What I want to see in political platforms next year

[Argus]

And am very unlikely to get.

1. A commitment to gather the provinces and implement major changes to health care in recognition of an aging population. This would include a commitment to specific funding for nursing homes for infirm seniors who are currently clogging up so many beds at hospitals. It would also include discussion of including private money in the system, as in Germany, perhaps through unions and employers, and legalizing private diagnostic clinics.

2. A commitment to balancing the budget and paying down debt, even if that requires tax increases, tax changes to prevent corporations from funneling money through tax havens, abandoning special tax treatment of capital gains and dividents for investors when that investment income exceeds $200,000 per year, changes to business taxation which penalize employment, such as CPP and EI contributions, use of federal powers to force compliance in a provincial 'free trade' agreement

3. Increase in RCMP budget for the purpose of cracking down on fraud, a requirement that all police wear bodycams, working with the provinces to drastically streamline the courts with an eye to saving both time and money.

4. A committee of demographics experts, economists, and industry and union representatives to decide on immigration numbers as well as screening criteria.

5. A commitment to funding the military to at least 1.5% of GDP, and to purchase equipment with an eye to both its value to the military and value for the dollar, even if that means buying off-the-shelf or used equipment from NATO allies instead of making it ourselves.

6. Establishing mandatory skills retraining for long-term and repeat unemployed focusing on high-demand areas of the economy, especially including trades. Cutbacks and elimination of UIC to seasonal workers who earn at least $25,000 during a season of work.

[Michael Hardner]

I'd like initiatives to allow Canada to define publics around issues that involve our citizens. This would be done via nonymous online groups that would ask questions, contribute to FAQ construction, and building upon pilot projects where such publics were set up for various government projects and operations.

[Argus]

I'd like initiatives to allow Canada to define publics around issues that involve our citizens. This would be done via nonymous online groups that would ask questions, contribute to FAQ construction, and building upon pilot projects where such publics were set up for various government projects and operations.

I'm confused by what you mean when you say 'define publics.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm confused by what you mean when you say 'define publics.

A public is, roughly, an interested group that is composed of individuals. We refer to "the" public, but that's a holdover from the days of old. Really, what we have is a mass society and politics is decided by tools geared to mass communication, although less and less.

The web gives us an opportunity to create a public around specific issues for which people are interested. For example, public works in an area has an impact on individuals. In Toronto, where I live, construction crews show up and just start tearing up roads, building things, and so on. We're barely notified, and furthermore the costs, timelines, objectives etc. of the project are basically not communicated.

[eyeball]

Further to and moving beyond what Mike said, I'd like to see area-based management boards for natural resource and environmental/ecosystem protection - so the public's living within them and that rely on them for their livelihood, recreation and quality of life are who determines how best to manage them. Basically decentralizing authority to as local a level as possible.

[Michael Hardner]

Further to and moving beyond what Mike said, I'd like to see area-based management boards for natural resource and environmental/ecosystem protection - so the public's living within them and that rely on them for their livelihood, recreation and quality of life are who determines how best to manage them. Basically decentralizing authority to as local a level as possible.

Wow, what a great idea.

[TimG]

Basically decentralizing authority to as local a level as possible.

A recipe for NIMBY obstructionism on steroids. There are many cases where the benefits of project at the provincial or national level far exceed the harms caused to people living near by. Local input is important. Local veto is not reasonable. Edited December 20, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Local input is important. Local veto is not reasonable.

In any case, dialogue is better than decree.

[eyeball]

We have a saying in the area I live in, it's harder to stab someone in the back when they're sitting across the table from you.

What Tim is talking about favors knife wielders.

[TimG]

In any case, dialogue is better than decree.

Of course, the "duty to consult" which is constitutionally required for natives should be extended to all Canadians. But, at the end of the day, the country needs to be able to push through big controversial developments if we want to have an economic future (i.e. the new hydro dam in BC will cause irreparable harm to the locals and they deserve compensation but the benefits of a large, clean and reliable source of electricity are too large to ignore). Edited December 20, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Further to and moving beyond what Mike said, I'd like to see area-based management boards for natural resource and environmental/ecosystem protection - so the public's living within them and that rely on them for their livelihood, recreation and quality of life are who determines how best to manage them. Basically decentralizing authority to as local a level as possible.

I like that idea as well, however as I'm sure you'd agree that under the current government it has about as much chance as a snowball's in you know where. The concept does come with a certain amount of NIMBY possibilities so there would I think need to be an unbiased authority to sift through that. One thing it may do is to provide input that can be considered from other levels now that Harper has muzzled scientist's at the federal level.

[Argus]

Further to and moving beyond what Mike said, I'd like to see area-based management boards for natural resource and environmental/ecosystem protection - so the public's living within them and that rely on them for their livelihood, recreation and quality of life are who determines how best to manage them. Basically decentralizing authority to as local a level as possible.

But natural resources belong to all Canadians, not merely those who happen to live there. What gives someone who owns a home near a natural resource which could contribute strongly to the country as a whole the right to veto the development on NIMBY grounds? What, in fact, gives them the right to "manage" resources on someone else's property?

[Moonbox]

What gives someone who owns a home near a natural resource which could contribute strongly to the country as a whole the right to veto the development on NIMBY grounds?

Greed and loud complaining. A lot of the people that would insist on this 'right' are the same ones who'd dismiss any suggestion that local residents should be able to veto wind turbine developments in the middle of their communities.

Going back to your original points, I would have to say I agree with virtually everything you've said. Personally, my #1 priority is always a balanced budget. I'm not old enough to have enjoyed the spend-thriftTrudeau years, but I'll live with the consequences of the Baby-Boomers' fiscal irresponsibility probably my whole life.

This touches back on the issue of elderly care, which is going to be one of the biggest crises my generation is going to have to deal with it. It's a grossly understated problem and the economics behind it are grim. The sad fact is that it's unlikely the younger generations are going to be able to afford to support pension and healthcare expenses for the Baby Boomers, at least not to the same standard which they supported their own parents. Simple demographics show us this is a ticking time-bomb and either elderly care will suffer or the new working population is going to see enormous tax increases and/or high inflation.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Moonbox

[jacee]

I'm not old enough to have enjoyed the spend-thriftTrudeau years, but I'll live with the consequences of the Baby-Boomers' fiscal irresponsibility probably my whole life.

This touches back on the issue of elderly care, which is going to be one of the biggest crises my generation is going to have to deal with it. It's a grossly understated problem and the economics behind it are grim. The sad fact is that it's unlikely the younger generations are going to be able to afford to support pension and healthcare expenses for the Baby Boomers, at least not to the same standard which they supported their own parents.

Evidence has been posted here repeatedly showing that "pensions" are solid - CPP, OAS, GIS all ok.

Simple demographics show us this is a ticking time-bomb and either elderly care will suffer or the new working population is going to see enormous tax increases and/or high inflation.

Yup health care for the elderly will be a challenge. However, new government revenues from legalizing marijuana will help a lot.

Also, 'heroic' measures to resusitate dying elderly are very expensive and will become a thing of the past as most boomers have DNR orders in their 'living wills' now.

I think Gen Y & X should stop panicking about this, and look at the facts:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-122-e.htm

5.1 Taking Stock: The Aging Population Plays a Minor Role

According to the literature, population aging is one of many factors that contribute to rising nominal health care spending. However, aging is not a leading health cost driver, and based on C.D. Howe Institute projections, it is not likely to become one over the next 20 years. A study by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, which reviews analyses on the issue, presents a similar picture, stating that on average, the impact of an aging population could account for 0.95% to 1.3% of the growth in future total health care spending in Canada.25

...

It is also worth noting that when health care spending is compared with the size of the economy, the annual increase in labour productivity within the Canadian economy seen between 1984 and 2008 (1.3%)27 should be enough to offset the effect of population aging.

.

Edited December 21, 2014 by jacee

[Scotty]

4. A committee of demographics experts, economists, and industry and union representatives to decide on immigration numbers as well as screening criteria.

Young, female, and hot would be my criteria.

[Argus]

Evidence has been posted here repeatedly showing that "pensions" are solid - CPP, OAS, GIS all ok.

CPP is probably going to be okay, but the rest are funded from government revenues.

Yup health care for the elderly will be a challenge.

You're using the wrong tense. It is a challenge NOW. Hospitals are constantly filled with seniors who are too sick to be home alone but have nowhere else to go and no one to take care of them.

However, new government revenues from legalizing marijuana will help a lot.

Unlikely it will ever amount to as much as cigarette taxes.

Also, 'heroic' measures to resusitate dying elderly are very expensive and will become a thing of the past as most boomers have DNR orders in their 'living wills' now.

I'm not talking heroism. I'm talking seniors who get sick, and have to be admitted to hospital where they should be at home or in some kind of nursing care, temporary or otherwise. Most will recover and return home, but in the meantime they're filling hospital beds for lack of alternatives.

[Topaz]

In my area, they want seniors to stay home if possible and have a nurse and sometimes the doctor will make house calls. I know, no one would never see a doctor in the big cities do this but doctors will make a house call if needed, and that is one advantages of little in a small community. The provinces can't have good health care if the feds don't share the tax dollars and today I heard they kept back 35 billion to the provinces. I guess they needed it for the second cargo plane they bought.

[Keepitsimple]

In my area, they want seniors to stay home if possible and have a nurse and sometimes the doctor will make house calls. I know, no one would never see a doctor in the big cities do this but doctors will make a house call if needed, and that is one advantages of little in a small community. The provinces can't have good health care if the feds don't share the tax dollars and today I heard they kept back 35 billion to the provinces. I guess they needed it for the second cargo plane they bought.

How about easing up on "today I heard" comments - and post a link to the news item.

[On Guard for Thee]

I want to see our borders slammed shut.

Economic sanctions against Muslim countries who support terrorism and world Jihad Caliphate.

A return to capital punishment.

Fiscally sound management of our countries books.

A raise for federal inmate workers. $3 a day is not enough to support themselves.

Make pot legal and tax it. Selling permits to grow and sell it. Immediate retroactive clemency/release given to all those currently in prison for pot offenses.

Someone doing something about the out of control Indians in our country. Someone with the courage to tell them no and arrest/remove them on sight when/if they black rails, roads, etc.

Shut down the illegal smoke shops in full force. A storm trooper commando squad to go in and smash everything, arrest them, etc.

Stronger military support for our veterans and more funding for our military. Both the Liberals and the Tories have dropped the ball on this. The Liberals totally gutted our military funding which was wrong. The Tories boosted funding which was good but need to be better on veterans affairs.

A government to put some limits on abortion. Banning late term abortions(last trimester). Banning people from using abortion as birth control.

Plus some more stuff but if some government would do this it would make me very happy.

The legal pot idea I would agree with. The rest of the comments show a lack of knowledge of the reality. For instance show us where late term abortion occurs, and how it is used as birth control in any significant way.

[guyser]

I want to see our borders slammed shut.

And stop a billion bucks worth of trade a day? Uh...No.

Economic sanctions against Muslim countries who support terrorism and world Jihad Caliphate.

Sure, because that $40 a day in trade we do would sure teach 'em a lesson.

A return to capital punishment.

You should read who many times the court in the US get it wrong.

Fiscally sound management of our countries books.

Agreed.

Make pot legal and tax it. Selling permits to grow and sell it. Immediate retroactive clemency/release given to all those currently in prison for pot offenses.

Probably a good idea.

Someone doing something about the out of control Indians in our country.

Silence. I dont want to go a week without Naan and butter chicken. The curry is good too, you should try it/

Stronger military support for our veterans and more funding for our military. Both the Liberals and the Tories have dropped the ball on this.

Yup, as far as Vets go, the rest , naw.

A government to put some limits on abortion. Banning late term abortions(last trimester). Banning people from using abortion as birth control.

Spend a million or more to stop 5 people? Man what a waste, not to mention an abuse of rights.

Why do you want to strip women of their rights?

[August1991]

With this thread, let me start here:

I want to see our borders slammed shut.

That is simply impossible, and we live in a cold, inhospitable place. Even Japan can no longer do that.

Capt. Canada, the world is multicultural and technology has lowered the cost of travel. We go there and they come here.

[August1991]

1. A commitment to gather the provinces and implement major changes to health care in recognition of an aging population. This would include a commitment to specific funding for nursing homes for infirm seniors who are currently clogging up so many beds at hospitals. It would also include discussion of including private money in the system, as in Germany, perhaps through unions and employers, and legalizing private diagnostic clinics.

Health care is a provincial question, as it should be. What works in PEI is unlikely to work in Ontario. Alberta, for example, is not aging.

2. A commitment to balancing the budget and paying down debt, even if that requires tax increases, tax changes to prevent corporations from funneling money through tax havens, abandoning special tax treatment of capital gains and dividents for investors when that investment income exceeds $200,000 per year, changes to business taxation which penalize employment, such as CPP and EI contributions, use of federal powers to force compliance in a provincial 'free trade' agreement

Disagree to completely disagree. Compared to Europe and the US, Canada has a sophisticated tax system that works well. It's almost Scandinavian while dealing with people who are not homogeneous Lutheran.

Canada's governments have no need to pay down government debt. (Harper is loudly doing this to gain votes from people who are paying down their mortgage - as if paying down government debt were like paying down a mortgage.)

3. Increase in RCMP budget for the purpose of cracking down on fraud, a requirement that all police wear bodycams, working with the provinces to drastically streamline the courts with an eye to saving both time and money.

I agree that our criminal courts are clogged. Justice delayed is justice denied. I reckon crown prosecutors should start to plea bargain more often but what do I know.

4. A committee of demographics experts, economists, and industry and union representatives to decide on immigration numbers as well as screening criteria.

Immigration? Accept the fact that we are managing an influx.

5. A commitment to funding the military to at least 1.5% of GDP, and to purchase equipment with an eye to both its value to the military and value for the dollar, even if that means buying off-the-shelf or used equipment from NATO allies instead of making it ourselves.

Why 1.5%? Why not 1.35% or 1.62%? But whatever.

If we want a military with big airplanes to fly water purification systems to Asia, then I guess you need the big bucks. But if we want a military that will fight fanatics who plant IEDs on roadsides, or drive trucks into crowds, I'm not certain if more money is a solution...

6. Establishing mandatory skills retraining for long-term and repeat unemployed focusing on high-demand areas of the economy, especially including trades. Cutbacks and elimination of UIC to seasonal workers who earn at least $25,000 during a season of work.

I tend to agree but this is largely a provincial question. The homeless in Nova Scotia are unlike the homeless in Toronto.

A fact of modern life in a rich country is that some young people prefer to drop out of the system. They can't or don't want to fill out forms, deal with bureaucrats. They have no desire to file a tax form even if it means that they will receive a cheque. They want nothing to do with guidance counsellors.

Bored, they sit at the back of the class and fiddle with their cell phones.

IMV, these kids are the canaries in the coal mine of western civilization.

Edited December 23, 2014 by August1991

[eyeball]

What in tarnation is a homogenized Lutheran?

[August1991]

What in tarnation is a homogenized Lutheran?

Most (all) Swedes are Lutherans, including bureaucrats. Swedes without fear give all their personal information to a bureaucrat, a fellow Lutheran.

Martin Luther was a clean, honest guy. And the Swedish model is a Lutheran model.

[Derek 2.0]

5. A commitment to funding the military to at least 1.5% of GDP, and to purchase equipment with an eye to both its value to the military and value for the dollar, even if that means buying off-the-shelf or used equipment from NATO allies instead of making it ourselves.

Why "1.5% of GDP"? An artificial percentage does nothing to redress issues encompassing waste and inefficiency found within DND and all an injection of billions of dollars will accomplish is more of the same... for more money.....

I have no issue with purchasing used equipment off allies (as this current Government has done) to meet operational needs, but "off-the-shelf" (very subjective term) is not viable in most instances, and in many, would actually cost more to integrate into our current force structure.