ReeferMadness

This seems to be everyone's working assumption but nobody seems to be able to come up with any specifics. Is it not amazing that in an 8,000 page agreement, nobody can come up with anything in this document that will actually help Canadians? But still, everyone seems to think it's good anyway.

Did you complain when Harper created the structural deficit by cutting taxes without explaining what programs he would cut to compensate? Did you support Kevin Page when he demanded access to the data he needed to fulfill his role? It's easy to say we shouldn't have a deficit but someone needs to decide either on higher taxes or lower program spending. We'll have to wait and see what Trudeau does on that front.

How do you know that? Through this entire miserable debate, I've heard of literally dozens of things that could get worse but nobody has pointed to one tangible thing that will improve, other than apparently, I might save a few nickels on milk laden with growth hormones. There seems to be an endless amount of faith in right wing economics. CBC had a call in show today with a university professor who was supporting the deal and even he didn't have a single tangible good point about the deal. The most compelling case he could make was that if the US signed, we have to sign. Things that could be worse: Extension of copyright will add costs for education Extension of IP laws will make drugs more expensive Billions we need to pay off dairy farms Billions we need to pay off the auto sector Potential for lost jobs in the auto sector Potential for lost jobs in the dairy sector Potential for growth hormones and antibiotics in our milk More opportunity for our government to get sued for environmental or labour laws Loss of sovereignty in a multitude of areas Loss of control over government data Loss of control over our food supply Privacy issues Balsillie's concerns about IP rules favoring established US interests Further entrenchment of Canada's economy as a supplier of raw materials and the multitude of problems that go with that Unreasonable rules over alleged IP infringement (ISP's will remove content based on allegations of infringement, no proof required) The lack of transparency over this whole deal is bullsh*t. Obviously Harper sold the farm because he bet Canadian were so apathetic that they would trust him to negotiate in secret. It's 8,000 pages and nobody seems to know really what's in the damn thing. This whole thing makes a travesty of democracy.

Another disposable comment - are you on the Harper talking point distribution list? How does Homeland Security having access to my medical data improve security? More to the point, when did Harper even discuss trading away privacy? People who worship at the church of economic fundamentalism are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause, they'll trade anything away for a trade agreement - even if they can't identify any definite benefits.

I don't know why you're being so deliberately obtuse about a fundamental issue. Privacy means that an organization uses information only for the purpose for which it is given. That means I give my information to the BC Government for the purpose of providing health care. Maximus, which has contracts with the BC Government, is not to use or provide the information to anyone else. However, under the Patriot Act, Maximus can be compelled to provide said information to the US Government for any reason it wants. Is there anything in that which is too difficult for you to wrap your head around?

All in all, I think Victoria is a better place to be in an earthquake than Vancouver. It's rockier (Richmond will be a swamp, the tunnel will be a death trap) and the west coast will shelter it from most tsunamis.

And earthquakes and tsunamis are provided at no extra charge.

Shhh.... everyone knows that the PBO is part of the giant conspiracy against the Conservatives. Along with Elections Canada, the media, the courts, the civil service, the United Nations and the Illuminati.

The TPP will overturn BC privacy laws that require that personal data collected by government be stored in Canada. This was a huge issue in BC about a decade ago when the Ministry of Health was outsourcing programs to US firms. Under the US patriot act, the US government can get access to any data held by US companies. The FIPPA was designed exressly to prevent this. I guess that privacy is unimportant in the face of saving a few nickels for a jug of milk.

Oh, jeez. McCarthy is back.

I love how every time Harper was caught lying and mismanaging finances, his supporters justify it by comparing him to Kathleen Wynn. Is that the Harper standard of excellence? is that why the Conservative supporters around here are touting him as one of the great Prime Ministers? His claim to fame is he's not much worse than Katherine Wynn on economic matters? Oh. So, you're saying you knew Harper was lying through his teeth when he claimed he balanced the budget. I don't recall you mentioning that during the election discussions. But on one point, we agree. Clearly, Harper deliberately mismanaged the finances so that next year he would have an excuse to make further cuts to program spending. Conservatives who make tax cuts that they know can't be sustained without future program cuts are lying through their teeth. But apparently you knew that and are OK with it.

So the history of Christianity is all about peace and knowledge? Of course you mean other than that bit of history when the Catholic Church actually ran most of Europe, right? When they burned people at the stake for heresy and witchcraft? And imprisoned scientists for saying things the Church didn't like? Are you familiar with the holy wars?

The more I learn about it, the more it seems that the Conservatives were so desperate for an agreement to help them win the election, they were willing to give away the farm. Jim Balsillie is calling it the "worst thing in policy that Canada's ever done".

Do you recall loaning it to Jesus?

You're wrong. It's not changing the essence of our democracy. The voting system is not specified in the constitution. Trudeau campaigned on this and since he's been elected, he has a mandate to do it. And there are precedents in Canada where voting systems have been changed by governments without referenda. STV was once used in Alberta and Manitoba.

You're missing the point. The issue isn't how many years we have deficits, it's the relative size of debt to the economy overall. The planned deficits are modest in the big scheme of things and we need infrastructure spending. Personally, I would have preferred that when the Liberals balanced the budget they would have focused on paying debt with targeted restoration of program spending. Instead, they launched into tax cuts. The Conservative program of slashing the corporate taxes and cutting the GST (and about a hundred different "boutique" tax cuts at little targeted groups) was absolutely disastrous. In particular, the extremely low small business taxes are bad policy in 2 ways: 1. It's an unnecessary reward to lots of dentists, lawyers, doctors, accountants, consultants and other professionals who incorporate purely for tax reasons. Trudeau tried to raise this issue and was cynically attacked not only by Harper but by Mulcair as well. 2. It creates a huge disincentive for small businesses to grow. If the Harper Conservatives had refrained from buying people off with the unnecessary and counterproductive tax cuts, we would have made it though the recession with much less in the way of deficits.

Read the article, not just the picture. As a progressive economist (not many of those around), he's saying that it is positive that we are no longer obsessing over balancing the budget. Not that we should pay no attention to the larger issue of debt but that the focus over whether the budget is balanced in a particular year is misplaced.

So, we could accept your word for it. Or we could check with an actual scientist. So, yeah. I guess all those dying salmon were engaged "loud and partisan criticism" of the Harper government.

If they intended to back away from this promise, Trudeau wouldn't have mentioned it during his acceptance speech. Now, it's possible that he's going to slant the promise towards IRV, which could be even more biased towards the Liberals; but that's a different story.

There's a lot to be happy about. Here is a report card from Jim Stanford on how we are doing on a number of progressive metrics. It isn't all good news but it's certainly better than it would be had this group split the vote to squeak through the middle.

Because the media are reporting that they are amazed their phone calls for interviews are being returned promptly whereas under Harper they often waited days or weeks (sometimes well after the publishing deadline had passed) only to be told nobody was available.

I think in fairness to Rona Ambrose, we'll have to say she was a team player and willing to do what was needed to be on Harper's team. What she does now that she's on Rona's team remains to be seen. So far, she's indicated she's willing to play a positive role and her willingness to support the inquiry into MMIW (which Harper was dead against) is a good sign. Like Trudeau, we'll see what she does.

For her to have gotten the full Kim Campbell treatment, Harper would have had to give her the wheel just as it was clear the bus was headed over the cliff.

Oh. And cabinet ministers have been giving interviews without permission from the PMO.

Scientists have been unmuzzled in a couple of Ministries already. And today, employees in Foreign Affairs cheered the PM. That's gotta count as some kind of reversal.