontario don't accept the Quebec Health Card, Same goes for doctors and clinics in Quebec who don't accept the OHIP card.
> This is totally ridiculous, this is supposed to be one country, not a bunch of provincial jurisdictions cobbled together.


Both the provinces and feds have responsibilities for Health Care. I believe Constitutionally, it is provincial jurisdiction. The provinces provide around 80 to 90% of the funding and deliver the services themselves.

Ottawa is involved in housing projects throughout the country. We have a system that has three levels or government (not including NGOs) trying to deliver a single service. It's crazy. What a waste of money.

Our country was formed by cobbling provinces together. They are meant to have a high level of autonomy, but Ottawa keeps getting in the way. If you want Quebec to recognize your health card, then Ontario and Quebec should come up with a system. Why should a third party (the feds) do this?


----------



## pimephalis (Nov 29, 2004)

krs said:


> I thought education and health care delivery are already under provincial jurisdiction, Ottawa just contributes some dollars - not sure what you mean by housing, etc.
> 
> In my mind, health care should be totally controlled by Ottawa, not the provinces at all. Right now, doctors and clinics in Ontario don't accept the Quebec Health Card, Same goes for doctors and clinics in Quebec who don't accept the OHIP card.
> This is totally ridiculous, this is supposed to be one country, not a bunch of provincial jurisdictions cobbled together.



The accpetance (or lack thereof) health cards issue that you mention is the fault of the Quebec provincial government. Every other province was able to agree to bill in a reciprocal manner (meaning, if an Ontario visits a family doc in MB, MB pays the doc for the visit, and then bills Ontario at a pre-agreed upon rate for the service). Quebec refused to enter in to this arrangement with any other province, and thus Quebec citizens have to pay out of pocket when receiving health care services (primary care services) in another province, and then submit a claim to their provincial government for reimbursement.

Some would say that this is unnecessarily bureaucratic, inefficient and stupid. Another word that could be used here is 'parochial.'


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Vandave said:


> If you want Quebec to recognize your health card, then Ontario and Quebec should come up with a system. Why should a third party (the feds) do this?


Sorry if I didn't make myself clear - waht I was getting at is that everyone should have a *Canadian* healthcard that is recognized everywhere in Canada in the same way I have a *Canadian* passport.
Forget all those reciprocal agreements - that's just additional bureaucracy which translates into additional taxpayer dollars with no benefits.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

pimephalis said:


> The accpetance (or lack thereof) health cards issue that you mention is the fault of the Quebec provincial government. Every other province was able to agree to bill in a reciprocal manner (meaning, if an Ontario visits a family doc in MB, MB pays the doc for the visit, and then bills Ontario at a pre-agreed upon rate for the service). Quebec refused to enter in to this arrangement with any other province, and thus Quebec citizens have to pay out of pocket when receiving health care services (primary care services) in another province, and then submit a claim to their provincial government for reimbursement.
> 
> Some would say that this is unnecessarily bureaucratic, inefficient and stupid. Another word that could be used here is 'parochial.'


I don't think it's as straight forward than that. Hospitals in Quebec *do* take the OHIP card and hospitals in Ontario take the Quebec Health card. It's the doctors and clinics that do whatever they please. They must have the option of not accepting an 'out-of-province' health card and it definitely saves them a bunch of paperwork not accepting it.
Believe me, I have submitted claims to OHIP about treatments I received in Quebec and which are covered under healthcare. I haven't seen a nickel of reimbursement yet which really means I pay for these health services twice.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> That is crap, Layton is standing up for Canadians. What he is demanding is not catering towards business or interest groups. How can you even consider that seeing an increase in healthcare spending for Canadians as being anything else? If the NDP catered to opinion polls we'd be in an election now. Give your head a shake.


Layton is standing up for his ideology and catering towards their spending habits in a very smart read of opinion polls. The NDP, like all the parties, caters to its interest group(s) and their approach has major flaws, in many people's view, in what they want for the country. What is the spending supposed to accomplish? Where are the real goals? Is that the best use of the money?

Your argument seems to imply that the $4.6 billion (sort of) in extra spending must be wanted by all Canadians. This is simply not true. It is your opinion that it was a good thing. 

The NDP did cater to polls in making their deal, and did a very good job at it. The polls showed the Conservatives up in the spring and that an election wasn't wanted (difficult to analyse, becaue they're rarely wanted). Both things did not make an election a great opportunity for the NDP. They took this info and made a smart political deal consistent with their ideology.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Layton is standing up for his ideology and catering towards their spending habits in a very smart read of opinion polls. The NDP, like all the parties, caters to its interest group(s) and their approach has major flaws, in many people's view, in what they want for the country. What is the spending supposed to accomplish? Where are the real goals? Is that the best use of the money?
> 
> Your argument seems to imply that the $4.6 billion (sort of) in extra spending must be wanted by all Canadians. This is simply not true. It is your opinion that it was a good thing.
> 
> The NDP did cater to polls in making their deal, and did a very good job at it. The polls showed the Conservatives up in the spring and that an election wasn't wanted (difficult to analyse, becaue they're rarely wanted). Both things did not make an election a great opportunity for the NDP. They took this info and made a smart political deal consistent with their ideology.


4.6 Billion spent on boosting Healthcare in the budget... this isn't a tax rebate to the rich, which interest group do think it benefits if not Canadian? Certain some spending will be on capital equipment and consumables which does benefit the healthcare industry... but where is it that you think that universal healthcare is NOT wanted by Canadians... because that is what you are implying.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Wanting healthcare and supporting any money spent on it are different things...note that defense, tax cuts, education and numerous other priorities are important to many Canadians, and everyone wants a different balance and from different sources. 

The old rhetoric that if you don't support any and all healthcare funding implies that you don't want healthcare is a tired political ploy. It has been used for years to prevent a real debate on the issue by keeping the debate in an immature 'all or nothing' mythological netherworld where healthcare funding is somehow magically independent from everything else governments do. 

It's the same ploy the Republicans used to stifle any opposition to their security measures. It's a common political media strategy.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> It's the same ploy the Republicans used to stifle any opposition to their security measures. It's a common political media strategy.


Ouch... that really REALLY hurt my feelings.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> 4.6 Billion spent on boosting Healthcare in the budget... this isn't a tax rebate to the rich, which interest group do think it benefits if not Canadian? Certain some spending will be on capital equipment and consumables which does benefit the healthcare industry... but where is it that you think that universal healthcare is NOT wanted by Canadians... because that is what you are implying.


There is an optimal balance between taxes and government spending. Under the Liberal's, our federal government has grown at more than twice the inflation rate. It's not sustainable.

In my opinion, federal taxes are too high and I think it affects the overall health of our economy. We need to have lower taxes to encourage investment, employment and to reward productive people. The rich already foot a major portion of our taxes. I am not arguing against a progressive tax system, but people need to realize that in a global economy, its easy for capital to move and high taxes will discourage investing here. The best person to ask about this is the PM. He moved his money (Canada Steamship Lines) out of Canada for lower taxes in another jurisdiction. The best social and economic policy is to have strong employment so that government collects more total tax and less individual tax.

The feds hardly provide any health care funding to begin with. I am sick of Health Care being a Provincial, Federal and Municipal issue. It would be better if one level of government were to manage it. Firstly, it would be more cost effective and secondly, voters would be able to hold politicians accountable.

The federal Liberals essentially have gotten a free ride on the Health Care issue for the past ten years. If anything, they cut funding by reducing transfer payments to the provinces. Yet, the electorate still thinks the Liberals stand strongly for health care.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Ouch... that really REALLY hurt my feelings.


Better that than being called a war criminal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave: as is often the case, I agree with much of what you said. Multi-jurisdiction funding allows responsibility to be constantly shifted and leads to questionable outcomes. Territorial pissing matches take precedence over real improvements.

However, how is the concept of good healthcare for all enforced without a federal club (Canada Health Act + Billions$)? I'm not sure how every province could be forced into it without money on the line. Maybe it isn't the best goal (forcing it on every province, regardless of what people want in each province), but for people who want it, how can each province be forced to provide it? 

Of course, we have that mechanism but the feds keep wanting to expand their role with each $ instead of a sensible permanent % funding program that requires the Act to be followed, but after that, no involvement. The Liberals are very adept at getting the most power for the least $ from healthcare...gotta respect their strategic capabilities, if not their goals.

Along similar lines, is there a federal club for public education? Every province has it, but is there some national requirement? Something I would like to know more about -- national public education requirements (ie. federal funding requirements).


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> However, how is the concept of good healthcare for all enforced without a federal club (Canada Health Act + Billions$)? I'm not sure how every province could be forced into it without money on the line. Maybe it isn't the best goal (forcing it on every province, regardless of what people want in each province), but for people who want it, how can each province be forced to provide it?
> 
> Along similar lines, is there a federal club for public education? Every province has it, but is there some national requirement? Something I would like to know more about -- national public education requirements (ie. federal funding requirements).


I can understand the need for the feds to create a somewhat level playing field. I think the provinces should have flexibility for delivery of health care. The Canada Health Act should be relatively basic. As with anything, I am sure it would have to change over time and so the feds would have some bureaucracy indefinately. But, I think the feds should get out of funding it directly. The provinces should do the funding and delivery. The feds would manage transfer payments to prop up the less wealthy provinces.

For K to 12 education, I don't believe there is a federal body. Then again, I wouldn't surprise me if there was and that they did nothing.

When I said education earlier, I was refering to university and the planned Department of Babysitting (aka Daycare). I guess university is tough to pull from the feds, but I think the Babysitting service is totally unnecessary.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Better that than being called a war criminal.



It's funny how being called a War Criminal really depends on whether you are on the winning or losing side. But it is all Black and White for you and your keen conservative insight isn't it Vandave?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> There is an optimal balance between taxes and government spending. Under the Liberal's, our federal government has grown at more than twice the inflation rate. It's not sustainable.


That's funny I thought we are running on a surplus... and the last I looked the Canadian economy is humming along. Certainly we are faring better than we did under Mulroney, and we are certainly doing better than the US (with universal healthcare).

Is it perfect? perhaps not. Is it better than most... damn straight. Pick another battle, you are losing this one.



Vandave said:


> In my opinion, federal taxes are too high and I think it affects the overall health of our economy. We need to have lower taxes to encourage investment, employment and to reward productive people. The rich already foot a major portion of our taxes.


First off show me the numbers that support your "The rich already foot a major portion of our taxes". I think that argument is a load of crap and even if they did (which I am sure they are not) what is wrong with the rich footing more of the bill? The rich do not get rich off of the backs of the rich... I don't see Tim Horton executives manning the drive though counters.

Lower personal income tax does NOT equate to increased business investment... get your facts straight.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> When I said education earlier, I was refering to university and the planned Department of Babysitting (aka Daycare). I guess university is tough to pull from the feds, but I think the Babysitting service is totally unnecessary.


Hey Vandave... do you have kids? Are you a single parent working for minimum wage with two kids?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> It's funny how being called a War Criminal really depends on whether you are on the winning or losing side. But it is all Black and White for you and your keen conservative insight isn't it Vandave?


Deliberate and planned genocide is very black and white to me.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> That's funny I thought we are running on a surplus... and the last I looked the Canadian economy is humming along. Certainly we are faring better than we did under Mulroney, and we are certainly doing better than the US (with universal healthcare).
> 
> Is it perfect? perhaps not. Is it better than most... damn straight. Pick another battle, you are losing this one.


Yes, we have a surplus, and it is partly due to high taxes.

Our financial situation isn't as great as people seem to think. Everybody thinks that our continued surpluses and the US deficits mean Canada is in a much better financial position than the US. The real number to consider is Debt to GDP ratio. Our ratio is significantly higher than the US. That means, a big portion of our spending goes to paying off debt. Relatively speaking, the US spends less on this even with their recent deficits.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Hey Vandave... do you have kids? Are you a single parent working for minimum wage with two kids?


No and no. What's your point?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Deliberate and planned genocide is very black and white to me.


But firebombing a civilian population into submission is not black and white?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> No and no. What's your point?


The point being that you really don't know what you are talking about.

You have no idea what it is like trying to find childcare and why a national childcare policy will vastly benefit the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> First off show me the numbers that support your "The rich already foot a major portion of our taxes". I think that argument is a load of crap and even if they did (which I am sure they are not) what is wrong with the rich footing more of the bill? The rich do not get rich off of the backs of the rich... I don't see Tim Horton executives manning the drive though counters.


The top 10% of earners get 36% of taxable income and pay 52% of income taxes. Things like GST/PST would be less progressive. The rich people are paying for a huge amount of our government services. Everybody has a different idea of the right income tax structure, but the rich aren't a bottomless pit of money that can, or should, be taxed without question. Any tax increase/decrease deserves consideration of the economic system as a whole, the individuals and businesses being taxed, and the desired social outcomes.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The point being that you really don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> You have no idea what it is like trying to find childcare and why a national childcare policy will vastly benefit the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.


Believe it or not, people without kids do have a say in this policy. It's a national policy that we are all going to pay for, some will directly benefit and, hopefully, all with indirectly benefit. There's no reason to shut people out of a debate just because they aren't going to directly benefit from a proposed spending initiative.

Is it the best politically-feasible way to achieve the desired goals? Given other priorities, should those goals be pursued now? If politics was just about answering the question 'will people benefit?', it would be very simple: approve everything and go bankrupt.

The assumption that he doesn't know what he's talking about seems strange too. Some people demonstrate that they don't know what they are talking about, others are assumed to not know. What was that Twain quote?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Under the Liberal's, our federal government has grown at more than twice the inflation rate. It's not sustainable.


One thing worth correcting. Government revenue grows at about the rate of the nominal economy (4% - 5% per year, long-run). The issue with the Liberals is when their spending grows faster than this, not just inflation x 2(~4%). I believe it has grown faster. 

More worrying to me is poll-based multi-billion dollar spending initiatives. Very little planning, principle or goals, just keeping the government alive in the short term by creating medium and long-term spending. This is a recipe for waste.

[Edit: added below for clarity]
The childcare program itself had planning and was actually discussed in the Mulroney days. I'm not sure they ended up with the best plan, but at least it was openly discussed and debated.

Billions of other spending, however, have not had any planning. Not thinking about or openly discussing this magnitude of spending is very worrying to me.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> But firebombing a civilian population into submission is not black and white?


I assume you are refering to Dresdon or the N-bombs dropped in Japan during WWII.

Morally, I believe these acts were wrong. But morals also change over time and its difficult to judge the Allies when WWII was an all out war. In your previous thread you brought up the question of whether people who put 'war criminals' into power are also guilty of the same acts. This is similar to the conclusion reached by the allies by judging the German and Japanese populations as being guilty and consequently punishing them.

With the Nazis, the genocide of Jewish people was systematic, planned and very deliberate. I don't see the bombing of Dresdon and N-bombs in Japan as having moral equivalence. It's hard to explain why I feel this way. Maybe dropping a bomb is just less personal than the acts committed by the Nazis. Also, setting fires and creating havoc has a strategic value and is fitting to the objectives of war. 

To me, the Nazis were obviously war criminals. This is black and white. The actions of the allies are not so black and white.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The point being that you really don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> You have no idea what it is like trying to find childcare and why a national childcare policy will vastly benefit the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians.


That type of logic is idiotic. Imagine all of your opinions that are based on things you haven't experienced. The genocide discussion comes to mind. 

If you must know, my sister and myself were raised by a single mother. When my parents divorsed, my mom worked at Wolco to support the family. She went to university at the same time to get her teaching degree. So, she worked for minimum wage, went to school, took care of kids and paid for a mortgage and a car. Granted other members of our family assisted us, but I have some appreciation for the issue.

In my opinion, there are more efficient ways to support families than setting up a wasteful bureaucracy. I think all this does is reduce the standard of living for everybody. I would rather put money in people's pockets and let them decide the best way to spend their money, rather than a one fit solution for all.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Gomery Report Shmomery Report. 
I'm voting Green as usual.


----------



## Suite Edit (Dec 17, 2003)

SoyMac said:


> Gomery Report Shmomery Report.
> I'm voting Green as usual.


Couldn't have said it better!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Machiavelli comes to mind 
One can only exercise power when one is IN power.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Our financial situation isn't as great as people seem to think. Everybody thinks that our continued surpluses and the US deficits mean Canada is in a much better financial position than the US. The real number to consider is Debt to GDP ratio. Our ratio is significantly higher than the US. That means, a big portion of our spending goes to paying off debt. Relatively speaking, the US spends less on this even with their recent deficits.


WHAT are you talking about. 
Canada is headed to 25% debt to GDP and is currently under 40%.

The US is a mess and getting worse
Public debt (% of GDP) 2000-2004
57.98	57.47	59.75	62.43

Canada is healthy by any traditional financial standards and the US a total disaster.
What are you, still living in the 80s still like another west coaster. Canada's debt ratio was indeed 68% then and unsustainable.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I shuddered when I heard Bush announce how much a flu pandemic might cost the federal and state governments. With no end in sight in Iraq, one wonders when this house of cards shall fall down? I am certainly NOT hoping for this scenario to take place, but it is as if those in power within the Bush administration are driving at high speeds towards a dead end.................and then over the cliff we all go.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I assume you are refering to Dresdon or the N-bombs dropped in Japan during WWII.
> 
> Morally, I believe these acts were wrong. But morals also change over time and its difficult to judge the Allies when WWII was an all out war. In your previous thread you brought up the question of whether people who put 'war criminals' into power are also guilty of the same acts. This is similar to the conclusion reached by the allies by judging the German and Japanese populations as being guilty and consequently punishing them.


I'm unclear as to what punishment of the German and Japanese populations you are talking about? Surely it is not the Marshall plan you are speaking of? I didn't think there was any punitive component to that.




Vandave said:


> To me, the Nazis were obviously war criminals. This is black and white. The actions of the allies are not so black and white.


Well you just justified my point then. War criminality depends on which side you are on... the losing or the wining.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> In my opinion, there are more efficient ways to support families than setting up a wasteful bureaucracy. I think all this does is reduce the standard of living for everybody. I would rather put money in people's pockets and let them decide the best way to spend their money, rather than a one fit solution for all.


Well I am saddened that you could not learn from your own family situation as to how important a nationalized childcare program would be. Suffice to say I am curious as to how you plan to "put money" in peoples pockets? 

The average daily cost for childcare runs $25-30/day

So a single parent working on minimum wage makes (8 hour day) $55

That would make their take home pay $20-25/day or annualized $6,250/year after childcare expenses.

That is $6,250 a year to pay for lodging, transportation, food, etc...

Given that is about $10 000 below the poverty line it is reasonable to assume that person doesn't pay any taxes to begin with. So how do you expect that person to make ends meet and still be a productive member of the economy?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> WHAT are you talking about.
> Canada is headed to 25% debt to GDP and is currently under 40%.
> 
> The US is a mess and getting worse
> ...


What are you talking about? You are comparing apples and oranges.

Go to the Economists Website. Let's compare total public debt. In Canada (for 2003), it was 77% of GDP. In the US it was 62%. That makes our debt about 25% higher than the US.

http://www.economist.com/countries/Canada/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Economic Data

If you compare the levels of federal debt, you will find the same thing. But, total public debt is probably a better comparison.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Well I am saddened that you could not learn from your own family situation as to how important a nationalized childcare program would be. Suffice to say I am curious as to how you plan to "put money" in peoples pockets?
> 
> The average daily cost for childcare runs $25-30/day
> 
> ...


There are easier ways to help people out rather than create a whole new bureaucracy that will just be inefficient and deliver a poor service. The free market is well positioned to deliver a competitive daycare service with all sorts of options for parents.

As I have said in other threads, a guaranteed minimum wage, such as that proposed by our former Crime Minister, would be one way to subsidize lower income people. As long as people work a minimum numbers of hours, I think the system could work. Also, daycare expenses could be completely tax deductable.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

re: the original question. an interesting viewpoint from a CBC regular:

http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_051102.html

says it all for me.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> There are easier ways to help people out rather than create a whole new bureaucracy that will just be inefficient and deliver a poor service. The free market is well positioned to deliver a competitive daycare service with all sorts of options for parents.


If that were the case then we wouldn't be having this discussion on this topic would we? Free markets are NOT the solution for everything. If that were the case than there wouldn't be an issue around childcare at the moment because we have a free market.

The fact remains that the free market does NOT in this case provide an adequate response to the issue of childcare as I have already pointed out.



Vandave said:


> As I have said in other threads, a guaranteed minimum wage, such as that proposed by our former Crime Minister, would be one way to subsidize lower income people. As long as people work a minimum numbers of hours, I think the system could work. Also, daycare expenses could be completely tax deductable.


What... are you math intolerant? did you even read what I posted? Unless you set the minimum wage to close to $15-20/hr there is no way people can both work and pay for childcare as well as all their other expenses.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> If that were the case then we wouldn't be having this discussion on this topic would we? Free markets are NOT the solution for everything. If that were the case than there wouldn't be an issue around childcare at the moment because we have a free market.
> 
> The fact remains that the free market does NOT in this case provide an adequate response to the issue of childcare as I have already pointed out.


I agree, the free market isn't a solution to everything in and of itself. Let's face it, even George Bush is a socialist. I never advocated a purely free market solution so either you don't understand what I said or you are putting words in my mouth. I said, the government should intervene in other ways, rather than creating a bureaucracy.



da_jonesy said:


> What... are you math intolerant? did you even read what I posted? Unless you set the minimum wage to close to $15-20/hr there is no way people can both work and pay for childcare as well as all their other expenses.


Like EI, a guaranteed annual income would probably count as income on a tax return. Thus, people collecting it would still pay some level of taxes. Tax deductions would reduce the amount of tax. Also, I wasn't just refering to low income people, I was refering to the population as a whole.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A major criticism of the current childcare plan is that families that choose to have a stay at home parent may get nothing. I'm not sure how each provincial deal worked out in the end, but the idea was that you had to use the subsidised daycare spot. This seems to be pretty clearly against the interests of many families.

Second, family groups that choose a friend to look after their kids or rotated if they all had part-time jobs with different hours would also be left out...the plan would have initially required a certification/registration process. Not sure how it all played out, but it probably leaned towards more bureaucracy.

These are the kind of choices that can be eliminated with a heavy-handed program. These type of free market solutions can be worked with or against, depending on the government policy. Work with what families want to do, or just tell them what they can do.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I never advocated a purely free market solution


Ummm, I think you said (Ok ok, I know you said)...



Vandave said:


> The free market is well positioned to deliver a competitive daycare service with all sorts of options for parents


So which is it?




Vandave said:


> Like EI, a guaranteed annual income would probably count as income on a tax return. Thus, people collecting it would still pay some level of taxes. Tax deductions would reduce the amount of tax. Also, I wasn't just refering to low income people, I was refering to the population as a whole.


But the point with a national daycare program is to allow everyone to have an affordable option for childcare. 

And let me get this straight... so you think that there should be a guaranteed annual income for everyone. How does one qualify for this? How do you administer it? How do you pay for it? Aren't you replacing one form of bureaucracy for another? 

Seriously if you are for reducing bureaucracy, why aren't attacking the energy sector, where privatization has not only NOT reduced bureaucracy it has increased it.

Don't get me wrong, a guaranteed annual income which is above the poverty line sounds like a noble idea and I am all for it, however I also think that given current economics and politics it is unrealistic and open for substantial abuse. How do you prevent a low income parent from spending their "guaranteed annual income" on crystal meth as opposed to childcare?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well then the calculation basis for the total federal debt is skewed somewhere












> The federal market debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada fell below that of the U.S. in 2003–04
> 
> As a result of continued surpluses at the federal level in Canada and the deterioration in U.S. federal finances, the federal market debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada fell below the U.S. figure in 2003–04 for the first time since 1977–78.
> The Canadian federal market debt-to-GDP ratio fell to 36.1 per cent in 2003–04, from almost 60 per cent in 1995–96, while the U.S. figure rose for the third consecutive year last year to 37.2 per cent.
> This gap is expected to widen in 2004–05 as the Canadian ratio is expected to fall to 34.0 per cent while the U.S. ratio is expected to rise to 38.6 per cent.


and I don't see the Economist getting on Canada's case they way they've been continually on the US case

If Paul Volker considers the US economy in danger of a financial meltdown YOUR "rose coloured glasses" hardly carry any weight compared to his views.



> Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker says there is a 75 percent chance of a dollar crash within the next five years.





> This from The Washington Post: "I don't know of any country that has managed to consume and invest 6 percent more than it produces for long. The United States is absorbing about 80 percent of the net flow of international capital. And at some point, both central banks and private institutions will have their fill of dollars. I don't know whether change will come with a bang or a whimper, whether sooner or later. But as things stand, it is more likely than not that it will be financial crises rather than policy foresight that will force the change....But can we, with any degree of confidence today, look forward to any one of these policies being put in place any time soon, much less a combination of all? The answer is no. So I think we are skating on increasingly thin ice" --Paul Volker, April 10, '05


I'll take the Canadian model and actual situation over the US any day.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Well then the calculation basis for the total federal debt is skewed somewhere
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What Vandave is failing to take into account is trade deficits. Canada is a net exporter of goods and services whereas the US is a net importer. When you look at calculations of debt vs. GDP the numbers only mean anything when they are considered in the context of trade deficits.

It is pretty simple once you think about it. 

Consider this, if you have a household that has debt and have the means to pay for that debt then you pay your bills and all is well. If you have a household that does not have a means to pay for that debt you can max out your credit card and refinance only so long before the bank forecloses on your debt.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So which is it?
> 
> Seriously if you are for reducing bureaucracy, why aren't attacking the energy sector, where privatization has not only NOT reduced bureaucracy it has increased it.


This seems to happen a lot with some...

Stating that the free markets are well positioned to deliver competitive daycare is not the same as a purely free market solution. Vandave clearly pointed out income as a problem. This is not that complicated. The free market can supply numerous options, but people need the funds: not purely free market.

The problem of making sure the parents spend their money on daycare (and not drugs) has been raised. Do we design the whole policy to prevent this minority from abusing it? It has been done before, but so has government waste.

What are you refering to in energy? Probably best for another thread...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Well then the calculation basis for the total federal debt is skewed somewhere
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The answer is in your word...'federal'. Canada has significant provincial debt (20%+ of GDP, off the top of my head) while that isn't a major factor in the U.S. The federal debt-to-gdp ratio substantially understates Canada's debt position.

Civil servant pension accounting is also different, but I forget which way that goes in each country's figures.

And, I'll take the Canadian model too, but it does include large provincial debt.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> What Vandave is failing to take into account is trade deficits. Canada is a net exporter of goods and services whereas the US is a net importer. When you look at calculations of debt vs. GDP the numbers only mean anything when they are considered in the context of trade deficits.
> 
> It is pretty simple once you think about it.
> 
> Consider this, if you have a household that has debt and have the means to pay for that debt then you pay your bills and all is well. If you have a household that does not have a means to pay for that debt you can max out your credit card and refinance only so long before the bank forecloses on your debt.


Your analogy is good, and describes the debt/gdp ratio. Trade balances are already factored in to gdp (exports - imports is a component) so there is no extra 'context' needed for that.

You may be thinking of the current account, which is more an indicator of currency sustainability or foreign denominated debt. Things get quite a bit more complex at that point.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

The problem with tax deductions is that they benefit people who are well off much more than those who are scraping by. If you don't earn much, tax deductions don't have much impact on your income tax, so they don't help you.

Child care expense is tax deductible, if I recall correctly, in the hands of the lower wage earner in the family, up to a maximum (which is well below the cost of private day care). If that person were actually earning minimum wage, the deduction is practically worthless, so it does not help the working poor pay for daycare.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

K-12 education is a provincial matter, although the federal government does contribute to post-secondary education. I have long been a supporter for a federally-funded child care program for children from age 2-12. This would be regulated, NOT the system they have in Australia which is corporate controlled for-profit babysitting, and funded so that day care workers could be paid more than minimum wages. I have been on the Board of Directors of the only provincially funded family care center (for both children and parents who are on public assistance), and I am currently on the Board of Directors of the MUNSU Childcare Centre here at Memorial University. As one who was a single parent from the time my son was almost four until he was almost 9, I understand the need of good childcare. As an educator in a Faculty of Education, I understand the importance of quality childcare.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hmmm California's state debt $25,547,546,480.00 would seem to me to be not insignificant.
http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/

Poll after poll in Ontario says voters are not looking for tax cuts but are looking for better value for their tax dollars.
Hazel McCallion told Eves the same thing - he didn't listen.

Overall my feeling is there needs to be more oversight with teeth. I think Martin has taken some steps with oversight but not yet enough.
It COULD be a job for the second house BUT that's having the fox guard the henhouse 

How can auditor general reports both provincial and federal be given more force of law.??

Too much self serving tho perhaps some progress has been made in preventing corporate donations at the federal elections level. Takes away some of the inherent tendencies of corp/gov inbreeding abuses.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Poor wording on my part, sorry. It is not as major. For example, QC and ON have about CDN$100 billion in net debt each, but their population and economies are far smaller than California's.

I actually agree with a fair amount of what you said...something must be wrong.

I don't agree on the corp/gov inbreeding abuses as inherent tendencies, but we know we disagree on that. 

I do like what Chretien did to campaign funding...take out the abuse potential in general.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I don't agree on the corp/gov inbreeding abuses as inherent tendencies


How come Power Corp and Paul Desmarais stays such a low profile while having just about every ex PM and Premiere alive as a director.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm not getting into a conspiracy discussion on this. We just don't see eye-to-eye on it.

If there's evidence, maybe start a thread to discuss the evidence. But don't expect me to go along with the standard corporate/wealthy slagging like it's some sort of conventional wisdom.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It has nothing t do with conspiracy and everything to do with the traditional Canadian old boys network which Newman laid out way back when.
It's quite out in the open and it's one reason I'm surprised some get their nose out of joint on something like the sponsorship scandal.
It's been done that way in politics forever and will continue.
If that was any surprise about Quebec politics then people are are being naifs.

It's what good oversight systems should take care of when abuses like that occur but that it occurs should be no surprise to anyone.

You don't need "theory" to observe the establishment protecting its interests - the issue is how to get a real reform voice ala Preston Manning without all the social conservative baggage attached.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So which is it??


You're not winning a discussion by taking my quotes out of context. I think it is clear what my position is. If you don't agree with my position fine, but don't take quotes out of context to try and show that my opinion is invalid. I guess I will repeat myself.... I don't think the free market is a solution unto itself. I think the government should indirectly fund a daycare program (e.g. using a Guaranteed Annual Income) but use the private sector to deliver the service. Get it?



da_jonesy said:


> But the point with a national daycare program is to allow everyone to have an affordable option for childcare.
> 
> And let me get this straight... so you think that there should be a guaranteed annual income for everyone. How does one qualify for this? How do you administer it? How do you pay for it? Aren't you replacing one form of bureaucracy for another?
> 
> ...


To qualify, you would have to: a) make less than the GAI; b) work a minimum number of hours per year (say 1500); and, c) if unemployed, you get cutoff after a certain period of time (incentive to find work and not abuse the system). Payments would be made bi-weekly (probably on a monday) so that people don't blow their money and stupid things (e.g meth).

Yes, this would take administration. I think overall this would reduce the size of government. By putting money in people's pockets, you let them decide how to spend it. We can get rid of other bureaucratic programs as well and let the private sector deliver such services.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Umm there is a difference between a gov run and gov funded daycare.
What you think civil servants will be changing diapers.??

Daycare is as much in need of standards as schooling is - perhaps more so. It's a needed extension of the educational system.
Quebec does it - let's use that for a model.



> Quebec already has a universal $7-a-day child care program in place since 1997. This program has been recognized worldwide and has been hailed as a model for the other provinces and territories. NUPGE


http://www.buildchildcare.ca/www/background

http://www.childcarecanada.org/res/issues/quebec.html


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Back to the original topic...

Anybody catch the latest poll showing the Liberals at 31% and the Conservatives at 30%? They are neck and neck in Ontario. I am surprised at the drop in the Liberals fortune. The public is clearly more concerned about Gomery than I expected. I thought it had already blown by. Although we are going to wait till spring for an election, I think this will have legs until that time.

The NDP only marginally increased their percentage. I think it was from 18 to 19%. So as I predicted, Jack Layton came out today and said he doesn't want an election right now. Why?... Because the total votes for Liberal + NDP has dropped 7 points. Had it stayed the same or gone up, we would be heading to the polls.

There is a good chance the Liberals and NDP won't form a minority government next election. A Conservative majority is also unlikely and a coalition with the Bloc is questionable, but possible. So where does this leave the Liberals? It seems if they want to play government 6 months from now, it will have to include the Conservatives. Could we see NDP, Liberal and Conservative appointed Ministers 6 months from now? Imagine, a Conservative appointed Minister of Finance and Minister of Defence with an NDP Minister of Health and Liberals holding all other positions. I think that is something most Canadians could swallow.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The difference comes in some of the examples I set out. It may be worthwhile for the greater good, but alternatives are worth discussing and not some instantly wrong or right debate. One path was chosen, was it the practical best? Was it the best use of funds? What was wrong with the other options? You have $5 billion to allocate, is this the best use?

It's distrubing to see the constant political-quality dialogue here. We can do better.


----------



## 8127972 (Sep 8, 2005)

You know. I am a conservative at heart. But Steven Harper and all his right wing friends scare the crap out of me. For me to vote for them is like me voting for the Republicans. There's no way in hell I'd do it. The NDP is way too left for me, so what choice do I have but to vote Liberal? 

If there was a moderate conservative party out there (PC's for example), I'd vote for them in a heartbeat.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I don't think the free market is a solution unto itself. I think the government should indirectly fund a daycare program (e.g. using a Guaranteed Annual Income) but use the private sector to deliver the service. Get it?


You didn't say that. And I did not take your works out of context.



Vandave said:


> Payments would be made bi-weekly (probably on a monday) so that people don't blow their money and stupid things (e.g meth).


And how exactly do you think that makes a difference? You um... ever know anyone with a substance abuse problem? Getting their check on Monday means nothing.



Vandave said:


> By putting money in people's pockets, you let them decide how to spend it.


Methinks you put a little more faith in peoples rationality than I do. If you honestly think this is a good idea why not bring it up at the next conservative policy convention.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just voted in this poll.

And the results are about what I might have expected from this place...

The horribly corrupt thieves who are known arond here as the "Federal Liberal Party of Canada" got the MOST votes. Duh. This is ehmac, after all...

The second most votes on this ehmac poll went to a Canadian political party that embraces a totally failed ideology that is now being rapidly abandoned by almost every thinking group of people on the face of the whole planet. A splinter party ( currently 19 seats out of 300) that has no hope of ever attaining a serious power base, and that takes it's marching orders (and most of it's income) from the rapidly shrinking trade unionist movement.

That would be the NDP.

Third place goes to the brand new Conservative party.

Which, when all is said and done, will likely be the very next ruling party in power over all of us. Like it or not. (the Liberals are a spent force, and sooner or later they will be gone).

But...the results of this ehmac poll?...

(Mr Rogers voice here) 
_"All right boys and girls...can you say "out of touch" here? Can you say deeply ingrained "Leftist/Liberal" dogma here? At the expense of the good of the whole COUNTRY?_

I just knew you could.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm hoping the story next election will be ehmac's fourth place (Green). The NDP are not a virtuous party of the people (something 'the people' have repeatedly pointed out to them), the Conservatives are a grassroots reactionary party with little vision demonstrated to date and the Liberals are what they are not what they say. 

Hopefully the next election will show the traditional parties to drop the spend and hate dialogue and, in the process, maybe the Greens will mature enough to become a new traditional party. A 10%+ vote share and a few seats for Green would probably do this.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

This pretty much sums up the way I feel.


----------

