Icebound

What "problem" exactly would that be? Are you telling me that statistically, you are more likely to be killed by a Muslim than by, say, a deranged "confirmed atheist" such as the Montrealer by the name of Lépine? or by a cop shooter like in Moncton? or by a bankrupt oriental, such as Phu Lam in Edmonton? THOSE problems were real.. On any given year there are 500-600 homicides in this country ( my apologies to our American friends). Yes, a few of those were the direct result of Muslim extremism. But how does the Muslim participation in Canadians' deaths compare to the participation by OTHER faiths/ non-faiths? And how is MUSLIM participation in crime any more of a "problem" than others?

Of course they do. If every time YOU turned on the TV... and YOUR religion or race or occupation or colour-of-your-eyes .... was being questioned and disparaged by some government official, or wannabe president, or any other pundit ... then you, too, would probably have a problem identifying yourself as part of the society. ....

I did not say that it is not important for a politician to be truthful. But it remains MORE important to DO the right thing, rather than SAY the right thing. Even more, it is more important to DO the right thing, even if it contradicts whatever has been said. Debate is important because it exposes the biases. However, even ideologically-biased politicians can stifle their bias and DO the right thing. Worst is the politician who SAYS the right thing, and DOES the wrong. ....

Are there some links somewhere to recent examples of such truths that Canadians didn't like?

It is more important for a politician to do what is RIGHT... rather than to do what he PROMISED.

Yes, but of that number, only a handful come from the US and Canada.... only a few hundred out of a Muslim population of something like 4 million (both countries combined). It is not that surprising that some Muslims may feel more Muslim than American/Canadian, if we keep treating them with suspicion... and ESPECIALLY, if we treat them with suspicion in official government statements and policies, Donald Trump may not be government yet, but as the Presidential nominee, his statements carry weight. The Harper government's attitude to Muslims WERE a government's statements. If there is somebody teetering on the brink of radicalization, that is the kind of rhetoric that may put him over. And it turns out that a large Canada-friendly Muslim community actually helps identify these people, as shown by Harpers' own study as I quoted.. ...

Even Harper's own study does not support your position. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/radicalization-rcmp-terrorism-csis-muslim-violence-1.3613341

Because Bill C-210 was so trivial and obvious, I had not been following it. I did not realize that 79 Conservatives could not bring themselves to agree to a simple 2-word change to the National Anthem, which would make it gender-neutral without altering the music, the feeling, the meaning, or anything else. By what logic? I would submit that is is, again, one of those directions that they don't want to take. Anyway, glad to see Peter Kent voted in favor and a handful of others.

Could that be because they pay their doctors less, and yet they have way more of them per capita than do Canadians? Places with ONLY 324 doctors per 100,000 are deemed "medical deserts" in France.... http://www.connexionfrance.com/statistics-reveal-truth-on-shortage-of-french-doctors-11594-news-article.html ...whereas Canada's national average is 224 .... https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-library/document/en/advocacy/12-Phys_per_pop.pdf The POOREST area of France has more than 224. And why would that be? Is it because France has a much more "liberally funded" education system, making it easier for students to get post-secondary education? Investment in the future. Could we do that in Canada?.... Oh, wait.... it would mean INCREASED TAXES!!! ... and even that might not help because Doctors could still claim poor and threaten relocation by comparing themselves to that bastion of health care to the south. Also, could it be that France does a much better job of regulating pharmaceuticals than we do in North America.....?? ...

Make sure you put THAT into the Conservative platform. I don't think that the website's "policy declaration" has anything in it about aboriginals. What "has to be done" is neither reduce them nor increase them, but to create practical long-term agreements that the parties can live with, even if they they do not embrace them jubilantly.. Whether "incorporation" into the mainstream population will happen will not be up to us, it will be up to them. Our "superior lifestyle" is not a bit seller with some people. And if we are the people of "justice" and "compassion" that we claim to be, it will be very difficult to sell a "take it or leave it" approach. The "problem" has enough fault to go around,... the native population itself, the existing laws, the prejudices of the rest of us, the Authorities' handling of it all. But it won't be "solved" without agreement on all sides. ...

No argument here.....

Yes, of course, I almost believe you.... Except that funding cuts have occurred in Canadian government departments forever. Scientists are used to them. They know that they will always be expected to "do more with less", been there, done that, But they recognized Harper's approach as something different. Here is a small list: http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2013/05/20/the-canadian-war-on-science-a-long-unexaggerated-devastating-chronological-indictment/ ...

Pardon me for misunderstanding. I was ... perhaps naively .... assuming that the OP was searching for good governance. IF .... as you suggest .... it is simply seeking votes-from-the-uninformed, then the solution is much simpler: Just adopt the tactics of Donald Trump. Spout lies, make outlandish claims, attack everybody vigorously... the more outrageous the better. It will get you a few hundred million dollars worth of free media coverage, and voila! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-2-billion-free-media_us_56e83410e4b065e2e3d75935

Not exactly.... The law of Canada is what the population will TOLERATE. A law that nobody wants, or a law that makes no sense, or a law that is unjust, or that oppresses a segment of population, makes them desperate etc., etc..... will quickly get ignored, struck down, disobeyed, or .... perhaps .... even violently protested. Laws are always a delicate balance between the wishes of the majority, and protection of minorities..."negotiation"...., Overall, Canada has done a pretty good job of that, but it can't become complacent. If that balance is not maintained going forward, violence is pretty much sure to follow. It is happening in the USA, Israel, of course Iraq, Ukraine, even Hong Kong. Symbolism is important, whether you believe so or not. 500 years ago the Church issued a permission slip for the invasion of the Americas. Rescinding that permission... even if 500 years too late,.... would be a HUGE symbolic gesture... especially in those countries that like to brand themselves as having "Christian origin...".. As for resources.... it is a global world out there. If people are desperate enough, they will find resources. ...

Ignoring problems is not "pragramatic" unless your goal is simply to get elected, without regard to the welfare of the country. I'm not calling on them to be far right, after all, but to handle the economy in a largely centre-right fashion, and to try to wean it off depending on the government for everything. Quote Credibility compared to whom? The US? The US has ignored climate change and continues to do so. And anyone who thinks we can address climate change by controlling CO2 is a loon. So it the Conservatives really want power, here is where they should NOT go: Quote Was an invention of the media. Quote You can't rehabilitate career criminals, and most crime is committed by career criminals. Quote Oh yeah, because it's going to be real popular to give everything away to small bands of natives and start paying them rent. Peculiar.... Your OP asks a question: "Which Direction...?" But the tone of THIS post says: "Don't want to change anything" Peculiar. Well at least it looks like we got religion out of the mix. Although Derek doesn't agree. What he doesn't realize is that if they were to eliminate those ties, many so-called Liberals might vote for them once in a while, but with them, it will never happen; they will be limited to the "base" .... which will get smaller and smaller with each passing generation. Denial of science is hardly a "media invention". A Billion in cuts and firing 15% of scientist may or may not be an exaggeration, but there is some truth in there somewhere. Punitive justice: Where do you get that statement "most crime"? The Correction services own webside says: On average, 2% of offenders in the community were readmitted for new offences over the last 12 quarters. pretty hard to call 2% as "most". Aboriginal rights:... didn't say anything about "popular". Just the facts. ... and Derek: you opinion on what is "popular", ....such as "law and order policies".... is misguided. Nothing is "popular" if it doesn't make sense. And if Conservatives really believe that, then they are deluded and no wonder they lost.

The big-C Conservatives have governed as pale Liberals, because.... that turns out to be the pragmatic thing to do. And big-L Liberals have governed like pale Conservatives for the same reason. This turns out to be a GOOD thing, because that is where the vast majority of Canadians live. .... It provides reasonable governance by either party, without totally ignoring opposition views, but without ceding power to the fringes. Mulroney introduced the GST because it was the pragmatic thing to do. Chretein did not repeal it as promised for the same reason. HARPER, on the other hand, reduced it (against all pragmatic advice), only to find out that it mattered not at all... Indeed, he ran up Deficits .... because it was the pragmatic thing to do. But what was NOT pragmatic, was ignoring climate policy for 10 years, resulting in lost credibility on the world stage.... DEFINITELY not pragmatic. So it the Conservatives really want power, here is where they should NOT go: 1. Ties to Religion... especially ties to a SPECIFIC religion, ie: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. 2. Denial of Science... 3.. Punitive "justice" without rehabilitation policies. 4. Ignoring aboriginal rights... See post on "Doctrine of Discovery" .... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25791-our-new-syrian-refugee-immigrants/page-5#entry1163813 Good Luck! Have Fun!

What are measuring this against? The right-wing Fraser institute says that we are spending about $4000 per person on health care....http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/true-cost-of-health-care-to-average-family-is-11k-per-year-report-1.2525114 The USA is spending about $10,000 US... http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2015/01/04/u-s-healthcare-spending-on-track-to-hit-10000-per-person-this-year/#51d9104c294c I am sure that doubling the per capita spending on our Healthcare would go a long way to shortening those wait lines. Of course, we would need a "TAX INCREASE", and Heaven forbid that should ever happen.

Depends on who is writing the text book. quote: ( http://www.nber.org/digest/mar08/w13264.html ) ....They observe that legislated tax changes taken to counteract other influences on the economy, or to pay for increases in government spending, are very likely to be correlated with other factors affecting the economy. As a result, these observations are likely to lead to biased estimates of the effect of tax changes. :unquote yes... and neither do the vast majority of economists, politicians, pundits, and forum posters. They have their biases, like the rest of us, but the factors are too complex for black-or-white answers. If I spend a boat-load of money on the working poor, am I helping them get on their feet and start becoming productive, or am I encouraging laziness and dependance? If I CUT spending for the poor, am I encouraging self-sufficiency, or am I going to have other increased financial (and SOCIAL) costs in terms of increased crime, public health crises, and the like? The problem is that it could be some of each... depending on the particular circumstances of the individual, and the particular state of society overall at that time. Much as we would like to pretend that there are cut and dried, black-or-white answers, the research does not bear that out.

The "taxation problem" in-so-far as it affects the "economy" has little to do with taxation rates. And especially, if you define that "a growing economy" means not only that more people are working, but that those who ARE working, are increasing their buying power. The taxation model is simply too complex... sales taxes, property taxes, income, split-income, corporate, capital, etc., etc.. And then divided between 3 jurisdictions, Federal, Provincial, Municipal, sometimes with overlaps. We know (or we should know), that to have a "Great" Country, we need its infrastructure and institutions to be strong, and that means funding. But when we are faced with a funding crunch, any attempt to adjust the revenue stream ... "raise taxes" as you like to call it ... distorts the economy, because it is perceived to fall on ONE particular segment of society.... Raising property taxes penalizes the lonely widow trying to live out her life in her own home... raising corporate taxes loses jobs, supposedly.... raising income taxes penalizes workers... and so on. And then, of course, we start to create exemptions... we will increase your corporate tax, but you can write off your round of golf with a business buddy.... just to distort the economy even more. So our ostrich mentality to to simply hide from the problem, tweak a few things here and there to pretend that we are doing something, cut out a few programs without any thought as to their long-term relevance.... and basically just let the country stagnate. There has been plenty of ongoing debate about the "efficiency" or the "fairness" of increasing/decreasing the GST vs the same for Income/Corporate Taxes. But why is this country not looking at reducing (or even eliminating) all those?.... and replacing with a broad Financial Transaction Tax. At least study it... Properly implemented, it would not only be "fair", since the bulk of financial transactions are by the richest people, but it would catch some of the underground-economy activity. Even Money entering the legitimate economy through Laundering would be taxed..

Not yet. But he IS going to trial on the Trump University / Trump Entepreneur Initiative class action fraud case. Plus the State-of-California and New-York-State AG actions against him on the same issue. And he IS known to have "donated" to other AGs after dropping similar cases in their own states: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11838554/trump-university-fraud-abbott-bondi If any or all of those suits gain some traction, the DOJ may get interested, if they aren't already.

Be very careful that YOU are not the one ending up on "reserves". If you are not aboriginal, your existence here is "legal" only under a 15th century Papal decree know as the "Doctrine of Discovery". (part of why this country says it was "originated" as a "Christian" country, but I digress). There has been an effective lobby to have the Vatican repeal this doctrine. http://www.doctrineofdiscovery.org/ http://aptn.ca/news/2016/06/01/church-considering-request-to-rescind-doctrine-of-discovery/ Canada, the US, and other countries have pieces of this Doctrine chiseled into their constitutions... and when it is repealed, the already-tenuous legal framework for our occupancy here becomes zero. Unless we want civil war, we better play nice. If we think we have strong arguments to make about the contribution that WE have made to the well-being of this land's inhabitants, we should be using our energy to prove it, and use that leverage to negotiate agreements for long-term peace going forward. ... If, instead, we have raped the country of its resources, moved its wealth into a very few pockets (especially offshore pockets), and have impoverished all other aboriginals, colonists, immigrants, and refugees alike.... then maybe we should be very afraid.

It is not a fantasy at all. PEOPLE have improved your life and mine in innumerable ways..... from the way that you dispose of your bodily wastes, to the way allowing you to express your thoughts to the entire world on this forum... are all infrastructures invented, engineered, and built by people... more specifically: by the CO-OPERATION of people. To call people a "scourge" is cynicism of the highest order. What is YOUR fantasy? Some nice global catastrophe to rid the earth of them once and for all? ...

People solve problems. And when the entire world pulls itself out of poverty, birth rates will go down. People LEARN. When they realize that they have been wasteful, they learn to conserve. They learn how to do more with less. The learn "outside the box" and come up with solutions that we have not yet dreamed of. CYNICS are not helpful, but fortunately there are few enough of them. ...

You didn't have one, because his mother only had 2 children and he would have been the 3rd

Maybe not.... but foreigners now control about 30% of Canada's operating revenues, and more than 20% of its assets. With that kind of financial clout, they are going to be coming and going at will, anyway. Would I rather have a big Canadian corporation controlled by the Syrian Refugee next door... who buys his groceries in my town, helps out in Canada in emergencies, and loans me his lawn mower.... or by some nameless Trump-like in a tower in Beijing?