Tories cut $1.1 billion over two years

Ricki Bobbi · November 5, 2006

Nice cut and paste hack job! Good work sir. Three striaght posts with personal attacks and nothing else. Good on you... :lol:

White Doors · November 5, 2006

Who are you going to vote for now geoffrey?

Conservatives are better off long term everytime they lose an angry, rigid, ideological right-winger...

I haven't decided, whatever party shows me that they are most likely to be real fiscal conservatives. Any party that raises taxes with a surplus isn't getting my vote.

I'm far from an angry, rigid, ideological right-winger. There are some days when I'd more likely fit with the Liberals. The only opinion I'm very 'rigid' on is tax cuts. With that surplus they should have cut the seniors taxes, and left well enough alone on the income trusts. They've got tons of cash, what do they need more for?

More socialist projects? What?

Uhhh.. they did cut seniors taxes.

geoffrey · November 5, 2006

Uhhh.. they did cut seniors taxes.

And raised others. Whoop-de-do.

White Doors · November 5, 2006

Uhhh.. they did cut seniors taxes.

And raised others. Whoop-de-do.

Which one's did they raise?

geoffrey · November 5, 2006

Which one's did they raise?

Are you missing the key part of this? The 31.5% hike on Income Trusts was nothing?

White Doors · November 5, 2006

Which one's did they raise?

Are you missing the key part of this? The 31.5% hike on Income Trusts was nothing?

Yes, tey had to do that to keep Canada competitive. No one should have a portfolio that is unbalanced. If some do and are hurt unduly by this, then it is their own fault. Plus seniors were using this as income from the cash distributions, not by the actual price of the stock so they have 4 more years of this nice income as long as they don't sell. Use some of the cash distributions to build a more balanced portfolio.

normanchateau · November 6, 2006

The Conservatives are the closest to being 'real fiscal conservatives' of any party in the House of Commons at the moment.

They're certainly the only party in the House of Commons with a "real social conservative" leader. Whether they're more fiscally conservative than the Liberals depends on your measure. The Liberals lowered the personal income tax rate on more than one occasion whereas the Conservatives increased it on July 1, 2006.

Charles Anthony · December 27, 2006

What is happening to our National Portrait Gallery?

Moreover, the simple fact is that no other federal political party can do this except the Conservatives under Stephen Harper.

Ironically, that is correct.

Coming to a town near you: national museums
Ottawa signals massive changes in funding policy

What's happening is nothing less than a revolution in federal museum policy.

For decades, the government has funded the operation of museums and art galleries in Ottawa only, and then doled out the meagre Museums Assistance Program support to help other levels of government keep the rest of the country's heritage institutions up and running.

Now the Harper government is changing how museums and art galleries will be funded: simultaneously trying to devolve responsibility for operational support to the private sector while at the same time contemplating creating or designating "national" institutions outside of Ottawa.

Not only is the government considering moving the Portrait Gallery of Canada to the new headquarters of EnCana Corp. of Calgary, it is reportedly poised to grant "national" status (which even in a time of a bigger private-sector role would guarantee some federal operating money) to the proposed Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg, the pet project of Winnipeg's wealthy Asper family. In this case, national status would mean $12-million a year in operating costs.

---SNIP---

Decentralizing national institutions is only half of this revolution. The other major element is a greatly increased role for private-sector partners -- such as the Aspers or EnCana. One of the reasons Ottawa is considering moving the Portrait Gallery to Calgary is that EnCana was willing, according to documents obtained by the federal NDP, to contribute $30-million to the Portrait Gallery's relocation (the company denies the figure).

The Globe And Mail

Interestingly, Encana's head-office is in Stephen Harper's Calgary riding.

Ricki Bobbi · December 27, 2006

They're certainly the only party in the House of Commons with a "real social conservative" leader. Whether they're more fiscally conservative than the Liberals depends on your measure. The Liberals lowered the personal income tax rate on more than one occasion whereas the Conservatives increased it on July 1, 2006.

Yawn....

They lowered the overall tax burden with their latest budget. They'll correct the error they made in the 1/2 point increase in the lowest tax rate in the next budget.

You gotta love terms like "real social conservative". Utterly meaningless and they cause the likes of normie to sit there smugly and think they have made a witty comment. Normie, we get it. You hate the Conservatives and Stephen Harper. You have never voted for him and never will. That's why he won't waste time, money and effort to try and appeal to the likes of you.

jdobbin · December 27, 2006

What is happening to our National Portrait Gallery?

So what is your opinion on it? That the museum should stay in Ottawa? That the federal government should not have museums? That the only museums in Canada should be private ones like Ripley's?

Charles Anthony · December 28, 2006

So what is your opinion on it?

Take a wild guess!

The national portrait gallery that-nobody-has-ever-seen is being privatized. That is a step towards less stupid government.

Any government service expenditure waste which can be privatized is a step in the right direction.

In case decades of Trudeaumania have not made it more than obvious, less government is better than more government -- for people who earn honest livings that is.

That the museum should stay in Ottawa?

Where it stays is irrelevent. The properties should all be sold off to the highest bidder -- as should all "government" properties. If the highest bidders choose to continue using it as a national portrait gallery so be it. Otherwise, to hell with it.

By the way, the National Hockey League has teams that are not profitable yet they are funded by rich men who want to see hockey stay alive.

That the federal government should not have museums?

Correct but only indirectly. What the government should have is irrelevent. The government should not be spending our money on museums.

You are getting ahead of me.

That the only museums in Canada should be private ones like Ripley's?

Everything should be private -- unless you are a parasitic crony.

[Although it does not change the premise of your question, I will take it for granted if you say that the Ripley's museum is private. However, I do not know. The economy of PEI is peculiar and incestuous. I have no reason to trust any operation there to be free of government interference.]

In the age of digital art and the internet, we do not need a national portrait gallery open to the public. Only thieves benefit from a National Portrait Gallery.

jdobbin · December 28, 2006

Take a wild guess!
The national portrait gallery that-nobody-has-ever-seen is being privatized. That is a step towards less stupid government.

Any government service expenditure waste which can be privatized is a step in the right direction.

In case decades of Trudeaumania have not made it more than obvious, less government is better than more government -- for people who earn honest livings that is.

Where it stays is irrelevent. The properties should all be sold off to the highest bidder -- as should all "government" properties. If the highest bidders choose to continue using it as a national portrait gallery so be it. Otherwise, to hell with it.

By the way, the National Hockey League has teams that are not profitable yet they are funded by rich men who want to see hockey stay alive.

Correct but only indirectly. What the government should have is irrelevent. The government should not be spending our money on museums.

Everything should be private -- unless you are a parasitic crony.

[Although it does not change the premise of your question, I will take it for granted if you say that the Ripley's museum is private. However, I do not know. The economy of PEI is peculiar and incestuous. I have no reason to trust any operation there to be free of government interference.]

In the age of digital art and the internet, we do not need a national portrait gallery open to the public. Only thieves benefit from a National Portrait Gallery.

Jimmy Pattison of Vancouver owns Ripley's. It is private.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pattison_Group

The Portrait gallery and the Human Rights Museum will have a private component but their operating funds are strictly taxpayer. I'd hardly call the two museums private by any stretch.

Hockey teams are subsidized in the United States and Canada with federal funds. The operations are subsidized further by rich men.

The last private rink to be built in Canada without some giveaways was Maple Leap Gardens. There have been no sports facilities built in the U.S. in just about as long without state and federal help.

I realize your solution is to sell off everything but it seems very unlikely. Harper is not really privatizing anything. This idea to move museums out of Ottawa with private donors helping out started under the Liberals. The idea only worked with operating funds coming from Ottawa.

It isn't a private museum project. The only museum with a large private component is the Glenbow Museum in Calgary. However, it also receives provincial grants. And subsidies come in the form of charitable write-offs in taxes from the Feds.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ind...s=M1ARTM0012931

The GLENBOW MUSEUM in Calgary, the country's most entrepreneurial private museum, covers its operating expenses through provincial grants, a large endowment fund, and business operations such as memberships, shop operations and ticket sales. Like many good-sized museums, it draws about 140,000 paid visitors annually. "In the Calgary market, in the hottest business community in the country, we can do $10 million a year," says Mike Robinson, Glenbow's president. "It would be very difficult in this market with our current business model to do more than that." Robinson says a modest human rights museum might succeed if it closely followed a model like the Glenbow's.

geoffrey · December 28, 2006

Interestingly, Encana's head-office is in Stephen Harper's Calgary riding.

That's factually incorrect. Their head-office is in Lee Richardson's Calgary riding.

Charles Anthony · December 28, 2006

Their head-office is in Lee Richardson's Calgary riding.

Thank you. I stand corrected. Stephen Harper only lives a hop and a skip away.

Jimmy Pattison of Vancouver owns Ripley's. It is private.

I knew of only the one in Prince Edward Island. Either way, the point is moot.

The Portrait gallery and the Human Rights Museum will have a private component but their operating funds are strictly taxpayer. I'd hardly call the two museums private by any stretch.

What are you? some kind of anarchist???

Compared to Trudeaumaniacal bureaucratic rule, ANY private component is a HUGE stretch.

Hockey teams are subsidized in the United States and Canada with federal funds. The operations are subsidized further by rich men.

Thanks for more trivia. However, I will cut it short here because my encyclopedia memory is faltering. More importantly, none of this trivia furthers the issue.

Are you happy with a shared private-public museum? What is YOUR opinion?

Wherever it is located, are you demanding that taxpayers (who will never get to see this stupid gallery) have to pay for ALL of it?

jdobbin · December 28, 2006

What are you? some kind of anarchist???
Compared to Trudeaumaniacal bureaucratic rule, ANY private component is a HUGE stretch.

Are you happy with a shared private-public museum? What is YOUR opinion?

Wherever it is located, are you demanding that taxpayers (who will never get to see this stupid gallery) have to pay for ALL of it?

I'm saying that these museums are hardly private museums. Encana and the Aspers went to the trouble of starting plans for these museums and fundraising for the buildings that they knew they couldn't operate.

I am not at all certain the federal government would have even considered a human rights museum had the Aspers not started it.

As far as the portrait gallery goes, Encana was looking to get the Glenbow to come. Glenbow has more claim to being a private museum than many others in Canada . And yet Glenbow considered the costs of operating out of Encana too high. Why should a federal museum pay what a private museum would not?

I'm not necessarily saying all federal museums should be in Ottawa. But let's be clear on what it will cost. I've seen no evidence that it will cost less each year to operate federal museums in private public partnerships. Every indication is that it will cost more because it would entail higher operating costs. And unlike Encana's $30 million donation, operating costs run forever.

I figured that if you wished to be consistent that you would say no to the Portrait Gallery and no to Human Rights Museum. Anything less is a sell out.

Charles Anthony · December 28, 2006

I'm saying that these museums are hardly private museums.

Fine. I take your word for it.

In that case, they should be sold off. What do you think?

I figured that if you wished to be consistent that you would say no to the Portrait Gallery and no to Human Rights Museum. Anything less is a sell out.

You are trying to prove me inconsistent??

First, the Portrait Gallery.

Second, the Ripley's Museum in Vancouver -- that I never heard of before you added it to the thread.

Now, the Human Rights Museum.

Do I have to know the financial arrangements of EVERY SINGLE museum (in existence and in proposal) in Canada and make an individual statement upon each one??? Is this a game of trivial pursuit?

Stop spinning. I have already said unequivocally in post #86 -- which you quoted -- that the government should get out of all museums.

jdobbin · December 28, 2006

I'm saying that these museums are hardly private museums.
Fine. I take your word for it.
In that case, they should be sold off. What do you think?

I figured that if you wished to be consistent that you would say no to the Portrait Gallery and no to Human Rights Museum. Anything less is a sell out.
You are trying to prove me inconsistent??
First, the Portrait Gallery.

Second, the Ripley's Museum in Vancouver -- that I never heard of before you added it to the thread.

Now, the Human Rights Museum.

Do I have to know the financial arrangements of EVERY SINGLE museum (in existence and in proposal) in Canada and make an individual statement upon each one??? Is this a game of trivial pursuit?

Stop spinning. I have already said unequivocally in post #86 -- which you quoted -- that the government should get out of all museums.

You're the one who spun and said private public partnerships were better. If you've gone back to your original position...fine. At least it is consistent.

My position is that the federal government ought to be careful about picking up operating costs of museums that the private sector wants.

Charles Anthony · December 28, 2006

My position is that the federal government ought to be careful about picking up operating costs of museums that the private sector wants.

Be more precise.

Do you demand that the federal government accept or refuse to pick up the operating costs of museums?

jdobbin · December 28, 2006

Be more precise.
Do you demand that the federal government accept or refuse to pick up the operating costs of museums?

Which ones? Private or public?

Charles Anthony · December 28, 2006

Both.

At least make a statement on the ones you were talking about.

jdobbin · December 28, 2006

Both.
At least make a statement on the ones you were talking about.

I think federally mandated museums should have the operating costs of the museums picked up by the taxpayers.

I think privately initiated ones shouldn't unless they are fully turned over to the federal government and have foundation established to help defray the costs of operating them. This idea that Encana filling a space and benefiting from a long term tourist attraction while not defraying those long term costs is disturbing.

geoffrey · December 29, 2006

How exactly does Encana benefit? It's not like it draws passer-bys into buy a few cubic metres of natural gas on the way through.

As soon as an oil company does something good, people get angry. Silly silly silly.

Ricki Bobbi · December 29, 2006

I was waiting for somebody to point out that very obvious fact.

jdobbin · December 29, 2006

How exactly does Encana benefit? It's not like it draws passer-bys into buy a few cubic metres of natural gas on the way through.
As soon as an oil company does something good, people get angry. Silly silly silly.

Encana benefits from having a major anchor tenant and also receives a charitable donation which has become more lucrative in the last year. I'm not saying this is all bad. I am saying that the major costs of a museum are the operating costs which are not covered under this.

jbg · December 29, 2006

Everything should be private -- unless you are a parasitic crony.
[Although it does not change the premise of your question, I will take it for granted if you say that the Ripley's museum is private. However, I do not know. The economy of PEI is peculiar and incestuous. I have no reason to trust any operation there to be free of government interference.]

I don't agree (and maybe this shoes jdobbin that I'm a liberal at heart). There are things that people in a democracy collectively want whose capital cost of creation cannot be privately funded. Among the great treasures of the city near where I call home, New York, are the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Modern Museum. Ditto the Central Park Zoo and Bronx Zoo.

Governments are better at creating and maintaining these treasures for many reasons. Their displays of traditional and modern culture enrich all, well beyond the ability of all but a few of the viewers to pay for. I cannot tell you how much I learned viewing the dinosaur bones at the Museum of Natural History. I learned about the Alaskan and Canadian north at other exhibits. I learned about the wonders of the stars at the adjoining Hayden Planetarium. Now, as an adult, I am a taxpayer that cheerfully pays taxes to support these institutions.

There are simply some things governments do better than private enterprises. The Royal Museum in Toronto, and the Science Museum make Toronto a far richer place than a branch of "Ripley's Believe it or Not" would.

In the age of digital art and the internet, we do not need a national portrait gallery open to the public. Only thieves benefit from a National Portrait Gallery.

Viewing art is a social experience, where people mix and meet. Staring at digital portraits in front of a computer screen is not as enriching.