Icebound

Full Disclosure.... I did not read every word in this thread... But when analyzing complex economic theory and practice, this two-minute audio clip seems to summariize it best: http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Ideas/ID/2675124985/ "Economists" cannot explain the unexplainable, ....they tend to exist to provide support to their leader's pre-conceived ideas. ...

The "sinister" part is that we would even THINK to divide people as if they were a commodity.... "put the old stock over there... and the fresh stuff over here.... put the dark ones in the back, and the lighter ones up front' Even as a Freudian slip, this is reprehensible thinking and we have to educate ourselves to stop it. ...

With apologies to Canada's aboriginal population..."Two founding races" may have built the POLITICAL foundation for a "Canada" country, perhaps, but the real work of building the guts came from all parts of the world. Chinese immigrants were here before 1800. How "old stock" can you get? They built your railroads to BC, without which there would not have been a country. Yet they would never be considered "old stock" by the white male establishment of all political stripes. They weren't even allowed to vote until 1947; they did not get equal immigration treatment until 1967. This is the kind of thinking to which we have been regressing over the past 10 years, only with a different ethnic group. Immigrants over the years have assimilated quite well into Canadian society...it may take a few generations for each wave... But you can speed up the process by allowing and encouraging their memberships in your clubs, invite them for dinner at your home, teach your children to treat them like equals in your schools...etc., etc. etc. We seem to think of this country as having been "built", and people are just coming in to reap the rewards. Nothing could be further from the truth. The technical and social challenges are just now ramping up, and we better start finding and teaching the brightest minds we can find, in order to build this country forward. Grow or die. "Stay the course" is not an option.

People already are... Vacancy rates in big cities are under 2% and have been falling.

People have to live somewhere...so they are buying what is available...even when it is too expensive for them If they should let the houses sit, as you suggest, then I think you have just made my point...they can't afford one of those essentials. ...

Y That is a nice stat.... but even if true... It is a useless stat. It is not like your 43% is not paying for useful stuff that you and your neighbours need... not the least of which is providing a government, judicial, and social infrastructure that keeps you relatively violence-free. Now, it IS fair to ask and investigate how efficiently that money is being spent.... But the number by itself it totally useless.

You are partially correct. But developers ....with their city planner friends ....do not want to build $100,000 homes. They want to extract the maximum out of us, and our "leadership" is not encouraging otherwise.

There are 4 things that are essential to every person: 1. Healthy food ... To stay alive and reasonably healthy.... Mac and cheese doesn't cut it... 2. Health care... To prevent illness and to recover properly should it happen 3. Shelter..... To stay warm and dry, and 4. Transportation...to find a job and to get to it. When we compare "rising incomes" of the 1% to the rest of us, are we subtracting the cost of these essentials, and comparing what is left over?..what is left for discretionary spending? In spite of the fact that the lowest 70% might have "rising incomes" the cost of these essentials...housing especially...has been far outrunning those incomes, leaving most Canadians sliding backwards. The cost of ANY production has to include payment for those essentials...whether as sufficient wage to allow individuals to provide for themselves, or as a cooperative effort to provide the service universally by government. If that cost is not included, there will be pitchforks in the streets. ...

Tiny one-issue parties with little support will not end up in Parliament until they meet a minimum threshold, often 5% (or whatever the country sets)... so their ability to "make deals" is zero.

There is the small matter of 50-million G8 spending in Muskoka with questionable tender procedures......

Oh really? Below is an list of the 22 “MOSTstable” countries out a list of 178… (of the 22, the LEAST stable is at the TOP, MOST stable is at the bottom) http://fsi.fundforpeace.org/ I marked those that have some form of PR… (PL=party list; MM= mixed member; STV=single transferable vote... % is threshold, if applicable) So what makes you think PR produces "failed" states? Japan --- United States --- Singapore --- France --- United Kingdom --- Slovenia PL 4% Belgium PL 5% Portugal PL Germany MM 5% Netherlands PL Austria PL 4% Canada --- Ireland STV (Dáil only) Australia STV (senate only) Iceland PL New Zealand MM Switzerland PL Luxembourg PL Denmark PL 2% Norway PL 4% Sweden PL 4% Finland PL

Bureaucracy is the internal workings to get the result done.... If I want to build a road or a power plant or a communications system for a few million people.... I may need a bureaucracy to get there. If I want clean food, air, and water.... or reliable statistical and scientific information..... then same thing: I may need a bureaucracy to get there. Now.... you can argue about the EFFICIENCY of a particular bureaucracy and that's fair. But the bureaucratic process is not the final product, service, etc.

You can argue semantics if you want, but most dictionaries define infrastructure as being organizational as well as physical. If you don't like to call those organizations infrastructure, then just choose a word you like. ...

This is pretty old news. The NDP refused to pay, and the case is now before the courts. I haven't hear of any actual "trial"... it is probably just paper shuffling, and the judge will eventually make a decision. I would expected the ruling will be against them, but until then, there is not much new to discuss.

NRC STATSCAN Fisheries & Oceans Environment Canada National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy Hazardous Materials Information Review Committee CFIA Canadian Institutes of Health Research ... to name just a few of those most important to ME. Others may have other examples of importance to THEM....... ... and YES: CBC ALSO... ...his cynical assumption that Senators are simply partisan money-raisers, as opposed to being serious and useful cogs in the law-making process... has helped turn that Chamber into the circus it now is....

L Having seen it first hand.... would you agree that it is getting time when we should be PROVIDING the necessary resources?

No matter how many "boots on the ground" we may need to prevent muggings and drug turf wars .....or how crime has risen or decreased ... there is one stat of which I am pretty certain. I won't provide a link because there are thousands...just google "Internet fraud" ... and you will find numbers like "70% increase". this is THE issue of the coming years... It has the potential to devastate families, destroy business, even compromise governments. Not to mention that I am already paying more in fees and taxes for every dollar than some bank, business, or individual loses to fraud... If you want my "law-and-order" vote, then forget terrorism, street crime, drugs and booze, et.c etc. Talk to me about your strategy to prevent and combat Online fraud ...

It may be partially publicly funded, but it is not a "state broadcaster" in ANY sense. You complain yourself that CBC does not reflect the views of the current government in power, so how can you possibly call it a "state broadcaster"? In fact it does not reflect the political view of ANY party...it reports on them. It reflects Canada. ...and since 60-70% of Canadians are not Harperites, it stands to reason that 60-70% of the stories will not be about conservative issues. The CBC remains the one media outlet where ALL parties, including Harper, have been comfortable to use to push their message... It is the citizens' broadcaster, not the government's, which is precisely why Harper hates it. Like the Grey Cup, the CBC has been a UNIFYING force in this country, and Harper's efforts to eviscerate it.... like his attempts to eviscerate the Senate, Research & statistics, any number of Canadian institutions.... seem to be an attempt to create DIVISION.... division between Feds and provinces, divisions between the citizens and its government, etc... DIVISION gives him a better chance to govern, even though it is destructive to the bulk of the country's citizens. Any time in a country's history is a good time for co-operation vs division..... ...

There are only two relevant issues in this election... ...repair of Canada's democratic institutions ...restoration of the Harper-eviscerated infrastructure All other pre-election promises are useless for all parties....we all know they lie or fail.... and I really don't care what they ...SAY... pre-election, as long as they ...DO... the right things when in power

SMALL government does.... http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-18/big-government-is-surest-way-for-nations-to-get-rich

@inky_mark represented a rural Manitoba riding from 1997-2010. (I lived in that riding at one time). He started out with Reform, and represented the riding for the various incarnations of Conservatism over the years... including the Harper Conservatives since 2002. He resigned in 2010 and did not run in the 2011 election. I hadn't thought much about him since .....until I tripped over his twitter account today. It is hard to believe that a long time MP could become so disenchanted with his leader: https://twitter.com/inky_mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inky_Mark ....

Strong government does not translate as good government, necessarily.

O The problem is that it has not DEVELOPED over centuries... it has remained STAGNANT over the centuries while society changed around it.... ...

Ah, good old-fashioned fear of change. New Zealand changed over in1996 after a referendum, and re-confirmed with another referendum in 2011. They continue to tweak it, but there doesn't seem to be any significant reason to go back. http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_nz

You say that, but serious students of PR find the opposite. http://www.fairvote.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Why-Proportional-Representation.pdf