Jack Layton Died

**Takedown3** · 2011-08-23 12:36

and that's why I have a hard time believing that anyone in politics, regardless of party affiliation, is not someone who should be in charge of what happens in my life.

**plue** · 2011-08-23 14:05

Kind of sad he died, I wasn't a big NDP supporter, but anything is better than fucking conservative. I guess close proximity to Harper elicits some used-car-salesman-cancer-causing radiation, wouldn't surprise me.

**Mazmaz** · 2011-08-23 14:39

Removing of voter subsidies of the political parties ($1 per vote) so that the conservative party would be able to dominate elections PR and advertising since the party that represents the rich in the country will obviously have an easier time receiving donations than the parties that represent the poor and middle class. Purely a political move which is sure to pave the way for legislation in support of corporate and special interest groups political donations and bring our system right on par with the US.

Crushing of union negotiation powers by introducing back to work legislation and bailing out Canada Post from any sort of responsibility in negotiations. The workers got a much worse deal than what Canada Post had agreed to already. Keep in mind that the federal government had the power to tell Canada Post to open it's doors and let the workers get back to work, but it choose to step all over the union instead.

The conservatives are still clueless where they're going to find the $11 billion to fill in the whole of their economic plan, so they've just started massively slashing public sector jobs. See here for a list http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...ob-losses.html

Canada sat back at the Geneva summit expecting one of the other countries to block the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical in the Rotterdam Convention. When it was obvious that no one else was going to be responsible for that, Canada dug its heels in the ground and alone blocked it. inb4 Quebecfags defend asbestos industry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06..._n_883630.html

Tony Clement, the guy responsible for misuse of G8 summit funds in order to spend it all in his own riding for political gains, is now the Treasury Board President, responsible for all the budgets and funds across all of Canada. This'll be fun.

And that was just 4 months and off the top of my head. I fully expect you to reply with the same garbage that you did in the elections thread Kaylia.

**Mytiwar** · 2011-08-23 14:54

Originally Posted by Mazmaz

And that was just 4 months and off the top of my head. I fully expect you to reply with the same garbage that you did in the elections thread Kaylia.

You know him well.

Also

inb4 Quebecfags defend asbestos industry.

Not gonna happen, Vancoufag.

**aurik** · 2011-08-23 16:52

Originally Posted by Mazmaz

Removing of voter subsidies of the political parties ($1 per vote) so that the conservative party would be able to dominate elections PR and advertising since the party that represents the rich in the country will obviously have an easier time receiving donations than the parties that represent the poor and middle class. Purely a political move which is sure to pave the way for legislation in support of corporate and special interest groups political donations and bring our system right on par with the US.

Crushing of union negotiation powers by introducing back to work legislation and bailing out Canada Post from any sort of responsibility in negotiations. The workers got a much worse deal than what Canada Post had agreed to already. Keep in mind that the federal government had the power to tell Canada Post to open it's doors and let the workers get back to work, but it choose to step all over the union instead.

The conservatives are still clueless where they're going to find the $11 billion to fill in the whole of their economic plan, so they've just started massively slashing public sector jobs. See here for a list http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...ob-losses.html

Canada sat back at the Geneva summit expecting one of the other countries to block the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical in the Rotterdam Convention. When it was obvious that no one else was going to be responsible for that, Canada dug its heels in the ground and alone blocked it. inb4 Quebecfags defend asbestos industry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06..._n_883630.html

Tony Clement, the guy responsible for misuse of G8 summit funds in order to spend it all in his own riding for political gains, is now the Treasury Board President, responsible for all the budgets and funds across all of Canada. This'll be fun.

And that was just 4 months and off the top of my head. I fully expect you to reply with the same garbage that you did in the elections thread Kaylia.

As usual, most of your complaints are just puffery.

On asbestos, this was a good move. It protects a viable Canadian industry. If countries don't want asbestos, it is up to them to block the importation of it, not up to us to block or limit the exportation of it.

Cutting public sector jobs when possible is a good thing, because that's more revenue we can invest in infrastructure and social spending. And in case you're not paying attention, pretty much every government is running a deficit these days because that's what you do when economic growth is sluggish.

Tony Clement is an embarrassment, but the funds weren't "misused" per-say. It all went towards public projects. Claiming he spent it for political gains is more than just a little slant on what really happened. It's basically just pork politics as usual, and all parties engage in it.

Not really crying for union workers here. There are certain heavily regulated industries like the postal service where a protracted strike would cripple and/or paralyze the economy. Workers/unions in these industries are well aware that they may not hold the Canadian Economy as hostage for their contract negotiation demands. And, as an individual worker, you always have the option to quit as well. What the real problem is here is that Canada Post and other nationalized industries are operated by the government for-profit. Thanks to their monopoly, they should be operated not-for-profit or even privatized and de-privileged so that the free market can optimize the value we get for our money.

**Mazmaz** · 2011-08-23 18:43

From the article

Listing asbestos on Annex III of the convention would force exporters such as Canada to warn recipient countries of any health hazards. Those countries could also then refuse asbestos imports if they didn't think they could handle the product safely.

That's all it does. This is the equivalent of mandatory nutritional labels on food stuffs that is sold to the public. It serves the purpose of letting the consumer who is too stupid/uneducated/ignorant about what they're about to buy to have a choice. It's a serious stretch to say not providing that is protecting a viable Canadian industry. If they were interested in protecting a "viable Canadian industry" why did they sit back like cowards, expecting other countries to block, and only when absolutely necessary to put their necks on the line. IMO though the whole industry is an embarrassment and a sham and should be completely shut down.

The other stuff is just differences of opinion and I'm not gonna go back over them. And you didn't comment on voter subsidies so I guess you have no opinion on that.

It's funny seeing you go into threads about US and take about as liberal a position as you possibly could, and then come into threads about Canada and take a hard conservative stand. Which is it?

**aurik** · 2011-08-23 19:28

Originally Posted by Mazmaz

From the article
That's all it does. This is the equivalent of mandatory nutritional labels on food stuffs that is sold to the public. It serves the purpose of letting the consumer who is too stupid/uneducated/ignorant about what they're about to buy to have a choice. It's a serious stretch to say not providing that is protecting a viable Canadian industry. If they were interested in protecting a "viable Canadian industry" why did they sit back like cowards, expecting other countries to block, and only when absolutely necessary to put their necks on the line. IMO though the whole industry is an embarrassment and a sham and should be completely shut down.

So basically what you're saying is that it doesn't matter one way or the other? If so, why do you care what Canada did or did not do in this case? Or, to put it another way, how does this action affect you in any miniscule way?

Also I'm pretty happy when the government puts its neck on the line only as a last resort. Sounds like good business to me.

Edit: don't really care about voter subsidies at this point because it's already becoming dwarfed by private fundraising. $2 per vote...that's like $28 million, a pittance. Hell, spend the money if it makes the people feel more enfranchised. I'm more concerned about gov't waste, such as the "non-electoral" spending on feel-good-about-Ontario TV ads that have overwhelmed us the last few months because it's a subtext for government-funded sponsorship of the liberals in the upcoming provincial campaign.

Also you'd think that if I was liberal in the US threads you'd be able to use my own arguments there against my conservative arguments in Canadian political threads, but I tell you I'm pretty consistent in my beliefs. Prove me wrong if you'd like.

**Mazmaz** · 2011-08-23 20:07

Originally Posted by aurik

Not really crying for union workers here. There are certain heavily regulated industries like the postal service where a protracted strike would cripple and/or paralyze the economy. Workers/unions in these industries are well aware that they may not hold the Canadian Economy as hostage for their contract negotiation demands. And, as an individual worker, you always have the option to quit as well. What the real problem is here is that Canada Post and other nationalized industries are operated by the government for-profit. Thanks to their monopoly, they should be operated not-for-profit or even privatized and de-privileged so that the free market can optimize the value we get for our money.

Originally Posted by aurik

9th is hardly meaningless, it's part of the justification chain for roe v wade for one.

Also the difference between public sector unions and private sector unions is that the public sector unions ultimately work for the taxpayer instead of a private corporation. But they're still employed, they still have the right to free association, they still have a right to organize, they ought to still have the right to negotiate with their employer over working conditions, benefits, grievance policies, and more.

If you want politicians to bargain harder with the public sector unions to "get a better deal" for the taxpayer, for heavens sake elect representatives with the balls to stand up and say "fuck no we're not giving you that kind of pension", or "get back to work or you're all fired".

Electing representatives to pass laws that prevent workers from negotiating in the first place is the weasel way out.

o ok.

Also, again about asbestos, it's about informing their consumers from potential danger. This means telling that ignorant start up business in India that has googled the cheapest building material that his people will develop cancer if he handles the material improperly. As to how it affects me, your views are the epitome of self centeredness and us-vs-them mentality, whereas I care if people in developing countries use materials that might put their lives or their environment in danger.

**aurik** · 2011-08-24 00:27

Difference here is that the public sector unions in canada aren't losing their collective bargaining rights. They still have the right to negotiate, they just can't hold the Canadian economy hostage as part of those negotiations. Clear difference, thus I remain consistent. Good try, but you'll need to find another example.

Also cry harder about asbestos...why should we care about the startup in India, that is a job for the Indian government, not us. I'm kinda glad our government isn't putting burdensome regulations on Canadian businesses because of that. Not like the Indian government gives 2 hoots about Canadians that their businesses might be harming.

**Kaylia** · 2011-08-24 01:20

Originally Posted by Mazmaz

Removing of voter subsidies of the political parties ($1 per vote) so that the conservative party would be able to dominate elections PR and advertising since the party that represents the rich in the country will obviously have an easier time receiving donations than the parties that represent the poor and middle class. Purely a political move which is sure to pave the way for legislation in support of corporate and special interest groups political donations and bring our system right on par with the US.

It's funny how you regurgitate that argument as if it was a direct implication, when it's mostly a baseless assumption. Also good visibility nowaday don't cost that much with media and social media covering everything. You can spend a lot, sure, but if you look at what influenced people the most in the recent election, it's usually crap that anyone could have done. It's also possible for a new party to be created when its lead by someone who has any sort of credibility.

Secondly, how can you bash US's electoral system when both democrat and republican gather more interest from the public than anyone in Canada? You can complains about their politics all you want, but look at how many people voted, and how many helped their party. They must be doing something right.

Crushing of union negotiation powers by introducing back to work legislation and bailing out Canada Post from any sort of responsibility in negotiations. The workers got a much worse deal than what Canada Post had agreed to already. Keep in mind that the federal government had the power to tell Canada Post to open it's doors and let the workers get back to work, but it choose to step all over the union instead.

Unions are a goddamn plague if you ask me. Everybody like 4 days week, great pay and no responsabilities, I know I do, but it makes your economy leak money by turning everyone into an uneficient blob.

I'm not saying that unions are bad in every case, but right now in Canada (and Québec even more), they are far too powerful, and end up doing more harm than good. They cost a lot, ask for money we don't have (and get it), and fight for condition that are almost absurd in an open market.

The conservatives are still clueless where they're going to find the $11 billion to fill in the whole of their economic plan, so they've just started massively slashing public sector jobs. See here for a list http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...ob-losses.html

Mazmaz, what kind of life experience do you have? Do you seriously believe that people in the public domain are doing a decent job? Seriously, make a round of every NPO you know and tell us how hard they are working? Money is wasted everywhere, budget are burned on useless shit (instead of being efficient), and most offer services that are not needed or used.

Our state already cost a lot, and unless you want to go out the way Greece, Ireland, Portugal and spain did, we do need to cut our expense.

Canada sat back at the Geneva summit expecting one of the other countries to block the listing of chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical in the Rotterdam Convention. When it was obvious that no one else was going to be responsible for that, Canada dug its heels in the ground and alone blocked it. inb4 Quebecfags defend asbestos industry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/06..._n_883630.html

I can assure that no party would be in a hurry to get ride of the industry if they were in the same situation. It's easy to look for dirt and blame the current goverment, but I don't think anyone would have the gut to shut it down.

Tony Clement, the guy responsible for misuse of G8 summit funds in order to spend it all in his own riding for political gains, is now the Treasury Board President, responsible for all the budgets and funds across all of Canada. This'll be fun.

You say "political gains", but let's face it, 99% of the voter don't know shit about their own depute and what he did. I'm not sure it can even win you an election.

What he did is definitively not okay (while being legal), but pointing out a particular case is retarded when that kind of stuff happen all the time in politics.

**Kaylia** · 2011-08-24 01:27

Originally Posted by Mazmaz

Purely a political move which is sure to pave the way for legislation in support of corporate and special interest groups political donations and bring our system right on par with the US.

Originally Posted by Mazmaz

It's funny seeing you go into threads about US and take about as liberal a position as you possibly could, and then come into threads about Canada and take a hard conservative stand. Which is it?

And this is all we need to prove that you don't know shit about politics.

It's fucking retarded to draw simple parallel between USA and canada when both countries are completely differents in so many points.

**Thorin** · 2011-08-24 02:33

A bit late on my part, but RIP Jack.

I've been Liberal almost all my life, but I've met Layton a few times. I've met Ignatieff at small social functions like a barbeque (15-20 people total) completely unrelated to campaigning or the party and he was still in political mode. I met Layton at a similar function and he was just... a normal and fun(ny) guy to say the least. I was never much of an NDP supporter, but a sad day in Canadian Politics indeed

And if anyone hasn't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl0Mk1idNXg

**Mazmaz** · 2011-08-24 05:24

You better read this whole fucking thing since I'm doing this at 3 AM.

Originally Posted by kaylia

It's funny how you regurgitate that argument as if it was a direct implication, when it's mostly a baseless assumption. Also good visibility nowaday don't cost that much with media and social media covering everything. You can spend a lot, sure, but if you look at what influenced people the most in the recent election, it's usually crap that anyone could have done. It's also possible for a new party to be created when its lead by someone who has any sort of credibility.

Wow, here we go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal..._the_subsidies

In 2009, a national total of 181,858 individuals (out of 23,677,639 registered voters in 2008) made political contributions to a federal political party organization, resulting in a 0.77% fraction of registered voters directing over $33 million in subsidized contributions - almost two-thirds of it publicly funded - toward their preferred parties. Over 55% of the these individuals were Conservative party supporters.[10]

A national total of 96,762 individuals also made political contributions at the riding association level to a federal political party, resulting in a 0.4% fraction of registered voters directing over $12 million in subsidized contributions - over 60% of it from public funds - toward their preferred parties.[10]

Combined, the number of unique individuals that made political contributions in 2009 to a federal political party, either at the national party organzition level or riding level, or both, is somewhere between 196,186 and 278,620 individuals - representing between just 0.8% and 1.2% of the number of registered voters from 2008.[10]

Rounding to the nearest percentage, only 1% of registered voters directed $46 million - representing over 62% of the primary funding received by parties - toward their preferred party, with nearly two-thirds of that - $28.5-$31 million - in public funds directed without the consent of 99% of registered voters.[7][10]

With the per-vote subsidy, 100% of voters of eligible parties (99% of all valid votes in 2009) participate in determining the distribution of the funds, and do so all on an equal basis. The participants are all the Canadian citizens over the age of 18 that voted in the last federal election, and numbered 13,675,146 Canadians in 2009.

With political contributions, on the other hand, the participants - numbering only a nation-wide total of between 196,186 and 278,620 unique individuals in 2009, and representing less than 1.2% of the number of registered voters - tend to be individuals that have more disposable income: The poor, by and large, do not make political contributions, and, according to University of Calgary political finance expert Lisa Young, people that have more comfortable means, and that can expect to obtain a larger tax credit against their income, are more likely to make political contributions.[4][13][31]

According to McMaster University political scientist Henry Jacek, political contributions tend to come from the wealthy, and not the poor. It is also clear from other jurisdictions in the world that political donors typically are people that have more disposable income.[13][31]

While political contributions can only be made by Canadian citizens, there is no age restriction in place, which allows political contributions to be made in the name of children to bypass contribution limits.

In 2006, Liberal leadership candidate Joe Volpe returned $27,000 in political contributions that had been made in the name of children - after it was revealed that his campaign donors included 11-year-old twin boys and a 14-year-old boy who donated $5,400 each, the allowed maximum. The children and several other donors that had contributed the maximum allowable $5,400 each - for a total of $108,000 - were all in some way connected to the top corporate executives of one pharmaceutical company. Yet no law was broken.[5][24]

Elimination of the per-vote subsidy, with all other things remaining equal, would mean that a very small number of individuals - somewhere between 0.8% and 1.2% of registered voters in 2009 - would control and direct 100% of all the funding to their preferred political parties and candidates.[10]

By the same token, approximately 98-99% of all registered voters would no longer have any participation in how any of the funding is directed - including having no say at all in how any of the taxpayer money involved gets allocated.[10][14]

In April 2011, Canada's former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who served in the position for 17 years, stated that if the Conservatives under Stephen Harper eliminate the per-vote subsidy, there would be an increased risk of Canada's political parties turning back toward corporations to obtain money, also to the detriment of Canadian democracy.[5]

The elimination of the per-vote subsidy could also have the effect of further reducing an already low voter turnout by removing an incentive that encourages many Canadian citizens to vote. Under the first-past-the-post system, the per-vote subsidy ensures that a voter's participation at the ballot box will at least still make a difference even if their preferred riding candidate has very little chance of winning or is assured of a win.

Now, after reading all of that, do you really think that cutting the vote subsidies was a more democratic or a less democratic move? Be honest now.
You're a joke if you think the money spent on campaigning is little, or does little to shape anyone's minds. The reason Harper got his majority was because he could travel all across Canada and go within community after community spread his message of fear. OH LIBERAL BASE VOTE FOR CONSERVATIVES SO THAT THE NDP DOESN'T RUIN THE ECONOMY.

Originally Posted by kaylia

Secondly, how can you bash US's electoral system when both democrat and republican gather more interest from the public than anyone in Canada? You can complains about their politics all you want, but look at how many people voted, and how many helped their party. They must be doing something right.

Is this a troll post? Every problem the US faces stems from the corporations and special interests that contribute to political campaigns. They effectively have the power to fire politicians if they don't like the policies they are making. Also, voter turnout for Canada 2011 election was 61%. Voter turnout for US 2008 election was 63%. It's also been stated earlier in the thread that our political apathy stems from our lack of patriotism compared to the US.

Originally Posted by kaylia

Unions are a goddamn plague if you ask me. Everybody like 4 days week, great pay and no responsabilities, I know I do, but it makes your economy leak money by turning everyone into an uneficient blob.

Originally Posted by kaylia

Mazmaz, what kind of life experience do you have? Do you seriously believe that people in the public domain are doing a decent job? Seriously, make a round of every NPO you know and tell us how hard they are working? Money is wasted everywhere, budget are burned on useless shit (instead of being efficient), and most offer services that are not needed or used.

Typical conservative attitude, everyone's a lazy sack of shit but me. They are just lying around being useless while I and my kind contribute solely to society. I know you think you're better than everyone but give it a rest.
You realise the Canada Post unions were only trying to get more rights for future employees right? THEY WERE FIGHTING FOR PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T EVEN IN THEIR UNIONS YET LOL.

Originally Posted by kaylia

Our state already cost a lot, and unless you want to go out the way Greece, Ireland, Portugal and spain did, we do need to cut our expense.

Wanna cut expenses? DON'T GO TO FUCKING LIBYA.

Originally Posted by kaylia

I'm not saying that unions are bad in every case, but right now in Canada (and Québec even more), they are far too powerful, and end up doing more harm than good. They cost a lot, ask for money we don't have (and get it), and fight for condition that are almost absurd in an open market.

So powerful they can be sent back to work within less than a day.

Originally Posted by kaylia

And this is all we need to prove that you don't know shit about politics.

It's fucking retarded to draw simple parallel between USA and canada when both countries are completely differents in so many points.

Yea I know. aurik really made it clear how Canadians should have less freedoms and Americans should have more.