bush_cheney2004 Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 ... The states have an even worse problem but I don't want to conjure BC into this thread. Too late.....the usual neurotic reference to the "states" to explain all things Canadian is hereby noted. Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 I think you could go as far as you want with regionalizing control of resources and I dont think the relevant distinction is CITY VS RURAL. Currently we are seeing a trend towards the globalization of these resources and this is causing political turmoil and conflict all around the world. It needs to stop IMO, but thats not to likely... crony capitalism is in full swing now, and theres huge momentum behind it. It's starting to run headlong into some real issues pertaining to sustainability though social and environmental. When it finally slows to a crawl the world will localize again in a hurry. That's when city-folk will hurt the most and require farmers, fishermen and loggers to keep them going. To bad there won't be many fish left. It'll take decades to rebuild if it's even possible. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
nerve Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) I'm not optimistic in the short term. If supply continues in oil I expect Canada's trade deficit to be problematic and a drag, leading to inflationary pressures. I don't think Canada is well positioned industrially currently. I think that if I were proceeding I would provide free technical trades training, and provide incentives / credits for green technology industries. Alberta is a real problem area as well as newfoudland. With provinces such as Ontario being quite mad in their legislative approaches. We need a lot of legal liberalization to remove costs from the cost of government, we also need to streamline the public service, its just too broad and specialized when a large majority of what is being done is enacting specific laws, where in fact a lot of that "legal specialization" could be streamlined by ammending laws to reduce the amount of red tape barrier to the administration of government. Way too much paper and inefficiency. I have little if any confidence in the future of Canada. It can leverage its resources but in fact it is selling its resource industry to foreign enterprise because it is swindling its tax funds on compeltely 0 ROI endevours, essentially it just paying people to obstruct public freedom. All about maintaining the status quo - which just happens to be failure and abuse. IP will be bought out, resources will be foreign controlled with recent US Steele rulings showing that pensioners arn't going to be protected by mega corps who will manipulate the resource sector in Canada for their own self interests which doesn't include canadian nationals interests. Canada is very capable if North Korea can survive isolated, Canada should do better than that as part of the world community. The results are lack luster, and I think there is a very large chance that if oil prices stay depressed we will see atleast a long term recession in Canada as it mobilizes to shift to other resource needs or technologies. I do think that there are tons of economic potentials in Canada though but I have 0 expectation of the government to monopolize becuase it is a corporatist overlordship so the government isn't allowed to realize its own potentials, only stagnate and repress the population to maintain the system and the status quo. The regulatory frame work is established to smother the suppliers and benefit the owners. Canada is a small pot of the world economy, even as one of the top 10%. Its just held up in the top 5 or so industrialized nations and they are the ones running the show. Canada is not well positioned because it doesn't develop itself and it is in debt. The provinces are in debt, the municipalities are in debt, and the people are in debt. Then you have a system that is corporatist, who do you expect to have the economic power in that type of enviornment? Canada will eek by unless WWIII heats up more. The games goes like this - loan it to us or we take it. Capital flight will happen if the money stops being loaned. Then there will be nothing to take. Big money equals big influence. If not for socialized indoctrination in the education system the nationstate would be SOL. Edited October 25, 2015 by nerve
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) I didn't say military invasion. How do you invade your home? You invade a place where you don't belong and have no right to be. I explained with examples why I said Canada was not democratic under conservatives. You seem to be confused about what democracy is all about. A democracy is one in which the people vote in their leaders. That is what the people did with Harper, like it or not. Whether they are transparent or not in how they govern is irrelevant. Whether they pass bills some people don't like, or attack those they see as their enemies (within the law) is irrelevant. Whether they ignore hordes of screaming protesters is also irrelevant. Whether they pass bills which are sometimes rolled back by the courts is also irrelevant to whether they were democratically elected and abide by the rules of law. Which prime minister took million dollar payments from businessmen in the form of brown paper bags? Mulroney or Joe Clarke? Never heard this before. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=674ac470-0439-4e49-b6b3-cc1bd47d002d&p=1 Quebec liberals are responding to the demand of big majority of Quebecers The idea was proposed by the Parti Quebecois as a way to win support and votes. When the Liberals fought them in the election, in order not to lose votes because of the popularity of the proposed bill, they promised to put the same sort of bill in place. Niqab is a backward cultural thing and if we are true democracy as much as we may dislike it we should allow it. Democracy is merely about how we elect our governments. It implies a certain set of freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association and the press in order for a democracy to really be legitimate, but there's nothing in that about letting people wear masks. Edited October 25, 2015 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Too late.....the usual neurotic reference to the "states" to explain all things Canadian is hereby noted. Americans I talk to are amazed to find out how much Canadian fisheries quota is now owned by Pacific Seafood, the largest fishing company in the US. When I go on to describe how the last fishing boats I ran are now owned by Alaskans fishing BC bound fish they just shake their heads. It explains a lot about how we work. Edited October 25, 2015 by eyeball A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
nerve Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) The advantage would be in having a more diverse mix of local opportunities. Local forest industry should include both small and large companies but even more importantly there should be greater local voice and public input into how the forests that people live and work in are managed. That way you capture all the values, industrial, socioeconomic, environmental, recreation etc of the people most dependent on and affected by management decisions. As it is now virtually all decision making lies with absentee landlords and authorities that are often hundreds and even thousands of miles away and the result is that the social, economic and environmental costs that come with that are offloaded on taxpayers and the environment. That is a provincial resource issue. I think that this will not bode well for the forests, as people with environmental interests can often be found in cities, and people in forested areas in need of work see lots of trees. Also education levels can be split in the rural/urban divide especially among the youth due to the flight of youth to urban areas to school with many not returning. I think resource management and the forestry industry has a whole lot of other stake holders, be it hunters and trappers, to recreational people from the cities, while the local population should have an input - in fact there are a whole lot of areas not near populated areas that would be better suited for the forestry industry. In populated areas we need to look at environmental issues like the water table and the effect of deforestation on waterways, and the overall ecosystem. It makes sense to proceed much the way it has been done, designaing protected areas. personally I think a system of copicing would be a better long term strategy with tree plantations for the forestry industry. However the governmetn -- along with a plan on use of the Canadian Forces/Reserves for forest fire fighting - we need to look at forestry being used as a tool for cutting fire corridors and fire planning in the north on a long term strategy in the event of the climate change modeling bringing more forest fires to the north. Using a forest fire strategy, and cuttings in "at risk areas" would make absolute sense, the same is true for peat harvesting -the rationality is, if it is just going to burn to ash you might as well cut it down a few years before that, especially if it is going to reduce the size of forest fires or make accessing remote areas easier. I do think first nations should have a veto on resource exploitation in their territory, they do often support these sorts of developments but we must shy away from the times where native land was open season for private developers. We need to let them manage their own land. In this respect I think local veto makes sense, but local choice in the affirmative should not be the only point of decision outside of municipal boundaries. The province in turn should be overseeing the municipalities for issues like waste management and natural resource exploitation, as municipalities are incorporated into the province itself. However national interest (for very life and death matters) should also have some type of overarching expropriation capability but not just for development, but for issues such as stopping flooding of other areas, or spread of disease etc.. where the local area is a source for the deaths or massive damages to another locality, in that time higher levels of government should be able to step in to protect the overall public interest. Edited October 25, 2015 by nerve
CITIZEN_2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Democracy is merely about how we elect our governments. It implies a certain set of freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association and the press in order for a democracy to really be legitimate, but there's nothing in that about letting people wear masks. Wow freedom of choice is an ESSENTIAL part of democracy you happen not to have listed or forgotten!!!!. Democracy is not all about votes.
On Guard for Thee Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 How do you invade your home? You invade a place where you don't belong and have no right to be. You seem to be confused about what democracy is all about. A democracy is one in which the people vote in their leaders. That is what the people did with Harper, like it or not. Whether they are transparent or not in how they govern is irrelevant. Whether they pass bills some people don't like, or attack those they see as their enemies (within the law) is irrelevant. Whether they ignore hordes of screaming protesters is also irrelevant. Whether they pass bills which are sometimes rolled back by the courts is also irrelevant to whether they were democratically elected and abide by the rules of law. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=674ac470-0439-4e49-b6b3-cc1bd47d002d&p=1 The idea was proposed by the Parti Quebecois as a way to win support and votes. When the Liberals fought them in the election, in order not to lose votes because of the popularity of the proposed bill, they promised to put the same sort of bill in place. Democracy is merely about how we elect our governments. It implies a certain set of freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association and the press in order for a democracy to really be legitimate, but there's nothing in that about letting people wear masks. Hiding a multitude of issues covering 60 odd different laws, masquerading in what is supposed to be a budget bill, and then ramming it through by limiting debate invoking closure is undemocratic. Wearing "masks", as you like to call it, is covered under individual rights and freedoms in our charter.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Americans I talk to are amazed to find out how much Canadian fisheries quota is now owned by Pacific Seafood, the largest fishing company in the US. When I go on to describe how the last fishing boats I ran are now owned by Alaskans fishing BC bound fish they just shake their heads. It explains a lot about how we work. Commercial fisheries and aquaculture are a minor part of the Canadian economy regardless of who provides the capital investment. American and other foreign investment has been the way Canada works for a very long time. Canada's future will be the same as the past in that regard. Economics trumps Virtue.
nerve Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) How do you invade your home? You invade a place where you don't belong and have no right to be. You seem to be confused about what democracy is all about. A democracy is one in which the people vote in their leaders. That is what the people did with Harper, like it or not. Whether they are transparent or not in how they govern is irrelevant. Whether they pass bills some people don't like, or attack those they see as their enemies (within the law) is irrelevant. Whether they ignore hordes of screaming protesters is also irrelevant. Whether they pass bills which are sometimes rolled back by the courts is also irrelevant to whether they were democratically elected and abide by the rules of law. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=674ac470-0439-4e49-b6b3-cc1bd47d002d&p=1 The idea was proposed by the Parti Quebecois as a way to win support and votes. When the Liberals fought them in the election, in order not to lose votes because of the popularity of the proposed bill, they promised to put the same sort of bill in place. Democracy is merely about how we elect our governments. It implies a certain set of freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association and the press in order for a democracy to really be legitimate, but there's nothing in that about letting people wear masks. Your line of discourse is a scam Argus. A democracy is one where you can have an equal vote on the issue. You are talking about a system that is not a democracy but one which has limited democratic elections. Do not confuse a nation with a democratic electoral system with a nation with democracy. One is much more open than the other. Democratic elections serve to support oligarchies not democracies. If you only have a vote on one day every 5 years you are not living in a democracy, you have one day of democracy every 5 years. Personally I wasn't allowed to vote because I was not contracted with a corporation or commercial interest, or subject to someone who was. That isn't a free society that is a a commercial society. I shouldn't have to buy my right to vote. In Canada you have to pay to be a candidate and pay to cast a vote, how is that a free society. The charter is being dumped on. CANADA IS A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!! Edited October 25, 2015 by nerve
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 A democracy is one where you can have an equal vote on the issue. On What issue? It's one where you get to vote for your government. Period. You are talking about a system that is not a democracy but one which has limited democratic elections. All elections are limited. But free and fair elections are the basis of whether a nation is a democracy or not. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Hiding a multitude of issues covering 60 odd different laws, masquerading in what is supposed to be a budget bill, and then ramming it through by limiting debate invoking closure is undemocratic. One of the ways in which the Tories made themselves look bad is in not observing the niceties of letting the opposition blow hot air indefinitely when in reality, their opinions didn't matter worth a damn. The Tories were practical, in this way, if not altogether wise. Nothing was 'hidden' in the omnibus bills (which I did not approve of, btw), but many things were jammed together so the government could get through them quickly. Still, whether you liked it or I liked it, it was done by the rules. And realistically, with a majority, all the bills in question would have passed anyway. It just would have taken longer. Wearing "masks", as you like to call it, is covered under individual rights and freedoms in our charter. That's nice, but unrelated to democracy. Do you think the Quebec Liberal government is operating democratically? Edited October 25, 2015 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 One of the ways in which the Tories made themselves look bad is in not observing the niceties of letting the opposition blow hot air indefinitely when in reality, their opinions didn't matter worth a damn. The Tories were practical, in this way, if not altogether wise. Nothing was 'hidden' in the omnibus bills (which I did not approve of, btw), but many things were jammed together so the government could get through them quickly. Still, whether you liked it or I liked it, it was done by the rules. And realistically, with a majority, all the bills in question would have passed anyway. It just would have taken longer. That's nice, but unrelated to democracy. Do you think the Quebec Liberal government is operating democratically? Just to remind you, the opposition mp's were duly elected as well. How democratic is it to ask them to vote on something they haven't had time to study? The charter is very related to democracy since it was put in place by democratically elected people.
webc5 Posted October 25, 2015 Author Report Posted October 25, 2015 I believe that we need to have strong democratic institutions in the long run will have a strong economy if we have strong democratic institutions.
-1=e^ipi Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Wow freedom of choice is an ESSENTIAL part of democracy you happen not to have listed or forgotten!!!!. Democracy is not all about votes. You are mixing up democracy with liberal democracy.
-1=e^ipi Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 I predict that separatism in Alberta and Saskatchewan will be somewhat significant.
CITIZEN_2015 Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) You are mixing up democracy with liberal democracy. I wasn't aware we have different kinds of democracy. Democracy is not a democracy if people don't have the right to choose what they wear. The kind of democracy you refer to is likely a make up democracy in which the government decides what people can or cannot wear, can or cannot drink or eat. We have plenty of these types of so called democracies in the middle east we don't want those in Canada. Edited October 25, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015
dialamah Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 The advantage would be in having a more diverse mix of local opportunities. Local forest industry should include both small and large companies but even more importantly there should be greater local voice and public input into how the forests that people live and work in are managed. That way you capture all the values, industrial, socioeconomic, environmental, recreation etc of the people most dependent on and affected by management decisions. As it is now virtually all decision making lies with absentee landlords and authorities that are often hundreds and even thousands of miles away and the result is that the social, economic and environmental costs that come with that are offloaded on taxpayers and the environment. I certainly agree that greater local voice is rarely given the consideration it deserves, and local communities are worse off for it. Even if we could implement a system where local authorities have final say in the economic development, I'm not sure how that would result in 'rural-folk not being subsidized by 'urban-folk'. I would also like to note that the rural areas aren't a single voice, either. A few years ago in the rural area I grew up, there was a proposal for economic development that had some risks of negative environmental effects. My family who still lives there were much more interested in the economic aspects of the proposal than the environmental risks. It seemed to me that local opinion was that if some large company wanted to come in and create jobs and growth, that was fine and dandy. Local people who questioned the long term effects were given pretty short shrift.
-1=e^ipi Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 I wasn't aware we have different kinds of democracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
Michael Hardner Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Too late.....the usual neurotic reference to the "states" to explain all things Canadian is hereby noted. Do you read every thread ?!? It's like trying to sneak by my parents when I was a teenager, I swear.... Thread drift, mea culpa. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Who said it was separate? It should be a foundational basis for resource allocation. Ok.. well I thought it was separate because we were jumping on the idea that TSS introduced about city vs. rural. I was certainly aware of what was happening to you... I do not believe that. The changes happened with no coverage whatsoever as far as I saw, and no discussion from those of us in the industry either. As for your industry, recall when Canadians were cautioned about getting into natural resources and your's was romanticized. My industry has never been romanticized, nor have there been calls to protect it. It's barely recognized in popular discussions about the economy. I have no idea but I bet all our per-capita power would increase if we could get out from under FPTP. That is not clear to me. A regional party like the BLOC did a good job of speaking up for Quebec, but would only have had a fraction of the power without FPTP. Is there a city vs rural dynamic there too? You are mixing up city vs rural with rich vs poor I think. Again, poverty is a big problem in Toronto. Urbanites seem to be pretty concerned about protecting farmers, however if the basic tenets of trade deals are correct then the trade-offs of the TPP would help the urban poor more. And they need it. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Guest Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 I wasn't aware we have different kinds of democracy. Democracy is not a democracy if people don't have the right to choose what they wear. The kind of democracy you refer to is likely a make up democracy in which the government decides what people can or cannot wear, can or cannot drink or eat. We have plenty of these types of so called democracies in the middle east we don't want those in Canada. If they decide what people can or cannot wear, and can or cannot drink or eat, can they be voted out? If it's a democracy then the answer surely is yes, and if the people willingly vote for a government that tells them what they can or cannot wear, and can or cannot drink or eat, then more fool them, I suppose.
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Wow freedom of choice is an ESSENTIAL part of democracy you happen not to have listed or forgotten!!!!. Democracy is not all about votes. So you're saying France isn't a democracy? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 I predict that separatism in Alberta and Saskatchewan will be somewhat significant. I predict that Western separatism will remain as irrelevant as it is now, but certain cranky people will continue, for reasons of petulance and immaturity, to pretend that somehow the overwhelming majority of Westerns somehow give their extremist fringe movements even the least little thought.
ToadBrother Posted October 26, 2015 Report Posted October 26, 2015 One of the ways in which the Tories made themselves look bad is in not observing the niceties of letting the opposition blow hot air indefinitely when in reality, their opinions didn't matter worth a damn. The Tories were practical, in this way, if not altogether wise. Nothing was 'hidden' in the omnibus bills (which I did not approve of, btw), but many things were jammed together so the government could get through them quickly. Still, whether you liked it or I liked it, it was done by the rules. And realistically, with a majority, all the bills in question would have passed anyway. It just would have taken longer. There's nothing practical in omnibus bills with little real debate, or with clipping the wings of Parliamentary committees. It is arrogance and expediency at its worst, a belief in one's own infinite wisdom and the infinite stupidity of one's opponents. It is hubris, pure and simple, and all governments fall into sooner or later. I know it's hard for you to imagine, but the Tories never, not even once, had an absolute monopoly on truth or reality. And what is certain, judging by the astonishing lack of meaningful accomplishments in the majority term, is that expediency and blatant contempt for your opponents does not delivery better government, it just delivers a mediocre government that wide swathes of population cannot stand. As to omnibus bills, the very intent is to hide the full extent of the bill in its very voluminousness. If such bills are to persist, and I certainly hope they do not, then Parliament should insist upon taking entire sessions to review them. They are an abuse of Parliament's legislative supremacy by governments intent on pushing through policies they do not trust MPs to review. You say you don't like them, and then defend them.
Recommended Posts