Canada Politics Thread

[Kaylia]

Since I'm convinced this bullshit debt reduction thing is made up by world governments as an excuse to introduce austerity measures and take away citizen rights.

Also, I want to bring the attention to this hilarious conspiracy bullshit. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering with this when you're clearly deluded.

[Mazmaz]

I can criticize the conservatives if I want. I assumed your views agreed with theirs because you've been defending them.

First of all, what is your source for that contract being from Liberals, because according to this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...nada-jets.html

A previous Liberal government signed a memorandum of understanding with Lockheed Martin to develop the Joint Strike Fighter but that did not commit Canada to buy the aircraft.

Second of all, yea you're right. I think that there's absolutely no need to have an army in Canada. I don't think anyone will attack Canada, just as no one will attack Sweden. Feel free to educate me on this point more though, I can admit that I'm the most ignorant in this. I just don't want an argument that's entirely hinged on "BUT US WILL BE MAD CAUSE NATO". They fuck us in the ass (Buy American, etc.) and get whatever they want anyway (Border shit, etc.).

Third of all, you basically took my troll jab that wasn't a real arguing point and ran with it. I didn't imply that the economy is doing bad, I said the conservatives WANT US TO BELIEVE the economy will be doing badly unless we make these cuts:

But clearly they're lavishly pissing away money on anything that goes with their ideologies and cutting everything that goes with the public's.

And fourth of all, what, you don't think world governments fucked up by allowing unstable financial systems to flourish, and then covering for their fuck ups by taking it out on citizens who didn't cause it through austerity measures?

[Kaylia]

I assumed your views agreed with theirs because you've been defending them.

I'm not defending them as much as I disagree with you. I see plenty of valid attacks against the conservatives (or any political party), but you always make shallow claims without posting evidences that what they are doing is actually harmful. This kind of behavior is incredibly annoying.

Do I agree with their views? Economically, I do believe they have the best chance to preserve a strong economy out of the four, especially in a period where we can't afford increasing our expense. I have absolutely no attachment for the party itself and will change my vote for anyone who seem to be the most responsible, because ultimately, none of the party really match my beliefs. I am also against keeping the same party in place for more than 8 years, and generally opt for a rotation.

Concening the jets, I always thought there was money invested in the project already, I apologize if there was none (still not convinced), but it doesn't really change the fact that it's not the conservative who initiated the purchase. While you're blaming the current government, there is obviously a lot more behind that decision.

Second of all, yea you're right. I think that there's absolutely no need to have an army in Canada. I don't think anyone will attack Canada, just as no one will attack Sweden. Feel free to educate me on this point more though, I can admit that I'm the most ignorant in this. I just don't want an argument that's entirely hinged on "BUT US WILL BE MAD CAUSE NATO". They fuck us in the ass (Buy American, etc.) and get whatever they want anyway (Border shit, etc.).

As unpleasant as it is, you can't get away without diplomacy. I didn't build my argument on this, it was one of the 3 points, and probably the least important one, but it's still has to be considered.

Secondly, it doesn't have to be an attack, you still have an airspace to protect
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...planes_090227/

Thirdly, 9 billions is going to be spread over 20 years (or was it 30?). While they still cost something to maintain, its going to create many jobs (you like that argument, right?), and the cost won't be as high.


If I was in charge, I don't think I would have proceeded with the purchase, but considering two independent political organization went with it, I don't think the decision is as obvious as it looks like.

I didn't imply that the economy is doing bad, I said the conservatives WANT US TO BELIEVE the economy will be doing badly unless we make these cuts:

Yes, I'm plugging my brain every night to a brainwashing device built by Harper.

Seriously, what make you think it has anything to do with the conservative? Look at the world with your own eyes, read different opinion and more importantly, look for long term solution. There isn't billions of way to fix a debt, and spending more is rarely the best solution.

And fourth of all, what, you don't think world governments fucked up by allowing unstable financial systems to flourish, and then covering for their fuck ups by taking it out on citizens who didn't cause it through austerity measures?

Yes and no.

Yes, they fucked up, and new regulations must be done to stop this. However, that doesn't make us any richer, and not paying this debt (even if you feel scammed) is going to create more problem. I'm not exactly against the idea of telling banks and richer countries "fuck off, we are not paying" to see what happen, but we might end up needing these jets if we do.


However, banks aren't the only culprit. Our society is lazy and live well above its mean. People spend irresponsibly at every level, and it's going to bite our collective asses sooner or later.

[Cadsuane]

Do I agree with their views? Economically, I do believe they have the best chance to preserve a strong economy out of the four, especially in a period where we can't afford increasing our expense. I have absolutely no attachment for the party itself and will change my vote for anyone who seem to be the most responsible, because ultimately, none of the party really match my beliefs. I am also against keeping the same party in place for more than 8 years, and generally opt for a rotation.

We only have a deficit in the first place because of conservative budgets. The best record of fiscal responsibility belongs unambiguously to the liberals.

Concening the jets, I always thought there was money invested in the project already, I apologize if there was none (still not convinced), but it doesn't really change the fact that it's not the conservative who initiated the purchase. While you're blaming the current government, there is obviously a lot more behind that decision.

Yes it does, because no purchases were initiated. There was obvious appeal in involving Canadian research and manufacturing in the production of an American workhorse fighter bomber (for purposes besides air superiority), since A. it was cutting edge technology and was revitalizing to aerospace research in Canada which really hasn't been the same since another shortsighted U.S. fellating Tory cunt called Diefenbaker fucked it over, and B. since it wasn't an air superiority fighter it would be sold to international buyers besides Canada. Actually buying the fucking thing is an option.

Thirdly, 9 billions is going to be spread over 20 years (or was it 30?). While they still cost something to maintain, its going to create many jobs (you like that argument, right?), and the cost won't be as high.

Broken window fallacy. Most of that money is going south of the border anyway.

[Takedown3]

i dont get your avatar? why does being in the military make u a welfare queen?

[Mazmaz]

It's good to get some discussion going again in this thread.
That was interesting about the arctic stuff and Russia, never knew that.

Yes, I'm plugging my brain every night to a brainwashing device built by Harper.

You can't blame me for feeling this way, as this was the main thing they used very strategically during the elections in order to get their majority (the economy will be in freefall if they don't get elected, not the brainwashing lol).

I guess I don't really have enough knowledge on economics to know what the effects of reducing debt is or w/e, so I guess I would trust my government if they said we need to reduce debt. However, the reason I can't trust them now is because of the hypocritical act of introducing expenses in the form of, for example the crime bill (which has been proven to not work, showing that it's an ideological expense http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...xas-crime.html), and then asking me to cut my health care. It's hard to believe that those cuts are pertinent when they're also introducing spending.

i dont get your avatar? why does being in the military make u a welfare queen?

All their paychecks and veteran benefits comes from taxpayer money. It's just a troll picture though.

[Kuya]

Let me see if i understand this right. Kaylia is saying that in order for Canada to have a stronger economy, it needs to reduce its debt?

[Kaylia]

You can't blame me for feeling this way, as this was the main thing they used very strategically during the elections in order to get their majority (the economy will be in freefall if they don't get elected, not the brainwashing lol).

I ignore politicians as much as I can because the lack of intellectual sincerity is too frustrating to listen (they all do this, no exception). It's always PR bullshit, out of context statistics and numbers, and very few arguments. I would kill to have one who is able to expose the risks and drawbacks of a project, instead of presenting sugar coated statements all the time. I probably wouldn't even give shit about the actual ideas if that was the case (or at least, be more lenient), I would rather have a smart person in charge than one who can't take reasonable decision.


Sadly, sugar coated statements are easier to shallow for 99.9% of the population who only catch a few keywords in a sentence, and get influenced by biased comedy sketches more than by actual ideas or comprehensive argument.



Also, it's wrong to talk about a "free fall". I'm not worried about Canada's economy going to shit in the close future (5-10 years), but if we are not paying any attention to it, it could potentially get to a dangerous point as demonstrated by certains country in Europe. I would rather be cautious now than force something worse on our children (or ourselves in 30 years).

Best example I can give you is what the generation before us did. They had money because their parents worked their ass off, they got in charge, instaured a bunch of generous politics and had incredibly good works condition (retirement at young age, great pension, great health care). Fourty year later, we are left with a debt, not enough money for our own pension and a shitty healtcare.

It's not that pension or healthcare are a bad things (I do believe it's a good thing), but it can easily get out of hands when you ask for more than you can afford, especially if that money is handled by people who don't believe there is any danger or risks involved. Making thing more efficient, even if it's just 1 or 2% now has a huge impact down the road.

[Kaylia]

Let me see if i understand this right. Kaylia is saying that in order for Canada to have a stronger economy, it needs to reduce its debt?

When the money you borrow isn't invested to increase the productivity, there is going to be issue down the line.

Reducing the debt and strong economy aren't directly related, and can have quite the opposite effect if you're not careful.

[Kuya]

Okay, then, what's the canadian government's current credit rating, the going rate of canadian government bonds, inflation rate, economic growth, and debt to GDP? Knowing these things might tell us if canada's priority really should be debt reduction. Unless the argument isn't whether debt reduction is the current priority, and instead what is being argued is the means by which debt is reduced.

[Mazmaz]

Okay, then, what's the canadian government's current credit rating, the going rate of canadian government bonds, inflation rate, economic growth, and debt to GDP? Knowing these things might tell us if canada's priority really should be debt reduction. Unless the argument isn't whether debt reduction is the current priority, and instead what is being argued is the means by which debt is reduced.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1177
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/int...anadian-bonds/
http://www.rateinflation.com/inflati...ation-rate.php
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/gdp-growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...by_public_debt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_public_debt

AAA Stable, not sure about bonds, 2.8% inflation rate, 0.9% gdp growth,
debt 84% of gdp (""Figures are for gross general government debt, as opposed to net federal debt; gross general government debt includes both intra-government debt and the debt of public entities at the sub-national level".[5] "As a share of GDP, net debt was 38.1 percent".) Whatever that means.

[Skjie]

Do I agree with their views? Economically, I do believe they have the best chance to preserve a strong economy out of the four, especially in a period where we can't afford increasing our expense.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...tting-success/
I'll try to find something more solid than an OpEd that only notes it briefly, but in terms of why the Canadian economy is where it is right now it is almost entirely the previous Liberal Governments work. Cutting the GST when he did might have been a big ideological move but as sane fiscal policy it was exactly the wrong thing to do. Had the GST not been cut when it was, we would have had an even bigger buffer against the global backlash and room to cut it at a later date (2009, for instance) when it would've made a bigger impact.

EDIT: http://thescottross.blogspot.com/201...illion_07.html

[Kaylia]

Okay, then, what's the canadian government's current credit rating, the going rate of canadian government bonds, inflation rate, economic growth, and debt to GDP? Knowing these things might tell us if canada's priority really should be debt reduction. Unless the argument isn't whether debt reduction is the current priority, and instead what is being argued is the means by which debt is reduced.

If you missed the beginning of my argument, it was about people making blanket statements to discredit the government more than an attempt to prove that our government can't afford spending more. While I do believe we have to cut down our expense, it was stated as an opinion here since building a complete argument would requires more than a few posts and a quick Google search. It's easier to refute a poor and incomplete argument because it's fallacious than actually make a solid claim, and you don't need the second to do the first.


If you really want to have this argument, I don't mind, but it was not my intention in the first place, and I'm unlikely to be the most qualified person to write such thesis. While, I won't do that here, I can at least try to cover certain essential part.


What you posted is a good start to measure the economy health, but I don't believe it is enough to correctly pinpoint the problems. If you look at Canada's economy as a whole, you're going to miss many things that are handled (often poorly) by the provinces, and because of that, you won't take into account multiples problems. This is very important, because even if everything appears to looks fine right now, that doesn't mean there is no brick wall a few miles down the road.

You're most likely aware that Canada has free healthcare, which is great and all, but it's far from being free. Right now, it's already growing faster than our GDP, and it's not going to improve. How much we can afford exactly, I do not know, but I would rather play it safe for now.
With the population aging, you can expect the cost to increase, and overall productivity to go down (as less people works). While the effect might not be catastrophic, it's very hard to predict how badly it will affect the economy over the next 20 years.

For the same reason, the cost of our generous pension plans are expected to increase considerably in the future up to a point where the money I'm forced to pay right now is going to be used to pay the previous generation instead (especially if the population stay stable or decrease).
http://money.canoe.ca/money/business...27-141906.html

Raising taxes in Canada doesn't seem to be a viable alternative to pay for these programs because they are already very high. Someone who earns 45k is going to lose 45% of his salary in taxes, on top of the 7-15% sales taxes, various fee that you're forced to pay (assurance, municipal taxes, loan, etc). In the end, you're left with almost nothing. Raising them even more is just going to force them into welfare.

One solution that is often proposed is to raise rich people's taxes (already at 60%), but we have trouble to keep them in the country already when it's more convenient to leave for the United State. This exodus isn't helping. Our low corporate taxes does lure company to Canada, but again, it's not something you can easily increase without any consequences. We have to remain competitive, and that's one thing we do right. While in a different context, it could be a viable argument (ie: USA), it's harder to use the same logic here.

[Kaylia]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...tting-success/
I'll try to find something more solid than an OpEd that only notes it briefly, but in terms of why the Canadian economy is where it is right now it is almost entirely the previous Liberal Governments work. Cutting the GST when he did might have been a big ideological move but as sane fiscal policy it was exactly the wrong thing to do. Had the GST not been cut when it was, we would have had an even bigger buffer against the global backlash and room to cut it at a later date (2009, for instance) when it would've made a bigger impact.

EDIT: http://thescottross.blogspot.com/201...illion_07.html

I agree that adding a new tax stabilized the economy at the time, and they do bring some good point, but there is a limit to how much money you can squeeze out of people. Are we immune forever to any financial crisis because of that tax? I don't think so. What are we going to do if another hit us? Add a new tax on top of it? It probably wouldn't be viable.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against the current taxes, but it's a card you can only play once to get out of a crisis. If you screw up again, you're in trouble.

[Mazmaz]

I think Kuya just forgot to check back in the thread lol.

[Skjie]

I agree that adding a new tax stabilized the economy at the time, and they do bring some good point, but there is a limit to how much money you can squeeze out of people. Are we immune forever to any financial crisis because of that tax? I don't think so. What are we going to do if another hit us? Add a new tax on top of it? It probably wouldn't be viable.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against the current taxes, but it's a card you can only play once to get out of a crisis. If you screw up again, you're in trouble.

My point wasn't about the 90s, but that our system depended on the GST rate. We would have hit deficit regardless of the world crisis after Harper lowered it. Thus, saying that one trusts the Tories with the economy over the other parties is a little silly.

[Kuya]

If you missed the beginning of my argument, it was about people making blanket statements to discredit the government more than an attempt to prove that our government can't afford spending more. While I do believe we have to cut down our expense, it was stated as an opinion here since building a complete argument would requires more than a few posts and a quick Google search. It's easier to refute a poor and incomplete argument because it's fallacious than actually make a solid claim, and you don't need the second to do the first.


If you really want to have this argument, I don't mind, but it was not my intention in the first place, and I'm unlikely to be the most qualified person to write such thesis. While, I won't do that here, I can at least try to cover certain essential part.


What you posted is a good start to measure the economy health, but I don't believe it is enough to correctly pinpoint the problems. If you look at Canada's economy as a whole, you're going to miss many things that are handled (often poorly) by the provinces, and because of that, you won't take into account multiples problems. This is very important, because even if everything appears to looks fine right now, that doesn't mean there is no brick wall a few miles down the road.

You're most likely aware that Canada has free healthcare, which is great and all, but it's far from being free. Right now, it's already growing faster than our GDP, and it's not going to improve. How much we can afford exactly, I do not know, but I would rather play it safe for now.
With the population aging, you can expect the cost to increase, and overall productivity to go down (as less people works). While the effect might not be catastrophic, it's very hard to predict how badly it will affect the economy over the next 20 years.

For the same reason, the cost of our generous pension plans are expected to increase considerably in the future up to a point where the money I'm forced to pay right now is going to be used to pay the previous generation instead (especially if the population stay stable or decrease).
http://money.canoe.ca/money/business...27-141906.html

Raising taxes in Canada doesn't seem to be a viable alternative to pay for these programs because they are already very high. Someone who earns 45k is going to lose 45% of his salary in taxes, on top of the 7-15% sales taxes, various fee that you're forced to pay (assurance, municipal taxes, loan, etc). In the end, you're left with almost nothing. Raising them even more is just going to force them into welfare.

One solution that is often proposed is to raise rich people's taxes (already at 60%), but we have trouble to keep them in the country already when it's more convenient to leave for the United State. This exodus isn't helping. Our low corporate taxes does lure company to Canada, but again, it's not something you can easily increase without any consequences. We have to remain competitive, and that's one thing we do right. While in a different context, it could be a viable argument (ie: USA), it's harder to use the same logic here.

Well it's often the case that arguments over good economic, fiscal and monetary policy happen because of some partisan political debate.

As for what you said, it's not all to disimilar from the US, or from some countries in Western Europe. But the stats that mazmaz posted(and the fact that canadian government bond yields are down) seem to point out that Canada's more pressing problem is one of slow economic growth. In fact, you said that increasesing costs of health insurence policy is one of the reasons for a bursting budget and an increasing debt, as you said that the cost is increasing faster than GDP, but you also have to take into account that this is also a function of slower gdp growth. And as you already know, if you're going to deal with slower gdp, you have to further bust the budget (or invest as others might say) and more than likely increase foreign debt. On the other hand, like you said previously i think, if you focus on deflationary policy (debt and deficit reduction via a decrease in spending), you're going to slow down gdp further, which in turn, depending on how policy is handled, could actually have the opposite effect of raising deficits and debt precisely because gdp goes down while health costs are not going down fast enough.

In other words, you have to make sure health costs go down faster than gdp does when using deflationary policy. It depends on how the government handles policy, and on what happens in the rest of the world, but i don't know if the current canadian government's agenda is technocratic or ideological.

[Skjie]

ideological.

.

[Kuya]

If it really is ideological, and they're not careful, debt reduction politics might end up undermining the very same thing.

[Mazmaz]

Apparently I can't make posts with only quotes anymore.

Canada won't try again for Security Council seat

The Harper government will not mount another campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council after Canada's historic defeat last year, says Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.

"It's not something I envisage," Baird told The Canadian Press when asked whether he planned another bid for a two-year, temporary term on the powerful council in the coming years.

While Baird said, "you never want to stand for something and not be elected," the often-combative rookie foreign minister was defiant and cutting in his reasoning for the decision.

"Listen, I mean, we don't go along to get along. That's just not a phrase," said Baird, using the oft-repeated mantra that has morphed into the mantra for his first six months as Canada's top diplomat. Baird first used it at least eight times during his maiden speech to the UN General Assembly in September.

Canada was trounced by Portugal last year for the second of two temporary two-year, non-veto-wielding seats on the UN's top body. It was the first time in the six-decade history of the UN that Canada failed to win a seat for which it made a bid.

The loss sparked criticism in many quarters about whether Canada's foreign policy under the Conservative government –perceived tilts in policy toward Israel and away from Africa and an unpopular policy on climate change, among them – may have cost the country support among a majority of the UN's 190-plus member countries.

Baird shot back at critics on all fronts in a wide-ranging interview in his Foreign Affairs Department office shortly before Christmas.

"Maybe if we had shut up, and not talked about gay rights in Africa; maybe if we had shut up and been more quiet about our concerns about Sri Lanka; maybe if we hadn't been so vocally against the deplorable human rights record in Iran, maybe Iran might have voted for us," Baird said in the Dec. 20 interview, one of several he conducted with various media outlets that day.

"But we didn't and I don't think we regret anything. Iran probably voted against us; North Korea probably voted against us; Gadhafi probably voted against us. I think those are all badges of honour," he said.

Baird said he is especially proud of his stand against Sri Lanka's government for not adequately investigating alleged atrocities by its military forces when they annihilated the Tamil Tigers in May 2009.

"We're appalled at that. Someone needs to stand up and say the lack of accountability for war crimes, the lack of any meaningful reconciliation ... it may not be very popular, but someone needs to raise these realities. I think it's tremendously important."
Baird defends position on Israel

Critics say Baird and the Tories are playing what has been called "diaspora politics" by taking positions that may win them support in large blocs of newly-arrived Canadians. Tamils, for example, number in the hundreds of thousands in key Toronto-area ridings, the population's largest concentration outside Sri Lanka.

Baird rebutted the criticism, saying: "We didn't do it before election day."

On Israel, the Conservatives have incurred the ire of Muslim and Arab-Canadian groups with what is seen as their unqualified support of Israel.

Baird dismissed that as unfounded, suggesting it was a creation of the media. "It's a principled position. If you look at our position on Israel – in my riding we have 2,800 Jews and 11,500 Muslims and Arabs. We don't do it for political gain; we do it because we think it's right and we believe in it."

Baird said he plans to travel to Israel and the Palestinian territories in early January. He heaped praise on Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, after meeting him earlier this year. "He is probably the world's quietest success story. The security situation in the West Bank has improved immeasurably under his leadership," said Baird.

"We've been working very closely with him on that with a lot of Canadian support. On the security side, their transparency and getting rid of corruption is a gigantic accomplishment for him and the Palestinian people. The economic growth rate has improved considerably, so it's been good news."

As for Canada being a laggard on climate change, a topic Baird raised without being asked, he said: "Travelling almost twice around the world, I've only had two foreign ministers raise climate change with me." Baird added: "It's a big issue for some; it certainly hasn't been one that I've heard a lot about."

Baird said Canada remains committed to helping the Arab Spring countries – Libya and Egypt in particular – to build democratic societies that respect the rule of law. But the minister could offer few specific examples of programs.
Defending women's rights important

"We want to continue to promote Canadian values. How do we support the people themselves, and not impose our values and principles ... offer them support on democratic development on how you conduct an election, on the rule of law."

Baird reiterated the rights of Arab and Muslim women should not be trounced in the months ahead. "It's funny because I'm not a natural champion of feminism but the role of women in North Africa, and the Middle East and the Arab Spring is tremendously important because I think it leads to not just equality, which is a Canadian value, but I think it leads to a more civil society," he said.

"I think like most Canadians, I watched what looked like to be Egyptian security forces beating a woman on the streets of Cairo. I was disgusted by that violence against a woman who, by all accounts, appeared to be just exercising her rights of free speech in a political demonstration."

Baird said he uses strong words because he is "passionate" about human rights and protecting the abused."When people are being put to death in Africa, whose only crime is the criminalization of homosexuality, it's really difficult to raise that when there's intolerance. But I think it needs to be said," he said.

"When you talk about rape as an instrument of war, women being raped in Libya, it's a very uncomfortable issue. Just ignoring it, throwing it under the carpet, it's not an option."