Canadian politics

RobertDyck · 2006-01-26 20:03:33

We just had a federal election. I helped the local Liberal candidate, but she didn't get elected. Last election I helped a Liberal candidate in another riding. He got re-elected and became President of the Treasury Board. This time I did help him as well by being a scrutineer, but he wasn't re-elected. The Liberal party itself didn't get re-elected. Damn! Paul Martin was finance minister under Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, but has been Prime Minister for 17 months. This election was the longest in Canadian history: 8 weeks of campaigning. Prime Minister Paul Martin had a minority government.

At this point we have 4 parties elected to the house (other parties tried by never got anyone elected), and we have a minority government. That means the party with the most members elected to the house is the government, but they have less than 50%. With a minority government, cooperation is necessary to get anything passed. Jean Chrétien had a majority government (more than 50% of the members in the house were Liberal) but Paul Martin had a minority. Now the Conservative party has a minority.

The previous Progressive Conservative government under Brian Mulroney promised to eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, and reduce Taxes. What he did was increase the deficit, double the debt, and increase taxes. That included creating the federal surtax and GST. Paul Martin eliminated the deficit, started paying down the debt, and reduced taxes. The party may be called "Liberal" but it's actually centre of the political spectrum. Under Paul Martin it was fiscally conservative, socially liberal.

The Progressive Conservative party merged with the Reform party. This election they promised to reduce the GST from 7% to 6%, then after 5 years reduce it to 5%. Of course those 5 years mean they would have to be re-elected. Reducing the GST now would mean the debt would not be paid. If we eliminated the debt we could eliminate the GST completely; interest on the debt is 12.7% greater than revenue from the GST. I had a plan to completely pay off the debt in 12-16 years, and continue to inch down federal income tax while doing so.

I heard a lot of voters during the election say they would rather eliminate federal income tax. That's harder to do since it generates more revenue than the GST, but I did work out a plan to do that. We can only get rid of one tax, but we can eliminate one. However, until we eliminate the debt we can't do anything; we're stuck with all taxes.

I had been pushing for Canada spending more on space. Specifically the 4 person space taxi: SSTO, RLV, HTHL. It would use jet fuel with turbine engines for take-off and landing, and an LH2 SCRAM jet that can shift to LOX/LH2 rocket for acceleration to orbit. I got my local candidate to agree, it was on the campaign website! But she didn't get elected. Now that her party is no longer in power; so much for increased funding to the Canadian Space Agency.

RobertDyck · 2006-01-26 20:06:57

From another thread:

By the way, the party I worked for in the Canadian federal election lost. I got my candidate to support the idea of a Canadian built fully reusable space taxi. You know, that 4 astronaut thing I've been talking about for years: SSTO, RLV, HTHL. This party is the one that built the Avro Arrow in the 1950s, the other party cancelled it. Now the other party is in power again. :cry: They want more military, stop repaying the debt, and nickel-and-dime tax cuts. They promised to decrease the GST from 7% to 6%, then further to 5% after 5 years. Of course that 5 years means they would have to be re-elected. Those small tax cuts mean no chance of paying off the debt. If the debt was gone we could eliminate the GST all together; but no, they won't do that. Their idea of a child care program is give every parent $25 per week for a year then cancel the whole thing. They want a free vote to cancel same-sex marriage, and are even talking about getting rid of abortion (Canadian laws are now pro-choice). Does this sound like any party you know? So much for increased funding to the Canadian Space Agency.

As far as the politics: free market economics works, and for sluggish economies even a little tax reliefe can yeild big dividends for society as a whole. Excessive welfare almost never helps. And having laws based on the will of the people about abortion and gay marriage are preferable to ones handed down from on high by judicial edict or as unwanted relics from past governments out of favor. Anyway, thats not the topic of conversation...

The abortion thing tore Canada apart in the 1980s. The result was a compromise that's pro-choice, but not easy to get an abortion. Same-sex marriage is recent, but a free vote now won't change anything. With a minority government, cooperation is necessary to get anything passed. The other 3 parties are firmly for same-sex marriage so a vote now won't change anything. A free vote would mean even some members of their own party would vote against change.

Paul Martin's government abolished the federal surtax and reduced federal income tax. That's more important than reducing the GST. The previous government under Brian Mulroney promised to eliminate the deficit, reduce the debt, and reduce Taxes. What he did was increase the deficit, double the debt, and increase taxes. That included creating the federal surtax and GST. Paul Martin fixed the problem, started paying down the debt, and reduced taxes.

John Creighton · 2006-01-26 20:22:22

Wow, that was a lot in one post. I’m two somewhat worried that the conservatives won’t manage the economy as good as Paul Martin did. Steven Harper criticized the liberals, calling there large supplies a sign of bad financial management. But it was those large surpluses that partly went to paying down the debt. If Steven Harper tries to cut it two close and interest rates go up then we’re back into deficits. Well, he could go another way and just plan to put more on the dept initially and claim he is not being hypocritical.

I supported the liberals but the situation might not be so bad as some liberals think. The liberals are there to keep the conservatives in check. Also if the liberals and conservatives can work together it would mean more tax cuts then the liberals and NDP working together which would be good. Jack Latin, got a taste of power, gambled for more and lost. I am glad the NDP don’t hold the balance of power with the liberals as I found Latin’s distain for private services rather communistic. Although I hate social conservatism I’d rather the conservatives in power then the NDP as the economy comes first. Also a lot of the social conservative hidden agenda which many liberals believe Steven Harper had, may not pan out close to severely as they expect.

A rather positive note, I think is the conservatives wining in Quebec. This will give the parties more of a National feel then a regional feel. I think this will be good for the unity of Canada.

Commodore · 2006-01-26 21:03:36

From what I've heard Harper is very pro-defense. Make human access to space a matter of national security, and you might get it.

Something I found amusing is Harpers insistance on sending military ice-breakers to claim artic waters. Now I know he was bashed during the campaign for being too friendly to Bush, but it seems silly to lash out so quickly over a claim that isn't really threatened at the moment.

And watch yourselves with those WIDs.

John Creighton · 2006-01-26 21:36:37

I support Harper on that one. Defending the inagrity of your borders is important.

Earthfirst · 2006-01-26 21:41:13

Was up eh, whats you sap drinkers doing up there? Canada most Love the Acer family a lot to put it on there flag eh.
Do you like spam and ketsup that much?
Acer negundo Acerceae is my favorite tree, though Acer grandetatum run 2nd, Also Alnus Oblongefolia is cool. As for cannada trees Pinus ponderosa, Douglas Fir, Acer negundo, Aspen. I think Canada is best just with trees and no people, I mean they did not even rebel against england, and Canadian beer taste Bad, give me American any time over cannada!
Any ways I like Canada, when I visted BC Victoria, every one was nice to me. They said hello and said they were sorry for me for not having free paid government health care. Also it was very clean, and no Mexicans speaking spanish.
Also the Money was cool looking with some old chick on it. Over all canada would nice place to vist but because of rampent liberism and high taxes I would not live there. Also Canada should get a little more respect from us Americans, they are over all a nice socailist nation that could be easily invaded by use if we want to get some of that oil sand in Albertia. May be operation Canada freedom , to free its people from it libral socalist givernment dicators that are so called elected by voters. I just think Canada might have some WMDs some where. Just joking but I do like canada a little bit.

RobertDyck · 2006-01-26 22:32:27

One of the excuses for military in the north was that countries, including the United States, would consider the Northwest Passage international waters unless we actively defend it. International law under the UN states that if international shipping were to use that waterway for a certain number of years, it would become international waters. Is the US already trying to claim our inland waterway is international waters? Is the claim that we're creating an issue just surprise that we didn't wait until it was too late?

Oh, well. This is really Stephen Harper trying to prove to Canadians that he a leader, not a puppet of George W. Bush. Don't worry, the north came up before, it's not really an issue. President Ronald Regan sent a coast guard vessel through that passage without permission and without notification just to piss off Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Ronald Regan's intention was to goad Canada to spend more money on military in the north. The military that Mr. Harper is proposing is exactly what Ronald Regan wanted anyway. Delaying a couple decades is enough to prove no one is a puppet. Besides, Stephen Harper made an election promise to build those armed icebreakers.

Commodore · 2006-01-26 22:56:11

Why would traditional maritime law be thrown out the window just because a lot of ships happen to use a particular route?

If its within the 10 or so miles on the coast it Canadian Territorial waters. Lots of ships go up the Hudson River, but that doesn't make it international waters.

As long as those dirty Danes don't get Hans, right Robert? 8)

RobertDyck · 2006-01-27 00:40:55

The water between Victoria Island and the mainland (Dolphin and Union Straight, Coronation Gulf, Dease Straight) is less than 20 miles wide, so it's clearly Canadian; but Canadian waters go beyond that. This map makes it clear.

Hans Island, a tiny little speck of rock between Ellesmere Island and Greenland. I suppose I should get excited... Not.

RobertDyck · 2006-01-27 15:29:54

CBC news report: Wilkins says Arctic comment old news
The US ambassador to Canada is now downplaying his comments on the status of Arctic waters. Clark, are you passing my comments on to government officials?

Also from that report: "Wilkins also said he hoped the softwood lumber dispute could be resolved this year." Clark, if you're passing on intelligence, please ask the US government to resolve the softwood lumber dispute within 9 months. Since we have a minority government, expect another election somewhere between 9 and 17 months from now. Historically, that's how long minority governments last. Please resolve the softwood lumber thing during the tenure of a Prime Minister who thinks so much like George W. Bush.

Grypd · 2006-01-27 17:31:51

Sorry about my lack of knowledge but with this recent election what is the status of the Quebec seperatists. I believed they where riding well in the pre election poles.

Will they go for another chance of creating an independent Quebec and if they do what is the likely timetable

John Creighton · 2006-01-27 19:45:45

The block actually lost support this election. Interestingly enough the conservatives government made a breakthrough in Quebec. This was probably partly due to Steven Harper’s Quebec plan released in the last week of the election. The consequence of the conservatives winning seats in Quebec is that the major two parties can now say they represent all of Canada. I think that is good for Canadian unity.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-23 15:48:52

old topic worth a bump maybe

Also warned by Canadian channels

Canada echoes U.S. warning of ‘imminent terrorism risk’ in Moscow

https://globalnews.ca/news/10344304/can … w-warning/

Global Affairs Canada (GAC) updated its Russia travel advisory page to recast the statement, and is advising Canadians in Moscow also to avoid large gatherings, to be aware of their surroundings when in public places

there are social media videos which seem to show Tajik involved

so Russia seems to have ignored warnings and been totally focused on bloodbath war of attrition in Ukraine, both sides losing huge numbers and a "grinding down" of the opponent's forces with so many young men lost of both sides, the heavy financial costs, cities in rumble its seems to no be a No-win situation and any winner might be classed as a 'Pyrrhic victory' but now another enemy a less sophisticated islamist one is traveling around Moscow the capital and largest city of Russia, crossing the Moskva River carrying out mass murder terror while Russia's security and authority look stupid, ISIS have claimed responsibility for the terrorism.

other mass killings and terror with Tajik links?

in year 2022, a mass shooting occurred in Belgorod Oblast, Russia

Russian media reported that the shooters were muslim jihadi Tajik nationals

The father of one of the alleged shooters ib the previous event confirmed to RFE/RL that his son had died during the weekend the shooting happened. The shooter's brother told RFE/RL that his sibling was an "ordinary migrant" who immigrated to Moscow from Southern Tajikistan several months before. The Tajikistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs said they were investigating reports that their citizens were involved in the attack
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-shooting … 87927.html

Justin Trudeau Thinks of Quitting 'Crazy Job' Daily; 69% of Canadians Want Him to
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/justin-trudea … im-1723956

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-03-24 02:16:47)

RobertDyck · 2024-03-25 21:41:29

So the federal Member of Parliament for my electoral district has announced he will resign effective end of this month. The federal government will hike the carbon tax the first of April, and Canadian citizens are so vehemently against that, federal police say there's a serious chance of an armed revolt. Members of Parliament have been asked to vote Non-Confidence in the government. That would force an immediate election. Polls show the Conservatives would not only win, they would win a majority government. So that would resolve the problem without any violence. But the NDP is Canada's third party, and they're propping up the government. If a non-confidence motion is not passed, it means next election will be October 2025. Canadian citizens cannot wait that long. So what will happen? This is beginning to look very very bad.

This raises a number of questions. I have emailed the federal finance minister once per year, every year, about what I feel should be in the budget. When she was first appointed finance minister, she responded to my email personally. Her response was very polite, but nothing in my email showed up in the budget. For Americans, her position is equivalent to Secretary of the Treasury. Each year since then I have received a response from staffers, polite but dismissal. This year I emailed the Prime Minister with a CC to the finance minister. I got an automated acknowledgement, but nothing more. I'm not seeing anything I asked appearing in government policy.

So the question: should I seek the nomination to run for office? Or should I jump parties, join the opposite major party? The latter would mark me as a traitor. My electoral district has elected the third party since it was created in 1979. My MP is NDP, that third party. Should I seek the nomination for the party I joined when Paul Martin was leader? That is the same party that is government right now? I would push hard to radically change direction. If they continue in the direction they're heading now, they will lose. It's not just about winning or losing, it's about what's right, what's best for Canadian citizens. The current government must radically change direction, or be removed. My girlfriend said don't board a sinking ship. But again, if I jump parties, I will be seen as a traitor. Do I just get out of politics? I have since 2011. But I have an interest; after all, these guys make laws. What they're doing is so radically, radically wrong!

tahanson43206 · 2024-03-26 06:20:10

For RobertDyck re #14

Thanks for your summary of the mysterious politics of Canada, and your participation, which is well above the level of the average American, and possibly well above the level of the average Canadian.

It appears (as I read your post) that you and several other Canadians are opposed to a carbon tax. We (in US) have not implemented such a tax, so I haven't seen much discussion about it. Please explain why you think the tax is a bad idea.

In other topics recently, Calliban has noted that the supply of fossil fuel is going to run out, and it would be a ** good idea ** to replace fossil source hydrocarbons with the equivalent substances made artificially. The technology to artificially make hydrocarbon fuels has been known for some time. Apparently the issue is that it takes more effort by human beings to make artificial hydrocarbons than it does to keep sucking at the yolk of the egg Nature has given us.

In the light of the brief window of opportunity left to the human race to replace mined hydrocarbons (and coal) with artificially manufactured equivalent, please try to help us non-Canadians to understand why there might be opposition to a tax to raise funds to convert from mined to artificial hydrocarbons.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-03-26 07:03:06

As a follow up to my question to RobertDyck, I asked Google why anyone in Canada might be opposed to a carbon tax. There were a ** lot ** of citations, but this one stood out .... apparently the Supreme Court of Canada thought the idea would be good for the country:

Ian Austen
By Ian Austen
Published March 25, 2021
Updated Sept. 20, 2021
Get it sent to your inbox.
OTTAWA — In a decision that marked an important victory for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate change agenda, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that the federal government’s imposition of carbon taxes in provinces that oppose them was constitutional.
Citing Parliament’s power to legislate on matters related to “peace, order and good government,” the court said that fighting climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions was a matter of “national concern” protected under the Constitution.
“This matter is critical to our response to an existential threat to human life in Canada and around the world,” the court wrote in a 6-to-3 decision. “Climate change is real. It is caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities and it poses a grave threat to humanity’s future.”
The concept of carbon pricing has been widely endorsed by economists, and according to the World Bank, some form of it has been carried out or is in development in 64 countries, either through direct taxes on fossil fuels or through cap-and-trade programs.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2024-03-27 18:02:24

F-rhEDCa8AAieeE?format=jpg&name=large

kbd512 · 2024-03-27 20:41:57

RobertDyck,

I would like your post, but we don't have that feature. It deserves a re-tweet.

I'm tired of the nuttiest people in society dictating life to everyone else.

RobertDyck · 2024-03-27 22:45:33

Rentals.ca Report
March 2024 apartment rent, for 1 bedroom:
Vancouver $2,653 (US$1,953.98)
Toronto $2,495 (US$1,837.61)
Winnipeg is one of the more affordable cities $1,360 (US$1,001.80)
Google foreign exchange calculator

My first apartment in 1984 cost $360/month. That was for a 580 square foot apartment, 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, air conditioning. Building has multipurpose room, fitness room, indoor swimming pool, indoor sauna, underground parking. A spot in the underground heated parking garage cost $30/month extra. To be fair there has been inflation, $360 in 1984 works out to $954.39 (US$703.02) today. I would post what they're asking today, but the 6-story building currently has no vacancies. The management company doesn't post rent prices when there are no vacancies. Last time I checked that apartment was slightly higher than the average.

RobertDyck · 2024-03-27 22:57:12

Gas prices: GasBuddy
Let's skip the cheapest 4 gas stations in the city, look at the 5th. 6th, 7th, 8th, etc have similar prices. Regular gas.
Winnipeg: 139.9¢/Litre = US$3.90 / US Gallon
Toronto: 144.9¢/Litre = US$4.04 / US Gallon

Dallas Texas: US$2.93 / US Gallon

Do I have to post home heating costs? Grocery costs? All are increasing. And the government has said they will increase carbon tax April 1 from $65/tonne to $80/tonne.

In provinces that burn coal or natural gas to generate electricity, there's also carbon tax on electricity. Quebec and Manitoba are blessed with plentiful hydro electricity. In the early 2000s, Manitoba built a few windmills, but the vast majority is hydro. 100% of electricity in these two provinces is "green". However, other provinces don't have that luxury. Saskatchewan is flat as a pancake, no hydro at all. Alberta is in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, but very small rivers, not enough water flow. Alberta has 6% wind, 3% hydro, 2% biomass/geothermal, 36% coal, 54% natural gas. Not only does that mean carbon tax on electricity, but federal government places serious restrictions on building any new natural gas generating stations. Alberta is now experiencing brown-outs due to insufficient power for their growing economy.

RobertDyck · 2024-03-27 23:18:12

A YouTube channel in Canada with strong political bias: (click image)

Northern Perspective

Ps. CPAC in Canada means Cable Public Affairs Channel (formerly Canadian Parliamentary Access Channel). Canadian equivalent to C-SPAN. Canada was using this acronym long before anyone in the US decided to redefine it.

RobertDyck · 2024-03-28 11:16:50

Wikipedia: Motor fuel taxes in Canada
Manitoba (unleaded gasoline)
Federal excise tax: 10¢/L
Provincial excise tax: 0 (was 14¢/L, but suspended January 1)
carbon tax: 14.31¢/L (will increase to 17.61¢/L on April 1)
GST:5%
Provincial Sales Tax: 7%
(both sales taxes are charged on top of per litre taxes)

Manitoba didn't used to charge PST on gas because there's excise tax. They suspended excise tax but imposed PST. And the province gets revenue from carbon tax on gas. So it's really not a cut.

Ontario has 9% provincial excise tax, and PST is 8%. Other taxes the same.
Alberta has 9% provincial excise tax, but no PST.

RobertDyck · 2024-03-30 18:50:56

'Rain tax': People in Toronto could end up paying for the rain that falls on their property

Toronto is considering a change in the way it charges homeowners and businesses for water. The new charge is referred to as a “stormwater charge,” although many on social media are already calling it a “rain tax,” since it has to do with stormwater runoff.
The plan dates back to 2021, during the mayorship of John Tory, although an earlier proposal goes back to at least 2017. Still, its recent visibility has many pointing the finger at current Mayor Olivia Chow, and it has drawn mocking condemnation at home and abroad. Kevin Vuong, an Independent MP in Toronto’s Spadina-Fort York riding, took to social media to remark: “Seriously, they want to tax the rain.”

Calliban · 2024-03-30 19:25:30

RobertDyck wrote:

'Rain tax': People in Toronto could end up paying for the rain that falls on their property
Toronto is considering a change in the way it charges homeowners and businesses for water. The new charge is referred to as a “stormwater charge,” although many on social media are already calling it a “rain tax,” since it has to do with stormwater runoff.
The plan dates back to 2021, during the mayorship of John Tory, although an earlier proposal goes back to at least 2017. Still, its recent visibility has many pointing the finger at current Mayor Olivia Chow, and it has drawn mocking condemnation at home and abroad. Kevin Vuong, an Independent MP in Toronto’s Spadina-Fort York riding, took to social media to remark: “Seriously, they want to tax the rain.”

Reminds me of the Victorian window tax in the UK. Same general principle of taxing something that nature provides for free. Completely absurd, but such are the times we live in.

tahanson43206 · 2024-03-30 20:20:58

For Calliban re #24

Thanks for the reminder of the Window tax ... I had a copy of The Wealth of Nations at the bottom of a stack of books, and found the tax in the index as I expected. Adam Smith described the tax on pages 911 and 912, and the notes added by the index editor indicated that the tax tended to lower the rent.

In the states, we have something similar going on, but not with windows. My tax is computed upon the basis of a number of factors, including the number of wash rooms. A home owner will contribute to the public coffers by adding a second wash room, or more accurately, by adding the room and then confessing it's existence. Normally that "confession" occurs when the property changes hands, and the inspectors examine the property.

I am hoping RobertDyck might be willing to tell us a bit more about the "rain" tax. Here, we have to pay for the water we consume, as measured by a meter, and ** also ** for the associated flows into the waste water system.

I'm wondering if the "rain" tax has to do with managing the flow of rain water through a community. The cost of gutters and pipes needs to be covered by ** someone ** and the amount of property one has would seem like a reasonable way of allocating the cost.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-01-26 20:03:33

Re: Canadian politics

#2 2006-01-26 20:06:57

Re: Canadian politics

#3 2006-01-26 20:22:22

Re: Canadian politics

#4 2006-01-26 21:03:36

Re: Canadian politics

#5 2006-01-26 21:36:37

Re: Canadian politics

#6 2006-01-26 21:41:13

Re: Canadian politics

#7 2006-01-26 22:32:27

Re: Canadian politics

#8 2006-01-26 22:56:11

Re: Canadian politics

#9 2006-01-27 00:40:55

Re: Canadian politics

#10 2006-01-27 15:29:54

Re: Canadian politics

#11 2006-01-27 17:31:51

Re: Canadian politics

#12 2006-01-27 19:45:45

Re: Canadian politics

#13 2024-03-23 15:48:52

Re: Canadian politics

#14 2024-03-25 21:41:29

Re: Canadian politics

#15 2024-03-26 06:20:10

Re: Canadian politics

#16 2024-03-26 07:03:06

Re: Canadian politics

#17 2024-03-27 18:02:24

Re: Canadian politics

#18 2024-03-27 20:41:57

Re: Canadian politics

#19 2024-03-27 22:45:33

Re: Canadian politics

#20 2024-03-27 22:57:12

Re: Canadian politics

#21 2024-03-27 23:18:12

Re: Canadian politics

#22 2024-03-28 11:16:50

Re: Canadian politics

#23 2024-03-30 18:50:56

Re: Canadian politics

#24 2024-03-30 19:25:30

Re: Canadian politics

#25 2024-03-30 20:20:58

Re: Canadian politics

Board footer