Feds slash RCMP watchdog funding

[jdobbin]

What you appear to be doing is trying to get $2 billion in savings - this year - off a multi-year maintenance and operations budget. Economics doesn't work like that.

Scrapping the sub program would save money this year. The operational budget and the maintenance contract are huge. And yes, you are right that some of it is annual costs. Scrapping the refitting contract would save money over the years the contract.

The saving each year would be about half a billion or more.

If you want additional savings now, I'd cut the money being poured into the slushbreakers. I think they are as big a waste as the patrol/minesweepers.

What? Are you saying Martin was a two-faced liar who claimed he cared about public housing but didn't really?

Martin was suckered in to putting $300 million back into housing only to see it was not working properly. Harper is the two faced liar for criticizing Martin only to do it himself.

Since taking office, the Mulroney government has drastically cut housing budgets and programs, transferred its responsibilities to the provinces without the requisite financial resources, and ignored the crying needs of hundreds of thousands of Canadian households. The Conservative government has demonstrated a total lack of leadership and compassion on this issue. National Liberal Caucus Task Force on Housing - chair, Paul Martin Junior

Martin placed money back into housing after getting the deficit under control only to see the program poorly managed at the federal level. It was better to give the provinces the resources to do this themselves, something that Mulroney didn't do.

And when Ignatieff said to the Canadian Club We need affordable housing, public transit, energy grids, high speed rail and programs to help lift many Canadians – and their kids – out of poverty. are you saying he didn't really mean it? Because it sure sounds like he thought the federal government ought to led a hand here.

But lend a hand in what regard? It can be done in a variety of ways such as keeping inflation down, using the present budget more effectively to assist in infrastructure and to ensure that CMHC helps Canadians have mortgages they can pay back. It doesn't mean shovelling money into the pit.

So it looks here like comrade Michael is actually taking the credit for this. It certainly doesn't sound like he has any desire to cut housing out of the budget.

Ignatieff said a united opposition helped get social housing on the agenda. I don't happen to agree with it. I think you were asking me what I would do and I told you. I also told you what past Liberal governments would do and they cut spending in that area.

I've never liked the regional economic programs. But they were started by the Liberals and I've never heard any Liberal in authority calling on them to be eliminated. I can just imagine how the Liberals would react at this time if the Tories announced they were ending regional economic development. They'd have a field day! So don't try and tell me the Liberals would ever allow this.

Martin had been moving to an infrastructure program based on gas money to the municipalities. I happened to think it was the way to go to end the regional programs, don't you?

The Liberals have done a lot of things in terms of cuts that people didn't expect.

And again, you asked me what cuts I would make. These are some of the cuts I would make.

Why should the private sector pay for something you want? For that matter, how do you think they'd be able to do that when they're laying people off now? The CBC no longer competing with them would certainly be helpful, but the CBC is losing money as it is. How in God's name do you think they would fare without the popular American shows and without commercials? They'd need double their current subsidy - maybe triple.

CBC Radio does quite nicely in the ratings. Not that it matters since they don't sell commercials.

I think the same would be true with the CBC.

Try to end the CBC entirely and it will kill whatever federal party that does it. Take it off the tax rolls and you might be on to something.

You mean because it's used to subsidise train travel to the West and to rural areas, and the Liberals didn't care about the West or rural areas.

It subsidizes travel everywhere. Private companies didn't want to do it anymore and you can see why.

Let's see them cut dairy subsidies to Quebec. Yeah, that'll be the day.

Even the Tories don't try that. I think the best thing for that is to try and get a WTO deal that will help others areas of Quebec even more.

[guyser]

... if the Liberals were in power and cutting back on the watchdogs,

Hoepfully everyone would bitch.

The red flag goes up the moment any cuts are made to watchdogs, be it the Police Services, govt doesnt matter.

[bjre]

QUOTE (bjre @ Mar 20 2009, 05:17 PM) *

Reduce crime and abolish unnecessary laws can do this.

QUOTE

Can we do this with a magic wand or does that cost extra?

When a child grow with nice/kind people, he has more chance to become a nice/kind person.

When a person live with nice/kind people, he/she will have more chance to become a nice/kind person.

Jail is a place to gather all people that did something wrong. A place that all people have been attracted by lawyers, no matter the lawyers were right or wrong.

Even if there were some nice/innocent people, they will have experience with the worst group of people in the society.

So people that have ever been in jail have more possibility to become not so nice/kind.

There are studies that show the possibility of people crime who has a criminal record is much higher than people that has no criminal records.

The better way to deal with people who did something wrong is not send more people into jail, it is education, and education should create more kind people, not using bully in education, teachers should not go strike.

Canadian legal system don't lack of punishment.

It lacks of love, understand, respect, and tolerance.

Suppose if one of the drug seller is one of your family member, you might want to help him. But the legal system will never thinking in this way.

If the community treat the people need to help the way like family member, they will have less chance to crime.

Some people crime just because they don't have other means to make living.

If government pay a percentage of salary for the people whose annul income is less than a number, many business will turn to hire poor people, less cost will be used in jail.

Some people crime because their anti-social thinking due to they feel hostile from society. To these people, if community show more respect and give them some taste of respectful life when they behave nice, many of them may turn nice. CAS (Children's aid socity) love to find evidence of someone does things wrong and take tax dollars for each kis "in care" and put them to low income foster care families. If they just don't do that and actually help the kids and don't prove they did something wrong and just encourage the right part the kids did, it may reduce a great deal of crime.

However, all this approach might not serve the interest of the legal industry that rely on criminals.

There are some unnecessary laws that aimed just for interest groups to earn money.

And there are some laws do harm than do good.

Those that cost large amount of tax dollars should be abolished.

Edited March 29, 2009 by bjre

[normanchateau]

No it is NOT his job. It is NEVER the job of a government employee to challenge the government.

Which would explain why Harper was also able to fire his nuclear watchdog and get away with it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/politics/

[ToadBrother]

Which would explain why Harper was also able to fire his nuclear watchdog and get away with it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Story/politics/

Why, things are always different when the shoe's on the other foot.

Partisan hacks have a lot in common with mental retards.

[normanchateau]

Partisan hacks have a lot in common with mental retards.

Fortunately there are enough Canadians out there who are strategic voters rather than partisan hacks and therefore will vote for the local candidate most likely to defeat Harper's candidate.

[Alta4ever]

Fortunately there are enough Canadians out there who are strategic voters rather than partisan hacks and therefore will vote for the local candidate most likely to defeat Harper's candidate.

Tis better to vote for something rather then against. If you are always voting against something you may end up with something worse that you "really" don't like. Its better to stick to you pricinples, rather then subvert them.

[normanchateau]

Its better to stick to you pricinples, rather then subvert them.

Tell that to Stephen Harper.