Accountability Now

I can agree that a mechanism should be in place to allow wealth to become more equitable (if desired) however keep in mind the vast majority of people don't prioritize money the same way and therefore don't care for equitable wealth. Some people choose to have careers that offer more intangible benefits over money with the very understanding that they won't be equally rich but are just fine with that. To be honest, most of the people I know that complain about the rich or the fact they aren't rich made specific choices that put them in the spot they are in. Whether they are doing it consciously or subconsciously, people make decisions for what is important in their lives. So if having money is not important to some then why would equitable be plausible?

I would love it if we all had good stable jobs and nothing ever changed....especially if we all worked equally hard and were all paid the same so that no disparity would ever come between us. However this doesn't exist and will never exist. The harshest reality facing us right now is that it has become a global market place. The mom and pop shop is no longer competing with the other mom and pop down the street for revenue, they are competing with some manufacturing facility in China. This world market is especially true when it comes to oil/gas as these companies don't care where they drill it, they only care where they can make the most money. People around the world have sharpened their pencil are and are ready to compete on various levels meaning that governments need to compete on many levels just to get business to come here. Obviously there is a balance that needs to be met in order to have environmentally sound practices and stability for long term gain however the intent of lowering taxes is to get those companies to come here in the first place. If the companies aren't here then there will be no salaries which means greater unemployment, less stability, less wealth to distribute and overall a gloomy situation.

I would agree that the Conservatives agree they are glad they lost but not for the same reason. This experience we are having with the NDP in Alberta is now showing people what the 'alternative' was truly about. So when the PC or whatever right wing government takes over (and they will), they will always have this lesson to draw back on to back what they are doing. Are you looking on the macro sense or just for examples? Off the top of my head I know that Tim Hortons left Canada and later came back into Canada solely because of the corporate tax changes. When Burger King bought Tim Hortons, they too left the US in favor of lower taxes. On the macro sense I can offer this one: http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/tax-competitiveness-chen-mintz.pdf This article goes into depth talking about 'tax competitiveness' and how we live in a global market. Companies have the ability to pick and choose where they set up shop and most countries have tax treaties. So even though they do business in a given country they will take all the profits (minus 10% for withholding) back to whatever country is most tax advantageous. So instead of getting 25% (Fed and Prov), we will now be getting only 10% only because we weren't tax competitive. This is particularly true when it comes to oil and gas where not only can they choose where the profits go, they can also choose where to do the work. Companies will pick up and move investments solely on taxation and royalty policies to other areas of oil development.....just to save a few bucks. Again, this new carbon tax didn't help anything on that regard:

No way...those make for a more direct hit.

Indeed. It was the extra jab you give a guy while he's down.

Kimmy...everyone knows that the price of oil is determined elsewhere however the incentive to invest inside Alberta is completely obliterated by what she is doing with the taxes and royalty policies. I met yesterday a close friend who is a banker that specializes in oil/gas and he said it will never hit the news but many closed door meetings with these oil execs have shown time and time again that companies could be investing but are choosing not to simply because of these policies and the NDPs general anti-oil regime. Having any other government wouldn't change the price of oil nor would it even keep Alberta from recovering however it wouldn't be the pile driver that she is putting on us. Much like Trudeau, Notley feels that the people of Alberta supported and voted her in based on EVERY platform decision when in reality she got in form an anti-PC vote. She won't face that reality and to the right thing (ie cut taxes and provide incentives) because that would go against her 'political' campaign. I have also been told that many NDP MLAs know that they are 'one and done' so they are only using their time to put in the policies they feel will have the most effect.

To be honest....I don't have a problem with anything he did for this vacation. If he wants to spend his money on an elaborate vacation then so be it. Truth be told, that is where I spend my money too. I would actually take it a step further. I don't think that all PMs (not just Trudeau or Harper) should have to pay anything back for the flight. PMs are going to take vacations and when they do it is a security issue so why isn't it just understood that once or twice a year the PM will take the plane for a personal trip. Who honestly cares about the 3 or 4k that he pays back in order to 'save face'. It should be a perk of having that job. Now...if he wants to use it more than his two or three times then there would be an issue. In the end, if Trudeau has money and he wants to spend it then so be it. He shouldn't be ashamed of that in the same way that Trump or Romney or any other famous politician has stated as much.

Actually 'romantic' his not his word but rather a word in the dictionary with this meaning: f, characterized by, or suggestive of an idealized view of reality. "a romantic attitude toward the past" synonyms: idyllic, picturesque, fairy-tale; More I have stated you have a romantic view of the First Nation situation and history before so it comes as no surprise that I agree with Smallc on this one.

Actually, pot is still technically illegal in the USA however the States are allowed to decide if they want to legalize it for their area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction I'm not picking this out to be nitpicky but wondering if the US can side step these same treaty regulations by this technicality.

Good point. The Canadian government alone spent over a $100M on legal services for Aboriginal Affairs. That's quite a few houses.

So do you always debate by making stuff up? Where did I even come close to saying that. Here is my first post to you which you conveniently ignored: Do you see that part in RED. Does any of that make it seem like I want them to stay where they are? Personally I think that all reserves should be banned and any natives who want to stay will be given their home and an appropriate piece of land. These remaining people can form a municipality or town and like I said become part of the same society. Of course this doesn't work for the Chiefs as this would mean losing out on precious government revenue that they get to rape from their people. As I said, they are more than free to join Canada and not live on the reserves. Within our society their cultures and values will be respected the same way that all other cultures are. In fact, they would probably get more attention as the founding group.

I like the way you said this. I have no inkling to take away any cultural aspect from the First Nations just the same way any person should protect and hold onto their culture. But when it comes to the law and how this country is made up, there is only one Canada which all people should live under the same laws, taxes, and general patriotism beyond your culture. At this point the main issue is this nation to nation concept that is not a reality nor was it ever a reality. Legal assimilation was always the goal but now you have this power struggle because we have played the game to long. Its time to end it.

There are definitely some good First Nation groups most of which are in economically sound areas that allow for these communities to thrive. The issue comes up when you have a First Nation that constantly requires more than than what was outlined in the treaties and doesn't get it. For the most part these communities are in remote locations that any other group would have left if they did not get the "benefits" of living on a reserve. (Note....I put quotes around benefits to ensure you that I know there are more disadvantages than advantages to living on a reserve however there are some advantages that draw them to stay regardless of how bad the advantages are. Ultimately, I see no end game on the First Nations issues until we are all part of the same society. No more us versus them. Perhaps this requires some sort of pay out or other financial assurances but the idea of of nation to nation is only half way solution when it needs to be all or none. I agree with Argus though, there are too many benefits for certain chiefs and friends of said chiefs for the Us versus Them to end.

Do you have a citation for this? I'm curious if this is true or just your opinion

I think he can only mark it as a broken promise once it actually happens. We all know it's GOING to happen but to be truly objective, he needs to keep it in the In Prgoress category.

No. He shows the Syrian refugee promise to be broken. We believe he will have higher deficits than he said but that will take time to confirm that broken promise. So far the site seems to be objective whether you like Tim Hortons or not.

Yes...I've think you posted this earlier. It does seem to be non-partisan which is good. I agree...politics is a new game now that social media/internet has evolved. People remember what you say because it's out there.

You used the polls to validate your position that increased numbers are ok. I'm saying you can't use that argument unless you fudamentally agree that all polls are correct. The law is up for interpretation. Harper challenged that interpretation and it didn't go his way. That makes him neither stupid nor at odds. The reality is that our 'justice' system is continually changing and becoming more difficult to amend due to precedents that legally force a ruling even when common sense is against it. I have never said Harper could do no wrong and I certainly did not allude to it in that post. My point it that Trudeau made a mistake and all you can say is "Harper Harper Harper."

Yes. I believe they knew it was an overachievement but still did it anyway. However as I have stated before, the Syrian refugee crisis was a minor issue for the reasons that Trudeau got elected. I believe the majority of people who voted for Trudeau did it as an anything but Harper vote. This refugee issue was a sliver of the reason he got elected however it doesn't excuse him from accountability to election campaigns/promises.

This is very simple. You can't use the polls just to suit you're meme. Either you give credence to the fact that the majority of Canadians believe in something or you don't. So does it matter that a majority of Canadaians agree with bringing in more Syrians? The polls say they do but the polls also support of the banning of the niqab. . Nope. No issues. Interpretation of the law is very arbitrary and those decisions could have gone either way. Unlike the refugee situation where even people on the left knew the promises made could not be done. Having said that, is your only defense of Trudeaus blunder going to be " well....Harper..." Let it go...he can't hurt you anymore.

Interesting. Just a few posts back, your go to argument was that a large amount of Canadians supported increased numbers. A vast amount of Canadians also supported banning apparel. Do you use only care for public support when it agrees with your position? The reality is I prefer a leader who is knowledgeable, practical and willing to make the tough decisions to get the job done. Not just pander to a crowd especially when an election is on

Which is exactly what Harper stated and campaigned on. Unlike Trudeau who repeatedly called on the Prime Minister to increase the numbers and the timeline which was never feasible to begin with. It was an election promise that was only meant to fool his bleeding heart contingency.

I summed up the whole issue a few posts back. Maybe you can look at that post and see if it clarifies anything on your end.

The quote you captured of his was about them not wanting to come. I had to go back a few pages to see the benefits comment. This article alludes to why Canada doesn't attract them: "The mean-spirited politics of the past decade, the policies denying health care to asylum seekers and the cruel temporary-worker rules and family-reunification restrictions are well known overseas, and the best-qualified people would rather go elsewhere. We think were a hot date, but we really need to upgrade our Tinder profile." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/no-surprise-here-canada-a-turnoff-for-some-refugees/article27600848/

This is what he's referring to: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/syrian-refugees-not-keen-to-move-to-canada-immediately-ottawa-says/article27561756/?service=mobile