It's discouraging but not surprising that some suppliers are more or less literally using the excuse "Well, Canadians are used to paying more, so it's okay". It's also pretty rage inducing.
I remember the greeting card and book companies went through the wringer when the dollars hit parity. For a while, most places were letting you pay the US price on the items. Then mysteriously all the books and greetings cards shifted to just being a single price.
I'm pretty convinced that our single price is higher than the one on items in the US.
Frankly if you live anywhere near the US border, it just becomes very easy to do most of your shopping online in the states, then have your items shipped (for free) to a place near the border and go pick 'em up for a 5$ fee. We use a local one in Port Huron, MI and it's just been great but there are full commercial enterprises for it, like https://www.kinek.com/
To boot, most of the time you don't even get nailed for tax or duty when you're coming back across the border.
What I found amazing about Hyer's statement is that it doesn't read like he left because of the gun registry vote, but because he didn't get a shadow cabinet position and, therefore, his constituents are being muzzled.
OTTAWA – Bruce Hyer is dropping his caucus affiliation with the New Democratic Party to sit as an Independent in Parliament.
“I was honoured when the voters of Thunder Bay-Superior North chose me to be their voice in the House of Commons. I committed to them to be honest, open, and accessible, and to keep my campaign promises.” said Hyer in Parliament. “I have much respect for most Members in this House. But our three main parties require lockstep discipline, with little room for meaningful public debate... or for putting constituents ahead of party politics.”
“Instead of cooperation and compromise, voters often see mindless solidarity, where political parties are always right and voters are always wrong. One example is the long gun registry, where there has been no real compromise at all. Mr. Mulcair has made it clear he will bring back the long gun registry, and will use the whip. I am also concerned that Mr. Mulcair does not seem willing to co-operate with other parties on important issues. And on climate change, parties are hopelessly locked to Cap & Trade or outright inaction, making compromise to achieve even piecemeal progress impossible.”
First elected in 2008, Hyer was left out the NDP shadow cabinet announcement last week. “One of the jobs of any new Leader is to unite their party, and there are different ways to do that. Being excluded from any position was a clear message that my constituents will be muzzled.”
“As an Independent voice, I will better be able to represent my constituents in Parliament. I will focus on doing what I have worked hard to do for over three years: Help the people being mistreated by federal agencies like CRA or EI. Work with all parties or MPs when possible to make Parliament work. And speak up inside and outside the House for issues important for Northwestern Ontario, and Canada.” Hyer concluded.
There are three Northern Ontarians in the shadow cabinet: Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, Consumer Protection), John Rafferty (Thunder Bay - Rainy River, Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), and Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ethics, Access to Information and Privacy) so that's not it, I think. That's already half of the NDP's northern Ontario ridings, and there are only 10 total. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt) isn't a shadow cabinet member, but he was/is Natural Resources critic according to Wikipedia.
Admittedly, the shadow cabinet is huge - 53 out of the 101 NDP MPs - and some of the Quebec newbies have positions, but that's to be expected, I think, based on the electoral map and the fact that the shadow cabinet is huge. I mean, it makes sense for a 21-year old (Charmaine Borg) to be the shadow Minister of Digital Affairs too.
In short, I can't figure out what he's got his undies in a twist about, but I tried!
Retailers in Canada report that they are charged anywhere between 10-50 per cent more for identical products by the same suppliers, according to the [Retailers Council of Canada] report.
The report gave examples of items sold by suppliers at different price points in Canada and the U.S.
Ibuprophen 200 mg, sells to U.S. retailers for $10.76 and to Canadian retailers for $18.29, a difference of 70 per cent. A bottle of Aspirin 81 mg low dose sells to U.S. retailers for $10.16, and to Canadian retailers for $21.78, a difference of 114 per cent.
Canadian retailers say their suppliers tell them they charge more because Canadians are used to paying more for products in Canada; that the higher prices subsidize the costs of maintaining offices and operations in Canada, and that the higher prices are necessary to compensate their Canadian distributors and wholesalers.
Brisebois (president of the RCC) said that while it is not the case for all suppliers and all products, the different prices charged by suppliers it is the largest contributing factor to the difference in prices between Canada and the United States in situations where it occurs.
The RCC also blamed outdated tariffs on finished goods like some clothes, pantyhose, wooden bedroom furniture, bed linens, towels and pillows.
Though the source may be biased.
I could have told you that. Also, what does that have to do with HST? It didn't even mention tax.
For the first time in my life I've voted for a winner! It feels so weird to vote for a non conservative candidate and actually have them get elected. The power!!!!111
On a serious note I'm hoping that this moderates the PC's and inclines them to work more with the left as they have to realize that a decent portion of their vote came from there as the wildrose freaked people out.
Edmonton-Centre has a Liberal incumbent that has been there for a while. Made my decision very easy. I think this is the first vote I've cast for the 'winning' party since voting for the Liberals in 2001 when I lived in B.C.
Retailers in Canada report that they are charged anywhere between 10-50 per cent more for identical products by the same suppliers, according to the [Retailers Council of Canada] report.
The report gave examples of items sold by suppliers at different price points in Canada and the U.S.
Ibuprophen 200 mg, sells to U.S. retailers for $10.76 and to Canadian retailers for $18.29, a difference of 70 per cent. A bottle of Aspirin 81 mg low dose sells to U.S. retailers for $10.16, and to Canadian retailers for $21.78, a difference of 114 per cent.
Canadian retailers say their suppliers tell them they charge more because Canadians are used to paying more for products in Canada; that the higher prices subsidize the costs of maintaining offices and operations in Canada, and that the higher prices are necessary to compensate their Canadian distributors and wholesalers.
Brisebois (president of the RCC) said that while it is not the case for all suppliers and all products, the different prices charged by suppliers it is the largest contributing factor to the difference in prices between Canada and the United States in situations where it occurs.
The RCC also blamed outdated tariffs on finished goods like some clothes, pantyhose, wooden bedroom furniture, bed linens, towels and pillows.
Though the source may be biased.
I could have told you that. Also, what does that have to do with HST? It didn't even mention tax.
It addresses why a BC business might not be able to lower their prices despite the removal of the HST. For example, a drug store couldn't sell Ibuprophen for less even after the HST was removed if the supplier is charging the same price regardless, and this article points to the fact that the suppliers clearly don't set their prices in a rational, economically efficient way.
Retailers in Canada report that they are charged anywhere between 10-50 per cent more for identical products by the same suppliers, according to the [Retailers Council of Canada] report.
The report gave examples of items sold by suppliers at different price points in Canada and the U.S.
Ibuprophen 200 mg, sells to U.S. retailers for $10.76 and to Canadian retailers for $18.29, a difference of 70 per cent. A bottle of Aspirin 81 mg low dose sells to U.S. retailers for $10.16, and to Canadian retailers for $21.78, a difference of 114 per cent.
Canadian retailers say their suppliers tell them they charge more because Canadians are used to paying more for products in Canada; that the higher prices subsidize the costs of maintaining offices and operations in Canada, and that the higher prices are necessary to compensate their Canadian distributors and wholesalers.
Brisebois (president of the RCC) said that while it is not the case for all suppliers and all products, the different prices charged by suppliers it is the largest contributing factor to the difference in prices between Canada and the United States in situations where it occurs.
The RCC also blamed outdated tariffs on finished goods like some clothes, pantyhose, wooden bedroom furniture, bed linens, towels and pillows.
Though the source may be biased.
I could have told you that. Also, what does that have to do with HST? It didn't even mention tax.
It addresses why a BC business might not be able to lower their prices despite the removal of the HST. For example, a drug store couldn't sell Ibuprophen for less even after the HST was removed if the supplier is charging the same price regardless, and this article points to the fact that the suppliers clearly don't set their prices in a rational, economically efficient way.
I like how the excuse for the price inflation is them having to setup satellite offices for their shell corporations to avoid paying taxes/tarriffs, then wanting the profit margins for those businesses to be at the same rate as the original supplier.
Hey, that's exactly what I was saying! Businesses won't lower prices because they don't give a damn about tax savings. According to the article, those businesses are the suppliers not the end merchants, but it's the same thing.
Hey, that's exactly what I was saying! Businesses won't lower prices because they don't give a damn about tax savings. According to the article, those businesses are the suppliers not the end merchants, but it's the same thing.
You are making the same mistake you've been making the whole time though.
Businesses don't lower prices because of tax savings, they lower prices because of competition. Tax savings just control how much a business can lower prices.
You lower taxes and businesses can lower their prices. But they won't without some reason to do so.
Suppliers have no reason to lower prices because of exactly what the article says: Canadians are willing to pay the higher prices.
Hey, that's exactly what I was saying! Businesses won't lower prices because they don't give a damn about tax savings. According to the article, those businesses are the suppliers not the end merchants, but it's the same thing.
Yes, but when discussing HST it also saves the Provincial Government money, which means money that can either mean lowered taxes or increased funding to other projects / departments. Its not like the legislature / premier can cut themselves a fat bonus like a private corporation can.
EDIT: Also, regarding the Alberta election, I'm really happy my riding managed to elect an NDP challenger to oust the PC incumbent.
Jesus christ hippofant links something that said exactly what I have been saying this entire time and suddenly everyone is agreeing that HST didn't and wouldn't have caused prices to drop, and somehow I'm still wrong?
Hey, that's exactly what I was saying! Businesses won't lower prices because they don't give a damn about tax savings. According to the article, those businesses are the suppliers not the end merchants, but it's the same thing.
You are making the same mistake you've been making the whole time though.
Businesses don't lower prices because of tax savings, they lower prices because of competition. Tax savings just control how much a business can lower prices.
You lower taxes and businesses can lower their prices. But they won't without some reason to do so.
Suppliers have no reason to lower prices because of exactly what the article says: Canadians are willing to pay the higher prices.
That is exactly what I was saying. I was saying that HST was not going to get businesses to lower prices, because they don't care about having low prices, they care about profit. Now you are saying exactly the same thing.
Hey, that's exactly what I was saying! Businesses won't lower prices because they don't give a damn about tax savings. According to the article, those businesses are the suppliers not the end merchants, but it's the same thing.
Yes, but when discussing HST it also saves the Provincial Government money, which means money that can either mean lowered taxes or increased funding to other projects / departments. Its not like the legislature / premier can cut themselves a fat bonus like a private corporation can.
For about the third or fourth time now, I NEVER said that HST was bad for the province. I said that it had to go because the message was more important than the cost of getting rid of it. I never once said that HST wouldn't save the government money. All I have been arguing is that it did not, and was not going to, result in lower prices in BC, which apparently everyone is suddenly on board with while still somehow disagreeing with me.
Jesus christ hippofant links something that said exactly what I have been saying this entire time and suddenly everyone is agreeing that HST didn't and wouldn't have caused prices to drop, and somehow I'm still wrong?
Hey, that's exactly what I was saying! Businesses won't lower prices because they don't give a damn about tax savings. According to the article, those businesses are the suppliers not the end merchants, but it's the same thing.
You are making the same mistake you've been making the whole time though.
Businesses don't lower prices because of tax savings, they lower prices because of competition. Tax savings just control how much a business can lower prices.
You lower taxes and businesses can lower their prices. But they won't without some reason to do so.
Suppliers have no reason to lower prices because of exactly what the article says: Canadians are willing to pay the higher prices.
That is exactly what I was saying. I was saying that HST was not going to get businesses to lower prices, because they don't care about having low prices, they care about profit. Now you are saying exactly the same thing.
Hey, that's exactly what I was saying! Businesses won't lower prices because they don't give a damn about tax savings. According to the article, those businesses are the suppliers not the end merchants, but it's the same thing.
Yes, but when discussing HST it also saves the Provincial Government money, which means money that can either mean lowered taxes or increased funding to other projects / departments. Its not like the legislature / premier can cut themselves a fat bonus like a private corporation can.
For about the third or fourth time now, I NEVER said that HST was bad for the province. I said that it had to go because the message was more important than the cost of getting rid of it. I never once said that HST wouldn't save the government money. All I have been arguing is that it did not, and was not going to, result in lower prices in BC, which apparently everyone is suddenly on board with while still somehow disagreeing with me.
I dont recall anyone saying that implementing HST would cause businesses to lower their prices, only that it would save them some money. And the reason no one wants to be seen to agree with you is because you generally act like a goosey asshole.
Voting out a lying government at the next election is fine. Getting rid of the HST was just the BC electorate cutting off its nose to spite its face. Prices on goods fell in Atlantic Canada when the HST was introduced there, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't have happened eventually in BC.
You mean this, gnome? This quote which is the only thing I have been arguing about this entire time? And you never even read what the discussion was about? God, you people.
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I appreciate that he wanted to take a stance for something he believes his constituants are opposed to. But being part of a Federal party is also about considering the good of the nation. If you and your constitutants believe in X, then by all means argue and fight for X. But when most of the nation's representatives decide that Y is actually the best option overall, then you have to compromise. You can't just ignore the nation and go with X because it's what you want and ignore the rest of the country. And on top of it, he accuses Muclair of being inflexible when he himself can't even compromise on a meaningless symbolic vote! Hyer needs to take a good look in a mirror.
I'm not gonna defend this guy in particular, but I don't get this, Richy. Representatives are supposed to vote individually. Yeah, parties whip the vote, but what you said sounds to me like saying an MP should never vote against the majority; that is, all votes should be unanimous because it's what the nation wants, right? An MP should vote for the most popular option because going against the majority is being unwilling to compromise?
Jesus christ hippofant links something that said exactly what I have been saying this entire time and suddenly everyone is agreeing that HST didn't and wouldn't have caused prices to drop, and somehow I'm still wrong?
Hey, that's exactly what I was saying! Businesses won't lower prices because they don't give a damn about tax savings. According to the article, those businesses are the suppliers not the end merchants, but it's the same thing.
You are making the same mistake you've been making the whole time though.
Businesses don't lower prices because of tax savings, they lower prices because of competition. Tax savings just control how much a business can lower prices.
You lower taxes and businesses can lower their prices. But they won't without some reason to do so.
Suppliers have no reason to lower prices because of exactly what the article says: Canadians are willing to pay the higher prices.
That is exactly what I was saying. I was saying that HST was not going to get businesses to lower prices, because they don't care about having low prices, they care about profit. Now you are saying exactly the same thing.
No, I'm not. I'm saying tax savings don't directly lower prices. That doesn't mean they don't lead to lower prices, it's just there's other forces involved. The same forces that control the price of things in the first place.
It doesn't matter if suppliers prices stay the same. The retail location is still selling it for more and taking their profit off of that extra money. Lower their costs and they can lower their prices and still make more profit because expenses have gone down.
Hey, that's exactly what I was saying! Businesses won't lower prices because they don't give a damn about tax savings. According to the article, those businesses are the suppliers not the end merchants, but it's the same thing.
Yes, but when discussing HST it also saves the Provincial Government money, which means money that can either mean lowered taxes or increased funding to other projects / departments. Its not like the legislature / premier can cut themselves a fat bonus like a private corporation can.
For about the third or fourth time now, I NEVER said that HST was bad for the province. I said that it had to go because the message was more important than the cost of getting rid of it. I never once said that HST wouldn't save the government money. All I have been arguing is that it did not, and was not going to, result in lower prices in BC, which apparently everyone is suddenly on board with while still somehow disagreeing with me.
No, people are still saying it will result in lower prices in BC.
You really don't seem to grasp the argument here at all.
Businesses only lower prices due to market forces, like competition. Savings due to HST may prompt some businesses to lower their prices in an attempt to gain market share by beating the competition to taking advantage of the reduced costs/expenses. But the HST in and of itself wont cause any prices to lower.
I appreciate that he wanted to take a stance for something he believes his constituants are opposed to. But being part of a Federal party is also about considering the good of the nation. If you and your constitutants believe in X, then by all means argue and fight for X. But when most of the nation's representatives decide that Y is actually the best option overall, then you have to compromise. You can't just ignore the nation and go with X because it's what you want and ignore the rest of the country. And on top of it, he accuses Muclair of being inflexible when he himself can't even compromise on a meaningless symbolic vote! Hyer needs to take a good look in a mirror.
I'm not gonna defend this guy in particular, but I don't get this, Richy. Representatives are supposed to vote individually. Yeah, parties whip the vote, but what you said sounds to me like saying an MP should never vote against the majority; that is, all votes should be unanimous because it's what the nation wants, right? An MP should vote for the most popular option because going against the majority is being unwilling to compromise?
I believe there is a balance to be reached. Not all votes should be unanimous, the MP should defend his riding's interests, of course. Otherwise the people are simply not represented. But he shouldn't consider it his duty to represent his riding while ignoring (or to the detriment of) the rest of the country. That's the extreme that led to so many problems in the US, so many programs that waste money and hurt the nation but cannot be stopped because they benefit many (or key) states and regions.
Bruce Hyer was elected as an NDP MP, not as an independent. That means both that people trust him to represent them, and that they agree with the NDP platform in general. He needs to strike that balance between those two, sometimes conflicting objectives. I do not believe he did this in his recent decisions.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
All right. I was just really confused by your post.
The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF) said Monday it had left voluntary talks after the government rejected its offer to accept a two-year wage freeze but not give up the right to bank sick days until retirement, said president Ken Coran.
Moreover, the union is seeking a four-year deal that would include cost-of-living increases in the final two years, whereas the government is seeking a two-year deal only. The Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario walked away from talks earlier this month over Ontario’s call for a public-sector wage freeze to help wipe out the deficit by 2017.
Ruh roh. ETFO (Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario) walked away earlier too, so that's every teacher in Ontario's public school system. I think the Catholic system teachers are still in talks.
The sick day thing really confuses me though. You don't want teachers taking sick days during the school year. Sick days cause havoc with a curriculum, because supply teachers never do diddly-squat. Furthermore, the province apparently made this demand:
Limit of six sick days per year, similar to what Ontario public service workers are entitled to. Teachers off work for more than six days would be forced to go on short-term medical leave at 66% of salary.
Are you kidding me? You really expect a teacher to teach some 100 different kids every day for a year and get sick for six days?
However, a lawyer for the three sex workers who succeeded in striking down some of the prostitution provisions accused the government of sitting on its hands since the Ontario decision was rendered on March 28.
Lawyer Alan Young said that the government’s “11th-hour request” has made it virtually impossible for his clients to provide a meaningful response, cross-examine Crown experts or provide evidence.
“It is submitted that this late request also puts this Honourable Court in the difficult position of making a decision, even a temporary one, on the basis of a fragmented and potentially misleading record,” said Prof. Young, who teaches law at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School.
Abortion rights are at the centre of a debate MPs are set to discuss Thursday as they consider whether to hold a special committee to look at when human life begins.
Stephen Woodworth, a Conservative MP from Kitchener, Ont., introduced a private members motion calling for the committee. Woodworth says current Canadian law says human life begins when a child has fully emerged from the mother's birth canal, which is based on a 400-year-old definition imported from Britain.
The motion isn't binding but allows MPs to spend two hours discussing the need or lack of need for a committee to look at when life begins.
When he announced the motion, Woodworth had argued he was simply interested in updating the law to agree with 21st century medicine. But speaking to Radio-Canada on Monday, he admitted his motion is linked to abortion.
"It certainly allows us to have an honest discussion about the abortion question. How can we honestly discuss all of the complicated issues around abortion if we cannot decide whether or not a child is a human being before the moment of the complete birth?" Woodworth said...
So, what do people think? Is this a vote-getting exercise, a feeler to see what the public response to re-opening the abortion debate, or something to keep the anti-abortion Conservative supporters happy?
It's framed in exactly the way that the Harper Government would want it to be to feel out public response. Plenty of escape hatches and double-talk opportunities should reaction be overwhelmingly negative.
I actually heard part of that MP's interview on CBC. He openly admitted that he disagrees with Harper's stance on leaving abortion rights alone (which he claims Harper honestly believes and wants to do).
Private members bill... tons of stupid shit comes up in these types of bills. Expect it to be a free vote, and expect Harper to vote against it... he's not stupid, regardless of what he feels about it personally.
I actually heard part of that MP's interview on CBC. He openly admitted that he disagrees with Harper's stance on leaving abortion rights alone (which he claims Harper honestly believes and wants to do).
Can you really blame him?
Bringing up that topic and taking a stance on it virtually guarantees the end of your political career. Even among Conservatives, you would find a heavy mix of pro-choice and pro-lifers - not to mention left leaning voters. I think any public discourse regarding this will have to be slow and extremely controlled, or else it will snowball into the shit storm of contemporary abortion debate.
Thus, I completely understand Harper's reluctance to open that debate. Even if you are for or against him, you have to understand how that would be political suicide.
The only thing that's providing me any comfort with this is how politically suicidal it would be for this to be any more than a blip for the Cons. Pro-life stance does nothing except alienate centrist and left voters, while securing them nobody that isn't already in their camp anyways. Maybe it'd be different if they had centrist party shoving them out to the fringe.
I'm almost hoping that they are even more harsh in shutting this MP down, just because of how politically damaging this topic could be if it stays in the news.
I'm all in support of the Conservative MPs putting forward pants on head crazy private members bills. As long as the Liberals/NDPs arent dog chasing its own tail stupid they can have their candidates actually run against the MPs and have a better chance of stealing seats in the next election.
Its the silent backbenchers that are harder to push out, unless their riding is sick with the entire party they represent.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was shouted down during a debate in question period Thursday on the Afghanistan mission for suggesting the NDP – not yet in existence – didn’t even support Canada’s military involvement in the Second World War.
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair was asking Harper if he intended to extend the Afghanistan mission past 2014 after a Postmedia News report Wednesday said U.S officials had asked Canadian special forces to stay past the withdrawal date.
The prime minister responded the NDP has a pacifistic ideology “regardless of circumstances” and his government would make the right decision for Afghanistan’s security.
“In 1939, the NDP leader didn’t even want to support the fight against Hitler,” Harper said, before being drowned out by cat calls.
NDP MPs gently reminded Harper from across the aisle that the NDP didn’t come into existence until 1961, birthed by a union between the socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and the Canadian Labour Congress.
“CCF, NDP, same difference,” Harper responded curtly.
“I guess we can start talking about Reform Party policies,” Mulcair replied, to the delight of the opposition benches.
I'm A-OK with most of the shit we give the Conservatives in this thread, as they largely deserve it, but I do have to point out Gordon O'Connor's response to the debate on Woodworth's bill:
But O'Connor disagreed, saying "the ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict abortions at some development stage in Canada." If the legal definition of when a person is considered a human being is changed, and a fetus is then considered a human being then homicide laws would apply, and abortion, as a consequence, would be considered homicide, O'Connor said.
He was the only other Conservative MP to speak during the debate, and he urged everyone to reject his colleague's motion whenever it comes to a vote.
O'Connor said abortion is a serious decision for women to make and he wants all women to continue to live in a society where they can make that decison "without the threat of legal consequences."
Whether one accepts abortion or not, it will always be part of society, O'Connor said, adding that he can't understand why those who are opposed to it want to impose their belief on others through the Criminal Code.
"Trying to amend the legal rules governing abortion as is intended by this motion will not improve the situation, it will only lead to increased conflict as the attempt is made to turn back the clock," said O'Connor. "Society has moved on and I don't believe this proposal should proceed. As well, it is in opposition to our government's position."
He should be applauded for that, as should a number of Conservatives who are opposed to this bill. Now, with that bullshit non-issue out of the way, we can get back to legitimately criticizing on pretty much everything else they do...
Yeah, I expected the Conservatives to officially not support it like they said they would, but I didn't expect them to smack it down this hard.
The motion is dumb and all, but I'm pretty interested in seeing who will end up voting in favour of it after today's debate since it's not going to be whipped.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was shouted down during a debate in question period Thursday on the Afghanistan mission for suggesting the NDP – not yet in existence – didn’t even support Canada’s military involvement in the Second World War.
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair was asking Harper if he intended to extend the Afghanistan mission past 2014 after a Postmedia News report Wednesday said U.S officials had asked Canadian special forces to stay past the withdrawal date.
The prime minister responded the NDP has a pacifistic ideology “regardless of circumstances” and his government would make the right decision for Afghanistan’s security.
“In 1939, the NDP leader didn’t even want to support the fight against Hitler,” Harper said, before being drowned out by cat calls.
NDP MPs gently reminded Harper from across the aisle that the NDP didn’t come into existence until 1961, birthed by a union between the socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and the Canadian Labour Congress.
“CCF, NDP, same difference,” Harper responded curtly.
“I guess we can start talking about Reform Party policies,” Mulcair replied, to the delight of the opposition benches.
I had CPAC on in the background when that happened, and I didn't hear the question that made him bring up Hitler. Now that I know what it was, I can't really see a reason for going there. He godwinned the House of Commons. What the balls?!?
...Because, unlike with a privately run new megaphone, I don't have to put up with this shit. I'm not interested in paying someone to fucking lie to me.
@ 11 : 05
I'm sure everyone here already knows that Kevin O'Leary is a shit eating Libertarian who likes to play sociopath on TV (a real sociopath would floss their teeth with his finger bones; he's just a spoiled & entitled Boomer who can't grasp that the fiat currency he gets so much mileage out of is only possible because of a centralized government), but whatever, I don't need to have this lie infect my public programming as much as it's infected private programming in in the U.S.
I'm A-OK with most of the shit we give the Conservatives in this thread, as they largely deserve it, but I do have to point out Gordon O'Connor's response to the debate on Woodworth's bill:
But O'Connor disagreed, saying "the ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict abortions at some development stage in Canada." If the legal definition of when a person is considered a human being is changed, and a fetus is then considered a human being then homicide laws would apply, and abortion, as a consequence, would be considered homicide, O'Connor said.
He was the only other Conservative MP to speak during the debate, and he urged everyone to reject his colleague's motion whenever it comes to a vote.
O'Connor said abortion is a serious decision for women to make and he wants all women to continue to live in a society where they can make that decison "without the threat of legal consequences."
Whether one accepts abortion or not, it will always be part of society, O'Connor said, adding that he can't understand why those who are opposed to it want to impose their belief on others through the Criminal Code.
"Trying to amend the legal rules governing abortion as is intended by this motion will not improve the situation, it will only lead to increased conflict as the attempt is made to turn back the clock," said O'Connor. "Society has moved on and I don't believe this proposal should proceed. As well, it is in opposition to our government's position."
He should be applauded for that, as should a number of Conservatives who are opposed to this bill. Now, with that bullshit non-issue out of the way, we can get back to legitimately criticizing on pretty much everything else they do...
Yeah, I was impressed as well. I really didn't expect the strength of the response, and I respect O'Connor for spelling out the situation the way he did, without any weasel words or public relations speech.
...Because, unlike with a privately run new megaphone, I don't have to put up with this shit. I'm not interested in paying someone to fucking lie to me.
@ 11 : 05
I'm sure everyone here already knows that Kevin O'Leary is a shit eating Libertarian who likes to play sociopath on TV (a real sociopath would floss their teeth with his finger bones; he's just a spoiled & entitled Boomer who can't grasp that the fiat currency he gets so much mileage out of is only possible because of a centralized government), but whatever, I don't need to have this lie infect my public programming as much as it's infected private programming in in the U.S.
Kevin O'Leary asserts that man-made climate change is not occurring, and that data supports his conclusion, and he is not challenged on this remark.
This is wrong. All of the data provided by NOAA and NASA (among other bodies studying the issue) strongly support the conclusion that the Earth is warming and that man-made CO2 is the cause of the warming. There are skeptics of this idea within the academic community, but the overwhelming consensus is that man-made climate change is real and it is a concern.
This is not a contentious issue and this broadcast made it seem as though it is, which contributes to public confusion. I would like a correction issued, please.
Posts
I'm pretty convinced that our single price is higher than the one on items in the US.
Frankly if you live anywhere near the US border, it just becomes very easy to do most of your shopping online in the states, then have your items shipped (for free) to a place near the border and go pick 'em up for a 5$ fee. We use a local one in Port Huron, MI and it's just been great but there are full commercial enterprises for it, like https://www.kinek.com/
To boot, most of the time you don't even get nailed for tax or duty when you're coming back across the border.
There are three Northern Ontarians in the shadow cabinet: Glenn Thibeault (Sudbury, Consumer Protection), John Rafferty (Thunder Bay - Rainy River, Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario), and Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ethics, Access to Information and Privacy) so that's not it, I think. That's already half of the NDP's northern Ontario ridings, and there are only 10 total. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt) isn't a shadow cabinet member, but he was/is Natural Resources critic according to Wikipedia.
Admittedly, the shadow cabinet is huge - 53 out of the 101 NDP MPs - and some of the Quebec newbies have positions, but that's to be expected, I think, based on the electoral map and the fact that the shadow cabinet is huge. I mean, it makes sense for a 21-year old (Charmaine Borg) to be the shadow Minister of Digital Affairs too.
In short, I can't figure out what he's got his undies in a twist about, but I tried!
I could have told you that. Also, what does that have to do with HST? It didn't even mention tax.
Edmonton-Centre has a Liberal incumbent that has been there for a while. Made my decision very easy. I think this is the first vote I've cast for the 'winning' party since voting for the Liberals in 2001 when I lived in B.C.
I never finish anyth
It addresses why a BC business might not be able to lower their prices despite the removal of the HST. For example, a drug store couldn't sell Ibuprophen for less even after the HST was removed if the supplier is charging the same price regardless, and this article points to the fact that the suppliers clearly don't set their prices in a rational, economically efficient way.
I like how the excuse for the price inflation is them having to setup satellite offices for their shell corporations to avoid paying taxes/tarriffs, then wanting the profit margins for those businesses to be at the same rate as the original supplier.
MWO: Adamski
You are making the same mistake you've been making the whole time though.
Businesses don't lower prices because of tax savings, they lower prices because of competition. Tax savings just control how much a business can lower prices.
You lower taxes and businesses can lower their prices. But they won't without some reason to do so.
Suppliers have no reason to lower prices because of exactly what the article says: Canadians are willing to pay the higher prices.
Yes, but when discussing HST it also saves the Provincial Government money, which means money that can either mean lowered taxes or increased funding to other projects / departments. Its not like the legislature / premier can cut themselves a fat bonus like a private corporation can.
EDIT: Also, regarding the Alberta election, I'm really happy my riding managed to elect an NDP challenger to oust the PC incumbent.
MWO: Adamski
That is exactly what I was saying. I was saying that HST was not going to get businesses to lower prices, because they don't care about having low prices, they care about profit. Now you are saying exactly the same thing.
For about the third or fourth time now, I NEVER said that HST was bad for the province. I said that it had to go because the message was more important than the cost of getting rid of it. I never once said that HST wouldn't save the government money. All I have been arguing is that it did not, and was not going to, result in lower prices in BC, which apparently everyone is suddenly on board with while still somehow disagreeing with me.
I dont recall anyone saying that implementing HST would cause businesses to lower their prices, only that it would save them some money. And the reason no one wants to be seen to agree with you is because you generally act like a goosey asshole.
MWO: Adamski
I'm not gonna defend this guy in particular, but I don't get this, Richy. Representatives are supposed to vote individually. Yeah, parties whip the vote, but what you said sounds to me like saying an MP should never vote against the majority; that is, all votes should be unanimous because it's what the nation wants, right? An MP should vote for the most popular option because going against the majority is being unwilling to compromise?
No, I'm not. I'm saying tax savings don't directly lower prices. That doesn't mean they don't lead to lower prices, it's just there's other forces involved. The same forces that control the price of things in the first place.
It doesn't matter if suppliers prices stay the same. The retail location is still selling it for more and taking their profit off of that extra money. Lower their costs and they can lower their prices and still make more profit because expenses have gone down.
No, people are still saying it will result in lower prices in BC.
You really don't seem to grasp the argument here at all.
MWO: Adamski
I believe there is a balance to be reached. Not all votes should be unanimous, the MP should defend his riding's interests, of course. Otherwise the people are simply not represented. But he shouldn't consider it his duty to represent his riding while ignoring (or to the detriment of) the rest of the country. That's the extreme that led to so many problems in the US, so many programs that waste money and hurt the nation but cannot be stopped because they benefit many (or key) states and regions.
Bruce Hyer was elected as an NDP MP, not as an independent. That means both that people trust him to represent them, and that they agree with the NDP platform in general. He needs to strike that balance between those two, sometimes conflicting objectives. I do not believe he did this in his recent decisions.
Ruh roh. ETFO (Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario) walked away earlier too, so that's every teacher in Ontario's public school system. I think the Catholic system teachers are still in talks.
The sick day thing really confuses me though. You don't want teachers taking sick days during the school year. Sick days cause havoc with a curriculum, because supply teachers never do diddly-squat. Furthermore, the province apparently made this demand:
Are you kidding me? You really expect a teacher to teach some 100 different kids every day for a year and get sick for six days?
Jesus fucking christ.
But this totally isn't a reopening of the abortion debate, which Stephen Harper repeatedly said his government will not reopen the debate on abortion.
So, what do people think? Is this a vote-getting exercise, a feeler to see what the public response to re-opening the abortion debate, or something to keep the anti-abortion Conservative supporters happy?
If he doesn't condemn it, it's totally a feeler to see if they can round up support for this bullshit.
Can you really blame him?
Bringing up that topic and taking a stance on it virtually guarantees the end of your political career. Even among Conservatives, you would find a heavy mix of pro-choice and pro-lifers - not to mention left leaning voters. I think any public discourse regarding this will have to be slow and extremely controlled, or else it will snowball into the shit storm of contemporary abortion debate.
Thus, I completely understand Harper's reluctance to open that debate. Even if you are for or against him, you have to understand how that would be political suicide.
I'm almost hoping that they are even more harsh in shutting this MP down, just because of how politically damaging this topic could be if it stays in the news.
Its the silent backbenchers that are harder to push out, unless their riding is sick with the entire party they represent.
MWO: Adamski
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/26/stephen-harper-shouted-down-for-saying-ndp-didnt-support-fight-against-hitler/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/26/pol-abortion-debate.html
He should be applauded for that, as should a number of Conservatives who are opposed to this bill. Now, with that bullshit non-issue out of the way, we can get back to legitimately criticizing on pretty much everything else they do...
The motion is dumb and all, but I'm pretty interested in seeing who will end up voting in favour of it after today's debate since it's not going to be whipped.
I had CPAC on in the background when that happened, and I didn't hear the question that made him bring up Hitler. Now that I know what it was, I can't really see a reason for going there. He godwinned the House of Commons. What the balls?!?
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/Lang_&_O'Leary_Exchange/1308689786/ID=2227534842
...Because, unlike with a privately run new megaphone, I don't have to put up with this shit. I'm not interested in paying someone to fucking lie to me.
@ 11 : 05
I'm sure everyone here already knows that Kevin O'Leary is a shit eating Libertarian who likes to play sociopath on TV (a real sociopath would floss their teeth with his finger bones; he's just a spoiled & entitled Boomer who can't grasp that the fiat currency he gets so much mileage out of is only possible because of a centralized government), but whatever, I don't need to have this lie infect my public programming as much as it's infected private programming in in the U.S.
Feel the same way?
http://www.cbc.ca/contact/
Tell the CBC to issue a correction and send Mr. Bay Street packing.
Yeah, I was impressed as well. I really didn't expect the strength of the response, and I respect O'Connor for spelling out the situation the way he did, without any weasel words or public relations speech.
Can you spell out what happened so I don't have to actually watch that fucker speak?
Talking about carbon-trading from what I gather.
Out of his ass, of course, and spouting some libertarian bullshit from the 30 seconds or so I saw.