jdobbin

If that is the case, let's hear even the vague numbers. I haven't seen deterrence work yet in this area. Do you have any numbers? Perhaps if they had long sentences for users of say... 5 years, you might see some change in behaviour. I don't know. How many people do you want to put in jail? We still need to hear the numbers. This was the main problem with three strikes, you're out. It was an ever increasing money number.

Are you against producing budgetary numbers? If this is stimulus money, let's hear how much money. Is this stimulus money for the next ten years? Is this an attempt to take the burden off off provincial jails by making many crimes federal crimes with sentences over 2 years? Let's hear the numbers? And if they produce a deficit or an increased percentage of federal spending, let's hear what taxes will be increased or what cuts will be made? Why so vague? If it is $60 million, break it down. Does it include more prisons? Is that in addition to other judicial changes? Are you against transparency? Are you against Canada?

Obama burn his toast this morning?

Okay. So you don't think new prisons need to be built? How do you come to that conclusion? Here is the situation in Manitoba: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/loc...re-65891527.htm If you eliminate bail, if you increase sentences, if you increase arrests, it results in more people incarcerated. If the sentences are over 2 years, the Feds take over. There will be costs. So what are they? And if there are savings from having people in jail, what are they? Then let's hear what those cost savings are. And let's hear what the numbers are for prisons. Why the vagueness? If Conservatives feel strongly about this, we should hear solid reasons and numbers.

I didn't say that at all. I said let's talk about the costs financially. Where are the numbers? If you talk tough on crime, you should be able to give the financials in carrying out the policy. It is a lame excuse if you can't tell what the budget of such a policy is. That's all well and good. But let's hear the numbers. Let's hear how effective it will be in deterrence. Tough on crime seems to mean vague on budgets.

How are the costs hidden? On future crimes? The main concern for someone convicted of a crime should be punishment and where possible restitution. Thereafter, the parole system should be set up to drop the hammer on recidivism. If a non-violent offender who is likely not to commit a crime again is kept in prison for a lengthy period, the taxpayer will have to bear those costs. And yet in some jurisdictions, the issue of prisons becoming ever greater draws on the purse-strings becomes greater. I don't think I've seen evidence that long sentences curbs crimes. Do you have anything on that subject? I do know that several days ago, the breakdown on prison populations in Manitoba showed every prison was overcapacity. If the Feds wish to increase sentences, they will see a greater number of provincial prisoners transferred to federal prisons because anything over 2 years ends up in the national system. There will be costs. Let's hear them. And if the government has estimates on costs saved from keeping people in jail, let's hear those too. But for heaven sakes, let's talk about numbers.

No doubt. Let's just see the costing up front since there is a public desire not to push the deficit to a permanent fixture too.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...ub=TopStoriesV2 It looks like we are going to need a massive amount of prisons built. Wish that Van Loan would reveal the cost to his plan. In Manitoba, the Free Press revealed that every prison in the province was way over capacity. A riot in Brandon in the last weeks was due in part to crowded conditions, according to officials themselves. If the goal is to ensure that everyone convicted of a crime serves a long sentence, we will need a lot more prisons than we do now and will have to pay more annually than we do now. The Tories always play the tough on crime stance but they downplay the tough on finances aspect of their policies.

There was certainly a move to counter the NDP who would have voted against the EI changes if the Liberals had said they were supporting them. I have no doubt about that. However, at the heart of the problem was the belief that the Tories would call an election anyway and it was important to not continually back down. If the polls stay high for the Tories for the next three months. That is a lifetime in politics. That's true. And the NDP have benefited the least. The BQ and Tories have done well though.

No one would be asking the question of Harper calling an election if he hadn't done it once before. The fixed election date is worthless. One of the reasons the Liberals expressed no confidence in the first place was based on the belief that propping up the government was of little use if Harper was planning on calling an election contrary to the legislation anyway. All I hear once again is that it is impossible for that to happen. It isn't impossible. All of the people in this forum who said they would not vote Tory again if they called an election without losing a confidence vote found a reason to vote for them despite that. Harper has to seriously look at the timing. I'm sure that internal polling is asking Canadians what would be an acceptable trigger for an election and what the winning issues would be. The high poll numbers now might be not lost given the unexpected in politics. A simple Auditor General's report on stimulus spending could turn off voters. If not that, a poor response to a disaster has been shown to be a turning point in a few countries. I expect Harper knows that support goes up and it goes down. It is hard to believe that Harper would completely leave the possibility of an early election to chance.

We'll see if Harper decides to go for an election now.

Harper has already said that if he had a majority, he would be doing different things. He won't be pinned down on specifics though. We saw that last week with talk about how many military people will be staying. Or did you miss that? Think the Liberal position is that Canada should withdraw from Afghanistan to re-group and to re-evaluate where we would best serve Canadian security and help Afghanistan. I don't believe there is a non-combat role in Afghanistan and that as long as Pakistan remains a haven, it is impossible to secure Afghanistan. Only Afghanistan and Pakistan can secure their own countries. Think I am suggesting certain posters are. You remind me of Rush Limbaugh with all his mainstream media conspiracy theories. And you are interested in hiding them so they can come to pass? What is your view on the combat mission in Afghanistan past 2011?

Then you haven't read what I have written on overspending.

Until I hear that the government has definitively ruled out a change if an election produces a majority, it remains an open question. At the moment, the government is angling to keep troops in place while somehow redefining what their job is. As some of the critics around the world have pointed out, it doesn't matter what a foreign soldier's role is, they are still in a combat situation if they are out in the country-side. The extreme right wing complains about a hidden agenda of the media while saying they themselves don't have one? I think it is Harper himself that says Conservatives can't be conservatives while in a minority. I'd love to know what means on a variety of issues including Afghanistan. All I hear is that it is impossible that he will break the 2011 rule. Well, his promise means nothing since he can't even stick to fixed election dates.

It is funny how some people think Granastein and Hillier are Liberals. On CTV interviews they both said how a Conservative majority could change Canada's stand on staying. Hillier was particularly strong in his view about minority government and how it affected his job in interviews with the media. Pathetic and desperate indeed how these two individuals are suddenly lumped in with the Liberal party.

Economically, I'd be hard pressed to think that spending less in the urban areas will act efficiently as a stimulus.

I think this comes into the category: To the party in power go the spoils of power.

It is also a fact that the U.S. has better disclosure of their stimulus funding and what outside analysts have been able to find thus far is spending that happens more in Tory held ridings. If that isn't tru, tell the Tories to disclose the spending as they do in the States. I'm not the only one asking for this. Many analysts, some right of center, say this a problem. And yet even Smitherman and others have said they noted that Tory ridings seem to be favoured more.

In a minority government. Some analysts have been saying this week that a majority for the Tories could change that.

That exactly what you seemed to be saying. What you seemed to suggest back then was that Harper gave the Queen approval to give an award despite any evidence to support it. I'm fairly certain that the award barely registered with most Canadians. What has registered was that there was a possibility of an election and the public rejected that idea if the polls are any indication. Harper's problem now is that he can come down firmly against an election so any attempt to call one himself or act with the previous belligerence he has shown will probably take away the points in the polls so that once again he falls short of a majority. You can be sure that the Queen's award won't weigh on anyone's minds in an election.

And you think this is all related to the Queen's award of a prime minister, two governments past? Next you'll be saying that the Republicans secretly had approval of the Nobel Prize for Obama.

And he also said in the same article that it appeared as if some ridings held by Tories were getting more money. You conveniently ignored that. So once again, stop lying.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/22/...s-spending.html http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1333239/ I do call you a liar. I expect that you will say that these reports are inaccurate. And I will tell you to reveal what the actual figures are since even the Budget Officer has not got other numbers at this time despite many requests.

I see four campaigns going on right now. And Harper ran to the Governor General in terror to stop it so that he could keep spending in Tory ridings. So do I. And I am telling you what I see in your posts.

I agree it seems a longshot. Day has stuck to his knitting in cabinet. The only way I seem him losing is something completely unexpected.