The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Canadian Politics: <DBM> Incoming Election! Run Away From !Harper! </DBM>
Arivia
I Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered User regular
I Like A ChallengeEarth-1Registered User regular
These are the people we like:
This is the smarm-ass we're stuck with, though:
Discuss!
This is the smarm-ass we're stuck with, though:
Discuss!
Arivia on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
God, I am so bitter and disgusted in this 'government' right now! The only thing worse are the rubes who keep voting them in.
Also, was wondering if it might be possible Arivia to include in the title a reminder about Toronto elections to remind folks to vote, at least until it's done on the 25th?
That kitten looks absolutely terrified too.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
And before that he was merely exiled.
Done.
Most partisan OP in D&D? You bet. People just don't get what it takes to win in Canadian politics.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Damn right, we're where the junk is at.
Which gender's junk?
Celine Dion, Brian Adams, Nickleback .... yup, can't argue with that.
There's also an election in Thunder Bay that day.
fixed and we're up to 2 lines exactly!
edit: really it should just say ontario municipal in general but fuck that, that's boring
Oh well, thanks. You might as well add a (not for Lynn Peterson) line in there while you're at it!
I would like to clarify, America is Canada's sweat pants.
Except we have an army.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Of particularly stupid note, was that the conservatives were blaming Iggy for ruining this for canada, because he spoke ill of the government; apparently the opposition party has that much cred with the UN.
EDIT: @Gaddez
The Sun isn't so much conservative as it is bullshit. Read the Globe and Mail or maybe the National Post (although I haven't heard the best about this newspaper, I think it's alright, if not only for its Business section).
Steam: CavilatRest
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bernier-seeks-end-to-40-billion-in-social-health-transfers-to-provinces/article1754507/
The bolded bits are the important parts.
As regular readers of the Canadian politics thread will know, I am a staunch federalist. But I'm not the sort of federalist who thinks that the federal government should be involved in every conceivable program at all times under any circumstance, even if it contravenes the constitution. Unfortunately, that is the sort of federal government that we have been building in this country since the end of the Second World War and the expansion of the welfare state that occurred.
Obviously, many - perhaps all of us - agree that the welfare state is a good thing, and its universality is particular beneficial. As citizens, we've been absolutely willing and able to overlook the fact that many of our dearly beloved programs such as Medicare (and in particular, the Canada Health Act) are clearly in violation of the division of powers provisions in the Constitution Act, 1867. Many of our fellow countrymen have not, however, and that is one of the key reasons that we have, in my view, seen the rise of the nationalist movement in Québec since the Quiet Revolution. If anyone has read any Canadian history, they will know that there have always been nationalists in Québec - Henri Bourassa, founder of Le Devoir chief amongst them - but it has only been since the Quiet Revolution that this nationalism has turned into widespread belief in the necessity for either sovereignty-association or a completely separate, independent Québec.
The answer in my mind is quite clear. Even if we hold universal medicare dear to ourselves (as I do) and any other aspect of the welfare state (pension plan, etc), the only way to achieve lasting unity between Québec and the Rest of Canada is to have the federal government stop violating provincial areas of jurisdiction. That may mean Ottawa no longer provides bloc transfers to provinces. That may mean some provinces may change the way medicare is delivered. But I am ready to say 'so be it,' if the result is harmonious federal-provincial relations.
I think it is easy for English Canadians who are illiterate when it comes to our federalism to dismiss Bernier's position as what someone in the last thread called, 'American-style constitutional fetishism.' It's not. At all.
So, let's talk about it, thread. I think this idea is fucking fantastic, and even though I am basically a dirty socialist, I would absolutely vote for any party which made this the main plank in their platform, irrespective of any of their other views. What do you all think?
And I would consider establishing a national minimum standard of living a key responsibility of any national government. Just as I consider it a requirement of the UN/any other world governmental body to stop genocides. Otherwise, what's the fucking point? Let's just Ron Paul it up here instead.
This is a feeler for public opinion. It's the same old "let's privatise health care" argument from the Conservatives, thinly veiled to trick the lazy reader into thinking it's about provincial autonomy. They've had Bernier put it out there, they'll run internal polls during this week and monitor media reaction, then based on response they will either disavow or support. It's a naked political move to try and resuscitate a dead argument.
As others said, the whole premise of this relies on the increasing of taxes making up for the removal of transfer payments. Good luck with that in the smaller provinces, and get ready for a wide disparity of care in this country if it does happen.
I like Bernier a lot.
And I don't think it's only a Quebec issue, I think it's a west issue as well. The Liberals basically balanced their budgets on Provinces' backs, yet somehow more provincial autonomy is some Conservative conspiracy to ruin universal healthcare.
And the argument that Manitoba (or another have-not) needs the fed. Gov. To pay for it's healthcare doesn't make sense because Bernier's plan doesn't involve equalization. So the balancing of the money doesn't change, it's just the money doesn't get touched by the federal government before it's divied out.
Of course Ontarians wouldn't see why it matters if healthcare money goes to the fed first then the province, because Ontario almost always elects the government, almost alone. But if you're Alberta, Quebec or BC...
One more thing for the left wing to consider... NDP sometimes forms provincial governments. If provinces had more power then those provincial governments would have more power to do NDP stuff. So it's not some shadowy scary-conservative thing.
http://www.desequilibrefiscal.gouv.qc.ca/en/document/publication.htm
Read the following: http://www.desequilibrefiscal.gouv.qc.ca/en/pdf/historique_en.pdf
Then this: http://www.desequilibrefiscal.gouv.qc.ca/en/pdf/pouvoir_en.pdf
Followed by this: http://www.desequilibrefiscal.gouv.qc.ca/en/pdf/federal_transfer.pdf
Bernier is endorsing the position and conclusions of the Commission on the Fiscal Imbalance. This is huge news. I totally disagree with your characterization that all of this is a 'thinly veiled trick' to eliminate medicare. This is all about federal-provincial relations and the minutiae of fiscal federalism, and while it's not sexy or talked about in question period, it's fundamentally important to the working of our federation.
It absolutely does. The Canada Health Act and the Federal Ministry of Health attempt to impose federal standards on an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, the federal government routinely uses its spending power to impose its policy goals on areas outside of its mandate.
I don't think is something to be proud of, the guy who defended the census as essential in 2006, claimed he received thousands of complaints about it in 2010, then "lost" the emails, then retracts the claim about thousands, then says it doesn't matter how many complaints because it's a matter of principle, brings up the possibility of data breaches/loss of privacy... after being the guy who left sensitive NATO documents at his girlfriend's house.
I'd like examples of how the federal government is jerking around the provinces on the issue of health care. I don't deny that the federal government screws around with provincial/municipal government in other areas, nor that technically health care is under provincial jurisdiction. But I don't see why health care is the area of concern here, when I've got Canada's Economic Action Plan signs stalking me everywhere I go for projects both municipal and provincial, on the pains of withheld/incomplete funding.
I mean, I don't deny that crime is an issue, but I don't think minor unreported crime is the area to get all gung-ho on. If we're going to reign in federal overreach, really, the point in contention is going to be the fact that they want all Canadians to receive a minimum standard of care? Because *that*'s offensive to us?
This is even aside from the fact that federal-provincial relationship difficulties isn't solely the fault of the federal government as you seem to believe, given that the provincial government likes to contest areas of jurisdiction in which powers aren't as clearly defined by trying to punt off their responsibilities to the federal government (Aboriginal education policies I'm looking at you). By simply focusing on the fiscal transfer arrangements, you do nothing to prevent these disagreements from occurring and continuing to fragment a sense of 'national unity.'
And you can drop the immature, underhanded jab at illiteracy. You obviously read the relevant quotes, since you bolded them, so as has been mentioned in the posts before me you could explain how references to the 'Founders of Confederation', their intentions, and the BNA Act or the constitution at least a half-dozen times aren't an attempt to appeal to 'American constitutional fetishism'. If Bernier had wanted to make an argument grounded in federal overreach in federal-provincial relations, he wouldn't have spoken that the problem is somehow deriving from a neglect of the Constitution, he would instead have specified that the federal government is unduly affecting the provincial capacity to deliver their own services. To suggest (him) that the federal government is in the wrong because it oversteps something written in the Constitution (putting aside the inferences to the 'founding fathers intent') on a policy-implementation basis (ignoring issues of rights which are a different matter) is to neglect the fact that our Constitution is not an inviolable document, that we view it as a necessarily malleable beast (the Charter for instance), and that if we require that a change in working relations is the best course of action to placate both the provinces and the federal government that we run with that and don't constrain ourselves artificially by what is written 150 years ago.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Sigh...
The way our country is built isn't an abstraction. There is a reason why the Queen is on our money and her agent signs our laws. Yea it's boring but its important. (edit: and if you're going to make the argument that healthcare should be a federal responsibility, the constitution has a provision to amend it.)
Native land being stolen/conquered/bought/sold happened just as long ago. Shouldn't we respect a "literal, historically accurate interpretation," of those agreements as well?
Exactly! We shouldn't. Because if we started adhering to remedying things within the context of 150 years ago, it severely messes with the current setup of our country when those claims happen to overlap with say a city that has popped up in the traditional territory in the intervening years. It's not necessarily fair that a given group doesn't get complete remediation for past crimes/wrongs, but then it's also not necessarily fair if we were to take an opposite approach and completely remedy the wrongs as they were then and in doing so harm the current population through a massive change in communities, jobs, lives. That's why there's a (hilariously dysfunctional) dialogue between Aboriginal groups and the federal government, to come to the best solution that accommodates both sides and takes into account things like context, or alternatively how politics functions.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I'd like to respect a coherent interpretation of your post, but I can't even manage that. Let's face it, the Queen hasn't been our head of state for decades now, not even in the form of the governor general. Last time our Queen made an important decision through the Canadian government that impacted Canadians? Like, are you saying that we should return to a state wherein we look to the Queen for power? Or that we... I don't even get the point about natives. No, I don't think we should respect a literal, historically accurate of those agreements.... It's hardly like if we did, aboriginal Canadians would suddenly be unscrewed.
Shit, you can't even get a cell phone without signing a contract that says that your carrier can change the contract at will. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is occasionally suspended in cases in which our Supreme Court believes it in the national interest. I can jaywalk in front of a police car and not get ticketed. This world in which our laws and documents are treated literally and are sacrosanct simply doesn't exist except in people's imaginations.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12