carepov

Not beneficial enough for the cost. You are probably right about no party having the sense to consider outsourcing shipbuilding. Why can we do it so easily for other procurements like helicopters? This whole thing stinks of waste.

There are always consequences to change. Sometimes the consequences can be positive. For example, road tolls targeted congestion - but a consequence was reduced CO2 emissions. In some areas, we could build more bike paths to have, have less congestion, fewer emissions and a healthier population. Governments can stop fighting wars like in Iraq - how much CO2 did that war emit? Governments can approve pipeline deals and instead of stupidly moving oil by rail. Governments can stop subsidizing growing corn for fuel. Yes there are limits to what governments can do (and in some cases they are doing too much) - but they can certainly do a lot more over and above what they are doing now. Simply consider the immense variety of energy efficiency programs that different governments around the world have implemented. Selecting and widening the best-practices (where appropriate) would lead to a great deal of cost-effective policies that reduce CO2.

A 5% here and a 5% there, pretty soon you have some significant (cost-effective) reductions in CO2. OK, but we can implement policies that increase incentives, right?

Good points rue I especially agree with you that the main concern is Iranian Religious extremism. That is why I am for the deal - it is an olive branch to the moderates in Iran. My opinion is that this deal is promising - certainly more promising than any alternative that I can imagine. If the P5+1 took Netanyahu's or Canada's approach, it would lead to increased influence by Iranian extremists over its moderates. If you are against this deal, what would you consider a better (and realistic) alternative to the deal? What kind of a realistic deal do you think Netanyahu would consider a "good deal"? Also, can you please provide a link showing that: "In the middle of announcing this deal with Iran, the leader of Iran called yet again for the end of Israel."?

I would not write off nuclear. There is also hydro and geothermal (in some regions) and even some solar and wind (limited usefulness but still useful). And don't forget the conversion from coal to gas. Are you saying that there is no point in looking for energy efficiencies because if it were cost-effective then it would have been done already? I strongly disagree, but even if it were true, then policies that create more incentives to increase energy efficiencies would be (and are) cost-effective methods of reducing CO2 emissions.

Why do you keep saying this? There are plenty of cost-effective methods of reducing CO2 emissions.

It depends. In the case of the ships, it looks more like we are spending $1 billion instead of $200 million. If we spent $200 million elsewhere, we could then spend the $800 million on made in Canada projects that will have actual bennefits (for example infrastructure).

To do what? So you are in favour of wasteful spending in order to buy votes?

Canada doesn't need 5th gen aircraft. Modern arctic ships are way cheaper on amazon.no and amazon.dk http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shipbuilding-contract-holds-250m-mystery-1.1300816

I love it. I would have never have thought that actual hammers could cost $500. Thanks Derek. Anyways, I never did say to get the cheapest hammers - it doesn't have to be all or nothing. Maybe you do get the Stiletto hammers but just shop around to get the best deal: http://www.amazon.ca/Stiletto-TB15MC-15-Ounce-Titanium-Milled-Face/dp/B00079R1YM

It depends how it is done. Skin cancer affects people from all races, but people with less melanin are at higher risk. If the campaign targets everyone but mentions that people with less melanin are at greater risk then it is fine. If the campaign says that it will only help white people who suffer from skin cancer (but not black people who suffer from skin cancer) then it is racist. I agree, depending on how its done, some actions/policies that benefit a certain race and not others are not racist - and if they are sensibly done and provide value to society then they are good policies. One such policy is the Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/aboriginal/002003-1001-eng.shtml Do you agree?

Yes, NATO military leaders are saying the same thing: reduce overlapping capabilities to increase efficiency.

No, that is not at all what I am saying. For both Canada and the US, I am saying no more $500 hammers. A bigger issue for the US is: no more Vietnam/Iraq type quagmires.

Wrong. I am against all stupid spending.

Throughout my discussions on MLW, I have softened my position regarding military spending. I am starting to accept ridiculously expensive but I have to draw the line at supidly expensive. If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?

I am for modern fighters and fleets - just not stupidly expensive ones.

I looked and I can't find information about what our contributions to NORAD and NATO are or what they should be. (certainly not 50 % of NORAD). If it is so easy, then please look it up and show me how Canada is not meeting its commitments. (Note: if we are not meeting commitments then I agree with you that we should) I'm sorry that I assumed that you were in favour of expanding our capabilities; I got you mixed up with Derek. I am sorry about your comrades dying. I do not agree with sending troops out to battle without the proper equipment and with over-restrictive caveats. On this point it is you that have misunderstood my position. We are actually saying a lot of the same things: think and plan first, spend the money where it's needed for the right capabilities, and then act in accordance to those capabilities - putting the troop safety first. My biggest concerns are with the stupidly overpriced F35s and the new ships. Wasting money on these items will take money away from protecting the troops. Where we might disagree is that I am not concerned that sometimes we rent equipment from allies, or work with them in other ways, to get the job done safely. As I've said before, this is teamwork and we should do more of it. We have spread ourselves too thin. The taxpayers, the governments AND the military leadership. I am afraid that we are not learning from our mistakes and are therefore doomed to repeat them.

Fine. Where in the world have such mandatory minimums worked?

Either way - it was a compliment to Canada. Can anyone find me one credible source that criticises Canada for under-contributing (mooching) off our allies like NATO?

I provided statistics earlier. Aboriginal women are three times more likely to be victims of violence. Kids are two-eight times more likely to be neglected/abused compared to non-abiriginal kids living in the same region. The over-representation in prisons is also too high to be explained by poverty alone. Try reading the Manitoba Commission report. The bennefits of the program are based on the the fact that the program is in synch with Aboriginal cultures. Aboriginal leaders were consulted in developing the program. Yes the bennefits should be extended to non-aboriginals whereever possible - but you said that we should cancel the program.

Is it racist to focus on white people for a campaign to prevent skin cancer?

Mandatory minimums have not worked in Texas and many other states. Can you point to anywhere in the world where mandatory minimums have worked? I am not fear mongering. I simply hate laws that end up wasting taxpayer money. And the only thing I hate more are laws that cost money and worsen society.

I took it as "doing more than our fair share", "overcontributing". Canada.

You know who is laughing at us? It's Americans that are repealing mandatory minimums because they do not work (no reduction in crime), unnecessarily ruin families and lives and waste money! Even Republicans from Texas! http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/texas-conservatives-reject-harper-s-crime-plan-1.1021017

Poverty can explain some increased rates of Aboriginal neglect, alcoholism, crime, etc... but not the magnitute of the differences. Why are you so against the Aboriginal Corrections program? Victims, Aboriginal communities, Corrections Canada are all for it. The program is helping to make our country safer. It's probably saving us money. What's the problem?