NationStates Jolt Archive

There's been several threads in the past discussing various goings on in Canadian politics, and obviously there are several NSers who enjoy these discussions. I thought I'd see if there is any support for a general thread on Canadian politics where we can discuss all the issues and events that come up over time.

So to kick things off: a year and a half into their term in office, what are people's thoughts on the Harper Government?

So to kick things off: a year and a half into their term in office, what are people's thoughts on the Harper Government?

Mixed. They have cut taxes and such, but still have a bloated budget. However, I thought they would be far worse than they are, so I'm not too dissatisfied.

There's been several threads in the past discussing various goings on in Canadian politics, and obviously there are several NSers who enjoy these discussions. I thought I'd see if there is any support for a general thread on Canadian politics where we can discuss all the issues and events that come up over time.

So to kick things off: a year and a half into their term in office, what are people's thoughts on the Harper Government?
They keep shooting themselves in the foot!! :D

I expected them to screw up worse, but am still dissatisfied.

Mixed. They have cut taxes and such, but still have a bloated budget. However, I thought they would be far worse than they are, so I'm not too dissatisfied.

I'm annoyed that in the course of two budgets, they've managed to piss away a 10 billion surplus and get almost nothing in return for it. Which means that in the long run, I'll be paying more in taxes to cover past spending.

I was expecting them to be much worse than they are. I guuess it's "It's not so bad.... once you get in..." government.

I expected them to screw up worse, but am still dissatisfied.

They've actually been worse than I expected. On issues that I agree with them on they've been headed in the wrong direction, while in areas where I disagree with them, they've done more damage than I thought possible for a minority government. Examples:

Democratic Reform:

Senate Reform is all well and good, but if we continue to elect the House by less than Democratic means, what is the point? The Conservatives (and their predecessors) have made some great contributions to the debate on electoral reform in previous houses, but that all seems to have gone out the window now that they are back in power and hoping to win a majority.

Accountability

The Federal Accountability Act was in many ways a move backwards in terms of accountability. Among other things, it actually added to the already long list of excuses civil servants can use for denying freedom of information requests. And their promise to be the most accountable government ever was just so many words. They have been one of the most top-down, secretive governments this country has ever seen; they are positively intolerant of dissent or criticism in any form. Just look at their manual on how to railroad house committees.

Finance:

They inherited a 10 billion surplus and after 2 budgets they are only projecting a 300 million surplus for this year. When you have a strong economy with full employment, you should be running a healthy surplus, and paying down the debt load that still accounts for 25% of federal spending. Instead we are cutting taxes and increasing spending in ways we can't possibly sustain. If the economy even suffers a mild hiccup, we are going to be so far back into the red it won't be funny.

They have made an already complex tax system even more so, adding all sorts of little credits and exemptions rather than providing broad-based tax relief. And the cut to the GST was politically popular but economically stupid. A cut to income taxes would have made much more sense.

Don't even get me started on transfer payments ...

Environment:

This has been a joke right from the get-go. The fact that what should be one of the if not the top issue facing any government did not even make their initial list of 5 priorities says alot about how deep they have their head in the sand on this issue. They appointed a Minister who was clearly unqualified (although to be realistic, they probably don't have anyone in caucus qualified to deal with this issue, which again says alot about their priorities). They cut pretty much every program relating to the environment, and only a year and one Minister later, after they had belatedly recognized that this was in fact a priority for most Canadians, did they re-introduce some slightly modified versions of the same programs they had cut a year earlier. They made enough changes to those programs to ensure that everything had to start from square one again, and a whole lot of taxpayers money had to be spent on new software, etc. In other words, we lost at least two years of progress on this issue and wasted a whole lot of money to get back to where we started.

And when they finally (belatedly) added the Environment to the list of priorities, they qualified it in a way they never qualified any of their other priorities: we will protect the environment only if it doesn't cost jobs or hurt the economy. This is a tired and false dichotomy. If we don't protect the environment, there won't be an economy. There are plenty of jobs to be had in protecting the environment and in making the econonmy sustainable, if we are prepared to embrace the opportunities.

Their position on Climate Change has been an embarassment at home and overseas. If they don't believe it is happening or is human-induced they should have the courage to come out and say so. If they do, then they should be prepared to commit to some meaningful action. Instead, they continue to blame the previous government for the mess we are in, without introducing a comprehensive plan of their own. Emissions instensity was tried by the Liberals and it failed. We obviously need something with a little more teeth. And we may not be able to meet our Kyoto targets, but that does not excuse us from making any effort whatsoever to curb emissions. Not to mention the fact that refusing to obey laws you don't like is not just irresponsible, it's unconstitutional.

Aboriginal Affairs

I had high hopes when they appointed Jim Prentice as Minister, as he is one of the few Conservatives with the know-how to deal with this issue. I was then monumentally dissapointed when they cut the legs out from under him by scrapping the Kelowna Accord. They have since started making a few noises about some possibly good moves in this area, like moving Specific Claims our of the political arena and under the jurisdiction of the Indian Claims Commission. But it remains to see what other measures they might try and tack into their "Reform Package" they are trotting out in the Fall.



Then again, I'm not exactly enamoured with the alternatives right now either.

The Conservatives are terrible. Everything they do is to pander to the voters so Harper can win the next election with a majority. I suppose then we'll see how truly horrible they can be. Not only that, but all these tax cuts are stupid and simply have no positive aspect. Now when something big crops up, we could well be in massive trouble. He's wasting our money to pander to the populace and make the country weaker.

I'm displeased with his weakening on Afghanistan, which is the most striking event recently. Wavering before the Taliban and warlords will only encourage them to keep killing our people to scare us away. Pulling out would be damaging to Afghanistan and it's (admittedly slim) chance of becoming a functional state. It would also prevent Canada from being trusted to follow through in other world events.

Going back a bit recently, I was disappointed with "Quebec is a Nation" (toothless as it has been.) It will probably end up harmless, but I wouldn't risk getting the separatists riled up again for a brief boost in the polls.

As a centre-leftist myself, I've been less unhappy than I thought I'd be, but still unimpressed. I suppose pandering-to-be-elected is the nature of democracy, but I'd like more tough stands on important issues.

The Conservatives are terrible. Everything they do is to pander to the voters so Harper can win the next election with a majority. I suppose then we'll see how truly horrible they can be. Not only that, but all these tax cuts are stupid and simply have no positive aspect. Now when something big crops up, we could well be in massive trouble. He's wasting our money to pander to the populace and make the country weaker.

It's funny because it's not working. The Conservatives have noe lost their lead over the Liberals.
I'm pretty sure that Quebec is getting madder and madder, and even the Prairies aren't as satisfied as they had hoped to be.

Albertans, I know, where expecting him to drop everything and be whatever the wanted without thinking about the rest of the country. Thank God he didn't, just think: Ralph Klein on a federal level *shudders*. Give it a little more time and they'll be crying "Western Alienation".

Stephen Harper is willing to support President Bush. That alone is reason enough for me to give the thumbs down to his administration.

I'm displeased with his weakening on Afghanistan, which is the most striking event recently. Wavering before the Taliban and warlords will only encourage them to keep killing our people to scare us away. Pulling out would be damaging to Afghanistan and it's (admittedly slim) chance of becoming a functional state. It would also prevent Canada from being trusted to follow through in other world events.

On the other hand, what will staying there do if our allies are unwilling to commit the resources needed to stabilize and rebuild the country? I thought that we never should have committed to extending the mission in the first place until the US and Britain agreed to put their money where their mouths are.


Going back a bit recently, I was disappointed with "Quebec is a Nation" (toothless as it has been.) It will probably end up harmless, but I wouldn't risk getting the separatists riled up again for a brief boost in the polls.

I agree. Mulroney pandered to the seperatists as well and look where that got us.

i'd like to see canada rebuild its military infrastructure


a POWERFUL canada, how about it eh?


:)

i'd like to see canada rebuild its military infrastructure


a POWERFUL canada, how about it eh?


:)

There are better things to spend our money on.

There are better things to spend our money on.

what could be better than the ability to bully other nations around?


tis the american dream : )

what could be better than the ability to bully other nations around?

Help them. (although I think you're joking)

Help them. (although I think you're joking)

lol, yeah i am


so calm 'er down there son, calm her down :p

lol, yeah i am


so calm 'er down there son, calm her down :p

I'm not a son. And I was not calm, just posting for the sake of keeping this up near the top.

I'm not a son. And I wasn't not calm, just posting for the sake of keeping this up near the top.

just an expression mate, sorry

just an expression mate, sorry
I know, I know:)

And when I said I wasn't calm I actually meant the complete opposite but it't hot and I'm not paying too much attention to myself.

i don't know much about canadian politics, so if anyone could kinda give a brief summary of what's going on about the current admin, that would be fabulous!


But I think it's interesting that Canadians themselves talk about how conservative their current prime minister is, but down here in America, at least to the ignorant, ALL Canadians are liberal socialists


It's just funny to see how askew our own stereotypes can be

I'm not a son. And I was not calm, just posting for the sake of keeping this up near the top.you want to "pump" this thread?

that can be arranged.
-yes I can- :D

"Quebec is a Nation" Is It?

But I think it's interesting that Canadians themselves talk about how conservative their current prime minister is, but down here in America, at least to the ignorant, ALL Canadians are liberal socialists

I wish we were! I'll keep this short because I'm not supposed to be doing this right, I'm lazy and if I write something long no one will read it.
Basically there are:
Conservatives, most right-winged (Stephen Harper) Currently in charge, minority government.
Liberals, Center (Stephan Dion)
Green, enviromental (Elizabeth May)
NDP, Left-winged (Jack Layton)
After the sponsorship scandal people started losing faith in the liberals and voted conserative. When I lived in the East I wasn't aware of this but the prairies (at least Alberta) feel that they are being ignored by Ottawa and they felt that Stephan Harper would stop ignoring them (as a current *shudder* Albertan, I think I can safetly say I don't fell ignored, well I do but that is because I'm a citizen not because of my geographic location). He paid them the same amount of attention so they're a little bitchy. He got a clean sweeo throughout Alberta if I remember correctly.
He also has been cutting social programs like crazy although few people seem to mind. A while ago he gave Québecios status as a Nation within a nation to win votes. It doesn't do anything and I'm not sure if Québec cares about it at this point.
So onto the bigger issues: He allowed a vote on whether to reappeal the decision on Gay Marriage. I know a lot of people where afraid about what he might do to that, but the Conservatives voted to let it remain so it looks like it's here to stay:)
Environment: Better than the last government, but still, he aims for intensity targets, not absolute targets which are needed. He also plans to phase out the use of incandescent lightbulbs, if anyone cares about that.
The War In Afganistan: He commited us until February 2009. A lot of people aren't happy about that.
Im short: He wants a majority government but the Liberals are starting to gain support.

Is It?

Sociologically speaking? Maybe ...

What annoyed me about it was it was clearly part of a backroom deal to get the seperatists to vote for his budget. Before the budget he was saying it was a pointless semantic debate and he wasn't going to get involved. Then the seperatists vote for the budget and voila ... they are a nation.

Most Aboriginal groups in Canada have a stronger claim to nationhood and they don't get that kind of recognition from Canada or Quebec.

i don't know much about canadian politics, so if anyone could kinda give a brief summary of what's going on about the current admin, that would be fabulous!


Well about 1/3 of us voted Conservative (and the other 2/3 of us clearly did not) so we got a Conservative government.

Ah, the joys of First Past the Post!

Evil Cantidia; you have neatly summed up my feelings on the current administration. I am frustrated by their adherence to silly ideology on some fronts, and abandoning the fiscal restraint that's supposed to go hand-in-hand with that ideology on other fronts.

On one hand, another term for the Liberals would have been a sad state of affairs for the state of democracy in Canada. (I too, despise FPTP, at least for Canada.) However, all the talk of democratic reform by the Conservatives has gone by the wayside, as Harper tightens the reins to steer the ship of State in the direction he wants. And frankly, I'm a little worried about where he might be steering it.

(On a side note, I'm still kind of laughing at all the people on here who were talking about how the Conservatives were going to be out of power within a matter of weeks after forming the government. I recall saying that they would serve their full term, and received comments like 'In your dreams!'. They mistook my political insight for political leanings. Ah well!)

Evil Cantidia; you have neatly summed up my feelings on the current administration. I am frustrated by their adherence to silly ideology on some fronts, and abandoning the fiscal restraint that's supposed to go hand-in-hand with that ideology on other fronts.

Mike's back! Yep ... ideology makes crappy policy.


On one hand, another term for the Liberals would have been a sad state of affairs for the state of democracy in Canada.

Agreed. Governments are like diapers ... they need to be changed every so often or they really start to stink.


(I too, despise FPTP, at least for Canada.) However, all the talk of democratic reform by the Conservatives has gone by the wayside, as Harper tightens the reins to steer the ship of State in the direction he wants. And frankly, I'm a little worried about where he might be steering it.

I'm not sure even he knows where he is steering it right now. They look a little directionless at the moment. I think even they didn't expect the minority situation to last this long. I think they thought they'd be in a position to win a majority by now. Turns out you had it pegged even better than they did!

Evil Cantidia; you have neatly summed up my feelings on the current administration. I am frustrated by their adherence to silly ideology on some fronts, and abandoning the fiscal restraint that's supposed to go hand-in-hand with that ideology on other fronts.

And I'm not sure that the Conservatives ideological support for fiscal restraint has ever really played out in practice. Big tax cuts tend to win out over a sensible long-term debt and tax reduction policy. The Harris Government did the same thing in Ontario. They didn't do much to curtail spending (spiralling health care costs more than made up for what they cut from post-secondary education and social programs) and they cut taxes to the point where they were barely running a surplus during a period of strong economic performance. As soon as the economy cooled off even slightly the province was 10 billion in the red. And all the user fees and increased local taxes thanks to downloading ate up most of the tax savings anyway.

I don't recall leaving...:p (I suppose I've been frequenting Spammier stuff of late.)Thou shalt have no posts before spam.

Mike's back!

I don't recall leaving...:p (I suppose I've been frequenting Spammier stuff of late.)

EDIT: Oh, and if you post a Canadian-content thread, I'll usually participate!

And I'm not sure that the Conservatives ideological support for fiscal restraint has ever really played out in practice. Big tax cuts tend to win out over a sensible long-term debt and tax reduction policy. The Harris Government did the same thing in Ontario. They didn't do much to curtail spending (spiralling health care costs more than made up for what they cut from post-secondary education and social programs) and they cut taxes to the point where they were barely running a surplus during a period of strong economic performance. As soon as the economy cooled off even slightly the province was 10 billion in the red. And all the user fees and increased local taxes thanks to downloading ate up most of the tax savings anyway.

I think Ontario ended up being caught up in two governmental budget axes in those days. While the Harris government was heartlessly slashing with numbers only in mind, they were also endorsing the Feds cutting transfer payments re: Health Care.

Still, after the spend-crazy days of Rae, the 'common sense' was a good selling feature for the Harris government. And they were endorsing balanced budgets before anyone else (to my knowledge), so some credit is deserved there. Now, if only they had concentrated more on debt reduction... and having a soul...

Thou shalt have no posts before spam.

Well I usually make sure to spam first.... sir.

*fumbles Spammer Salute*

I think Ontario ended up being caught up in two governmental budget axes in those days. While the Harris government was heartlessly slashing with numbers only in mind, they were also endorsing the Feds cutting transfer payments re: Health Care.

Still, after the spend-crazy days of Rae, the 'common sense' was a good selling feature for the Harris government. And they were endorsing balanced budgets before anyone else (to my knowledge), so some credit is deserved there. Now, if only they had concentrated more on debt reduction... and having a soul...Damned Ontario, thinking they should be the ones to run the country. Could be worse I suppose, they could have interests in the west, specifically BC. Wouldn't that be horrible? *is glad for western alienation*
Well I usually make sure to spam first.... sir.

*fumbles Spammer Salute*We have a salute now? I really need to start attending our meetings instead of just launching random crusades.

Damned Ontario, thinking they should be the ones to run the country. Could be worse I suppose, they could have interests in the west, specifically BC. Wouldn't that be horrible? *is glad for western alienation*

Well, who else is going to run Canada? Manitoba? You're more than happy to suck at the teat of Mumma Ontario. Sweet, Ontario teat.

Me have a salute now? I really need to start attending our meetings instead of just launching random crusades.

Oh. Maybe that's why I fumbled it?

Well, who else is going to run Canada? Manitoba? You're more than happy to suck at the teat of Mumma Ontario. Sweet, Ontario teat.How about Newfoundland? Ontario is the enemy.

Oh. Maybe that's why I fumbled it?You should think about going to our meetings too. Do you happen to know what time they take place, or if they are real?

How about Newfoundland? Ontario is the enemy.

You should think about going to our meetings too. Do you happen to know what time they take place, or if they are real?

No, I don't want to suckle at Newfoundland's teat. Too fishy.

Oh, and the meetlngs take place every 5 minutes, wherever I happen to be. They're very real. No one's showed up to one yet, but they're real! We just voted Mikesburg sexiest spammer, and spammer most likely to die from trying to eat a whole block of cheese without taking bites.

No, I don't want to suckle at Newfoundland's teat. Too fishy.We wouldn't understand a single thing they say; it would be another Chretien government.
Oh, and the meetlngs take place every 5 minutes, wherever I happen to be. They're very real. No one's showed up to one yet, but they're real! We just voted Mikesburg sexiest spammer, and spammer most likely to die from trying to eat a whole block of cheese without taking bites.I forgot why I don't go.

We wouldn't understand a single thing they say; it would be another Chretien government.

Shhh... people actually liked him... don't give anyone any ideas... I don't want our National Anthem to change to 'Oh Canada, We stand on gerd fer thee, bae'!'

Actually, on second thought, let's make that happen.

I forgot why I don't go.

Me too. Or do I? I can't remember.

Shhh... people actually liked him... don't give anyone any ideas... I don't want our National Anthem to change to 'Oh Canada, We stand on gerd fer thee, bae'!'

Actually, on second thought, let's make that happen.
O Canada, We stand on gerd fer ttee, bae'! (You forgot that Newfies cannot pronounce the th sound).
True patrit love in all mines sons commands
Wif glowin arts we see ttee rise,
tte true nord strong an free!
From far an wide, O Canada,
We stand on gerd fer tee,
God keep are land glorus an free, bae'!
O Canada, We stand on gerd fer ttee
O Canada, We stand on gerd fer tteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
Es bae, Is loves ttat song.
Me too. Or do I? I can't remember.By definition, you are at every one.

O Canada, We stand on gerd fer ttee, bae'! (You forgot that Newfies cannot pronounce the th sound).
True patrit love in all mines sons commands
Wif glowin arts we see ttee rise,
tte true nord strong an free!
From far an wide, O Canada,
We stand on gerd fer tee,
God keep are land glorus an free, bae'!
O Canada, We stand on gerd fer ttee
O Canada, We stand on gerd fer tteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
Es bae, Is loves ttat song.

Oh, I am SO standin' on gerd fer ttat dere country...


By definition, you are at every one.

Oh. Right. Forgot.

I think it's time for a new vote. I missed the last meeting. Next one's in... two minutes.

Nah, going to go to bed instead.

Oh, I am SO standin' on gerd fer ttat dere country...
Es bae, I coulds ad puts more 's's in but i gots to lazy.

Youse gonna bed na? Wes need more Canadian ear. Airs tey to?

Does anyone outside Canada, or even in Toronto, even understand newfie jokes?

To the person who wants us to help other nations instead of rebuilding our military, beleive it or not but the majoirty of our foreign aid is going to Afghanistan and we need a military for that money to actually reach the people of that nation.

Why should we continue to spend money on third world nations before solving the third world conditions within our own country. We continue to throw money at aboriginal reservations and drug prevention programs, but the only real solution is for those individuals to create a future for themselves without relying on handouts. This goes with throwing money around to poor nations, it would be better to buy their goods and for their governments to spend that money on their people instead of relying on the Canadian tax payer.

As for the Harper government...he hasn't done anything better than the Paul Martin government, unfortunately. Less tax breaks and about the same spending on the military.

I don't recall leaving...:p (I suppose I've been frequenting Spammier stuff of late.)

EDIT: Oh, and if you post a Canadian-content thread, I'll usually participate!

Yeah, I was wondering how long it would take for the Canadian content to draw you in!

I think Ontario ended up being caught up in two governmental budget axes in those days. While the Harris government was heartlessly slashing with numbers only in mind, they were also endorsing the Feds cutting transfer payments re: Health Care.

True dat.


Still, after the spend-crazy days of Rae, the 'common sense' was a good selling feature for the Harris government. And they were endorsing balanced budgets before anyone else (to my knowledge), so some credit is deserved there. Now, if only they had concentrated more on debt reduction... and having a soul...

I think Preston Manning and Reform were really the first to focus seriously on the evils of the deficit. But the problem with their approach (and Harris') was it was simplistic: deficit = bad, balanced budget = good. There was no appreciation of the fact that it is sound economic policy to run a deficit in bad economic times, that you should run a healthy surplus in good times (they seem to view surpluses as overtaxation; try arguing that a deficit means we are undertaxed!) and that there are ways of balancing a budget that cost you more in the long run.

There's been several threads in the past discussing various goings on in Canadian politics, and obviously there are several NSers who enjoy these discussions. I thought I'd see if there is any support for a general thread on Canadian politics where we can discuss all the issues and events that come up over time.

So to kick things off: a year and a half into their term in office, what are people's thoughts on the Harper Government?

He was true to his promise to drop the issue of repealing the gay marriage bill if there was no majority vote to re-open it, and that made me immensely happy. He's also boosting money to our military, which also makes me happy.

I'd like to see him do more for the environment, though, and I'm a little worried that the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan is becoming a war that may be as divisive to us as the Iraq war is to Americans, and I really don't want to see that happen.

I think Preston Manning and Reform were really the first to focus seriously on the evils of the deficit. But the problem with their approach (and Harris') was it was simplistic: deficit = bad, balanced budget = good. There was no appreciation of the fact that it is sound economic policy to run a deficit in bad economic times, that you should run a healthy surplus in good times (they seem to view surpluses as overtaxation; try arguing that a deficit means we are undertaxed!) and that there are ways of balancing a budget that cost you more in the long run.

You have to take into account the times. Bob Rae had managed to triple Ontario's debt in a matter of only four years in office, whilst making no real gains in the province, other than a highway that was sold to foreign interests. The issue of large debts and unbalanced budgets was something that was left by a generation of politicians beforehand. Rae's government (and Mulroney's too, to be honest) had simply highlighted the problem.

However, debt payment seemed to matter very little, in comparison to tax cuts. Ontario DID see a bit of a boom afterwards, but it also happened to coincide with the Free Trade Agreement..., so one could argue that it had very little to do with the tax cuts. Could be a bit of both.

Their method of reducing government expenditures just seemed rather callous. Simply handover smaller budgets to different departments, and let them sort it out. I'm sure there was bureacratic fat at higher levels that could have been cut, but then again, I wasn't reading the balance sheet.

I guess the most important legacy of that era would be a raising of the issue of national finances to the average layman. I think the Fed Libs had a better approach to the issue overall though.

He was true to his promise to drop the issue of repealing the gay marriage bill if there was no majority vote to re-open it, and that made me immensely happy. He's also boosting money to our military, which also makes me happy.

I'd like to see him do more for the environment, though, and I'm a little worried that the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan is becoming a war that may be as divisive to us as the Iraq war is to Americans, and I really don't want to see that happen.

I never really saw the gay marriage issue as one that was terribly important to most of the Conservative party. Rather, it was a bone of contention with the previous government, and a necessary evil of forging the Reform Party with the remains of the Progressive Conservatives. As long as democracy seemed to be served, they could lay the issue to rest.

On the military, I do like the fact that our soldiers will get the funding to do their job properly. However, do we really need military icebreakers? This is another case of ideology over basic reasoning. Afghanistan is an issue that deserves more clarity, and perhaps a less combat-heavy role for Canada.

I never really saw the gay marriage issue as one that was terribly important to most of the Conservative party. Rather, it was a bone of contention with the previous government, and a necessary evil of forging the Reform Party with the remains of the Progressive Conservatives. As long as democracy seemed to be served, they could lay the issue to rest.

On the military, I do like the fact that our soldiers will get the funding to do their job properly. However, do we really need military icebreakers? This is another case of ideology over basic reasoning. Afghanistan is an issue that deserves more clarity, and perhaps a less combat-heavy role for Canada.

The military icebreakers we aren't actually getting.. they're retrofitting some of our frigates, if I recall correctly.

And I can agree that that may be something of a mistake. Military might is not our country's strong point (shock and horror.) If we want to approach the tricky point of Arctic sovereignty, we'll need to do so through more delicate means. I don't understand the issue a great deal myself, so I'm a little wary of commenting on it.. But I think if the G8 sit down and talk things over reasonably, with fairness in mind, we can all arrive at a pleasant solution.

The only thing I absolutely don't want is the US (or any other country for that matter, but.. let's be realistic, here) saying "We deserve most or all of this land because we say so."

Edit: And on the gay marriage thing, yeah.. I will say again that I really respect Harper for keeping good on his promise, big issue to him or not. I look at the country closest to us and it's easy to see how much worse things could be in the civil rights area. Bonus points also go to the Conservatives who were mature enough to realize that gay marriage didn't damage our society, and that democracy will sometimes have to come above 'tradition' and moral standards, and therefore voted against re-opening the issue.

I know, I know, I'm seeing too much good in a situation that was probably more the result of apathy than understanding. But it's nice to think we've seen our nation take such a great stride in acceptance; that as much as we and the rest of North America have our ills.. we can look at ourselves, and say "We are Canada. We are a place where the happiness and rights of our citizens are not political or moral issues, but truths."

On the military, I do like the fact that our soldiers will get the funding to do their job properly. However, do we really need military icebreakers? This is another case of ideology over basic reasoning. Afghanistan is an issue that deserves more clarity, and perhaps a less combat-heavy role for Canada.

More to the point, if we DO need military icebreakers, why did we cheap out on them and buy lightweight ones that won't carve through the deep pack ice of winter?

And why, given the Conservative cries that the previous government operated without accountability, has the military spending spree of the past year been done almost entirely without going through any tender processes whatsoever? O'Connor is just ordering what he wants with no concern at all about ensuring that we can determine if we are getting value for our tax dollars. And given his previous career as a defence lobbyist, there has got to be some potential for conflict of interest in there....

More to the point, if we DO need military icebreakers, why did we cheap out on them and buy lightweight ones that won't carve through the deep pack ice of winter?

And why, given the Conservative cries that the previous government operated without accountability, has the military spending spree of the past year been done almost entirely without going through any tender processes whatsoever? O'Connor is just ordering what he wants with no concern at all about ensuring that we can determine if we are getting value for our tax dollars. And given his previous career as a defence lobbyist, there has got to be some potential for conflict of interest in there....

It's really hard for even (hypothetically) a former defense contractor CEO to have a conflict of interest when ordering equipment for our military.. It's not like they can sneak a bunch of bells and whistles into an acquisition request to inflate their profits... No matter what we buy for our soldiers, it's probably going to be better than what they already had.

The military icebreakers we aren't actually getting.. they're retrofitting some of our frigates, if I recall correctly.




Nope - buying six new lightweight "ice-capable" craft...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/14052007/3/canada-tories-scrap-plan-new-icebreakers.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070513/arctic_vessels_070513/20070513?hub=Canada

It's really hard for even (hypothetically) a former defense contractor CEO to have a conflict of interest when ordering equipment for our military.. It's not like they can sneak a bunch of bells and whistles into an acquisition request to inflate their profits... No matter what we buy for our soldiers, it's probably going to be better than what they already had.

Really? So when a guy who used to lobby for companies like... say... Boeing, puts in an order that helps keep a whole production line open, and there was NO bidding process for heavy-lift aircraft options, and the price given is 3.2 Billion of our tax dollars... you are saying that you are positive that this was the best value possible for your dollars? That this number is a best-possible price?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Military-Planes.php

How do you know that?

And I am in total agreement that the military needed upgrading. I've been saying that for years. I'm just saying that, in the absence of any sort of competitive or open process, questions <i>need</i> to be asked from time to time.

Nope - buying six new lightweight "ice-capable" craft...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/14052007/3/canada-tories-scrap-plan-new-icebreakers.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070513/arctic_vessels_070513/20070513?hub=Canada

Color me corrected!

I kind of wish that they just went with the heavier armed ice-breakers, even if they couldn't afford as many as they would otherwise. That's just how I am, though.. if I'm going to spend money, I like to get the best of anything I can so that I don't have to spend more money in the long run.

All that said, it's a start. Military projects are expensive, enough so that it can be like upgrading a computer; by the time you get everything paid off, it's already obsolete. But if nothing else, it gives us hope for the future; I never want us to be a military juggernaut (nor do I think we ever will be), but I at least want our soldiers to have equipment they can be proud to use.

I just wish my town (Saint John) didn't close their shipyard some four years ago. Otherwise I might get to see those icebreakers being built. :(

Incidentally, the US got Boeing to knock the prices down by over $40 million per plane. And the plane cost under $200 Million per aircraft in 2002.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-91091133.html

We are ordering 4. For 3 Billion.

4 x $200 Million (+ exchange rate + inflation) = around 1 Billion.

So.....2/3 of the contract is in your "bells and whistles". Support and parts.

Are you SURE 3+ Billion is fair price?

Really? So when a guy who used to lobby for companies like... say... Boeing, puts in an order that helps keep a whole production line open, and there was NO bidding process for heavy-lift aircraft options, and the price given is 3.2 Billion of our tax dollars... you are saying that you are positive that this was the best value possible for your dollars? That this number is a best-possible price?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-Canada-Military-Planes.php

How do you know that?

And I am in total agreement that the military needed upgrading. I've been saying that for years. I'm just saying that, in the absence of any sort of competitive or open process, questions <i>need</i> to be asked from time to time.

That response was only half-serious; the serious bit being that there is a point where you have to put fiscal concerns at the back of your mind for a bit. Our military has a lot of catching up to do, and while it would be foolish to adopt a credit-spree philosophy, it may not be the time to get overly critical of our defense spending. Like taking that all that money you've saved up in an account for years and finally spending it on something.. no matter how worthwhile it is (car, vacation, house, etc), it's always going to hurt to see it go.

But eh, it is always good to think and ask questions. I think I'll put my chips on this guy for now, but watch him closely. No-bid contracts in and of themselves aren't signs of corruption (and Boeing does good work, regardless), and aside from that I'm not exactly sure how much less than 3 billion dollars that four giant planes could cost, but it wouldn't be the first time a public official has fleeced the taxpayers and it wouldn't be the last.

Color me corrected!

I kind of wish that they just went with the heavier armed ice-breakers, even if they couldn't afford as many as they would otherwise. That's just how I am, though.. if I'm going to spend money, I like to get the best of anything I can so that I don't have to spend more money in the long run.

All that said, it's a start. Military projects are expensive, enough so that it can be like upgrading a computer; by the time you get everything paid off, it's already obsolete. But if nothing else, it gives us hope for the future; I never want us to be a military juggernaut (nor do I think we ever will be), but I at least want our soldiers to have equipment they can be proud to use.

I just wish my town (Saint John) didn't close their shipyard some four years ago. Otherwise I might get to see those icebreakers being built. :(

Like I said. I WANT a well equipend military. I just don't think it unreasonable for there to be audit trails, competitions, controls, etc on how the rebuilding is done to ensure that we maximize the impact of what we can afford to do.

It's called accountability, and I seem to recall that word leaving Steven's lips a whole lot on the campaign trail last time around....

Incidentally, the US got Boeing to knock the prices down by over $40 million per plane. And the plane cost under $200 Million per aircraft in 2002.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-91091133.html

We are ordering 4. For 3 Billion.

4 x $200 Million (+ exchange rate + inflation) = around 1 Billion.

So.....2/3 of the contract is in your "bells and whistles". Support and parts.

Are you SURE 3+ Billion is fair price?

Hmm.. Don't forget, the US was buying Globemasters to add to its already substantial fleet, while we're buying our first four. They likely already had a number of critical support aspects and equipment that we don't yet possess, and that's reflected in the cost.

Anyway, this'll probably be my last post. Bed calls.

Hmm.. Don't forget, the US was buying Globemasters to add to its already substantial fleet, while we're buying our first four. They likely already had a number of critical support aspects and equipment that we don't yet possess, and that's reflected in the cost.

Anyway, this'll probably be my last post. Bed calls.
So? If we payed for them at the rate Silliopolous suggests that we can get them for, we can get twelve instead of four.

So? If we payed for them at the rate Silliopolous suggests that we can get them for, we can get twelve instead of four.

Ok, this'll be my last post. :P I was saying that there are probably infrastructure and support concerns surrounding the introduction of a whole new class of aircraft to our nation. I could well be wrong, but before I get into a whole row about this I'd want to see a breakdown of the 3.4 billion dollars that are the estimated cost of the 4 C-17's and see if that includes things such as a stockpile of replacement parts, infrastructure changes, or even things as small as training costs for pilots and ground crews that'll need to work on them.

Anyway, goodnight.

So? If we payed for them at the rate Silliopolous suggests that we can get them for, we can get twelve instead of four.

Every military aviation contract includes parts and maintenance. This is not unusual and is incuded in the total cost - hence the inflated total.

the issue is, with no-bid contracts how do you assure that you are getting fair value for the contract cost if the prices aren't broken out. Especially in this sort of case where the Canadian contract helped save Boeing from having the capital (and labour/layoff) costs of shutting down an entire production line?

Every military aviation contract includes parts and maintenance. This is not unusual and is incuded in the total cost - hence the inflated total.

the issue is, with no-bid contracts how do you assure that you are getting fair value for the contract cost if the prices aren't broken out. Especially in this sort of case where the Canadian contract helped save Boeing from having the capital (and labour/layoff) costs of shutting down an entire production line?

Real last post!

That is true. It was less of a no-bid contract and more of a.. well, the requirements the bill laid out were written in such a way that the Globemaster was the only plane that could reasonably fill the role. The article I read on this mentioned that he had an infatuation with the C-17, but didn't state any business link to Boeing.. so it could be that he just likes the idea of Canada having strategic heavy lift capability or he likes the planes themselves.

Anyway, all things considered, there are limited purveyors of viable-strategic lift aircraft. You've got your C-17, and then I think it goes up into the AN-225 and other behemoths that would be even more expensive. Under other circumstances, I'd be against something that created a no-bid situation.. but since Boeing offers the actual smallest long-range strategic lift aircraft (if I'm not mistaken, and I could well be), I think it's more or less a given.

And to reiterate, I do understand your point; without a bidding scenario we can't be 100 percent positive we're getting the best price. But companies, even massive, massive companies, are still companies, and even those that market to governments don't want to be seen as ripping people off. So while I can't be completely sure we're getting the best price, I can be pretty sure we're getting a fair price.

I'd like to see him do more for the environment, though, and I'm a little worried that the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan is becoming a war that may be as divisive to us as the Iraq war is to Americans, and I really don't want to see that happen.

I'm not sure the mission in Afghanistan was ever a peacekeeping one. It was always a combat mission, we just had primarily non-combat roles early on. The fact that this was never explained to the Canadian people was a failing of the previous Liberal governments. The fact that this was still never explained to the Canadian people when the mission was extended after that farce of a debate is a failing of the current Conservative government.

You have to take into account the times. Bob Rae had managed to triple Ontario's debt in a matter of only four years in office, whilst making no real gains in the province, other than a highway that was sold to foreign interests.

Not a big Rae fan (now or then), but in fairness, it was the Tories that sold the 407 to foreign interests for a pittance.


However, debt payment seemed to matter very little, in comparison to tax cuts. Ontario DID see a bit of a boom afterwards, but it also happened to coincide with the Free Trade Agreement..., so one could argue that it had very little to do with the tax cuts. Could be a bit of both.

I did and still do argue that the economic growth had more to do with a strong US economy than any tax cuts. But that was what made the tax cuts unsustainable. They were based on growing revenues provided by economic growth that couldn't last forever, rather than on any actual costs savings or debt reduction.


I guess the most important legacy of that era would be a raising of the issue of national finances to the average layman. I think the Fed Libs had a better approach to the issue overall though.

But I still don't think anyone has done a good job of educating the layperson about finances; just look at the flawed thinking in the "balanced budget" legislation. It ties government's hands so that they would have to cut spending or increase taxes during a recession, which is the worst possible thing they could do. And people were routinely arguing that 10 billion dollars was too large of a surplus for the federal government, and that we are bieng overtaxed. We are being overtaxed, but that is partly due to a 400 billion dollar debt load that we still spend 1/4 of our tax dollars to service and we are doing next to nothing to pay down despite the fact our economy is going full steam ahead. It just doesn't bode well for the future.

Any predictions for the Quebec By-Elections?

Any predictions for the Quebec By-Elections?Quebec will lose. 5 votes to 4.

Quebec will lose. 5 votes to 4.

Tabernac! Zut Alors! Ce n'est pas vrai. Le Quebec Gagne tojours avec le Bloc.

But seriously ... will Harper's pamdering pay off? Will the Liberals bounce back? Will the federalist vote split and the Bloc come up the middle?

Colour me corrected!

Fixed!

Russia has already claimed the North Pole and America is drawing funny lines in the water in order to claim more of Bering Sea's vast oil reserves.

A military presence saves a lot of useless dialogue with nations who are not all talk and actually put ships in the water (figuratively and literally).

As long as the expenditures are fair to the taxpayer and the Inuit are included in future Arctic policy, I am in full support of our attempt to make our Arctic claims seem legitimate.

Fixed!

Russia has already claimed the North Pole and America is drawing funny lines in the water in order to claim more of Bering Sea's vast oil reserves.

A military presence saves a lot of useless dialogue with nations who are not all talk and actually put ships in the water (figuratively and literally).

As long as the expenditures are fair to the taxpayer and the Inuit are included in future Arctic policy, I am in full support of our attempt to make our Arctic claims seem legitimate.

Should we declare war on Denmark for their unlawful incursions into our territory?

Fixed!

Russia has already claimed the North Pole ...


Oh those Russians ... don't they know that the North Pole belongs to Santa?

Or better yet, feebate program stuck in neutral ...

http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070730.wauto31/BNStory/robNews/home

Oh those Russians ... don't they know that the North Pole belongs to Santa?

I guess not ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070731.wrussarc0731/BNStory/International/home

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070731.wcanadadarfur0731/BNStory/International

... is Aid enough?