69cat

Are the Liberals going to repeal bill 377 or leave it to the courts? The NDP had it in their election platform. There is a problem when a voter pays their union dues and has those funds used to campaign against the party that voter favors.

I see lots of valid reasons to continue to do away with home delivery but no valid reasons to keep it. Yet Trudeau has halted the program. I saw again yesterday the Montreal mayor eagerly jackhammering a mailbox pad and am sure i saw the same footage during the campaign, the story line being the CPC was wrong to put people into the community mailbox system.

Why does the change to community boxes need to stop? 2/3 of Canadians do not have service to their door, and that includes seniors. And those of us who pick up our mail do not get a reduced rate for postal services.

As i understand it, any house in Canada built after 1985 has community boxes. I know Regina has been that way. I had delivery to my door for about 8 years, rest of my life it is off to the community box or to the post office. But JT thinks it should not be that way, maybe everyone in Canada should get door to door if it is that critical for JT to stop the program.

I think having a woman as leader would be good. There is a lot of good female mp's out there and in the goal of modern politics to have a leader who creates a stir then the possibility of a female PM would certainly do so. Brad Wall isnt going anywhere, he is needed right here in Sask. Though after he wins the spring election i would not be opposed to see him in Ottawa. As others have noted, there is an aversion to accept anyone without French background into the establishment.

I will keep on open mind as i have seen good Liberal government however the trend in north america seems to be less fiscal responsibility and more spending. 1. Leave alone or increase federal transfer payments. CPC went up from $42B to $68B 2. Build pipelines, as Lisa LaFlamme said last night, Harper wasnt getting it done, too much time spent on studies i guess. 3. Business friendly with low corporate income tax, yes it means the Liberals are in bed with big business but si be it. 4. Balance budget as promised, they feel confident running deficits so should have confidence meeting their goal i three years. 5. Bring in the refugees he promised. I want to see a leader stick to his promises. 6. Govern for all of Canada. Sask needs to export it resources therefore a government that enables it so that we do not become a have not province again. I expect to see an authoritarian government, that is the nature of a majority gov so democracy is as usual. Be interesting to see him get in Putins face as he was quoted as saying in numerous papers a week ago. I dont think the Liberals are handed a poorly running country by any means, and if their goal is to strangle oil then the price of oil is going to be irrelevant in their future budget plans therefore will be interesting to see how it plays out. Interesting times ahead forsure.

Yeah, i am in rural area so i am blamed for voting CPC. Actually it is better to say i am a small business owner that follows tax policy, resource development, fiscal responsibility and a political party that starts out with an election platform and sticks with it vs others that check the wind each morning and change accordingly. I see Ontario circling the toilet and see that another Liberal government at the federal level possibly doing the same to the country. But i have some confidence that Trudea is full of bs about protecting the environment, respecting natives rights, proper review of all oil development. It is in fact him being two faced as expected to win votes and things will go forward just the same as with the CPC. If the Libs do otherwise you can expect to hear a flushing sound pretty soon. Ontario is now a "have not" province with $1.8B received in equalization payment, so if the self proclaimed economic heart of Canada isnt going to give the revenue the country needs for all the spending everyone demands then shutting down resources is in fact the biggest mistake possible. But given my aversion to finding out how dumb someone can be i wont risk voting Liberal.

Never had to worry much, had enough of it around. But there is not much difference between people who will buy pot and those who buy alchohol. And speaking to your point of it easy to get i doubt the illegal pot will decrease much. Either the gov pot will be limited in availability, low in thc, or taxed so it is expensive. So the supply that exists now will probably remain so the new buyers will be the guys that would not normally have bought. But i guess you can hope that the network will just disappear. Maybe the law will get tough on illegal pot. If they havent done it yet then not likely to do so therefore business as usual. Just more available through the gov.

The other way to look at it smallc is that i stopped and grabbed a 12 pk to watch the football game with friends. If i couldnt get beer by simply walking into a store then i would go without, i wouldnt make my own starting with barley, i wouldnt run a stihl and i wouldnt go to some hidden place to buy illegally. And there would be a whole lot of beer/wine/hard liquor drinkers also going without. The die hards would find away. With the people i know, pot will be bought a lot more because it will be easier to get. There are a lot of die hards that buy at will but there are lots more potential users who dont go through the trouble right now. Perhaps the Liberal pot plan could work or it could be the worst venture into legalized drugs the world has yet to see. Some sort of proposal would be nice to see but i guess we are all along for the ride on this one. There are a lot of ways to screw it up though. Pretty sure OH&S is not going to like it though. As for the deficits, it is not really fair to judge without a time machine but given that the 2008 and 2011 elections resulted more or less because the CPC (with support of bloc) opposed demands of the libs and ndp for greater deficit spending, i would suggest that the proposed Liberal deficit will quickly get tossed aside if things get tight.

No reefer, i dont have a way to back it up but there are a lot of good things mentioned. The requirement for the first nations bands to have open books is a big step i think, much like unions required to do so. The bands were going through a court case fighting this law a few weeks ago in Saskatoon but havent heard what developed. I dont see how band members are served by hidden finances. I dont follow things like greatly raising environmental fines and anti corruption laws so thinking someone here can say if it is false. From what i know of some of the items noted they sound correct to me however. Just curious as mainstream media paints a different picture.

Yeah, prorogue of parliament is pretty common as the Liberals demonstrate except when the CPC does it an then it is undemocratic and requires public outrage. So, the thinking is that legalized pot will make it harder to obtain? Care to explain. My thinking is a substance that is easier to obtain is more likely to show up where it shouldn't, i think it is naieve to think otherwise. I mean it is possible that making pot readily available will make it less prolific but you will have to show me stats on that. Maybe the Libs will seriuosly limit the amount of pot available, though the black market will fill the void, and maybe they will bring in zero tolerance (which i think would work well) but i have not seen a policy on this. If there is something out there then send me a link as i would like to learn. As for deficits, yeah, lets put it off till tomorrow and then tomorrow comes and things arent so good. So, what are we at three years from now - $25B intead of being around +$15B, so a $40B difference. And if interest rates go up 0.5% the payments double. Well maybe not as the gov probably has a preferred rate structure but not unreasonable to expect rates to climb 0.5 to 2% in a few years. May be time to quit hitting the credit card like Ontario likes to do.

If the CPC has been so bad as people say, why is it that previous governments have not done all these things mentioned? http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-on-harper-you-be-the-judge And really bringing up proroguing parliament when Chretein did it four times in his term is not a great way to attack the CPC. Legalize pot, great, way to break it down into dollars. What do you think the workplace will do, that place were people can get killed if they f-up, when someone can stop at the corner store and grab a pack of pot "to take the edge off" and show up at work. Oh yeah, just watch for 'glazed over eyes' (whatever that means) and report him before he hurts himself or you. More impaired drivers on the road is a good thing too. As long as we tax them it is all good. Deficit spending because times are good, because interest rates are low, because times are bad. So exactly when does this financial wizard think is a good time to pay down debt? When times are so-so we figure and so never?

One of the forums i am on has Ozzies posting often and a couple current threads regarding politics. They are on their 5th pm in 5 years. Also, they comment the media tends to dictate the outcome to a large extent by highlighting certain issues and not mentioning others. No doubt alot of this all ties into mandatory voting. I feel an uninformed voter is worse than someone who doesnt vote. And thus having to sort out what the media portrays compounds the issue of becoming informed.

It does not so much concern me where the PM is from, though no doubt there is a feeling of alienation when a centralist PM and party are in power, but the vote buying really gets under my skin as my tax dollars are used to elect a party based on who gets the most favor from Quebec and Ontario. Purely for discussion purposes, does the Conservative gov election platform have a key component which tends to favor central Canada? Just curious, maybe they have three of them, i dont know. One could argue the NDP and Libs are not buying that many votes in central Canada but the idea is still there.

I have to agree with you 100% on tuning out, the west only matters when transfer payments stop flowing or, as will occur again, transfer payment start flowing again back to the west. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Canada_Independence_Party Interesting read for such a short summary. Talk of corrupt government, illegal government, ending Prime Ministerial dictatorship, democracy, elected senate, and all those things apparently of a big issue with the federal gov right now all go back decades. Funny how these things work eh? Anyone say media influenced? As the pundit from Quebec said last night on The National, election issues should not be determined in an editorial boardroom in Toronto. Those wacky conspiracy theorists. And no there is no reason for the west to feel left out, we can be sure that the Liberal $10B yearly deficit will be spread evenly across Canada and not by population. And a $15 federal minimum wage will enrich the same number of people in each province/territory. Hmmmm, no vote buying going on here, nothing to see, it us conspiracy thinkers as our political parties will surely be elected on platforms that treat each part of Canada equally. Although cant quite figure out Harpers regional based platform. I guess if energy sector keeps doing well all the easterners out west wont be moving back home looking for jobs so dont know if that policy favors the west or Canada as a whole, tough call there.

So marcus, your point is that the government should not promote any green energy or biofuel projects? I think it is good for the government to fund projects and research of this nature. While i dont think wind power will fly, the government funding to this area of power generation will help in determinig its validity. I guess it would be best for no government support at all, because, as i say, my opinion is it is not viable so all support for research and development should therefore end. Looks like other more knowledgeable people think more research is warranted and so government programs exist to pursue various projects, the article even says there are projects going forward without government support so maybe i am wrong in my opinion. And how about biofuels. I think that there may come a day when it is viable. In fact if i was running a livestock operation i think i could economically crush canola on my farm and generate bio diesel while using the waste for livestock feedstock and come out a few pennies ahead. Now if the tech is that close already i think more research and development in this area will make it more so. How do you explain your position that the government should not support any projects in this area? I am always looking at ways to get away from oil where as you have the position that there should be no government spending that would encourage this.

Got rid the CWB, but since that doesnt benefit all Canadians i guess it doesnt count. Here is one for the poster, give me a list of 10 things Jean Chretien gov did to benefit ALL Canadians and i think it will be shorter yet. As for dividing the country, that is the biggedt pile of BS yet. Guess what, this country has been divided since Ontario and Quebec began having a larger say in who gets elected than we do out West. Ever hear of vote buying? Must really drive the Ontario based Media Party crazy to see the west doing well economically while Ontario continues its path to be like Detroit. I know, whatever is doing well in the west, lets kill it and get some control back. So what did Chretien do to set your life up so well? For me he cut spending, and started paying down the debt. Should be any easy list based on the premise of your post.

When you go for a $300,000 mortgage because credit is cheap and that is the max you can borrow based on a 25 year term and your income, how is it relevant to what the price of the lot is - you are buying a package deal because you are likely not to move your house off if the price of the building or the lot changes significantly. You offer up one more excuse to justify borrowing to your limit. I understand what you are saying, and it is true, and it explains why many people are building new vs used. But the end result is your point actually aids in driving the rational that people max out their credit and build as big as they can and then we look at what happens when interest rates rise. People cant afford what they built, new buyers also cant, expensive homes loose out on possible new buyers, demand drops, house prices drop, correction in market. Even the land will drop as demand for development drops. The alternative is build a less expensive home, borrow $200,000 for a shorter term and be less impacted by interest rates. Price of lot is irrelevant in this case. In fact, in Regina it was these smaller homes that gained more value in the long run as did mine. No doubt because the price of the lot went up the same as a large house, but the guy buying my house did not consider what the dirt was worth, he bought the complete package and it will sell in the future as a complete package. Only when you look at buying a house to tear it down will you factor the value of the lot.

Regarding housing bubble, if you mean low interest rates are the "gov policy" referenced then that would be true. But no one is being forced to build/buy houses at the limit of their income, but they do. It is not so much a "bubble" but rather people are building more expensive houses because of cheap credit and the assumption that value will always increase, i would never call this gov policy but have at it if you think so. Nothing is ever the voters fault, it is always the govs fault. When was the last time a new 700 sq ft bungalow was built in a city unless it was specifically targeted for low income housing. Even a "starter home" with 700 sq ft foot print is an eloborate two story with vaulted ceilings and multiple bathrooms. So yes, housing prices are increasing, and yes, when interest rates rise there will be a lot of people maxed out on credit. And sure, if you arent very bright and are caught up in all this, you will blame Harper. Anyone with independent thought will know its your own fault.

Marcus should really read the link "producer support" before posting it as in every case i see the current government is reducing support. Got to page 7 and saw things like Canadian exploration and development expense and accelerated Capital Cost Allowance deductions are all being cut back from previous years. The link even specifically shows how these are applied to oil sands. And as Argus says, the provincial governments have a greater say in how they develop policies for taxation of resources. Marcus, can you point out where in your link that the Harper gov has increased the benefits for resource development/extraction vs, say, pre 2008 levels?

Bonan, out of curiosity, do you see the same degree of foreign buy-in around the US? Locally i know of a pulp mill bought by an asian group, Yan Coal (chinese) is very close to going ahead with a potash mine right in my area and of course farm land has been driven up by out of province/country investors (chinese mainly) to the point land is no longer a smart buy for a farmer. Australian farmers say the same thing with resources (coal mentioned) and the farm sector. Does the US have policies to limit such purchasing i wonder. Regarding the stock market comparison i think you need to go back earlier than 2008 to compare as the US was suffering where as Canada was ticking along at that time so it would naturally be true that the US had more to gain post-2008 than Canada.

Ok marcus, you are going after the deficit shown by the graph without giving any reasonable explaination other than its oil. And your premise for your arguement is expensive oil being sold into the market place is bad for Canada. First of all, rework your graph with $40 oil and see what happens. Secondly, those things that you dont have on your hate list are doing well also such as mining and electricity. And so when those area do well requiring more equipment to be brought into Canada you get an imbalance on the other side. But when big companies pull out of Canada and no longer provide those items it is rather self evident isnt it. So your premise is that all industry that is doing well should be shut down, thus greatly reducing the "non energy" deficit and everything will be ok. Yeah, lets bring back the CWB so farmers buy less big ticket items made in the USA and your new economy will be awesome. Good lord, i hope you are not running for an NDP MP but with that thinking there probably is someone.

Again marcus, what sectors are outside the energy sector, what is within the energy sector so that we can even discuss "Harpers fault". Here is one for you, how will your chart look if the idiots in Ontario get their act together and run their books/economy/budgets with the slightest intelligence. I mean adding $140B to the Ontario tax payer in less than 10 years is something, is it not? By the way, the provincial government manages its own affairs, not the federal gov. According to your chart i would say Ontario (manufacturing) is the source of your imbalance. But then i dont claim to understand the data you provide so i can claim anything i want.

Marcus, what products are grouped in the "energy sector" you post and what % is oil of that grouping?

I think Argus agrees with the list of three realities when people present data with their own interpretation (ie the raw data) i posted above. If you are going to cite data, graphs and numbers you better darn well be able to back up how that data backs your point. If you cant even make an attempt (even though wrong, at least show some degree of knowledge of what you post) then dont post it. Case in point, under the "Harper economy" the number of poor has increased. Is that true or false? Surely someone can come up with charts to support it. Now i say look back at the realities if presenting data i mentioned a few posts up. Guess what, i can have $2,000,000 in my chequing account in no different way than you have $2000 (ie nothing devious or manipulation) and i can make one lifestyle choice next year, something everyone plans to do eventually, still have my $2M in the same account and become one of the "poor" in every sense to meet the data requirements. Anyone care to take a shot and claim i am bs'ing?