# Harper's Sins



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Here is a handy summary of Harper's sins, adapted by C. Davis from a list apparently compiled by Frances Ricks, Ph.D.:

Mr. Harper....
- Breached his own fixed election laws
-Taxed income trusts despite a pre-election promise not to tax them
- Didn't answer the allegations he bribed Chuck Cadman to vote with the harper party
- Produced a guide to disrupting parliamentary committees
- Several of his ministers have misled parliament (Clements, MacKay and Oda)
- Prorogued parliament twice to avoid defeat in the House
- Found in contempt of parliament 3 times
- Muzzled his ministers and MPs
- Sacked or forced resignation of public servants who tried to do their jobs rather than kowtowing to him (e.g. Linda Keen for insisting on safety standards at Chalk River, Munir Sheikh of Stats Can, many others)
- Cancelled the long form census which provides vital data to businesses and others, spending more of our money to do so
- Leads the most secretive government in Canadian history
- After inheriting a surplus, created the largest deficit in our country`s history
- Continues to claim credit for "strong economy" whose strength actually comes from Liberal surplus and Liberal refusal to gut banking regulations (Harper supported deregulation)
- Insisted there was no economic crisis, took action only under intense pressure from opposition, media
- Spent $1.2 billion on G-8, including fake lake while his police brutally assaulted peaceful demonstrators and observers, including women and an aging civil servant
- Wants to spend $10 billion on prisons for unreported criminals, although crime rate continues its long decline
- Wants to spend $18 – 30 billion on planes that have yet to be built, and no case made for why we need them
- Spent $100 million advertising what a wonderful a leader he is, and thereby bought much support from the media
- Has ignored climate change and earned Canada more environmental "fossil" awards than any prior Prime Minister
- Has tarnished Canada's international reputation to the extent that we were denied a seat on the UN Security Council
- Persistently concealed information about the abuse of Afghan detainees
- By losing the rights to use Camp Mirage, endangered our troops and and cost $300 million
- Bribed two provinces to bring in the Harper Sales Tax against the wishes of the people
- Gave a standing ovation to a minister who misled parliament and forged a document
- Appointed two senators who had 67 forged invoices, falsely claiming tax rebates for election expenses.
- His staff is being investigated by police about 3 separate incidents
- Is a control freak who has constantly demonstrated his contempt for parliament and the 2/3 of Canadians who have voted against him. If he were to get a majority he would act to gut health care, the CBC and other quintessential Canadian institutions - as he already has the census.

Vote anybody but Harper


----------



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

Picky, picky, picky, Dr.T. You should not let the facts stand in the way of a good campaign. Hopefully, the Conservatives will ignore these facts ............... and the voters will only look forward to the glorious possibility of a Conservative Party/Harper Government majority. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I support many of Harper's sins and would prefer many of the others to Layton's or Ignatieff's "virtues."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All I can say is that to carry that much obvious hatred for a government or a man must be taxing on the mind.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

To be fair, I've seen a whole lot of real hatred for the liberals coming from you Sinc.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

LOL! All I see there is comedy. Dion followed by Iggy even lower in the polls is hilarious. Or in your language, screamingly funny or loud, or screeching.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

[


SINC said:


> All I can say is that to carry that much obvious hatred for a government or a man must be taxing on the mind.


How does the following show any hatred on Dr. Ricks' part:

- Breached his own fixed election laws


Or this:

- Sacked or forced resignation of public servants who tried to do their jobs rather than kowtowing to him (e.g. Linda Keen for insisting on safety standards at Chalk River, Munir Sheikh of Stats Can, many others)

Or this:

- After inheriting a surplus, created the largest deficit in our country`s history


Or this:
- Wants to spend $10 billion on prisons for unreported criminals, although crime rate continues its long decline

Or this:

- Wants to spend $18 – 30 billion on planes that have yet to be built, and no case made for why we need them

Or any of the others? (Since I chose those utterly at random) 

These are not facts about Dr Ricks' psychological state, these are facts about Mr Harper's behaviour. They are reasons why Mr Harper is unfit to be PM.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Gotta love the religious connotations to this thread....I guess sin depends of what religion you belong to. lol


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

No point in trying, They like their sins and are happy living with them,
Whether it's Mulroney or Harper, They will always believe these guys are and were right.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I support many of Harper's sins and would prefer many of the others to Layton's or Ignatieff's "virtues."


I would be most interested to know which sins those are that you support and prefer.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

You can talk of all the sins you like, but tomorrow, go to your bank and withdraw some money, then go home and walk into your house. It doesn't matter how much you take out. The point is, the money is there and your house is not in foreclosure.

Pretty basic... in Canada. Not elsewhere.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I prefer the sin of 'not trying to bribe the voters with their own (or their children's) tax dollars'. 

So, instead of casting the first stone, perhaps people could do something a little positive and talk about why we should vote for someone.

I'm not going to vote 'against' Harper just because of a list of so-called sins. I much prefer to vote FOR someone.

(My memory goes back longer than four years and I can still remember Chretien saying "What's a $100 million?", so we could all get into the mud slinging - it's just easier to sling mud at people who are in power at the moment. It's particularly easy to sling mud at a minority government.)

So ... tell me why I should vote for someone else?

*By the way, the platform the Federal Liberals introduced today - the $1000 a year Canadian Learning Passport - has been in place in BC for many years. It's called the 'Passport to Education' here and each term that a child is on the Honour Roll in grades 10, 11 & 12, they get a 'stamp' in their passport which is redeemable for tuition in a post secondary course or apprenticeship program. Way to pretend to be innovative.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MLeh said:


> I prefer the sin of 'not trying to bribe the voters with their own (or their children's) tax dollars'.
> 
> So, instead of casting the first stone, perhaps people could do something a little positive and talk about why we should vote for someone.
> 
> ...


If I had the choice, I wouldn't vote for anybody in Canada ever again.

Mostly because of where we are at from the sins of our previous governments.
A long list would need to be reversed first before I could put my trust back into Canada.

Unfortunately, I have to vote for the community I live in.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> I would be most interested to know which sins those are that you support and prefer.


I support all of the following, even though your simplistic version of what happened is not always accurate:

* Breached his own fixed election laws
* Taxed income trusts despite a pre-election promise not to tax them
* Cancelled the long form census which provides vital data to businesses and others, spending more of our money to do so
* Continues to claim credit for "strong economy" whose strength actually comes from Liberal surplus and Liberal refusal to gut banking regulations (Harper supported deregulation)
* Insisted there was no economic crisis, took action only under intense pressure from opposition, media (I wish he had stuck to his guns, but I appreciate him holding back).
* Wants to spend $18 – 30 billion on planes that have yet to be built, and no case made for why we need them
* Has ignored climate change and earned Canada more environmental "fossil" awards than any prior Prime Minister
* Has tarnished Canada's international reputation to the extent that we were denied a seat on the UN Security Council (untrue, but I appreciate him standing up to the UN)
* If he were to get a majority he would act to gut health care, the CBC and other quintessential Canadian institutions - as he already has the census.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*Harper's sins: the short list*



Macfury said:


> I support all of the following, even though your simplistic version of what happened is not always accurate:
> 
> .....


Thank you for this list. 

I don't think those descriptions (which aren't mine) are simplistic, rather maybe bound up with a whole mess of presuppositions, and so if we look at 'em one at a time, we might understand the opposing positions a bit more better...To Be Continued


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> Thank you for this list.
> 
> I don't think those descriptions (which aren't mine) are simplistic, rather maybe bound up with a whole mess of presuppositions, and so if we look at 'em one at a time, we might understand the opposing positions a bit more better...To Be Continued


That's fair. They're bound up in pre-suppositions, not simplistic.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Lichen Software said:


> You can talk of all the sins you like, but tomorrow, go to your bank and withdraw some money, then go home and walk into your house. It doesn't matter how much you take out. The point is, the money is there and your house is not in foreclosure.
> 
> Pretty basic... in Canada. Not elsewhere.


I am sorry but the relevance of this to the thread is something i do not understand. Pls spell it out a bit, if you are so inclined. 

PS We aren't going to be talking about MY sins, right?


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

MLeh said:


> I prefer the sin of 'not trying to bribe the voters with their own (or their children's) tax dollars'..


Mr Mayor, how do I quote and push the "Like" button for said quote?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> Mr Mayor, how do I quote and push the "Like" button for said quote?


Like this:


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*I need a crayon*



Macfury said:


> Like this:


I need a crayon like Macfury has.


----------



## An Old Soul (Apr 24, 2006)

It's just crazy that the Liberals got the boot for the Sponsorship scandal which cost Canadians a fraction compared to the Conservatives spending the Liberal 8 billion surplus through to record deficit. We didn't suffer the same economic problems as the states because of Liberal policy, not Conservative policy.

In every category that I care about except for small business, the Harper government has been deplorable. As a small business owner I appreciate the help we've gotten, but I'd gladly see it go to see them out.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*I have some problems with this*



Lawrence said:


> If I had the choice, I wouldn't vote for anybody in Canada ever again.
> 
> Mostly because of where we are at from the sins of our previous governments.
> A long list would need to be reversed first before I could put my trust back into Canada.
> ...


1. The system is set up so you do not trust your government. 

Democracy is not about electing people to office many times, but about telling the government that their time is up and that they should not let the door hit them on the rear end on the way out. The power of the system is that you get to do this without a shot ever being fired. Libians envy you right now. They would love to spend the $8.60 per person it is going to cost us to get rid of Gadhafi.

Minority government can be about many things from (a) we are not sure to (b) interests are fractured to (c) a pox on all your houses so we will leave you guys to fight it out. Overall, there is no clear vision on the part of the voters concerning overall direction. 

Right now, it appears from my reading that people trust the government for economic guidance but would like some oversight in other areas. Also, there is a fracture as presented by the Boc taking a large swath of votes in a single area for that area's own gain over the balance of the country. The series of minority governments just tells me that the situation has not yet resolved itself. 

Resolution is a messy thing, apparently. But our process has not be suborned. It is still in the hands of the voter. I would suggest that if you look south of the border, that process is more in debate with layers of insulation between the government and the actual voter and really questionable representation and questionable results from the process.

2. Voting is your tool. If you do not vote ... do not bitch. You, and only you, threw your voice in the toilet and flushed it away. Don't look for sympathy in this matter. As my bookkeeper, through all my years in real estate, used to tell me, "Sympathy is in the dictionary, somewhere between ***** and syphilis". 

I will vote. Then I can bitch. I will have earned my right.

3. All previous government have sins. Even if they do not have sins, over the sands of time, things change and the things that appeared quite fine then appear to be sins now. It's called hindsight.

I would put forth as an example of this the Avroe Arrow. The conservative government of John Diefenbaker finally killed the project. This caused the diaspora of our fledgling aerospace industry. We are only now getting some of this back 50 years later with Bombardier in their domestic aircraft production. We had some glimmers with the space arm, but no overall development strategy or presence.

The decision at the time was somewhat different. There was a burgeoning deficit. The Arrow was on the bleeding edge of technology at the time and was costing a mint. It was not wartime. The United States frankly did not like the Arrow and what it signified for their own industries and made it plain that they would like it scrapped and would not buy it and put a lot of pressure on us. I do not know how much of the world's military purchases the Americans were making then, but currently they spend more than all other countries combined. So that indicated it was gong to cost now and forever more with little chance of payback. I think the fact that the plans were destroyed and the prototypes cut up into unrecognizable scrap is an indication of how much pressure was brought to bear at the time.

But some perspective: The space program was just starting. The tech payoffs from the Apollo flights were not evident. We forget that everything from computers to teflon to WD-40 and all of the commercial wealth that it implies arose from this program.

The only sin was not having a crystal ball.

I was only a child when this happened. I am sure there are some on this list with much clearer memories of the time.

4. Of course you have to vote for the community you live in. Why would you vote for anywhere else. If the community you live in is so distasteful that you feel absolutely none of your values are present and your vote would count for nothing, I would suggest that you change communities. People do it all the time. Canada is a big country.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

An Old Soul said:


> It's just crazy that the Liberals got the boot for the Sponsorship scandal which cost Canadians a fraction compared to the Conservatives spending the Liberal 8 billion surplus through to record deficit. We didn't suffer the same economic problems as the states because of Liberal policy, not Conservative policy.
> 
> In every category that I care about except for small business, the Harper government has been deplorable. As a small business owner I appreciate the help we've gotten, but I'd gladly see it go to see them out.


That surplus was built off the backs of Canadians. It was never their money to keep. All it meant was they were overdrawing and underspending at our expense.

They wasted $500 million cancelling the Sea King replacements. They spent more fixing them than they did actually flying them. But hey, it only took 15 years or so for the replacements to finally arrive. The Libs also cut DND spending so much that our Forces had to BORROW equipment when they went to Afghanistan.

Our dollar is the strongest it's been in the last 20 years or so and we've fared better than our friends south of the border.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> That surplus was built off the backs of Canadians. It was never their money to keep. All it meant was they were overdrawing and underspending at our expense.
> 
> They wasted $500 million cancelling the Sea King replacements. They spent more fixing them than they did actually flying them. But hey, it only took 15 years or so for the replacements to finally arrive. The Libs also cut DND spending so much that our Forces had to BORROW equipment when they went to Afghanistan.
> 
> Our dollar is the strongest it's been in the last 20 years or so and we've fared better than our friends south of the border.


There just better be 50 billion dollars plus still there when the Tories leave office in Ottawa,
The 50 billion saved up by the previous Martin government from our unemployment insurance.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

*Voting based upon fiscal policy*

Fiscal policy:

There is a truism that one should 'campaign like a liberal but govern like a conservative', that applies to fiscal policy.

One of the previous posters mentioned something about how interest on mortgage payments was not a tax deduction in Canada, and I say 'good', because that's the major difference between why the US is in such dire straits and Canada is doing much, much better.

In the US, mortgage interest can be deducted from your income taxes as a write off. Therefore it is not in anyone's interest to pay off their mortgage debt, which resulted in very high ratio mortgages. Which is all fine and dandy while the housing market is increasing. But the net result is very little equity, and when the housing market recedes a bit then very quickly people who have little equity find they actually owe more on their house than it is worth, which results in people walking away from their mortgages. In very simplistic terms: This is what caused the housing crisis in the USA.

I hope mortgage interest is NEVER able to be written off of income taxes in Canada, because right now people have an incentive to pay off their mortgages and obtain some equity in their homes - so that when a downturn comes they don't simply 'walk away' from their responsibilities.

Taxation policy is the best method the government of the day has to 'encourage' people to follow the government fiscal policy. Tax deductions are a way of shaping fiscal action in the populous.

So, when I look at a political party, I look at their fiscal policies. Most of these fiscal policies are enacted in taxation rules.

This is the way I see it: the further to the left you are on fiscal policies, the more the government thinks you're an idiot and the more money you should give to the government so that they can spend it on you. (Actually, the further left you go, the more you think it is 'other people's money' that should be spent on you ...) 

The further you are to the right on fiscal policies, the more you think the government is run by idiots and (aside from a few 'necessities and common interests - roads, infrastructure, etc.) you feel you are in a better position to judge where your money should be spent.

I am a fiscal conservative. I do believe that there are some necessities and common interests where government is absolutely necessary. I don't mind paying taxes to accomplish these things. But I do believe that overall I am responsible for my own life and retirement. I believe that I need to take responsibility for my own choices in life. I need to plan for the future and not expect someone to hand me a living later on just because I'm old and haven't died yet. 

I don't expect to 'get as much out as I put in' from my taxes. Life doesn't work that way. (As mama said "Life _isn't_ fair.") There are lots of people who have genuine needs. My taxes are going to help those people _now_. My taxes are NOT going into some big vast vault that I will be able to draw from when I get to retirement age.

So, I look at the fiscal policies of the various parties that are running for election. I liked Paul Martin. A lot. Probably the only Liberal I would have actually ever voted for. I think Paul Martin is responsible for a lot of the reasons why Canada is in such good shape right now. However Paul Martin didn't know how to 'campaign like a Liberal'. Poor Paul.

So, which parties are encouraging us to be fiscally responsible? RRSPs were introduced in 1957. Conservative government.

The current minority conservative government has introduced the poorly named 'TFSA', which also encourage us to save. Fiscal policy.

Which government introduced the concept of 'deficit spending'? Oh, Pierre ... Didn't you know that deficit spending is mortgaging our children's futures? 

The other difference is in where we get taxed. Do we get taxed on income or on spending? Taxing on income discourages innovation. Why should I work harder (or smarter) if the results of my efforts are just going to result in me paying more and more taxes. Taxing on consumption means those who spend more get taxed more. I'm okay with consumption taxes, especially if 'necessities' are exempt from consumption taxes (which they currently are).

Fiscal policy is not something that is sexy and responds to the 'What's in it for ME' attitude most voters express.

But for me, when I'm casting my ballot, it all comes down, for _me_, to 'Fiscal Policy'.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> The other difference is in where we get taxed. Do we get taxed on income or on spending? Taxing on income discourages innovation. Why should I work harder (or smarter) if the results of my efforts are just going to result in me paying more and more taxes. Taxing on consumption means those who spend more get taxed more. I'm okay with consumption taxes, especially if 'necessities' are exempt from consumption taxes (which they currently are).


Move as much of it as possible to consumption, where everybody can see it. Then everyone pays taxes based on how much they can afford to spend--meaning the government is in a position to encourage real economic growth to feather its nest. Create some sort of minimum tax if necessary to ensure that the government can operate in an economic downturn.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Lawrence said:


> There just better be 50 billion dollars plus still there when the Tories leave office in Ottawa,
> The 50 billion saved up by the previous Martin government from our unemployment insurance.


Don't bet on it. The Libs were using it to pay down deficit before Harper ever came to office. It was harder to collect EI under the Libs and that money was in turn used to pay down debt.

We will never see it again. Buh-bye!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Don't bet on it. The Libs were using it to pay down deficit before Harper ever came to office. It was harder to collect EI under the Libs and that money was in turn used to pay down debt.
> 
> We will never see it again. Buh-bye!


Hey, I want to know what happened to that surplus from 1948. Where's that gone?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Don't bet on it. The Libs were using it to pay down deficit before Harper ever came to office. It was harder to collect EI under the Libs and that money was in turn used to pay down debt.
> 
> We will never see it again. Buh-bye!


Yep they were also raiding the CPP fund as well, hence the current failure to increase benefits, even though real inflation rates are around 10%. Real inflation BTW looks at mundane things like food, insurance, utilities, transportation, and taxes; rather than cherry-picking a handful of items that did not go up in price.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Yep they were also raiding the CPP fund as well, hence the current failure to increase benefits, even though real inflation rates are around 10%. Real inflation BTW looks at mundane things like food, insurance, utilities, transportation, and taxes; rather than cherry-picking a handful of items that did not go up in price.


Funny thing, I feel inflation worst on things the government is regulating or involved with. Even the rise in food prices can largely be attributed to the US federal government's idiotic subsidy on the use of corn crops for ethanol. In Ontario, the revenue neutral HST is eating me alive, as are the electricity prices bloated by McGuinty's Green Wet Dream.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Don't bet on it. The Libs were using it to pay down deficit before Harper ever came to office. It was harder to collect EI under the Libs and that money was in turn used to pay down debt.
> 
> We will never see it again. Buh-bye!


Took me awhile to find, But you are somewhat right, But...
Both parties were as guilty as each other as explained in this very slow to load pdf:

"Where did the money go"

See attached images also.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> *That surplus was built off the backs of Canadians. It was never their money to keep. All it meant was they were overdrawing and underspending at our expense.*
> 
> They wasted $500 million cancelling the Sea King replacements. They spent more fixing them than they did actually flying them. But hey, it only took 15 years or so for the replacements to finally arrive. The Libs also cut DND spending so much that our Forces had to BORROW equipment when they went to Afghanistan.
> 
> Our dollar is the strongest it's been in the last 20 years or so and we've fared better than our friends south of the border.


+1 So few people seem to understand this.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Myself, I've always voted liberal. But I can say I've been relatively okay with a conservative minority. I've disagreed with some of Stephen Harper's decisions (G8 spending, flip-flopping on senate reform, pro-roging parliament again) and strongly disagreed with other decisions (pretty much everything military). 

But on the other hand I have had trouble blaming him for everything. The other parties certainly had a play in the deficit by insisting on economic action. 

I guess I'd just like to see a continued conservative minority and an end to Stephen Harper's instance on needing a majority (and the associated tactics involved). Things seem to be working. Conservatives in check with other parties oversight.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

screature said:


> +1 So few people seem to understand this.


As also the people don't understand the Conservative government,
If you inherit a debt of 57 billion dollars then you are expected to pay it back.

You don't just wipe it from the books and say it was the previous governments problem,
You pay the debt back to the Canadian people, Otherwise that is fraud.

Is this what they are teaching young conservatives these days?
Be a conservative and you too can steal from the public and get away with it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lawrence said:


> Took me awhile to find, But you are somewhat right, But...
> Both parties were as guilty as each other as explained in this very slow to load pdf:


The notion that any of these programs, including EI, are self-funding is a joke. At a certain point, huge increases in population were able to feed the Ponzi scheme that was Canada's social safety net. That's no longer a reasonable premise at this point. CPP is a government favourite because it pays out less than most people put in--just another tax. 

All of the money flowing into the government represents the contents of a giant Money Bin, a la Scrooge McDuck, with government bigwigs swimming around in the giant pool and doling out portions of it to make it look as though everything is well-capitalized.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The notion that any of these programs, including EI, are self-funding is a joke. At a certain point, huge increases in population were able to feed the Ponzi scheme that was Canada's social safety net. That's no longer a reasonable premise at this point. CPP is a government favourite because it pays out less than most people put in--just another tax.
> 
> All of the money flowing into the government represents the contents of a giant Money Bin, a la Scrooge McDuck, with government bigwigs swimming around in the giant pool and doling out portions of it to make it look as though everything is well-capitalized.


Perhaps through rose coloured glasses you'd see that,
But in actual fact too many Canadians live in area's that require a high number of weeks to get unemployment, (Windsor for instance)

Also a new generation of people are growing used to a "Part-Time" work week,
Part -time workers aren't eligible for unemployment, If Walmart was a political party...It would be Conservative.

Which would also mean a lower safety net for the PC government and the ability to balance the books easier.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

> Move as much of it as possible to consumption, where everybody can see it. Then everyone pays taxes based on how much they can afford to spend--meaning the government is in a position to encourage real economic growth to feather its nest. Create some sort of minimum tax if necessary to ensure that the government can operate in an economic downturn


I agree with this and was one reason I was against the GST being reduced. If anything it should be increased and put back towards the deficit like it was originally intended.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Andrew Pratt said:


> I agree with this and was one reason I was against the GST being reduced. If anything it should be increased and put back towards the deficit like it was originally intended.


That was tough call for me, because I like to see the government take reduced wherever possible. I would have preferred to have seen the reduction directed toward income tax rates.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Lawrence said:


> As also the people don't understand the Conservative government,
> If you inherit a debt of 57 billion dollars then you are expected to pay it back.
> 
> You don't just wipe it from the books and say it was the previous governments problem,
> ...


Why is it Harper's problem? The courts sided with the Libs -- they were, apparently, well within their rights to spend our money on debt. It's done, and the only thing we could do is punish the Liberals where it matters: At the polling station.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Andrew Pratt said:


> I agree with this and was one reason I was against the GST being reduced. If anything it should be increased and put back towards the deficit like it was originally intended.


I would have preferred it to stay where it was and any surplus directed towards the debt.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Why is it Harper's problem? The courts sided with the Libs -- they were, apparently, well within their rights to spend our money on debt. It's done, and the only thing we could do is punish the Liberals where it matters: At the polling station.


No, The Liberals didn't wipe the debt from the books,
Harpers Conservatives did, So they should have to pay it back.

Had the Liberals still been in power after they used that 57 billion for deficit reduction,
Then they would still be held accountable to pay back that debt to U.I.

For example:
If I bought a car with a lien on it, Then I'm expected to pay that lien,
I can't just say to the bank that that is the previous owners debt and walk away with the car.

So should the new owners of a government,
They should not be allowed to walk away without paying for the debt.

It also sets a precedent for future governments to do the same thing,
Which is a very wrong thing to do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MLeh said:


> I would have preferred it to stay where it was and any surplus directed towards the debt.


I would have preferred spending cuts, income tax cuts and debt reduction--but I think several of us are in agreement on the basic principle. Move the taxes to consumption without increasing the overall tax burden.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Lawrence said:


> No, The Liberals didn't wipe the debt from the books,
> Harpers Conservatives did, So they should have to pay it back.
> 
> Had the Liberals still been in power after they used that 57 billion for deficit reduction,
> ...


Look, firstly, I understand the Libs didn't wipe it from the books. I read it correctly the first time. I'll reiterate: the courts ruled in favor of the Liberals -- the highest court in our country deemed the use of EI money on deficit was well within their means. That means they cannot be held accountable. End of story.

If the Liberals are not accountable, then why would the Cons be?

Secondly: Your analogy is completely off-base. Paying EI premiums is not considered a loan.

Sorry, but once again the little people are screwed by a system that was intended to work for them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I would have preferred spending cuts, income tax cuts and debt reduction--but I think several of us are in agreement on the basic principle. Move the taxes to consumption without increasing the overall tax burden.


at the risk of sounding like, one side is better than other, isn't that kinda the liberals position?

A few times, I've noticed that what the conservatives like to do, is -appear- like they are cutting taxes. Now recall Flaherty running around promoting the HST, it seemed to me, what he really wants to do, is offload the taxing powers to the provincial level, so he can reduce taxes at the federal level. Sure, they cut the GST, which clearly was an election style vote grab, since everyone seems to agree that was a bonehead move, but certainly held up by that party's supporters as proof positive they cut taxes, but now we'll get clobbered at the provincial level.

That was Flaherty's MO in Ontario's tory government. Offload costs and taxes to the municipalities.

I'm all for lower taxes, anyone would be. However, when you have such grandiose plans like 6 billion dollar corporate tax cuts, income splitting, (which they likely saw isn't feasible so they put a "down the road" clause on that...) 30 billion plus in planes, superjails etc., you need to pay for all that! Regardless of whether you support those initiatives, or not, those spending promises have to paid for from -somewhere-, and there's that little matter of balancing the books.

I have a corporation, but I'd rather see the tax cuts targeted to families, individuals, and small business.

I just don't see how the conservatives can possibly pull that off. It's as if I started buying another car, a yacht, trips to europe 3 times a year, but reduced my income, and had this idea I would somehow pay off my mortgage in 5 years.

What am I missing here?


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I would have preferred spending cuts, income tax cuts and debt reduction--but I think several of us are in agreement on the basic principle. Move the taxes to consumption without increasing the overall tax burden.


I would disagree with consumption taxes for a couple of reasons:

1. It is regressive. Poor spend 100 percent of their income and are taxed on every purchase. Rich are not taxed on their surplus. If you want apples to apples, put in a 13% surp-lus capital tax and watch people yell as if you had bit off their little toe.

2. It is a bar to commerce. When I sell a program, 13% of that program is now going to government. There is only one pocket for the purchaser. If I can sell it for $100 +HST = $113.00, I could have sold it for $113.00 without HST and kept it all.

3. Consumption taxes are what you use in banana republics. You use it when you cannot collect income tax because people are so poor they cannot pay or people are so rich that they will shoot you or there is a culture of non-payment pervasive throughout the country or they are inflating their currency so fast that they have to collect their pound of flesh back as quickly as possible while it is still worth something.

4. If you are rich, you have done well in this country. You have a vested interest in military as you have much to lose. You have that same vested interest in most government programs, right down to daycare. I have no problem with you paying some in at a higher rate than those below you.

Conversely, if you are poor, living below the poverty line, I fail to see how this country is currently your friend. I fail to see how you should be asked to pay any tax at this time. You are obviously not getting much out of it.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Secondly: Your analogy is completely off-base. Paying EI premiums is not considered a loan.


True. If it were a loan, I could claim back everything I had paid into EI while I was employed by someone else, now that I am self-employed and unable to go on EI.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Sonal said:


> True. If it were a loan, I could claim back everything I had paid into EI while I was employed by someone else, now that I am self-employed and unable to go on EI.


It was my understanding self-employed people can now file EI (as of January 2010). Or is that under specific circumstances?


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

MannyP Design said:


> That surplus was built off the backs of Canadians.


Actually it is worse and more complicated than that. 

Feds robbed the people ( via taxes) and robbed the provinces via transfer payment reductions to stem the flow.

Provinces in turn robbed the people, via higher taxes and robbed the municipalities via reduced payments and in Ontario a mass reorganization to off load provincial functions to the towns and cities. Plus we saw reduced health service because the compromise of transfer payments crucified the health care system. It is still trying to recover.

Towns in turn were left with no where to go except to then pockets of their tax payers or to also reduce services. They did both. Lots of gravel showing on the concession roads these days.

So as Manny said, it came from the backs of Canadians, but from several levels at once. It also got people used to the idea of tax hikes from all levels of government, which in Ontario we are just starting to rebel about now.

It was more than money that was taken. It was sneaky in the way it was done. I will say though that it had to be done.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> It was my understanding self-employed people can now file EI (as of January 2010). Or is that under specific circumstances?


They can for special services like Maternity/parental leave, compassionate leave, etc. The catch is that you have to then contribute EI for the rest of your self-employed life.

I ran the numbers as I was curious about Mat leave (thinking ahead of myself) and it's not really worth it. 

But if, say, your business closes down and you are out of income, nada.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lichen Software said:


> I would disagree with consumption taxes for a couple of reasons:



I don't believe the rich should be taxed on their surpluses. Knock the bottom ranks of the poor off the bottom of the tax base with some sort of rebate. It's not a huge bar to commerce if incomes suddenly skyrocket.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> at the risk of sounding like, one side is better than other, isn't that kinda the liberals position?


I would like to see as much offloaded to the provinces as possible. Better people get taxed locally so they can respond locally.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Lichen Software said:


> I would disagree with consumption taxes for a couple of reasons:


Essentials (food, etc) are zero rated, so the poor are not paying tax on '100% of purchases'. Also, why should I pay 13% on 'surplus' if it's just because I had hamburger for dinner instead of steak and saved the rest for a rainy day or my retirement? Talk about a regressive tax. (I'm more likely to buy something at A&W and pay the tax than the poor though, so I'm already paying more in consumption taxes.)

In BC we have refundable tax credits for those under a certain income level for HST rebate and for carbon tax.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

FWIW Canada's corporate tax rate is less than one half of the US corporate tax rate. Add in not having to pay health care insurance and you begin to understand why US manufacturers have continued to maintain a strong Canadian presence even with the sagging US dollar.

The only reason that the Cons are proposing cutting Corporate Tax rates; is the demands of the corporate puppet masters.

Even if one views this as a borderline issue, it is reason enough to reject a Con majority, just as Ignats commitment to a carbon Tax should be sufficient to keep the Liberals out of the PMs office.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I would like to see as much offloaded to the provinces as possible. Better people get taxed locally so they can respond locally.


well that's quite the turn in position for conservatives. I have on so many occasions seen many conservatives including you rail against the liberals for doing exactly that.

Personally, I see it as 6 and a half dozen or the other. My pocketbook is but one here, whether it goes municipal, provincial, or federal. And I can respond quite well at the voting booth in all 3 cases thank you. Unless, you feel it isn't as easy federally, which speaks volumes for how well they represent Canada. (pick your party).

But it's really, just a political game, which has been played both by the federal liberals -and- the tories.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Essentials (food, etc) are zero rated, so the poor are not paying tax on '100% of purchases'. Also, why should I pay 13% on 'surplus' if it's just because I had hamburger for dinner instead of steak and saved the rest for a rainy day or my retirement? Talk about a regressive tax. (I'm more likely to buy something at A&W and pay the tax than the poor though, so I'm already paying more in consumption taxes.)
> 
> In BC we have refundable tax credits for those under a certain income level for HST rebate and for carbon tax.


1 Regressive means the poor pay correspondingly more as a portion of their income than the rich. HST is regressive. Income tax is progressive. A 13% across the board tax on expenditures and savings is neutral. It is effectively a flat rate income tax.

2. I'll let you in on a little secret of tax credits ... If you cannot pay it in the first place, you cannot get the credit later.

There are refundable Ontario credits for realty tax based on income. If you cannot afford to pay your realty tax, you cannot get the credit to help pay your realty tax. If you are in business for yourself and have three of disastrous years, you can lose you home in Ontario even though there is technically tax relief.

3. That is the other thing I like about income tax as opposed to consumption tax... If you didn't make it that year, you do not have to pay it. This sort of thing is absolutely lost on people who have a salary. They take cash flow for granted.

When I was selling real estate in Northern Ontario, I was based in a paper town with a unionized mill. During the 80's it was extremely turbulent, mass inflation, sky rocketing interest rates and labour screaming because they were watching their standard of living go down. It ended up with contact negotiation every one to two years. If they did not know how negotiation was going, all purchasing stopped dead. They had a hang nail and I had a major hemorrhage. At least I got an income tax break during those periods. There was no GST break and there was no realty tax break and tax credits just did not cut it.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Lichen Software said:


> 2. I'll let you in on a little secret of tax credits ... If you cannot pay it in the first place, you cannot get the credit later.



There are non-refundable tax credits and refundable tax credits. Non-refundable tax credits are the kind that you need income and income tax to 'write off' the credits against. Refundable tax credits are the kind that even if you have zero income, the government still writes you a cheque. The HST and carbon tax credit in BC are 'refundable' tax credits. My daughter (a student, zero income) gets an HST and carbon tax rebate cheque from the BC government.




> 3. That is the other thing I like about income tax as opposed to consumption tax... If you didn't make it that year, you do not have to pay it. This sort of thing is absolutely lost on people who have a salary. They take cash flow for granted.


Consumption taxes are certainly more 'in your face', which is why they aren't popular. Most people don't really pay attention to the difference between the 'gross' and the 'net' on their paycheques, and if they do, it's not like they have to actually take their wallet out and pay it - it's certainly easier to take it before it makes it into your hands. 

By the way, I've been self-employed since 1988, so I know all about 'cash flow'. And I'm not proposing the end to income tax - just a more equitable method of raising it based upon 'consumption' instead of earnings. In my business, if I make $100,000.00 one year and $10,000.00 the next, I'm much worse off than if I made $55,000.00 in each of the two years. How fair is that?


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

MLeh said:


> There are non-refundable tax credits and refundable tax credits. Non-refundable tax credits are the kind that you need income and income tax to 'write off' the credits against. Refundable tax credits are the kind that even if you have zero income, the government still writes you a cheque. The HST and carbon tax credit in BC are 'refundable' tax credits. My daughter (a student, zero income) gets an HST and carbon tax rebate cheque from the BC government.


The refundable realty tax credit in Ontario requires that you be able to prove that you already paid the taxes.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

MLeh said:


> By the way, I've been self-employed since 1988, so I know all about 'cash flow'. And I'm not proposing the end to income tax - just a more equitable method of raising it based upon 'consumption' instead of earnings. In my business, if I make $100,000.00 one year and $10,000.00 the next, I'm much worse off than if I made $55,000.00 in each of the two years. How fair is that?


I do know that pain. I've been stuck with that particular needle many times.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Tax credits are a horrible way to try to offset the worst effects of a bad tax. More often than not the tax you pay has to be greater than the credit. Even if the credit is fully refundable it forces people to file tax returns when there is no other reason to do so.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Lichen Software said:


> I do know that pain. I've been stuck with that particular needle many times.


Not sure about Canada. In the US we were allowed to refile previous years taxes to equalize out a spike in income. What I always hated was having to guess my income a year in advance and prepay taxes on same over the year.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> Not sure about Canada. In the US we were allowed to refile previous years taxes to equalize out a spike in income. What I always hated was having to guess my income a year in advance and prepay taxes on same over the year.


You can do this (refile) in Canada also, to a certain extent. I also have to prepay my corporate income tax. It's a 'best guess'. Can be rather irritating when you haven't made any money and still need to remit in advance. 



eMacMan said:


> Tax credits are a horrible way to try to offset the worst effects of a bad tax. More often than not the tax you pay has to be greater than the credit. Even if the credit is fully refundable it forces people to file tax returns when there is no other reason to do so.


I don't think the HST is a 'bad tax', and as stated before, the HST credit and Carbon credits are fully refundable, so the second sentence is not applicable to this particular discussion.

Agreed about having to file tax returns, but it's not all that onerous really (most people with low income can have their tax prepared and filed for free). In society we all have to do a little paperwork to keep things rolling along. It's not perfect, but we can keep refining the system to make it more equitable and fair. Always a balancing act.

(If the world were perfect there would be angels flying around with bags of money dropping them on us as required ... and even then we'd probably find something else to complain about - probably the concussions caused from being hit in the head by a bag of money.)


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Harper said the nasty "Free Trade" words today,
Saying the Liberals didn't offer free trade to India or Europe.

Now...To me that would just be a license to set up a big business in Canada,
I could open an office in Toronto from Europe or India, Hire some local management staff,
Then 'outsource" my whole production line offshore to Mexico or the lowest bidder.

If it failed, No problem, I'd just write it off to Canada.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

People do that anyway. What's stopping you?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> People do that anyway. What's stopping you?


Personal choices.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Tom Clark says*

Tom Clark former CTV News Reporter/Political Pundit and presently CBC Political Reporter/pundit said on CBC's Power and Politics, that the way Harper is trying to control questions from the media, Clark says Harper reminds him of Pierre Trudeau.

Harper's brand new sin campaigning like Pierre Trudeau.

Who'da'thunkit.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Personal choices.


Apparently it's political.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*additions to the list of Harper's sins*



eMacMan said:


> Not sure about Canada. In the US we were allowed to refile previous years taxes to equalize out a spike in income. What I always hated was having to guess my income a year in advance and prepay taxes on same over the year.


Either way, I do not think it counts as one of Harper̓s sins.

Since this thread is getting a tad derailed, let me add two more to the list of Harper's sins:

Harper has ignored the Supreme Court's ruling that Omar Khadr's rights had been violated

Harper has promised to eliminate the only proportional aspect of our "democracy", the funding of political parties.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr T said:


> Either way, I do not think it counts as one of Harper̓s sins.
> 
> Since this thread is getting a tad derailed, let me add two more to the list of Harper's sins:
> 
> ...


Good grief, those aren't sins, they're common sense. 

Khadr's rights were given up when he committed the offense and no party should get public money to exist. They are either supported and live or not supported and die.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

except, in other cases, Khadr would have been considered a child soldier.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> Harper has promised to eliminate the only proportional aspect of our "democracy", the funding of political parties.


Another virtue!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I gladly give my toonie to each political party to keep PACs out of our system.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> I gladly give my toonie to each political party to keep PACs out of our system.


The give them your toonie--but not my toonie.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Shut up for a year and I promise to pay your toonie too


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Another virtue!


these political subsidies help level the playing field with parties who are well funded by rich interests.

So unless you totally support only the very well funded having the bigger voice in our government, this is hardly, a virtue. 

Witness the sheer number of the gullible who are falling for us having to grant the very rich billions and billions of dollars, to be told the rich will be nice to us in return.

Let's also remember, this is the same party, who thinks it's a good idea to kill this playing field leveller, only to spend a similar amount on an unbelievably tax payer funded election style ad campaign. Just for starters.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> these political subsidies help level the playing field with parties who are well funded by rich interests.
> 
> So unless you totally support only the very well funded having the bigger voice in our government, this is hardly, a virtue.
> 
> Witness the sheer number of the gullible who are falling for us having to grant the very rich billions and billions of dollars, to be told the rich will be nice to us in return.


Yes, I favour the well funded having a bigger voice. And the unfunded having a tiny, wee voice that is barely heard.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Perhaps you could find a small, uninhabited atoll in the South Pacific and perfect your self reliant society, instead of living here?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Yes, I favour the well funded having a bigger voice. And the unfunded having a tiny, wee voice that is barely heard.


You only need to stop and really think through the ramifications of this.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Ottawaman said:


> Perhaps you could find a small, uninhabited atoll in the South Pacific and perfect your self reliant society, instead of living here?


macfury would be ecstatic to be consuming foods barely fit for human consumption since the stringent controls on food production were lifted, while paying even higher taxes after the corporate taxes were eliminated.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Perhaps you could find a small, uninhabited atoll in the South Pacific and perfect your self reliant society, instead of living here?


I'm lazy. I will transform this one instead.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

I shall resist you. But play on player


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> macfury would be ecstatic to be consuming foods barely fit for human consumption since the stringent controls on food production were lifted, while paying even higher taxes after the corporate taxes were eliminated.


All any party needs is a web site. If people are interested in the viewpoints of any party they can find them online. Why should an unpopular party be given money to advertise itself? It's just rewarding the party for its failure to engage the people.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> All any party needs is a web site. If people are interested in the viewpoints of any party they can find them online. Why should an unpopular party be given money to advertise itself? It's just rewarding the party for its failure to engage the people.


Really? Then why is Harper spending obscene amounts of our money on TV ads?

it isn't about popularity, it's about more money. Money = popular.

Ask Stephen Harper.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Define unpopular. Is a million votes insignificant? Perhaps FPTP is an antiquated system that does not work.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> it isn't about popularity, it's about more money. Money = popular.
> 
> Ask Stephen Harper.


So send your favourite party a toonie as Ottawman does. That's all it takes for you to even the score.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> So send your favourite party a toonie as Ottawman does. That's all it takes for you to even the score.


Why is Harper spending millions of our taxpayers dollars on TV ads if all they need is a website?

How fair is it that a commoner like me sends a few bucks where huge money can afford many donations of the donation limit?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Why is Harper spending millions of our taxpayers dollars on TV ads if all they need is a website?
> 
> How fair is it that a commoner like me sends a few bucks where huge money can afford many donations of the donation limit?


Why is it fair that you're a commoner and someone else has megabucks?

If you're disappointed that some parties don't get enough donations to buy TV ads, then those parties should work harder at fundraising. Let each party make its appeal for cash and spend it as it sees fit. 

That's fair.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why is it fair that you're a commoner and someone else has megabucks?
> 
> If you're disappointed that some parties don't get enough donations to buy TV ads, then those parties should work harder at fundraising. Let each party make its appeal for cash and spend it as it sees fit.
> 
> That's fair.


follow the ball macfury.

Why did Harper spend millions and millions of our taxpayers money, not from their fundraising, on TV ads when as you say, a website will do. Just as a singular example here.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

So in your paradigm the best political ideology is the one that was purchased at the dearest price. Merit be damned.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

No one in their right mind could support such a model if they actually knew the consequences. 

It struck me listening to macfury's apparent libertarian rants, that he likely, considers a true socialist quite deluded.

Had me a wee chuckle on that bit.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Every day living in a situation where he has some interdependence on others must be a torment to his psyche. Only on the atoll will he be able to live an independent life, free of the hypocrisy of living in a society.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Ottawaman said:


> Every day living in a situation where he has some interdependence on others must be a torment to his psyche. Only on the atoll will he be able to live an independent life, free of the hypocrisy of living in a society.


Voluntary interdependence is no trouble atoll...


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Punny, good one.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> follow the ball macfury.
> 
> Why did Harper spend millions and millions of our taxpayers money, not from their fundraising, on TV ads when as you say, a website will do. Just as a singular example here.


I don't agree with government advertising, beyond a very basic need to inform people of important matters. The government in power should just use a website.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Why is it fair that you're a commoner and someone else has megabucks?
> 
> If you're disappointed that some parties don't get enough donations to buy TV ads, then those parties should work harder at fundraising. Let each party make its appeal for cash and spend it as it sees fit.
> 
> That's fair.


It works great in America!

That way corporations can *buy all the parties* so their interests are looked after.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> It works great in America!
> 
> That way corporations can *buy all the parties* so their interests are looked after.


In Canada, corporations just do it behind everyone's backs--while the taxpayer kicks in its toonie to "help" the unfortunate parties. 

Seriously, groove makes a good point about the party in power spending ad money which clearly favours the party in power, not the government. We're seeing it in Ontario too with ads talking about the McGuinty government putting money in taxpayers' pocket. But the answer isn't to try to even up the score by handing money to the other parties--it should be to defund advertising of this sort.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Macfury said:


> In Canada, corporations just do it behind everyone's backs--while the taxpayer kicks in its toonie to "help" the unfortunate parties.


I agree with the skepticism.


How about we just let actual humans contribute, not the fake humans - aka the corporations.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Dr T said:


> I agree with the skepticism.
> 
> 
> How about we just let actual humans contribute, not the fake humans - aka the corporations.


What are you talking about?

Rules for contributions to political parties



> As of January 1, 2007, only citizens and permanent residents of Canada can make political donations to registered parties, registered electoral district associations, candidates, nomination contestants and leadership contestants.
> 
> Corporations, trade unions and unincorporated associations may no longer make political donations to candidates, registered electoral district associations or nomination contestants of registered parties.


Get your facts straight.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh there's no way to circumvent that... nope.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

groovetube said:


> oh there's no way to circumvent that... nope.


Judging from the Liberals financial woes ... not really. (Especially now that they don't have all that sponsorship money to get kicked back.)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Or that the conservatives are enjoying much corporate support in the form of personal donations. Let's face it, who is best for them?

How many average joes have the maximum donation to send to a political party really?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Or that the conservatives are enjoying much corporate support in the form of personal donations. Let's face it, who is best for them?
> 
> How many average joes have the maximum donation to send to a political party really?


Now you're just casting aspersions.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Now you're just casting aspersions.


and you aren't? Just saying. It depends I suppose on what side of the fence you sit.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> In Canada, corporations just do it behind everyone's backs--while the taxpayer kicks in its toonie to "help" the unfortunate parties.
> 
> Seriously, groove makes a good point about the party in power spending ad money which clearly favours the party in power, not the government. We're seeing it in Ontario too with ads talking about the McGuinty government putting money in taxpayers' pocket. But the answer isn't to try to even up the score by handing money to the other parties--it should be to defund advertising of this sort.


I could get on board with that. However, I think further parties should be far more limited in the amount of money they can spend on advertising and campaigning in general period, whether through far more restrictions on donations even from citizens whatever. Let them run purely on their own merit, policies, and their record. Certainly McGuinty is just as guilty as Harper in wasting tons of our money on this sort of thing.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

groovetube said:


> and you aren't? Just saying. It depends I suppose on what side of the fence you sit.


I'm quoting rules and regulations. 



> Regulations
> In accordance with the Conservative Government's Federal Accountability Act, which came into force in January, 2007, the Conservative Fund Canada, on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, accepts contributions from individual Canadian citizens or permanent residents to a maximum of $1100 for the year.
> 
> Cash Contributions in excess of $20 will not be accepted
> ...


Regulations

So, please explain to poor, simple me how 'corporations get around that'.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> I'm quoting rules and regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you can't be serious. You do realize that corporations, are made up, of 'people', citizens eligible to donate, right?

Seriously, there are easy ways to get around this.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

groovetube said:


> you can't be serious. You do realize that corporations, are made up, of 'people', citizens eligible to donate, right?
> 
> Seriously, there are easy ways to get around this.


Then explain how they (those big bad corporations) do it. I really am curious.

Do they donate on 'behalf' of their employees? Because ... no, they can't. 

Do they give their employees a bonus and then 'tell' them to donate? (Oh boy! I can see the union employees doing just that ...)

Really, please explain how corporations can use the 'people' who make them up to donate the millions and millions that you claim they are able to by getting around these regulations.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

From here:

Elections Canada Online | New Rules for Federal Political Donations

"Candidates may not accept any "gift or other advantage" (see definition below) from the day on which they become candidates for the purposes of these provisions (see definition below) to the day they withdraw or become members of Parliament, or election day, in any other case."

So my first thought here is, what about the days before they become candidates? If you know who is expected to run, but it's not yet official, what stops you from gifting a huge some of money to them beforehand? 

"Exception: A candidate may accept a gift or other advantage that is given by a "relative" (see definition below) or as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol."

My first thought here is, ah, so what if everything is done through the spouse? Then the spouse hands it over? Might take a little bit of paperwork to obscure the spouse's trail some, but that's not insurmountable.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> Then explain how they (those big bad corporations) do it. I really am curious.
> 
> Do they donate on 'behalf' of their employees? Because ... no, they can't.
> 
> ...


I didn't say they donated on 'behalf' of their employees, or on behalf of the corporation,, now did I.

I think this is a relatively simple, concept to grasp?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

So, why would the Conservative government enact this legislation in 2006? You'd think if they were so dependent upon corporate donations they wouldn't go about making it more difficult for corporations to donate to them.

I think the real gist of the legislation was: Conservatives already got the bulk of their donations from individuals. NDP was getting considerable donations from the unions. That was stopped. Liberals were getting donations from corporations (that's what the whole adscam thing was about). That was stopped. 

Now it truly is an even playing field.

But, that wouldn't go with the whole 'conservatives are governed by big business thing' you people seem to believe.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I didn't say they donated on 'behalf' of their employees, or on behalf of the corporation,, now did I.
> 
> I think this is a relatively simple, concept to grasp?


The simple concept is that under the legislation corporations cannot donate.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> So, why would the Conservative government enact this legislation in 2006? You'd think if they were so dependent upon corporate donations they wouldn't go about making it more difficult for corporations to donate to them.
> 
> I think the real gist of the legislation was: Conservatives already got the bulk of their donations from individuals. NDP was getting considerable donations from the unions. That was stopped. Liberals were getting donations from corporations (that's what the whole adscam thing was about). That was stopped.
> 
> ...


Actually it was Chretien who severely limited corporate donations in 2004, and the conservatives went further dropping the Canadian corp donation (limited to 1000 by Chretien).

Why? Well optics! The conservatives ran on accountability and transparency, they had to do -something-, and since corp donations were already clamped down on previously to only those doing business here and to 1000 a year, where could they go from there?

This was less about adscam than some political dancing. They needed to convince people they were really doing something about scandals! And it apparently, it worked! Well, the convincing part anyway given recent events...


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

So, this should make someone happy ...

Harper vows end of party subsidies.

And ... why is it 'optics'?

(The same could be said of many a political act or promise no matter what political stripe, as long as the party is catering to the wishes of the electorate in order to be elected or re-elected.)


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Parties should ONLY be funded by public money and do away with all outside donations. Make the amount proportional to the amount of votes registered (new parties would have a minimum to work with).

The problem with campaign donations is that only the rich are able to make significant ones. The poor and middle class just can't afford it.

Let the candidates win on the merit of their policies instead of the number of attack ads they can air & the number of lawn signs they can erect.

(i know this will never happen, but it really is the ideal solution)


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

i-rui said:


> Parties should ONLY be funded by public money and do away with all outside donations. Make the amount proportional to the amount of votes registered (new parties would have a minimum to work with).
> 
> The problem with campaign donations is that only the rich are able to make significant ones. The poor and middle class just can't afford it.
> 
> ...


If you pay more than $1100 in taxes you can afford to make a contribution to a political party because 100% of the contribution is deducted from your taxes payable.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MLeh said:


> If you pay more than $1100 in taxes you can afford to make a contribution to a political party because 100% of the contribution is deducted from your taxes payable.


i don't think 100% is tax deductible. from what i understand it's :

75% of your contribution up to $400,
50% of the next $350, and
33-1/3% of the last $350.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> So, this should make someone happy ...
> 
> Harper vows end of party subsidies.
> 
> ...


now you're getting it.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

i-rui said:


> i don't think 100% is tax deductible. from what i understand it's :
> 
> 75% of your contribution up to $400,
> 50% of the next $350, and
> 33-1/3% of the last $350.


i-rui, you're right. My bad. You can tell how long it's been since I contributed to a political party or looked at that section of the tax return.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

groovetube said:


> now you're getting it.


Oh, I get lots of things. I just don't see why sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander. Anything you 'accuse' the Conservatives of you could certainly accuse any political party of, especially if they're in charge of the purse-strings. They're all out to buy us with our own tax dollars. 

What chance do you think a political party would have if they campaigned on a 'it's gonna hurt but it's good for everyone in the long run' platform. Not much. We're a nation of short-sighted self-centred 'what's in it for ME' types, and it seems to me all the political parties cater to the lowest common denominator in order to get re-elected every four years or so.

Just tar them all with the same brush, and don't pretend one is worse than the other.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MLeh said:


> i-rui, you're right. My bad. You can tell how long it's been since I contributed to a political party or looked at that section of the tax return.


yea, in seems the tax laws are there to confuse. I had to google the specific breakdown.

The irony is the bigger the tax break the more money is actually coming from the coffers of all Canadians to parties they may not support. It's subsidizing parties with money that should have been tax revenue.

It's all a big shell game. That's why i say just eliminate all donations and level the playing field.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> Oh, I get lots of things. I just don't see why sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander. Anything you 'accuse' the Conservatives of you could certainly accuse any political party of, especially if they're in charge of the purse-strings. They're all out to buy us with our own tax dollars.
> 
> What chance do you think a political party would have if they campaigned on a 'it's gonna hurt but it's good for everyone in the long run' platform. Not much. We're a nation of short-sighted self-centred 'what's in it for ME' types, and it seems to me all the political parties cater to the lowest common denominator in order to get re-elected every four years or so.
> 
> Just tar them all with the same brush, and don't pretend one is worse than the other.


I tend to agree on the whole with what you are saying MLeh... But if you are not currently in charge of the purse strings your knowledge of the what is actually in the purse is limited. 

Additionally if you are in Opposition you can always blame it on the guy who was in charge ahead of you (as both the Libs and the Cons have done) if you can't live up to your spending platform... something along the lines of, "When we actually saw the books and were shocked at the real state of affairs." kind of comment. 

In the end we have to believe who is telling the truth and who isn't because the truth very often (if ever) only comes out well after the fact.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

MLeh said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> Rules for contributions to political parties
> 
> ...


This is the legislation that Harper proposes to abolish and that is what I am addressing.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

*sigh*

Could you please provide a source for this assertion that Harper is proposing to abolish this legislation governing private contributions to political parties?

From what I've read, he's not planning to change these rules, but _is_ trying to abolish payment of government funds to various political parties.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

*Here's something interesting...*



> Two years ago, the government was proposing a fishery treaty with the European Union — one drafted by the EU itself and that opened the door to the EU, the main predator of stocks off Newfoundland, possibly having a say in how fish are managed inside Canada’s 200-mile limit. Canada’s veterans of international fishery negotiations, going back to the 200-mile-limit and the UN Law of the Sea, raised the alarm, calling it a sellout.
> 
> The Senate and Commons fisheries committees both agreed and called for revisions. The government pressed on. Then, on Dec. 10, 2009, the House of Commons rejected the treaty, 147 to 142.
> 
> ...



Why Harper must not have his majority - Opinion - TheChronicleHerald.ca


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Dr T said:


> Here is a handy summary of Harper's sins, adapted by C. Davis from a list apparently compiled by Frances Ricks, Ph.D.:
> 
> Mr. Harper....
> - Breached his own fixed election laws
> ...


Hey, gang, I just re-read this list with my Alberta-rightwing hat on, and from that perspective, it still looks like a nasty job.

(When it's called for, I can do put on a right-wing hat, being as I was born in Alberta, returned there for my first real job, had an office next to Tom Flanagan's, and much more going back generations in my own family- do you remember Solon Low?) 

Why does the right wing support Harper?


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*Harper Conservatives Set to Sink BC Shipyards*

" In two British Columbia seaside ridings fears of job loss stem from a move by the Conservatives....

The concerns arise from a $35 billion contract the Conservatives promised to two shipyards -- a contract B.C. shipbuilders fear they won't get, spelling the end of the province's industry."

For the reasons, and more, please read today's report in The Tyee:

The Tyee – Conservatives Set to Sink BC Shipyards, Fears Union


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

...And your point is?

Lets see, the BC Unions are afraid that either:

They will not have the skill level to make it into the centers of ship building excellence that the article references to
OR
There will be political favouritism to Quebec over the contract.

On the first point, if they are not excellent, why do I want them building my ships? Lets be clear, they are my ships. I want them to be good ones.

On the second one I seem to remember something about aircraft maintenance and Winnipeg being cut out and somehow Liberals in there somewhere. It stunk from start to finish.

Also, next time please quote the whole headline:

It was NOT:
Conservatives Set to Sink BC Shipyards

I was:
Conservatives Set to Sink BC Shipyards, Fears Union

Your partial quote implies a statement of PC policy fact. The real headline states a union concern. Not the same thing.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Absolutely. Frakkin'. Hilarious.*

*Tories take Auditor's praise for Liberals, claim it for themselves.*



> Auditor General Sheila Fraser has written a scathing letter rebuking the Conservatives for misquoting her in a parliamentary report on the costs of the G8/G20 summits in Toronto last summer





> The Conservatives' report, presented as a dissenting opinion to the Commons the morning Parliament was dissolved last month, quotes Fraser giving high marks to the Harper government for prudent spending on the summits.
> 
> The report quoted the auditor general as saying: “We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that the monies were spent as they were intended to be spent.”
> 
> But .... the Conservatives recycled an old comment she made on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the 9/11 terrorist attacks a decade ago.





> The incident comes as the Conservatives are trying to douse a separate political flare-up over Fraser’s draft audit of summit spending.


(CBC)


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Absolutely. Frakkin'. Hilarious.*
> 
> *Tories take Auditor's praise for Liberals, claim it for themselves.*


wouldn't be the first time the Harper government took credit for something the liberals did...


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*Wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't a draft*

It would be rather nice if you waited for the actual report instead of a leaked draft going back to request more information.

1. From what I can see, the conservatives were more forthcoming on their expenses than most other countries hosting such conferences who tried to bury them under other departments.
2. That whole area was affected by the G8, not just Huntsville. 

I am familiar with the area. There is a fair distance between towns ( not as far as further north or especially further north west). 


It was anticipated, especially prior to having both the G8 and the G20, that there would be a spill over within the area. As it was, people attending Huntsville in one capacity or another ended up in Gravenhurst or Bracebridge, neither "adjacent" to the venue. Planning had to go on ahead of time. 

Had there been no G20, the spillover would have been much greater. The "major" centers in the region are Huntsville, Gravenhurst, Bracebridge and Parry Sound. I could be mistaken, but I do not think any of them is over 20,000 people. You were never going to pile them into one place except for the actual delegates.

Lets wait an see what Sheila Fraser tables as the final report.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Lichen Software said:


> It would be rather nice if you waited for the actual report instead of a leaked draft going back to request more information.


Well, if Sheila Fraser thought it worth commenting on, who am I to judge?


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Lichen Software said:


> ...And your point is?
> 
> Lets see, the BC Unions are afraid that either:
> 
> ...


You are right, I did not state my point beyond the suggestion of the subject line (which was not a quote, pls notice the absence of quote thingies " "): the Harper bunch is manipulating contracts without regard to anything except holding on to political power. 

As for the quote, I did i fact put in a series of dots to show the ellipsis : "..." That is an established way of quoting. I did that to bring out my position I also supplied a link to the original source. What more do you want in an open forum like this? You seem to get picky in your proof reading to deflect the discussion, I think.

As for your position, it would seem that you reckon that if the Liberal Party of Canada ever did something dubious, corrupt, or otherwise objectionable (which they have, just ask me, as a victim of same), then the Harper Conservatives can behave in a dubious manner, a corrupt manner, any old objectionable and dishonest manner, as they see fit? Are you quoting from the Harper Conservative platform, or is this just your personal attitude?


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Dr T said:


> As for your position, it would seem that you reckon that if the Liberal Party of Canada ever did something dubious, corrupt, or otherwise objectionable (which they have, just ask me, as a victim of same), then the Harper Conservatives can behave in a dubious manner, a corrupt manner, any old objectionable and dishonest manner, as they see fit? Are you quoting from the Harper Conservative platform, or is this just your personal attitude?


My personal attitudes:

1. I have voted for Conservatives and for Liberals and I believe even once for NDP. In personal nature I am very conservative financially and with regards to environmental issues, but I am very liberal with regard to social issues. And do notice that conservative and liberal are both with small letters. Quite frankly there is no party at present that would represent that particular position. So I am always having to make do.

2. I see in politics the game of the Sheep and the Shepherd being played time and time again by all parties. I kind of divide the world up into three types of people in order of dangerousness:

Sheep 
Shepherds
Lone Wolves

It's really simplistic, but it gives me some sort of perspective.

To my mind the sheep are absolutely the most dangerous. The shepherd exhorts them to do more and say more and they do comply, far beyond what the shepherd ever imagined. This leads to a dangerous positive feedback cycle where logic and reason have very little to do with the happenings of the day. So when I run into what I would perceive as Liberal Fan Boys, or Conservative Fan Boys, or Fan Boys of any political stripe, I perceive that I am looking at sheep doing more. They have taken a position and all else is to be shoveled aside at whatever cost. It is a game I have problems with. It is a game I see being played out to disaster in the States right now.

As soon as one party and their associated Fan Boys start acting, all must act. It becomes like a marriage gone bad. There is a lot of He Said/She Said, but one can never get back to the root event. One can only deal with the latest battle while the associated Fan Boys howl with outrage. it is a wonderful technique for escaping the issues of the day.

3. I recognize that every party and every government has its day and that none of them will be capable of catering to all. Good governments will try to please all as they realize that they are responsible for the country in total, not just their supporters or not just the locations where the majority of their supporters live. When they have outlived their usefulness, we replace them. 

The longer a government has been in power, the less likely they are to believe that they should be replaced. Conversely, the longer there is no clear vision on the part of voters as to the power desired, the greater the restlessness on all party sides to try to make change come their way. 

The last five years or so has been the second situation. It is really messy. It is not particularly pretty. I would however disagree that it has given bad government. We seem to have weathered the important storms not badly. I think a lot of people would agree with this just by the lack of enthusiasm for another election. Perfection is that which we strive for, not necessarily that which we achieve. We have had a workable solution in a tumultuous time. 

Back to the article:

The gist of the article seems to be that BC ship building unions are afraid that Quebec will be favoured in the centers for excellence competition. This was not an issue prior to the Quebec ship building firm coming out of bankruptcy. I believe that this is a fair statement. Governments in the past have tried to curry favour with Quebec by dropping boat loads of money there. I have no problems at all with the article that far.

To then turn and tar the Conservatives with that brush, effectively making it an attack on the leader of that party as if it were a fait accompli and as if there were proof outstanding of corruption in that process when there does not appear to be, seems to be disingenuous and the actions of a reporter turned Fan Boy.

The posting of the article with a partial, and to me, inflammatory headline appeared at that moment a further instance of Fan Boy'ism, the associated sheep ever trying to do more at all costs. My post was a direct and deliberate refutation of that false feedback loop.

Don't get me wrong. Politics is a blood sport and campaigns are a true trial to those involved. I have no problem with that. The world is not a kind place and I want the meanest sonofabitch in the valley on my side. I also realize that there is never enough money to please everyone, so some one is going to be ticked that for this term, they will be on the waiting list. This means that there are always enough real issues to fight over without people having to act as Fan Boys and make issues up.

Am I picking on the Libs? Not particularly. There are Fan Boys of all stripes. And I am picking on Fan boys. 

At this particular time, there will be a tendency to my view that there could be a good number of the Liberal stripe. Liberals in my lifetime have ruled this country more than any other party. I do perceive an attitude of denied entitlement in that camp. They still believe in their hearts that they should not have been replaced. But all governments should eventually be replaced. All governments should have to take a "long walk in the snow" and get over themselves, revitalize and rethink. The Conservatives went down to a bicycle built for two and had to re-align and combine to regain relevancy in the Canadian political landscape. If the NDP should achieve federal power, they too will have to go through the process at some point.

It's a long post, but I have tried to answer your questions as posed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Starting off early - the spendthrift...



> *There are 39 ministers, *one more than before his shuffle. It’s now bigger than the 38-minister cabinet of former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, whom Mr. Harper once suggested had too many in his ranks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Starting off early - the spendthrift...


The new cabinet position is "Associate Minister of Defence" and does not entail additional spending as there is already an existing defence department. You have to read these articles carefully in order to understand these things.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

shiny ball! on the fact that Harper promised smaller government, and that just ain't happenin I guess.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So MF claims now extra Cabinet positions don't entail extra costs .....pardon my hilarity......



> If the raise goes through, members of Parliament would get a base salary of $155,000, and cabinet ministers $230,000.


this was 2004 and then there are the costs of staff etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum....

saw this post and he has a good point



> *IF HARPER WAS A GENUINE CON HE WOULD: *
> 
> Cut overall program spending by 10% over 2 years to return expenditures to pre-stimulus 2008 levels. This would be expedited by prioritizing programs;
> 
> ...


but noooo - lets keep the corporate welfare state going and gotta have some reward for the politico's that keep the pig trough full...



> boost Federal employment*(by 14% since 2006),*


 14% since 2006 .!!!! :yikes:......now just on whose watch was that?????.....hmmmmmm


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

OK, so you object to the $85,000, which raises your ire more than anything else at the moment. I do hope to see Harper slash program spending, though. At the very least, his spending program will be less than that promised by Iggy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> OK, so you object to the $85,000, which raises your ire more than anything else at the moment. I do hope to see Harper slash program spending, though. At the very least, his spending program will be less than that promised by Iggy.


so you reference someone who had no chance of forming a government, and is not even a sitting MP much less a leader?

At what point, do conservatives stop with the ghost references as excuses for lying.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Harper appoints 3 defeated candidates to Senate - CTV News

gotta keep the pork barrel rolling.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

groovetube said:


> Harper appoints 3 defeated candidates to Senate - CTV News


Good. The steps required to reform the senate are in still in motion.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that's a pretty good excuse for the pork barreling.

not bad.


----------



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

groovetube said:


> Harper appoints 3 defeated candidates to Senate - CTV News
> 
> gotta keep the pork barrel rolling.


Well, at least Fabian Manning was not alone. It was sad to see him lose in Avalon, thinking that he would have to rely on his provincial pension alone to make ends meet. Now, he can receive a senator's salary, his provincial pension AND someday a senator's pension. Hopefully, this will keep him out of the food banks. We shall see.


----------



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

FeXL said:


> Good. The steps required to reform the senate are in still in motion.


Right on, FeXL!!! I remember all the good things PM Harper said when he was just getting started as an MP. Still, it puts a twist on the expression "do as I say", since he did say he wanted to reform the Senate .......... tptptptp


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, at least Fabian Manning was not alone. It was sad to see him lose in Avalon, thinking that he would have to rely on his provincial pension alone to make ends meet. Now, he can receive a senator's salary, his provincial pension AND someday a senator's pension. Hopefully, this will keep him out of the food banks. We shall see.


It's such progress! Much rejoicing.


----------



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

groovetube said:


> It's such progress! Much rejoicing.


True. Now, STOP your griping and go get a real job. Someone has to pay for all of these Senate salaries.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Right on, FeXL!!! I remember all the good things PM Harper said when he was just getting started as an MP. Still, it puts a twist on the expression "do as I say", since he did say he wanted to reform the Senate .......... tptptptp


There is much to dislike about Harper. No argument.

However, if this actually leads to Senate reform (Triple "E") I'm all over it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> There is much to dislike about Harper. No argument.
> 
> However, if this actually leads to Senate reform (Triple "E") I'm all over it.


Agreed. And in the meantime I want to see the senate stuffed with as many conservatives as possible. It was the only thing that saved us from Cap and Trade awhile back.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

nothing like laughing in yer face while pork barrelling.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Bev Oda remains Minister of Canadian International Development Agency despite arbitrarily altering funding documents. Not something that I can respect.


----------



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

FeXL said:


> There is much to dislike about Harper. No argument.
> 
> However, if this actually leads to Senate reform (Triple "E") I'm all over it.


Agreed. Now, we shall see. He has control of both chambers of Parliament.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Harper appoints 3 defeated candidates to Senate - CTV News
> 
> gotta keep the pork barrel rolling.


You gotta love Our Glorious and (now) Supreme Leader. Fresh from a press conference (three minutes later) puts out a press release that he will not answer reporter's questions on the matter.

Talk about rubbing the press galleries nose in it saying " I am the Glorious and Supreme Leader." Hound him on the campaign trail? Now who's in charge now and for the next four years!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

small c conservative gov......yeah sure.....

Pork barrel kowtow to the corporate welfare bums......and prison builder interests......and let's pad the gov and civil service and political pension payrolls and while we're at it toss a fat bone to the military industrial complex for jet toys.

Canada ya deserves whatcha voted for ...3 years I'm outa here.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> small c conservative gov......yeah sure.....
> 
> Pork barrel kowtow to the corporate welfare bums......and prison builder interests......and let's pad the gov and civil service and political pension payrolls and while we're at it toss a fat bone to the military industrial complex for jet toys.
> 
> Canada ya deserves whatcha voted for ...3 years I'm outa here.


But MacDoc, you've advocated an expensive social housing policy for years--as well as the construction of a hydrogen grid, expensive green boondoggles, etc. You're no fiscal conservative yourself.

But I hope you get a real slash-and-burn treat for the three years you're with us.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> You gotta love Our Glorious and (now) Supreme Leader. Fresh from a press conference (three minutes later) puts out a press release that he will not answer reporter's questions on the matter.
> 
> Talk about rubbing the press galleries nose in it saying " I am the Glorious and Supreme Leader." Hound him on the campaign trail? Now who's in charge now and for the next four years!


Layton was hilarious here:



> "This is wrong. This is completely undemocratic. It's a slap in the face of Canadian voters," Layton said.


As bad as getting a Liberal Prime Minister that the voters rejected? Apparently not?


But, as Harper said:

"...the trio will support his efforts to reform the Senate, including electing senators and putting an eight-year term limit on them.

"Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate," he said in a news release."


----------



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

"But, as Harper said:

"...the trio will support his efforts to reform the Senate, including electing senators and putting an eight-year term limit on them.

"Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate," he said in a news release." "

We shall see ............ I'll believe it when I see it, Macfury. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> But MacDoc, you've advocated an expensive social housing policy for years--as well as the construction of a hydrogen grid, expensive green boondoggles, etc. You're no fiscal conservative yourself.
> 
> But I hope you get a real slash-and-burn treat for the three years you're with us.


well you can hope, but we've seen this government in action for 5 years.

Don't hold your breath, so far all they've shown us is they know how to spend spend spend.

all you got is they're 'gonna'.

LOL


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> well you can hope, but we've seen this government in action for 5 years.
> 
> Don't hold your breath, so far all they've shown us is they know how to spend spend spend.
> 
> all you got is they're 'gonna'.


All I got is "I hope." 

Every time they call asking for money, I tell them they aren't seeing a dime until I see the slash-and-burn.


----------



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

Macfury said:


> All I got is "I hope."
> 
> Every time they call asking for money, I tell them they aren't seeing a dime until I see the slash-and-burn.


Try what I do, Macfury. I take 10% of my monthly paycheck and toss it into the air. What God wants, God takes ........... and what falls to the ground goes to the Harper Government Conservative Party of Canada Fund. I used to waste it on things like giving to the local food bank, our provincial children's hospital, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, etc, but this way, the HGCPoC can "slash and burn" social programs far quicker with my support.

So, if you want "slash and burn", send in your dimes ASAP and help the cause ............. unless you want to see the "orange surge" become a "red tidal wave" comes the next election ............ and then you know what we shall all be in for!!!!!!!!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> All I got is "I hope."
> 
> Every time they call asking for money, I tell them they aren't seeing a dime until I see the slash-and-burn.


not to worry, plenty of others easily separated from their money.


----------



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

groovetube said:


> not to worry, plenty of others easily separated from their money.


As the old saying goes, "A fool and his liberties are soon parted." Or, is that something to do with camels, the eye of a needle and getting in the Senate?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> ...But, as Harper said:
> 
> "...the trio will support his efforts to reform the Senate, including electing senators and putting an eight-year term limit on them.
> 
> "Our government will continue to push for a more democratic, accountable and effective Senate," he said in a news release."


Are libertarians such suckers for pie in the sky bye and bye.

Surly Our Glorious and Supreme Leader will have to demure with Senate Reform until just after the next election (or is it the one after that) because with so little time and so much to accomplish and the magnitude of the present agenda. We all shall have to wait to have pie in the sky bye and bye. It will be so fine on that glorious day.

Then there are all the encumbrances of not having enough power to really get things done. And after all, look what the Liberals accomplished or failed to accomplish in all the years they had real power and could have accomplished or have not accomplished in all that time. This time things will be different for sure.


----------



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

BigDL said:


> Are libertarians such suckers for pie in the sky bye and bye.
> 
> Surly Our Glorious and Supreme Leader will have to demure with Senate Reform until just after the next election (or is it the one after that) because with so little time and so much to accomplish and the magnitude of the present agenda. We all shall have to wait to have pie in the sky bye and bye. It will be so fine on that glorious day.
> 
> Then there are all the encumbrances of not having enough power to really get things done. And after all, look what the Liberals accomplished or failed to accomplish in all the years they had real power and could have accomplished or have not accomplished in all that time. This time things will be different for sure.


Boy, talk about bitter, BigDL!!!!  Lighten up, man. Let the Harper Government have a few majority governments to see how things go, and then let them get to their original agenda. In the meantime, since you did not vote for the winning side, you have no right to complain. Work hard, pay your taxes, and know that these tax dollars are being well spent. Then, when it's your time "in the sweet bye and bye", we shall all meet and have a great laugh together. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hmmm, both you guys need an attitude adjustment or your blood pressure will go through the roof in the next four years. 

If senate reform is to be made, not only do you need to enact it in parliament, the senate must approve it too. This is but step one in the process to a "triple E" senate. I for one will welcome that move as should every Canadian. Sometimes one has to use the trough to eliminate the trough. Don't be too quick too judgement.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I guess that'll be relatively first on the agenda then. Stage is set.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Boy, talk about bitter, BigDL!!!!  Lighten up, man. Let the Harper Government have a few majority governments to see how things go, and then let them get to their original agenda. In the meantime, since you did not vote for the winning side, you have no right to complain. Work hard, pay your taxes, and know that these tax dollars are being well spent. Then, when it's your time "in the sweet bye and bye", we shall all meet and have a great laugh together. Paix, mon ami.


I shall try to be better not bitter.

I for one would like to see the elimination of the Federal senate just like all the provincial senates before it. 

I fear Our Glorious and Supreme Leader may love the largess on the public's dime to give up such a wondrous toy and the all the joy it brings them that he holds so dear.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(Bruce Mackinnon / Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

^^^ :lmao:


----------



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

BigDL said:


> I shall try to be better not bitter.
> 
> I for one would like to see the elimination of the Federal senate just like all the provincial senates before it.
> 
> I fear Our Glorious and Supreme Leader may love the largess on the public's dime to give up such a wondrous toy and the all the joy it brings them that he holds so dear.


Mama always said, "Bitter is as bitter does", BigDL. So, calm yourself with the knowledtge that Our Glorious and Supreme Leader has our best interests in mind no matter what he does. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> If senate reform is to be made, not only do you need to enact it in parliament, the senate must approve it too. This is but step one in the process to a "triple E" senate. I for one will welcome that move as should every Canadian. Sometimes one has to use the trough to eliminate the trough. Don't be too quick too judgement.


An elected Senate will be nothing but a larger and richer trough. 

A new set of elections = $$$; a new set of politicians, rather than current rest home residents, who will clamour for more appropriations for staff and will want to exercise their newly mandated power from the electorate = $$$; slowing up the process of legislation, as the now elected pols will need to put their stamp on it, rather than their rubber stamp = $$$; gridlock, a la the USA, if we end up in a situation where different parties have a majority in the Commons and the Senate = $$$.

Now for all of these $$$ what's the supposed benefit? There is none.

This idea is a remnant from the days of the Reform party, when Alberta felt shut out of Ottawa and wanted to re-jig things by guaranteeing regional representation with elected Senate seats based on regional areas rather than rep by pop. Now Alberta owns Ottawa. 

There's a reason Harper has been dragging his heels on triple-E. It was never about some supposed idea of "democracy" it was about power. He doesn't care about triple-E anymore, his support for it went away when he gave up supporting proportional representation. Reform's takeover of the Progressive Conservative party solved all of that. He couldn't beat the inequities of first-past-the-post and the "benign dictatorship" (his words) so he joined it.

Harper's just fine with the Senate being the old boys patronage rest home that it's always been. Why would a good power-monger want to get rid of that?

I'm for a triple-P Senate -- Put Patronage to Pasture. Abolish it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ... I'm for a triple-P Senate -- Put Patronage to Pasture. Abolish it.


I concur.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The Senate doesn't need so much to be reformed as it needs to be obliterated.


----------



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

Max said:


> The Senate doesn't need so much to be reformed as it needs to be obliterated.


Well, if they would stop paying senators extra bonuses for just showing up to work they might get the hint. It is the same as leaving out a bit of milk for a stray cat.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Now Alberta owns Ottawa.


While I'd hardly agree with "owning" it, yes, we finally have some input. First time in 107 years. Is that a bad thing? Didn't seem to offend Ontario or Quebec all the years they had the power.

And, to make sure that everybody else also has input, the Triple E senate should exist. It should be even more painfully obvious now.

Interesting that when someone else suddenly carries the balance of power how many are coming out of the woodwork calling for senate abolition. From the outside looking in it appears to be "if we can't have the senate majority, then get rid of it".


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

FeXL said:


> While I'd hardly agree with "owning" it, yes, we finally have some input. First time in 107 years. Is that a bad thing? Didn't seem to offend Ontario or Quebec all the years they had the power.
> 
> And, to make sure that everybody else also has input, the Triple E senate should exist. It should be even more painfully obvious now.
> 
> Interesting that when someone else suddenly carries the balance of power how many are coming out of the woodwork calling for senate abolition. From the outside looking in it appears to be "if we can't have the senate majority, then get rid of it".


"Owning Ottawa" was a tad dramatic, yes. It would be a very good thing indeed if all areas of the country and all citizens had input into our government. As it currently stands with first-past-the-post, 37% had input by voting for the party that formed a majority.

But I think that input should be contingent on representation by population not by region. If we had an elected Senate would we divide up the 105 Senate seats by 13 to guarantee regional representation among the provinces and territories? The US uses a formula of 2 Senators per state for a total of 100. 

So PEI with 140-odd thousand folks gets 8 triple-E Senators, with a population equal to 1.5 average ridings. The NWT with 40-odd thousand residents gets 8 triple-E Senators, with a population less than half an average riding. By contrast Alberta, with 28 MPs also gets 8 triple-E bench-warmers and these 3 are all equal to Ontario, with 107 ridings averaging 100,000 citizens each having 8 triple-E bigshots as well. What's painfully obvious here is that this type of regional gerrymandering makes some citizens much more equal than others.

A single House of Commons, with MPs elected by proportional representation would be the fairest result. My interest is in a result that fairly serves the democratic will of all Canadians, not one that frustrates it and gives some greater input than others.

As well I'm always amazed at supposedly frugal conservatives being the ones most strongly wanting this Senate scheme -- a plan that would massively increase the cost of our political representation in Parliament.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> "Owning Ottawa" was a tad dramatic, yes. It would be a very good thing indeed if all areas of the country and all citizens had input into our government. As it currently stands with first-past-the-post, 37% had input by voting for the party that formed a majority.
> 
> But I think that input should be contingent on representation by population not by region. If we had an elected Senate would we divide up the 105 Senate seats by 13 to guarantee regional representation among the provinces and territories? The US uses a formula of 2 Senators per state for a total of 100.
> 
> ...


A "house" of the Confederation to sort out the tensions and issues between the Provinces might be productive. 

We need to eliminate the Senate.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> The Senate doesn't need so much to be reformed as it needs to be obliterated.


+1

Harper should move to wipe it out tout suite. Now that would save some bucks.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But I think that input should be contingent on representation by population not by region. If we had an elected Senate would we divide up the 105 Senate seats by 13 to guarantee regional representation among the provinces and territories? The US uses a formula of 2 Senators per state for a total of 100.


Something along those lines, yes. However, I don't think we need 105 senators in the first place. I think that number could be safely (and efficiently) reduced to say, 39, three per region.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So PEI with 140-odd thousand folks gets 8 triple-E Senators, with a population equal to 1.5 average ridings. The NWT with 40-odd thousand residents gets 8 triple-E Senators, with a population less than half an average riding. By contrast Alberta, with 28 MPs also gets 8 triple-E bench-warmers and these 3 are all equal to Ontario, with 107 ridings averaging 100,000 citizens each having 8 triple-E bigshots as well. What's painfully obvious here is that this type of regional gerrymandering makes some citizens much more equal than others.


The thing is, the current system has the same shortfalls. Many rural ridings carry more power than some urban ones and denser populated areas also wield extra power.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> A single House of Commons, with MPs elected by proportional representation would be the fairest result. My interest is in a result that fairly serves the democratic will of all Canadians, not one that frustrates it and gives some greater input than others.


Honestly, haven't heard much about that but it may be an alternative. I'd need more information.

I'd still have concerns about regional representation, however.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As well I'm always amazed at supposedly frugal conservatives being the ones most strongly wanting this Senate scheme -- a plan that would massively increase the cost of our political representation in Parliament.


I'm thinking that one of the reasons many conservatives are interested in this system is because they're the ones who have been consistently under represented in Ottawa (western Canada). Again, I would have no issues significantly reducing the # of senators, in turn reducing costs.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

FeXL said:


> Something along those lines, yes. However, I don't think we need 105 senators in the first place. I think that number could be safely (and efficiently) reduced to say, 39, three per region.


What you're suggesting is even worse in my opinion. 3 powerful politicians to represent each province or territory, whether they have 10 million citizens or 40,000 is also inherently unfair and putting that much power in the hands of fewer people exacerbates that unfairness. And if the idea is to have the Senate being "Equal", as the triple-Eers want, then you have 39 equal to 308, not at all fair or actually equal.



FeXL said:


> The thing is, the current system has the same shortfalls. Many rural ridings carry more power than some urban ones and denser populated areas also wield extra power.
> ••••••••
> Honestly, haven't heard much about that but it may be an alternative. I'd need more information.
> 
> ...


The current system has many shortfalls in my opinion. Representation by population, isn't the worst of them, overall it's roughly equal. There are some glaring examples of inequality, such as PEI with 140,000 getting 4 MPs, when the average riding is made up of 100,000 citizens. In general rural ridings get more representation per person than many urban ridings. Because of various geographical considerations that have to go into drawing up boundaries, some rural MPs represent significantly less than 100,000 Canadians, while many urban ridings go well over that number. So that means that many rural residents get more political representation per capta.

We are due for another electoral boundaries re-drawing before the next election, that is due to give Alberta and BC some more seats due to increased population.

Representation by population has to be at the core of democratic political representation. The fact that most of Canada's population lives in Southern Ontario and Quebec means that those Canadians, as a group, will dominate our national representation. As long a we are to be part of a united country that is what will happen. It's the same thing on a provincial level, the representatives of Calgary and Edmonton dominate the Alberta legislature and the MLAs from Vancouver and Victoria dominate the BC legislature. It's just the way things are, I don't see how a minority of citizens can have a greater political voice than a majority and we can call ourselves a democracy.

There is a place for regional representation though and that is the fact that our Confederation is made up of 10 provinces and 3 territories. I'm not sure about the status of the territories, but the provinces each have an equal vote when it comes to federal-provincial matters and regarding constitutional issues. Provinces don't have as much autonomy as states in the USA, but there is some real power there, where Alberta or tiny PEI can speak on a level playing field with Ontario.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The fact that most of Canada's population lives in Southern Ontario and Quebec means that those Canadians, as a group, will dominate our national representation. As long a we are to be part of a united country that is what will happen.


This does not foster unity but foments discord. Trust me, I've lived under this domination all my life. 

There needs to be equal regional representation, whether 105=308, 39=308, 26=308 or whatever. What may be life-changing for Alberta may not even show up on the radar in COTU.

I'm tired of living under what people thousands of miles away decree.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

So it'll be better closer to home and who cares if the further away other fellow still feel left out, sucks to be them?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yes, that's about it. The old shoe on the other foot thing.

i've said it before and I'll say it again. Sometimes it strikes me as miraculous that the country has any sort of cohesion at all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Yes, that's about it. The old shoe on the other foot thing.
> 
> i've said it before and I'll say it again. Sometimes it strikes me as miraculous that the country has any sort of cohesion at all.


Transfer payments.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Transfer payments.


There is truth there ... Blood is thicker than water ... But money is much thicker than blood


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

*I'd like to see a reformed Senate*

... or what ever you would like to call it.

I'd like to see ridings of the house of commons more closely aligned to the actual populations of the areas. It isn't now for various historical reasons and also because of fear of the tyranny of majority. 

The major cities hold a high proportion of the population but occupy a miniscule portion of the actual country. We are very centralized. It is hard for a person from Toronto to speak for someone in Kapuskasing. They are both in the same province but live in different worlds with different concerns. On strict population ridings, Toronto, and other major centers have very large voices from a small part of the country, perhaps to the detriment of those outside the centers. A reformed senate could possibly remedy that.

I would like to see a senate based strictly on a grid pattern laid over the country. One senator per so many square miles. In the senate, north would have the same voice as south. Major center the same as rural. East exactly as much as west or central.

In combination with a population based house of commons, I would hope a balance would be achieved of population versus geography. That would be a constructive senate.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Lichen Software said:


> ... or what ever you would like to call it.
> 
> I'd like to see ridings of the house of commons more closely aligned to the actual populations of the areas. It isn't now for various historical reasons and also because of fear of the tyranny of majority.


Most are pretty close to the average. There are a few glaring exceptions for a few minor areas and I agree that on principle this should be fixed.



Lichen Software said:


> The major cities hold a high proportion of the population but occupy a miniscule portion of the actual country. We are very centralized. It is hard for a person from Toronto to speak for someone in Kapuskasing. They are both in the same province but live in different worlds with different concerns. On strict population ridings, Toronto, and other major centers have very large voices from a small part of the country, perhaps to the detriment of those outside the centers. A reformed senate could possibly remedy that.
> 
> I would like to see a senate based strictly on a grid pattern laid over the country. One senator per so many square miles. In the senate, north would have the same voice as south. Major center the same as rural. East exactly as much as west or central.
> 
> In combination with a population based house of commons, I would hope a balance would be achieved of population versus geography. That would be a constructive senate.


In that Senate north would have a greater voice than south. Many of these grids you envision might have only a few hundred people living in them. How is it fair to give them their own Senator while some grids may have 1 Senator to speak for millions in an urban area?

I fail to understand how people can justify the idea that those who live in areas of smaller population should be given a handicap to pump of their share of political representation. This is basically unfair and violates the concept of one person, one vote.

Many years ago I moved from the city to a more sparsely populated rural area. I understand what it means to live in a place that doesn't concern the masses in the city and that many don't even know exists. But how does that mean that this place I live in that might have a population equal to a couple of city blocks, should be allowed to have the same political voice as a whole city? This is fundamentally anti-democratic thinking.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> In that Senate north would have a greater voice than south. Many of these grids you envision might have only a few hundred people living in them. How is it fair to give them their own Senator while some grids may have 1 Senator to speak for millions in an urban area?
> 
> I fail to understand how people can justify the idea that those who live in areas of smaller population should be given a handicap to pump of their share of political representation. This is basically unfair and violates the concept of one person, one vote.


That's a fair comment. I would respond by asking why would one part of the country be more important than any other? 

My 40' lot in Barrie is very important to me and is in fact my centre of attention. Things that happen in Yellowknife have understandably less resonance to me right now. But I am Canadian. That gives me the right and priviledge to be in any part of this country. I could choose to be in Yellowknife tomorrow. It is the totality of the county that makes Canada what it is and I do have the right to live in any part of it.

What you are saying is that in the country as a whole, the interests of a collection of people on 40' lots should have seniority over other interests, because there are more of them. That's democracy.

The tyranny of democracy is that those interests are promulgated over the wishes and aspirations of others and in many cases using the monies of the others to pay for it. And lets be clear, these areas do provide a large amount of money to the various levels of government. Mines, hydro, rail and timber products in Ontario basically kept the Ontario government from going bankrupt during the depression. The north produced and the south spent.

Iwould put it to you that the senate never, ever was a purely democratic institution. It is supposed to be an institution of sober second thought. The history goes to the house of lords in England. Their job, ostensibly, was to look to the interests of the kingdom as a whole over those of the commoners in the house. In reality there, they looked to the interests of the landed gentry. 

Though pearage did not pass through to Canada, the notion of an institution of sober second thought did. The life time appointment was to give stability and continuity allowing a view over a longer period than the period till the next election. It was designed to be a check on democracy, not democracy itself. 

The senate has been greatly tarnished and seconded by the party system and the entrenching of party interests rather than interests of the country as a whole over time. In short, it is not doing it's job. Hence the discussion.

So, as a check, a voice distributed evenly throughout all of Canada would be my choice. I like the idea of elected. I would want a residency requirement, probably 5 years with a principal residence in the area. No parachutes allowed. My first thought would be non partisan, but there is an organizational advantage to the party system. I would have to know more about how it works in the Yukon where there are no parties.

Some parts of the grid would not have representatives from time to time - because they would have no people.

As it is now, the house of commons represents individual areas, ridings, throughout the country. I have no problem with that. My rep is supposed to speak for me and promulgate my interests. The interests of my 40' lot constituency. The senate that I describe is an admission that that is not enough and that effectively listening only the the 40' lot constituency in the end is not that great for the country as a whole.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> My first thought would be non partisan, but there is an organizational advantage to the party system. I would have to know more about how it works in the Yukon where there are no parties.


That is hard to enforce. Toronto City Council, for example, is broken into three factions along obvious party affiliations. Nobody had any doubt that David Miller was the squishiest NDP fanboy imaginable. Nobody doubts that Rob Ford is on the Conservative side.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, no one doubts that Rob Ford is the squishiest conservative fanboy imaginable; true dat.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Yeah, no one doubts that Rob Ford is the squishiest conservative fanboy imaginable; true dat.


Have you squished him...

...in the booth, in the back, in the corner, in the dark?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Believe it or not: Harper’s more popular than Trudeau ever was



> For left-of-centre voters of all political affiliations, the Harper majority is a shock that takes a bit of getting used to. And there are various ways of rationalizing it, the most prominent being a temptation to explain it as an accident of vote-splitting.
> 
> After all, the Conservatives only won 39.62 per cent of the national vote, which means that over 60 per cent voted against them. When the 60 per cent gets its act together, things will surely return to normal in what is still a centre-left country?
> 
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Have you squished him...
> 
> ...in the booth, in the back, in the corner, in the dark?


Why, he be squishy like you be. I'm surprised you would pretend to know differently!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have always thought of the NDP as squishy and Conservatives as spiny. Liberals are spongey.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Lichen Software said:


> That's a fair comment. I would respond by asking why would one part of the country be more important than any other?


I'm saying that no part of the country should be more important than the citizens of the country. Representation by region gives those citizens who live in areas of less population density a greater political voice than those who live in areas of higher population density. This is what I'm saying is anti-democratic.

The assumption of those who promote this is that everyone is myopic and selfish. If that's completely true then we are finished as a country anyway. Just because someone lives in the city does not mean they don't understand the problems and needs of other areas and vice versa. I support both myself as a rural resident.



Lichen Software said:


> My 40' lot in Barrie is very important to me and is in fact my centre of attention. Things that happen in Yellowknife have understandably less resonance to me right now. But I am Canadian. That gives me the right and priviledge to be in any part of this country. I could choose to be in Yellowknife tomorrow. It is the totality of the county that makes Canada what it is and I do have the right to live in any part of it.
> 
> What you are saying is that in the country as a whole, the interests of a collection of people on 40' lots should have seniority over other interests, because there are more of them. That's democracy.
> 
> ...


My rep is supposed to represent my interests, but not at the exclusion of all else. National parties have to represent all areas if they want to be competitive politically in those areas.

And I agree with you, Senates, Houses of Lords and secondary houses were definitely intended to be inherently undemocratic. And I do not think this is a good thing or that it ever was a good thing. We have passed the era, I hope, where the powerful elites should be allowed to put a check on the popular will because they don't fully trust the judgement of "the Commons".

Your scheme, by the way, is not one that is being promoted by advocates of Senate reform. They want the provinces to each have a set of elected Senators to skew Parliamentary power in the direction of regional representation and away from representation by population. PEI and NWT would equal Alberta and Ontario. I don't believe, and never will, that 40,000 citizens in NWT or 140,000 citizens in PEI should have a more powerful political voice than 3.7 million citizens in Alberta, 4.5 million in BC or 13 million citizens in Ontario.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

You are probably right. My vision is not one that would be entertained. Still, I have thought of it a lot and thought it should be put forward in some venue, if for nothing else, to be torn apart.

As for democracy being the be all to end all ... There is tyranny of democracy. It is tyranny, no less than by emperor or other despot. that is why we do have checks and balances. 

"Never appeal to a man's better nature, he may not have one. Appeal to his self interest instead" - Lazerous Long ( Robert Heinlein)

As for your representative being able to see the big picture over the local picture. That is not his job. The country did not elect him. You, or your peers did. You have the absolute right to believe that he will promote your interests above others. If your rep is in cabinet, that is another matter. This is the executive of the country and acts for the country as a whole. - more checks and balances.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Believe it or not: Harper’s more popular than Trudeau ever was


lol

i'd like someone to run the numbers excluding Alberta and see how that works out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> i'd like someone to run the numbers excluding Alberta and see how that works out.


Why, did they exclude Quebec when they ran Trudeau's numbers?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> Why, did they exclude Quebec when they ran Trudeau's numbers?


yes they did. it's a pretty silly article TBH.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

"Believe it or not: Harper’s more popular than Trudeau ever was"



i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> i'd like someone to run the numbers excluding Alberta and see how that works out.


I have no numbers for you. Anecdotally, I can supply this observation. When Trudeau visited Calgary in the mid 70s, and walked across the U of Calgary campus, there was a crowd many people deep along the entire route. They were very clearly supporters, not future Harperite among them. i had to raise my young son on my shoulders so that he could see Trudeau.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(Bruce Mackinnon / The Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The above cartoon is one of the weakest I've seen in some time. It's one thing to have a political figure utter something comical in response to an actual situation, but it's quite another to both invent the premise and then insert the comical phrase.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr T said:


> I have no numbers for you. Anecdotally, I can supply this observation. When Trudeau visited Calgary in the mid 70s, and walked across the U of Calgary campus, there was a crowd many people deep along the entire route. They were very clearly supporters, not future Harperite among them. i had to raise my young son on my shoulders so that he could see Trudeau.


That was the campus. No surprise there. 

And they probably were future "Harperites" temporarily dazzled by buck-toothed flower power.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The above cartoon is one of the weakest I've seen in some time. It's one thing to have a political figure utter something comical in response to an actual situation, but it's quite another to both invent the premise and then insert the comical phrase.


only to a conservative apologist.

It's actually pretty funny. Even if you like the conservatives or voted for them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> only to a conservative apologist.
> 
> It's actually pretty funny. Even if you like the conservatives or voted for them.


You didn't understand my critique, did you?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I added your comments in case you were confused.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Nice day for drumming. eh?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no need to get personal now.

Anything but the topic eh?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Anything but the topic eh?


Gotta drum those Conservatives out of office for blaming the previous governments for the financial mess we were in, then accidentally discovering that _they_ were the previous governments.

That happened, right?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

my that has you in a funk eh?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> my that has you in a funk eh?


Drum them out I say!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you go girl!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you go girl!


You bet your hi-hat clutch!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think macfury definitely wins the thread derailer of the year award.

All you have to do is criticize the conservatives, and you can hear the hoofs just a thunderin


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hoofbeats like drums.


----------



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

Macfury said:


> Hoofbeats like drums.


Run for your lives ......................... 

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF: time to take those meds, my good man.

In other news, the sun rose today in one place and set in another.


----------



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

Max said:


> MF: time to take those meds, my good man.
> 
> In other news, the sun rose today in one place and set in another.


A nice sunset is forming here, Max. Of course, we await the approach of Death, Destruction, Pestilence, and Famine at the stroke of midnight. We shall see.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I think macfury definitely wins the thread derailer of the year award.
> 
> All you have to do is criticize the conservatives, and you can hear the hoofs just a thunderin


Replace "the conservatives" with Obama and gee guess who chimes in.... the usual suspects.

It would seem that there are an equal number of apologists on whatever side of the political fence you choose to look....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

True dat. A stale wind blows on both sides of the old, broken-down fence.

Hey Doc G: no apocalypse yet... but we can always hope.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> True dat. A stale wind blows on both sides of the old, broken-down fence.
> 
> Hey Doc G: no apocalypse yet... but we can always hope.


Wait until 12/12/12.... all hell is scheduled to brake loose. So until then, party like it is 11/12/12...


----------



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

Max said:


> True dat. A stale wind blows on both sides of the old, broken-down fence.
> 
> Hey Doc G: no apocalypse yet... but we can always hope.


True ............. but keep up your covert insults and your atoms shall be smashed .............. and cast adrift to rejoin the elements of the universe.

Bon voyage, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Run for your lives .........................
> 
> The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse


Shem, Ham and Japheth? Who is the fourth?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednigo?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Key Conservative policies lack clear support: poll*



> A majority of Canadians don't support corporate tax cuts and are opposed to buying the F-35 fighter jets, two major pieces of the Conservative government's plan for the country, a new poll suggests.
> 
> In a new poll conducted for CBC News following the May 2 federal election, 53 per cent of people surveyed said they were opposed to dropping the corporate tax rate from 16.5 per cent to 15 per cent. About two-fifths — 39 per cent — agreed with the cut and eight per cent weren't sure.
> 
> Just more than half — 52 per cent — said Canada should not go ahead with the purchase of 65 F-35 fighter jets, while 37 per cent polled said the government should buy the planes. Twelve per cent said they didn't know.


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Those are some pretty overwhelming numbers, CM--"snark!"


----------

