ReeferMadness

You're referring to Single Transferable Vote (STV). It was selected by a Citizen's Assembly in BC. I'm not sure what you mean by it not being suggested in time. It was voted on twice. It lost due to the requirement that it pass by a supermajority of 60%. The first time 58% of the people voted yes and the second time (mainly due to a thoroughly dishonest no campaign run mainly by senior NDP insiders) just 39% voted yes. STV is a brilliant system that produces proportional results without having to mathematically 'force fit' the results the way that MMP requires. It does provide regional representation but the riding size is much larger than FPTP. Under STV, you might have as many as 7 representatives for your riding, greatly improving the odds that at least one of them will be someone who shares your political ideas.

Yes, the FI has a rich history of having fun with math when it comes to tax calculations. For example, there is a reference to deficits as 'deferred taxes'. Unless the Institute is prepared to disclose raw numbers and calculations, the ideological claptrap they produce isn't even worth discussing.

Hyperbole, eh? Check out the top selling vehicles in Canada during Q1 of 2014. The top 2 with a bullet are full size pickup trucks. In the US, with lower gas prices, it's the top 3. In fact, full size pickups make up almost a full third of new vehicles sold (and that doesn't count all the gas guzzling SUV's). Either there are a lot more wealthy farmers than I thought or a lot of people are buying unneeded gas guzzlers. Of course, you don't need statistics to know this - just look out your window. The carbon tax was rejected for the reasons I mentioned above. Right wing mouthpieces telling people that they don't need to take responsibility for their wasteful lifestyles. Telling them that their wasteful lifestyles are good because they help the economy.

If you do, then I applaud you. But, there are plenty of people who would 'beat me in that regard'. Personal choices can make a significant amount of difference. Good environmental choices are often better for ones physical and emotional health as well. However, it's time that everyone recognized that personal choice only takes us so far. The 'tragedy of the commons' is that a lot of people (like some posting here) don't give a flying fig about anybody but themselves. Or, they kind of, sort of want to do the right thing but they're too lazy or apathetic to figure out what that is. They are told by moronic politicians and economists that consumption is good because it keeps the economy going. They pay attention to the messages that they want to believe - that excessive consumption is OK. So, personal choice has to be reinforced by sound public policy. And sound public policy means that when you cause damage, you pay proportionally. And that, kids, are where carbon taxes come in. So, for those of you who are bright enough, have enough time and have enough resources to know better but are too ideologically committed to right wing economics, you have no excuse. You should be ashamed.

Really, Tim? Do I really need to spell this for you??? OK. I spent years living without a working vehicle. It was inconvenient (particularly having to carry groceries) but not a hardship. Lots of people do this. That's why we call owning a private vehicle a convenience. I've never met anyone in Canada who lives year round in an unheated dwelling. Why is that? Oh, I remember - because it gets very cold in Canada and you'd wind up dead. That's why heating is considered a necessity. In Canada, almost everyone has indoor plumbing. I wonder why that is. Oh, I remember. It's because in countries without indoor plumbing, people defecate in ditches and drink unclean water. There are epidemics of nasty things like cholera and dysentery. And people wind up dead. And that's why plumbing is considered a necessity. As for healthcare, well do I really need to go on? So, now you understand the difference between convenience and necessity. If you need help with you colors and numbers, my daughter could help you out. If you're not talking about CO2 emissions, you're off topic. Reducing CO2 emissions is the whole point behind a carbon tax. I'm not a paragon of anything, although I'm probably well below average in terms of my CO2 footprint. I've never forced anyone to do anything. I'm just suggesting that carbon be priced in proportion to its cost on society (that's a whole topic in itself). And if people dragging their lazy asses out of their climate-controlled, seat-warmed, vehicular monstrosities in favour of public transit or (god forbid!) moderate exercise counts as self-sacrifice, then we are in a sorry state. Finally, let's deal with the topic of who is self-centred. When I cycle to work, I increase my odds of staying healthy (lowering the demands on the health care system), avoid polluting the atmosphere, put minimal demands on city streets, avoid consuming non-renewable resources and am a minimal risk of injuring or killing the people around me. As I do, I inhale fine particulates and other pollutants from the thousands of motorists around me who don't. These fine particulates will likely shorten my life. Many of these motorists could choose other forms of transportation and a large majority among them could choose vehicles that would consume less fuel. These motorists are a risk to themselves, fellow motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. So, don't tell me I'm the self-centred one.

Yes, thanks to all the right-wing tar-holes whining about funding public transit, it often isn't that great. Funny thing, though. If these same tar-holes suddenly couldn't afford to drive their hummers to work, they would ride the bus. Then these same yahoos would be demanding better service. The other thing is that the suburbs are the result of the car culture. They weren't always there. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone's not out to get you.

Cars are as much a necessity as home heating, indoor plumbing and medical care? Advocating for public transit is the same as claiming Jesus is saviour??? Your arguments are goofy, your logic is weak and your reasoning is specious. Come back again when you've learned how to think, Bub. I cycle to work. My house is heated without fossil fuels. I drive few miles per year. I'd stack my carbon emissions up against most peoples. How about you?

Twaddle. Double twaddle. For most people, a car is a convenience. And an expensive one at that. Most people could save money (quite a lot, actually) by using a combination of public transit, cycling, walking, car shares, car rentals and taxis. Spend $40K on a new vehicle and it will spend most of its time parked, depreciating. In many cities, public transit is weak but that's a matter of collective choice, not a matter of necessity. Even for people who do have cars, most people have far more vehicle than they need. I lose track of the shiny behemoth SUV's that rarely, if ever, leave the city. And then there is the matter of miles driven. It isn't necessary for you to commute 2 hours to your job just so you can cause extra environmental impact by having a half acre of lawn. There are lots of choices. People are just too self-centred and too self-entitled to make the right ones.

This is the worst Canadian government in living memory. They've deliberately divided Canadians against each other, politicized non-partisan government positions, spent public funds inappropriately for partisan purposes, extended the surveillance state, enriched the already wealthy, abandoned the poor, damaged our international reputation and undermined our democracy in a dozen different ways. It's a sad testament to public apathy and ignorance that people only get upset when they bring a petty fraud artist into the red chamber. The amount of money involved is a pittance and the damage done insignificant. Still, if that's what it takes to remove these odious people from office, I'll take it.

What nonsense. Even you don't really believe that tripe. Our car culture didn't develop because people travel long distances to work. People travel long distances to work because cheap fuel and cars enabled wasteful lifestyles. Raise the price of fuel and cities will redesign themselves.

Who are these people that "need to drive to work"? Is it legislated that they have to live in the suburbs and drive their 3 ton SUV two hours each way over paved city streets? Are they forced to at gun point?

Bow before your one true god the economy. Once the fossil fuels have been wasted and the environment polluted, perhaps you'll learn the difference between price and value. Most likely not, though. Religious fanatics will die with their beliefs intact.

The jury is out as to whether that is true in the short term. ie are the short term benefits of focusing on digging up a single commodity and selling it as quickly as possible outweigh the short term costs due to pollution, higher dollar, etc. In the long term, it will prove very difficult to argue that the Harper petro state mentality has been a net benefit to Canada.

I suppose when you're too apathetic to educate yourself on the basics of the subject you're debating, it's asking too much to go look at dictionary.com and educate yourself on the difference between fact and opinion.

I suppose not since the left doesn't exist in any recognizable fashion any more.

Here's a bit of primer for those of you who are ill-informed about dilbit and not really wanting to know just how hard it is to clean up.

Yes, it's still giving in the Kalamazoo River and Prince William Sound. And it will be for years to come.

I see the usual suspects are spouting the usual nonsense about how oil spills are not so bad and nature will clean them up for Enbridge. Meanwhile, Enbridge is still dredging the Kalamzoo River, 4 years after the spill there. It seems like intelligent people might insist that Enbridge clean up their last mess before being allowed to create a new one. But alas, there don't appear to be any intelligent people in decision making capacity on this deal. Dilbit is almost impossible to clean up. The diluent quickly evaporates leaving the tar-like heavy oil to float or sink in the water. I wonder how long it would take Enbridge to dredge the Pacific Ocean. And for those of you who blithely (and ignorantly) claim that Prince William Sound has been cleaned up by nature, you're wrong! The fact is that oil spilled can last in the environment for generations.

As a parent, I'm just grateful I've never been forced to make the choices that this woman has had to face. I wouldn't necessarily choose to leave my 9 year old daughter in the park for hours but from the story, it seems she had no good options so I find it hard to find fault. Criminal law is a blunt instrument and its application often leaves things worse rather than better.

The rationale that this law is needed to protect victimized women doesn't hold water. If you want to help women, then help them. Open up more substance abuse facilities. Offer income supports. Help them develop marketable skills. Offer them counseling. Help them, don't focus on criminalizing guys who want to buy sexual favours. I wonder if any of the people who claim this will help women have stopped to consider the differences between Canada and the Nordic countries from which some of the underpinnings of this law were taken. Canada's social safety nets are weak and full of holes. I don't see Harper's cronies rushing out to set up new programs to support the women. Say, for a minute, that this law is wildly "successful" and there is no more prostitution in Canada. What do the people who imagine they are helping women think the prostitutes are going to do? Go on welfare and live under the poverty line? Take on a minimum wage job (and live under the poverty line)? I'm guessing that the women who feel like they are being victimized (as opposed to those who feel they are making a choice) are people with substance abuse issues, mental health issues, limited marketable skills, illegal immigrants (or some combination thereof). Where will they turn if there is no more prostitution? There will still be prostitution but it will be driven into the shadows and the most desperate of the prostitutes will follow it.

Time to update this thread. It appears that there has been insufficient public resistance to this ridiculous piece of legislation so it seems to be about to pass mostly intact. Politics makes strange bed felllows but this situation takes the cake. On the right, you have the religious right, pious moralists who don't believe in extramarital sex (or sometimes any sex except that which is intended to have babies). On the left, you have a slice of feminists who see prostitution simply as another means by which men victimize women. In the middle you have the 67% of Canadians who believe that prostitution between 2 consenting adults should be legal. The problem is that practically nobody in this group has the guts to say so publicly. If you're a man who advocates legal prostitution, well obviously you're a frequent customer and if you're a woman, well, what was it you used to do again? In one fell swoop, Harper has managed to bring together his own nutbar base with simultaneously splitting the NDP base. Shitty policy but great politics! Of course, nobody, not even the right wing nutbars admit that what they're trying to do is stop consenting people from having sex. Instead, they're all worried about the victimized women. Bizarrely enough, I've seen a number of ex-prostitutes being quoted as saying when they were prostitutes, they thought they were making a choice but now they realize it wasn't really a choice at all. How, one wonders, can they be sure they are choosing what they are doing today?

- Noam Chomsky. Still true after all these years.

The point is that my interest in democracy and governance doesn't stem from my role as a taxpayer, it stems from my role as a citizen. The greatest achievement of groups like the Fraser Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is the phrase 'Taxpayer's money'. It implies that government is just another service to be bought.

Are you guys still arguing over these flying butterballs? Oh, wait, they're not flying right now, are they? I suppose they're parked butterballs at the moment. Still, I've no doubt that there are people getting rich off of them, even as governments waste peoples money on them.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "works" According to an article published in the British Medical Journal I guess if you think that prostitutes should be subject to increased risk of violence and STD's, it works great.