Accountability Now

They are sponsored for ONE YEAR or until they find a job...whichever is soonest. After that they are part of society where they most certainly do affect unemployment. I guess you didn't read that part

Is Nova Scotia also going to take over welfare, unemployment and the Resettlement Assistance program for these refugees? Also, are they going to guarantee these refugees only stay in Nova Scotia once they are here. Point being made is this is a federal matter for these very reasons and having Nova Scotia offer the space is one thing but there is more to it than that. I see you are worried about Canada hitting 7% unemployment....Nova Scotia is at 8%. You're ok with adding numbers to this?

No its not bullshit. They may have to tweak a few things but it wouldn't take six months to do it IF they were prepared...which they weren't. Add to the fact, the PC's left them with a surplus so the books can't be that bad. In fact they probably have more to spend then they thought. I'm curious....can you name other governments that waited this long to present their budget after coming into power? Maybe that would solve it. What's wrong with that? They are delaying the budget so their Federal comrades don't take any heat for the budget they proposed here in Alberta. Even after the federal election happens, it will take time for any party other than the Conservatives to implement their budget. Now are we suppose to wait for that too. Obviously you don't know how private sector works.....time is money. Waiting this long will force decisions to be made and that's not a good thing especially when its only purpose to benefit the federal NDP Even with this boom, the cost of living in Alberta has not increased equally. Housing prices aren't as high as BC and ONT. Gasoline is on the lower end compared to most provinces. And any retail cost is relatively comparable except Albertans enjoy no sales tax....so one less cost. Add to the fact that our marginal tax rate is the lowest of any province. So the reality is that the 'costs' of living in Alberta are lower than other provinces yet we are still paying our public servants higher than anyone in the country. I would say that your argument works to a point but not to a point that explains why the public servants are the highest in the country. I love this argument. People want to look at the public sector the same as the private sector...why? Do you know what happens to the public sector when the economy slows down? They can't spend as much or may not get that raise or possibly they lose out on certain benefits. Do you know what happens to the private sector? People lose their jobs....by the masses. Companies go bankrupt. People lose a lot of money on investments. Etc. Take a look at the people in Alberta that are now out of work due to this crash. They aren't teachers or doctors....they're drilling contractors, truckers, tradesmen....etc. Sure they enjoy the times of boom but they also suffer the times of bust. Why should the public sector get rewarded for booms but feel no effect from the bust? Job security is a tangible benefit but somehow its never considered in the equation. PS...I don't work in the oil field so I don't get the joys of the booms either...but I sure am enjoying this time of not having a bust. I get it...you're a union guy so you think its impossible to negotiate something that is actually fair and workable for BOTH sides. However, the reality is that with a boom and bust economy, their needs to be provisions put in that make it a sliding scale. The fact that Redford gave into the Union and gave them such a big increase was the reason she got in over the Wildrose in the first place. It was stupid and ended up costing the PC's as they knew it wasn't sustainable. With that said, salaries and collective bargaining contracts CAN be written in logical ways that are understanding of the economic times but unions won't allow for it. There is no risk of job reduction unless the population decreased. However salaries can adjust both ways. If not then why do they benefit from the increased salaries when times are good? Again....they are the highest paid in Canada and our cost of living isn't. Why??? Its not like doctors are running off to work the rigs. We have no risk of losing them to industry. The volatility is created by the oil industry. If they don't want the volatility that comes with oil then they can't have oil type wages. Take the good with the bad. Hey....don't ask me that question....you were the one that screwed up stating that Alberta has some of the lowest public spending per capita which I showed is clearly not true. Perhaps I should be asking you the same question. As I stated earlier, the PC's under Redford caved to the unions in the election that everyone thought the Wildrose was going to win. They increased their salaries to be the highest paid in the country and that was a major reason for the swing back to PC. For that reason alone, I agreed that it was time for the PC's to leave office....I had no problem with that result AT ALL. However, I am not ok with another, fresh government coming in and pandering to the union. Its fairly simple to me...you are either on the 'oil' train or not. If you want the top level salaries and all the benefits from oil during the good times, then be ready for the low salaries when oil drops. If you don't want those variations then pick a salary that is based on non-oil factors like comparisons to other provinces and go with that. At this point the only party that I think would be capable of doing this is the Wild Rose, however I wouldn't bet on it. Needless to say, trust is not a word that I would use for anyone at this point.

Perhaps but only because the issue at hand is they were completely unprepared to take office and are just now trying to learn how to do the job. Any real contending party would have prepared a budget for the election and would be ready to implement it, however the NDP were as surprised as any that they got in. Getting in was the fault of the Alberta people however not being prepared to get in is the fault of the NDP. Having said that there sure is a smell of delaying the budget until after the Federal election. No. You use this time to enforce tax laws that get implemented when oil does go high. You let industry know that you are working with them and that when oil goes up, so do the taxes. The same should be reflective of other expenditures unless you want to base everything on low oil price and decide how to spend the surpluses later But it is the case...aside from the Territories of course. Here is the rankings for the teachers: http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedfiles/public/bargainingcontracts/teachersalaryrankings2013-14brief.pdf Here's doctors.... Here is a Stat's can link documenting public sector salaries by province. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/govt62e-eng.htm Most provinces around 47-50k per person (average). BC is at 54k and Ontario is at 55K. The national average is at 53k. Alberta is at 61k....why? Does Alberta have much better public servants? Probably not....they get paid more because there is more money here....because of the oil. So when the oil goes down....should their salaries not be more reflective of national averages or of at least BC/Ontario? Alberta still spends more per capita than Ontario, BC and Quebec. Which are the largest populations and more representative for us to compare Alberta to versus Sask or maritime provinces.

I appreciate your sarcasm however the reality is that Prentice would be struggling with the low price of oil just as anyone. The difference between Prentice and Notley is that he would have presented a budget by now which would at least give the companies an idea of the rules over the next little while thus eliminating some of the uncertainty causing the fragile economy. Instead, Notley has delayed for months and continues to delay putting these companies into limbo. I also don't know if this fragile oil market is a time to start increasing corporate taxes. Not saying taxes can't go up but the timing of it just wasn't good. I also know that Prentice would be following through on bringing costs back to moderate spending that one would expect in a fragile economy. Instead, our teachers, nurses and doctors continue to be the highest paid in Canada even though Alberta is in the tank.

He could have not promised a lot of things but he did promise it and carried through which played a part in him getting elected. At least he carried through on his promise unlike Cretien. Harper didn't just earn a degree, he earned a masters degree in economics. Which is why he didn't make outlandish promises to cut the GST altogether unlike his predecessor.

I guess he could have reneged on his election promise of cutting the GST much like Cretien did when he promised to get rid of the GST in order for him to get elected.

The issue of granting official language status is more about inclusion rather than what's right. Both the natives and the French gave up their rights to the lands and have no real right to say their languages should be part of the national language. However, cyber hits the nail on the head saying that Quebec would certainly leave if French wasn't included and therefore the move to make it included is accommodated even though Francophones only make up 7 million of the 35 million population. I say 'only' since its not even close to half however it is still a significant number to contend with. The 630 First nations add up to roughly 1.4 million but getting all 1.4 million to decide to secede from Canada is a far less threat than Quebec leaving. As such the threats from the AFN aren't seen nearly as important. Whether you like it or not, English is the dominant language in the world, especially in business. People in Japan, China, Russia, Germany, etc are all trying to learn English not French. So the debate about which language should be around IF there was to be one is pretty silly. Not to mention, this article in the CBC seems to shed some light on this topic: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/more-english-needed-in-quebec-s-eastern-townships-mna-says-1.3151931

Which part of which treaty has not been honored? Please be specific

Absolutely. The ability to compare various parties or PMs based solely on surpluses or deficits is inane. There are many factors that affect the outcome of a budget and one of the largest one affecting Canada is the FX since we are a net exporting country. Look at those years that the Liberals were getting the surpluses and you will see FX rates of 1.4-1.6 since the US was doing quite well at those times. Since the recession, the FX was around 1.0 -1.05....even dipping to 0.95 which hits the bottom line a lot harder. Even the most recent balanced budget is going to be achieved by the FX heading back to 1.2-1.3. All of which, no PM has any direct control over.

Interesting post however I do agree with you that I would feel better about the information being presented if it had just the provincial governments. Federal governments have historically had more deficits which skew the numbers when you look at a combined federal and provincial level. (https://www.capp.ulaval.ca/sites/capp.ulaval.ca/files/cahier_21.pdf) I don't know about Manitoba but Saskatchewan's way of bookkeeping is not the same as the rest of Canada. In fact, they feel that a vast majority of these so called surpluses were actually deficits if they accounted the same as the other provinces or federally. Here's an article showing this: (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/9-out-of-10-budgets-not-balanced-sask-auditor-says-1.1323251) If this is correct, I wonder how many of those 52 balanced budgets would be attributed to Saskatchewan. I think at least 10 which would bring that number down.

And by the same token we can't say they'd be better. Since we can't use these tokens we are forced to use logic, which is what Argus is doing by reviewing their platform

You simply can't have a conversation about them being better at the federal level when they have never been at the federal level. Based on that logic you would be able to compare the Green Party, the Communist Party or even the Rhino party. If he is in indeed talking provincially then I would like to see a citation backing that up. I have only ever heard of NDP running various provinces into the ground, however I have never seen stats on it.

Are you talking provincially?

Read up on the White Paper and how this was already tried. Aboriginals view the Indian Act as a necessary evil in that they feel it contains the key piece to their constitutional rights as aboriginals. So even as demeaning and detrimental as it it to aboriginals, they feel they need to preserve such rights. Hence the stalemate.

Interesting graphic. On first glance I trust the graphic is intended to make us believe that Equity is better than Equality which I believe is true in situations where people can't help their own situation. In this graphic I have to ask who is providing the boxes for these people? The government? If so, why is it up to them to help in this situation when that short person could provide his own boxes? Obviously this a philosophical thing but it does relate to moving forward with the FN. If Equity is truly the desired result then we shouldn't be just handing them boxes rather we should be creating a system that allows them to build their own boxes where needed. Of course this all assumes that the FN are the short people and the ROC is the tall person. My question is why does that assumption have to be? Why can't FN be view as having the same abilities abd capabilities as the ROC? Why aren't we all tall and not provided the same opportunities to succeed.

Who cares where they spanned. The deal was made to promote business in New England and to secure the area. It had nothing to do with the Canadian area. The original deal was signed in New York and involved tribes from New England to the Colony of Virginia. Any colonies from Canada? The Mohawks called off the Treaty in 1755 because of land they say was stolen from them in New York...which if you look on a map would reside in the US....not Canada. The Albany Congress brought the Treaty back to good terms. Who was involved in the conference you ask? It was delegates from the 7 of 13 American colonies. Wait...whats that? One of their goals of the congress was to find common defensive measure against the French from CANADA??? The whole point of the Albany Plan was to unite the 13 colonies and they were using the natives as pawns in their plan.

Those treaties were originally made in US territories made with Iroquois in the US. Why would the Queen ask Harper for permission to do something that was based on US soil?

Those are some really strong and well thought out arguments jacee. I can see you put a lot of thought into it. Of course the simple fact is that the constitution is the supreme law in our country and can be changed with amendments. For that matter, the entire constitution could be rewritten if the country wanted it to. Having said that the desire and ability to amend the constitution is not easy and certainly would not be easy in the case of aboriginal affairs. However, if the natives become even more contentious then they are now then it may very well be a path that Canadians chose to exercise. Rest assured, the constitution does have the ability to change. Again....I've asked you numerous times to show where the government has not fulfilled the terms of the treaties and not once have you substantiated this opinion of yours. As such I will mark this as another unsubstantiated opinion. @ See...I can place random characters here too. Of course, I choose to assemble the characters into words and words into sentences in order to form a point. It helps when debating.

Getting it ratified by the FN community would make it more peaceful but it's not necessary. New laws can be passed that would change everything if the Canadian people went that way. There aren't many cases where aboriginal title is possible as most areas have been ceded by treaty. That's what makes this tough....it's those vast areas of ceded land that could benefit from a new deal but the incensed lands like it just the way it is

Jacee....I'm done asking you this question as you refuse to answer with just one spot in the treaties where the Crown has broken its end of the treaties. Your constant deflection has been noted

I agree that a new agreement is needed but it would involve a complete buyout of aboriginal rights thus making all Canadians equal. Thus buyout would be significant but I still don't think natives would go for it despite the fact their current treaties are screwing them over

What is it from the actual terms that we have broken?

Lmfao!!! What the heck does the word Mining mean to you. The British were mining sub surface well before these treaties were made and knew exactly what it was about. Such BS on your part. The compensation the natives get is not for rights to the resources but for the disturbance to their lands. The fact that a 99% non-native like me may potentially get status rights is a clear indication that the courts are messed up. And no....I would still be saying the same thing even if I did get it.

Well...where in any of the treaties do they say they have rights to resources especially buried under the ground? The treaties say they can use the land for hunting but the land still belongs to the Crown and this right to hunt is SUBJECT to various regulations including the requirement for settlement, mining, trading or other purposes. No where does it say anything about the natives having rights to these resources.....but yet here we have the courts giving it to them because their bleeding hearts just couldn't deal with it when the natives complained about their oral history and how it magically conflicts with the written and signed agreements.