Finance Minister Flaherty announces delay to balance budgets

punked · November 10, 2011

Yeah, actually it's still their decision. They don't have to share the info, because they want to make it as difficult as possible to set up any kind of registry. They don't have to share it, and they won't.

I know I get it. They don't care how much money they could save provincial tax payers because they don't care about provincial tax payers. I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT. You can keep reinforcing it by pointing out if you want.

olp1fan · November 10, 2011

I'm still laughing at the poster who claimed Flaherty is the best finance minister in the world

Somebody please tell me I was being punk'd

Smallc · November 10, 2011

I know I get it. They don't care how much money they could save provincial tax payers because they don't care about provincial tax payers. I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT. You can keep reinforcing it by pointing out if you want.

You know that's not what it is. They don't want a registry. It's that simple.

punked · November 10, 2011

You know that's not what it is. They don't want a registry. It's that simple.

It really isn't that simple. We are talking about the Conservative party who declared Quebec a distinct society who has their own set of beliefs which the Conservatives at the time supported. Now that Quebec says they want to use that anonymity and do something that is only popular in their province the Conservatives are telling them to shove it. They don't care they could save hundreds of millions of dollars for provincial tax payers who want a registry because in the end they care more about flip flopping around on Quebec then actually be fiscally conservative for every tax payer in Canada.

I think the gun registry is a dumb idea and waste. I don't want my province to set one up, I will tell you what though if my province decided to do it and the Feds made it 10 times more costly for setting it up I would be pretty pissed. They have the Data they know Quebec wants a registry the people, and the government why not make it cheaper SmallC? If it costs nothing why not?

Smallc · November 10, 2011

It really isn't that simple. We are talking about the Conservative party who declared Quebec a distinct society who has their own set of beliefs which the Conservatives at the time supported. Now that Quebec says they want to use that anonymity and do something that is only popular in their province the Conservatives are telling them to shove it.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

blueblood · November 10, 2011

No one wants what you claim. Here you are again using a false misleading argument. Right now there is Data and a registry created all Quebec wants is for the government with no cost to them give them the data so they don't have to spend the money THE FEDS ALREADY SPENT to get the data.

Again the Feds are telling the tax payers of provinces who might want to set up a registry "Yes we have the stuff you need at no cost to us and a significant savings to you but we don't care how much it costs because it isn't our dollars"

It is as simple as that. Just like with their new crime bill they are saying "We get you are cash strapped but guess what we don't care if you have to cut Education and Health because it isn't our dollars we want you to spend more on putting non-violent offenders behind bars for longer"

That is this governments MO telling the provinces even though they can help they wont because they don't care about the provincial tax payers.

Wrong, the Feds already sunk the cost in getting that registry. Quebec wants the Feds info for free at the expense of taxpayers everywhere else. If Quebec wants a registry they can pay for it themselves and leave the ROC out of it.

punked · November 10, 2011

Wrong, the Feds already sunk the cost in getting that registry. Quebec wants the Feds info for free at the expense of taxpayers everywhere else. If Quebec wants a registry they can pay for it themselves and leave the ROC out of it.

You don't even make sense. Seriously what you are saying is "Canada has already spent the money to make the registry and that was a waste, therefore we should destroy it and make Quebecers (who are tax payers in Canada) pay again to set it up" because it was already paid for once? I do not follow is that how you think a government should be run if one organization has spent the money to hammer out all the kinks in a system they should never share it with another government? What a bad idea.

blueblood · November 10, 2011

You don't even make sense. Seriously what you are saying is "Canada has already spent the money to make the registry and that was a waste, therefore we should destroy it and make Quebecers (who are tax payers in Canada) pay again to set it up" because it was already paid for once? I do not follow is that how you think a government should be run if one organization has spent the money to hammer out all the kinks in a system they should never share it with another government? What a bad idea.

It does make sense. Why should the ROC subsidize quebec's registry? You said it wouldn't cost anything, yet it cost billions to set up.

The only bad idea is Quebec setting up an expensive registry of their own. If they are dumb enough to come up with this bad idea and waste money, they can pay the bill.

punked · November 10, 2011

It does make sense. Why should the ROC subsidize quebec's registry? You said it wouldn't cost anything, yet it cost billions to set up.

The only bad idea is Quebec setting up an expensive registry of their own. If they are dumb enough to come up with this bad idea and waste money, they can pay the bill.

IT IS ALREADY SET UP. You are acting like the registry isn't there and the Conservatives don't plan to burn it all. We are not arguing if Canada should spend money to set up a gun registry (I was always against that) we are arguing if because it already exists the Feds should save Canadians money by sharing data at no cost.

Quebec wants a registry, they are really the only reason we ever kept the registry so long in the first place, so why not save them some money now and walk away from it when all is said and done and say "There we did everything we could to help Canadians have something they want now it is your problem"? What is so wrong in that.

Smallc · November 10, 2011

I still don't understand your argument. The federal government doesn't want Quebec to set up a registry, so why would they help them?

punked · November 10, 2011

I still don't understand your argument. The federal government doesn't want Quebec to set up a registry, so why would they help them?

What do you mean they don't want Quebec to set a registry? They said it was up to the provinces who had a registry or not. Flip Flop Flip Flop.

blueblood · November 10, 2011

IT IS ALREADY SET UP. You are acting like the registry isn't there and the Conservatives don't plan to burn it all. We are not arguing if Canada should spend money to set up a gun registry (I was always against that) we are arguing if because it already exists the Feds should save Canadians money by sharing data at no cost.

Quebec wants a registry, they are really the only reason we ever kept the registry so long in the first place, so why not save them some money now and walk away from it when all is said and done and say "There we did everything we could to help Canadians have something they want now it is your problem"? What is so wrong in that.

What do you think the original registry was set up for free? Why should Alberta et al be footing the bill for quebec's registry. The Feds are saving quebecers money, they're providing incentive for the Quebec gov't not to pursue this folly.

The Feds are stopping the tax dollars going into a registry by burning the original one thus putting the breaks on Quebec wasting more tax dollars on a second one. You don't think that the admin costs are free do you? Alberta money shouldn't be going to another Quebec registry.

punked · November 10, 2011

What do you think the original registry was set up for free? Why should Alberta et al be footing the bill for quebec's registry. The Feds are saving quebecers money, they're providing incentive for the Quebec gov't not to pursue this folly.

IT ALREADY HAPPENED! It was already set up. Do you think when I give my TV to my little brother because I am getting rid of it that is the wrong to go about it, instead I should light it on fire in front of him and say "I paid for it deal with it". Seriously that is not a way to run a country.

Smallc · November 10, 2011

What do you mean they don't want Quebec to set a registry? They said it was up to the provinces who had a registry or not. Flip Flop Flip Flop.

They also said they didn't want a registry. That isn't a flip flop. You're just being completely partisan.

blueblood · November 10, 2011

IT ALREADY HAPPENED! It was already set up. Do you think when I give my TV to my little brother because I am getting rid of it that is the wrong to go about it, instead I should light it on fire in front of him and say "I paid for it deal with it". Seriously that is not a way to run a country.

That's your choice.

punked · November 10, 2011

That's your choice.

And it is their choice to make it cost more money. That is my point. Yes it is up them to help a provincial government save money or to freeze them out and tell them to shove. They have chosen the second one.

dre · November 10, 2011

I still don't understand your argument. The federal government doesn't want Quebec to set up a registry, so why would they help them?

Its just common sense. Why would you throw something away that another part of the government needs? All youll do in the end is drive up costs a bunch.

The federal government doesn't want Quebec to set up a registry, so why would they help them?

Because it might save tax payers a little money. And the only point of destroying this data if someone else needs it is to fire another salvo in the culture war.

Smallc · November 10, 2011

Its just common sense. Why would you throw something away that another part of the government needs?

They don't need it.

Because it might save tax payers a little money. And the only point of destroying this data if someone else needs it is to fire another salvo in the culture war.

No, the point is to discourage the creation of any type of replacement registry.

punked · November 10, 2011

They don't need it.

No, the point is to discourage the creation of any type of replacement registry.

Quebec has always wanted a registry it is popular there and the government there should give the people what they want not what English Canada wants. They are going to give the Quebec people what they want no matter what so might as well save them some money and hear the end of it.

Smallc · November 10, 2011

Quebec has always wanted a registry it is popular there and the government there should give the people what they want not what English Canada wants.

I see, so people should always get what they want....even when what they want doesn't address the problems that have them wanting it? Still, that doesn't mean that Ottawa has to help Quebec City set up something that Ottawa is fundamentally opposed to.

They are going to give the Quebec people what they want no matter what so might as well save them some money and hear the end of it.

No, because in many ways, that would be the Conservatives breaking a promise. Conservatives and their supporters (including most supporters and potential supporters in Quebec) are opposed to the existence of any registry. The Conservatives have nothing to gain by enabling the creation of something that will do nothing and that a province has no business setting up.

cybercoma · November 11, 2011

That an insane consider the Feds plan on passing a "Tough on crime bill" that will create 7-10 Billion in new spending over the next 5 years. Sorry downloading the debt again.

And decrease revenues by putting people in their prison mills.

DrGreenthumb · November 13, 2011

Then you have to throw manning and Mulroney in there too. Manning kept saying cut more and gave Martin a free pass on the cutting thus allowing it to be easily swallowed by the public, and Mulroney negotiated nafta and fell on His sword with the gst.

His sword? Your Conservative hero worship has gone to far when you capitalize "his". Isn't that reserved for someone a little more important than lyin brian? Just a typo I'm sure.

blueblood · November 13, 2011

His sword? Your Conservative hero worship has gone to far when you capitalize "his". Isn't that reserved for someone a little more important than lyin brian? Just a typo I'm sure.

Correct a typo.

DrGreenthumb · November 13, 2011

No I don't, because it's not true.

Our economy right now is significantly better managed than it was under Paul Martin.

LMFAO! Are you just joking? or just a joke?

CPCFTW · November 13, 2011

IT ALREADY HAPPENED! It was already set up. Do you think when I give my TV to my little brother because I am getting rid of it that is the wrong to go about it, instead I should light it on fire in front of him and say "I paid for it deal with it". Seriously that is not a way to run a country.

More like if you collected all your little brother's personal information (address, DOB, full name, SIN, etc.) then someone was saying "come on give me his personal information, you already collected it!"

I don't know why it's so hard to understand this is a privacy/ideology issue and not a spite issue. If we had a dictatorship that collected data on everyone's political beliefs, credit reports, and internet browsing history, then a new democratic government came to power and said it was destroying that information, would it make sense to release that information to provinces who thought it was still useful?

The conservative government doesn't believe in government collection of this kind of information. It's as simple as that.

Edited November 13, 2011 by CPCFTW