Scotty

We rarely put white collar criminals in prison.

As I've already explained to you, the socioeconomic and racial factors at play in the United States are not here, at least not nearly to the same extent. Further, I would dispute how intelligently those states which use the three strike rule have implemented that policy. And of course, you really have no idea whatsoever whether or not it's helped or not. For all you know crime would be much higher without that three strike rule.

The parliamentary watchdog has stated that the cost of the Tories' new program would be an extra $1 billion per year in prison costs. Facing against that, we have the cost of crime to victims in Canada, which is estimated at some $47 billion per year. In addition, there is an estimated $10 billion per year cost for security devices and protection. The costs of the actual criminal justice system are $13.3 billion. Of that, almost $10 is the cost of policing, while the cost of prisons is currently about $1 billion. That puts the cost of the actual criminal court system, by default, at about $2 billion. Corrections Canada, using very limited criteria, says the recidivism rate is 10%. However, an investigation by the Vancouver Sun shows it is closer to 37%. If we clamp down on those people who are repeat offenders, crime is virtually certain to fall, and with it the costs to society both in terms of the cost to victims, and the cost of the criminal court system. And, of course, the additional costs to society, like people being harmed by crime would lessen. Crime costs re Justice Department Recividism Rates

Ok - these sounds like good reasons to build prisons... maybe. And overcrowding of prisons would be another good reason. I like good reasons, especially when backed up by solid evidence. Here you have an evidence to convince me that this idea of the CPC is a good one: can you provide evidence to do so ? To add: Since I have just prompted you for what amounts to 'thread drift' - please do so on another thread dedicated to the prison question. Thanks !

You prefer incarceration at a loss? I think it's disgraceful that we keep thousands of healthy people sitting around on their arses instead of working them to make back the money we spend keeping them in jail. Start up some factories and make work mandatory. No work, you get the most banal of food, no computer, no books, no nothing.

Most of the skills in short supply are tradesmen. We are not short of engineers, we're short of electricians. We're not short on geologists. We're short carpenters and crane operators. And the shortage of doctors has more to do with the lack of available spaces in university, and the lack of internships in hospitals than tuition money.

Why must everyone always look to the US as a comparison for everything? Be it health care, policing, military or whatnot. They are not us. We are not them. The socioeconomic and racial factors driving crime in the US are not present in this country to anything like the same extent. We have a high recidivism rate. We have too many people coming in and out of jails, committing crimes, largely going undetected (our criminal solution rates are poor), then finally getting caught and going back in. There is a cost involved in that crime, both to government and to individuals who are either victimized, or who have to pay higher prices for a wide variety of goods because of the criminal behaviour of others. Everything you buy at a store costs more because of thieves. Every piece of software you purchase costs more because of hackers. Your insurance costs more because of criminals. There should be no one on the streets who has more than a handful of separate convictions. The cost of permanent incarceration is cheaper than going through the courts and lawyers again and again, not to mention the societal costs of the damages they do while out.

You ask the experts what they need and then, if possible, give it to them. You might not accept their advice blindly, but you certainly shouldn't reject it because a bunch of ignorant people stirred up by a little demagoguery in headlines say you should.

If you're going to say we should have proportional representation because that would be fairer then how can you not be proportional?

I think that as a reasonably thoughtful, intelligent person who's observed government and elections throughout the world for twenty five years I can offer up a reasonably insightful opinion as to the merits of parliamentary democracy. I have no such knowledge about the F-35 and neither do you. My opinion on its merits vs some other fighter plane are thus largely without value. I don't doubt the great herd makes decisions about things they know virtually nothing about all the time. I'm not arguing that X number of the population might now be opposed to buying the F-35. I'm simply saying I have no respect for their largely ignorant opinions.

The kind of workers we're short of are not the ones being educated at universities.

Don't factory workers tend to work for about one third what the oil patch pays unskilled labourers?

I'd like to see a cut in payroll taxes companies pay, thus encouraging them to hire more workers. And, of course, those companies with fewer employees, or almost none since they've offshored work, would not benefit that much.

More people in jails means fewer people committing crimes. I'm all for it.

I don't think you need years of training to be able to observe how the public feels about something. Differentiating between various high tech fighter planes, on the other hand, requires a somewhat higher level of insight.

I think your swirly imagination is somewhat incomplete. Everyone knows Ignatieff would say no to separation. But the question is would he say no to increased money, increased power, increased programs aimed at Quebec? Would he say no to more subsidies for industries located in Quebec? If the alternative was an election in which the Conservatives would trounce him? Harper hasn't exactly been a stalwart defender of the public purse against Quebec himself. Imagine how Ignatieff, whose day to day survival relies on the BQ would behave...

That would be a bunch of people who don't know how to fly and don't know anything about fighter aircraft, right? The people who do, ie, the air force, have a different opinion.

Both ideologically and intellectually...

Guy, any rich nation which has to invent a term like 'underclass' because 'lower class' just doesn't do justice to the absolute hopeless misery and poverty of millions of its citizens should be ashamed of itself.

And the policy of "Business knows best so we don't want to get in their way or interrupt them as they do their high-powered financial deals. After all, what could go wrong?"

Guess? He's paying his dues. I doubt he's left his job. He'll return to it after this brief interlude, having gotten some experience in campaigning and let the Tories run a quality candidate in a hopeless riding. Maybe next time around, if he shows he can actually handle debates and campaigning, they'll have him running in a better seat.

Little commented on item the other day might have people wondering just how spineless some governments can be. Evidently, Argentina is offering to stop worrying about the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenes Ares blamed on Iran if Iran grants them better trade ties. BBC

I think that if you vote BQ you aren't a Canadian in any real sense of the word. You care about Quebec, and getting whatever is in Quebec's best interests, but you don't especially care much about Canada and don't really see yourself as part of it. You know what the difference is between a separatist and a 'soft nationalist'? The separatist is what we used to call 'all balls, no brains'. He doesn't care about anything but having his own country. The 'soft nationalist' feels exactly like the separatist, but he recognizes that a separate Quebec would no longer have access to Canada's wallet.

It got a lot of social programs which eliminated the kind of social misery we see so much of in the United States, among other things. And I never said Canada's budget problems are always caused by the incompetent Americans. I said the WORLD's recession was caused by incompetent, corrupt Americans.

I'm not particularly excited. I just find this desperate and continuing effort to find piddling little things which can be blown up into a scandal tiresome. The optics of this are fine unless you're an idiot who doesn't put any though to it. What, because one guy is alleged to have lobbied (and will probably, after investigation, turn out to not have broken the law) the government, no one else is allowed to have ever had any dealings with lobby firms or the government? All I can think of is piddling stuff and silly allegations like this. Nothing that compares to the last three governments.