Tory MPP Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener—Waterloo) is appointed chair of some board and is resigning. Which means a by-election in Ontario which might give McGuinty a majority.
Also, WSIB? Christ, I'm not sure she knows what she's getting into....
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Whichever political operative managed to convince her to leave her seat for that post must be getting high fives from McGuinty's headquarters for that masterstroke.
Not just Harper, but also Baird and Scott Armstrong. I'm not sure which party strategist told them this would be a good idea, but that person needs to be fired.
Not just Harper, but also Baird and Scott Armstrong. I'm not sure which party strategist told them this would be a good idea, but that person needs to be put in charge of all Conservative PR and campaign matters.
In any case, I must agree with King as far as Woodsworth is concerned:
There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament.
Woodsworth, a religious pacifist, voted against the motion completely alone; the rest of his party supported the motion. We have the benefit of hindsight, knowing what the German dictatorship would do over the next 6 years - Woodsworth had no way of knowing that, and nor did anyone who voted in favor of the war. Certainly we weren't interested in coming to the rescue of those targeted for liquidation in any case: we turned-away the majority of refugees trying to escape the teeth of the Gestapo.
It's a good thing that we participated in the war, but we were not sending troops into Europe with some selfless agenda of rescue.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
Descendant XSkyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered Userregular
'“CCF, NDP, same difference,” Harper responded curtly.'
What is he, a 13 year-old girl now? Is he going to start making the "whatever" symbol with his hands every time he disagrees with someone across the aisle? Perhaps he will begin to make an L shape on his forehead at Mulcair during question period when nobody else is looking?
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
Woodsworth, a religious pacifist, voted against the motion completely alone; the rest of his party supported the motion. We have the benefit of hindsight, knowing what the German dictatorship would do over the next 6 years - Woodsworth had no way of knowing that, and nor did anyone who voted in favor of the war. Certainly we weren't interested in coming to the rescue of those targeted for liquidation in any case: we turned-away the majority of refugees trying to escape the teeth of the Gestapo.
It's a good thing that we participated in the war, but we were not sending troops into Europe with some selfless agenda of rescue.
Actually, there was strong evidence regarding the German's actions against "unfavourable" minorities through Jewish groups from quite early on. While I agree, this isn't exactly why Canada got involved, I think your point here of painting Woodsworth as some great hero of the people for voting against WWII is ridiculous. We do have the benefit of hindsight, but Hitler - and the Nazi Party's - extremism wasn't exactly a closely guarded state secret.
There is an implicit bargain in Canada regarding immigration. Canadians agree to welcome newcomers. In return, the government agrees not to use immigrants to drive down the wages of those already living here....
And it is a bargain that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are deliberately setting out to break....
But in reality, the federal Conservative government’s entire immigration policy is geared to just one goal: lowering wages.
On Wednesday, Finley journeyed to Alberta to announce that Ottawa will make it easier — not harder — for employers to hire temporary foreign skilled workers.
More importantly, she said Ottawa will allow employers to pay such foreign workers 15 per cent less than the prevailing wage....
By 2011, there were some 300,111 temporary foreign workers of all kinds in Canada — 106,849 of them in Ontario. Unlike standard immigrants, temporary foreign workers have no guarantee of staying in Canada and are expected to leave when their papers expire.
While the program technically is supposed to address labour shortages in skilled trades, temporary foreign workers now do an assortment of jobs.
Some serve coffee in Alberta doughnut shops; others work on the assembly line in Maritime fish processing plants.
Employers could solve their labour shortages by offering higher wages or — in the case of skilled trades — by training Canadians to do the job.
But, if government is willing, it’s easier and more profitable to import cheaper, trained labour from abroad.
And this government has shown that it’s willing. It says that if Canadians don’t want to see jobs going to foreigners, they should quit whining and accept lower wages....
Kenney has warned that unemployed workers who refuse to take low-wage jobs will have their EI benefits cut off. If Canadians agree to work for less, he explains, Ottawa won’t have to bring in as many low-wage outsiders.
What the fuck, Conservatives? So the plan is to bring in people from poor countries who will have no vested interest in Canada's future to drive down wages and the standard of living while raising the unemployment rate?
The plan is to give corporations whatever they ask for.
Do we have a need for skilled labour? Yup.
Do we have high youth unemployment, especially amongst first nations? Yessir.
Could we get those guys trained up by tomorrow? Well...no, we'd probably need a few years.Fuck that shit, get us some foreign workers! Right away!
And we want to be able to pay them as little as possible! We can do that!
Why are we hiring any local workers at all? Beats us! Dumbasses probably should have insisted on self-imposed paycuts.
Sorry, reading that, from my own experience trying to get a trade, that means I'm fucked and whole lot of other people from "the wrong side of the tracks". Wealth disparity widening policies suck balls.
I'm most shocked they are pursing a pro-jobs-for-immigrants policy here. I can't see this going over well with their base.
I mean, corporate handjobs are to be expected. But bringing in immigrants to take jobs? That's the kind of shit conservatives generally complain about.
I'm most shocked they are pursing a pro-jobs-for-immigrants policy here. I can't see this going over well with their base.
I mean, corporate handjobs are to be expected. But bringing in immigrants to take jobs? That's the kind of shit conservatives generally complain about.
I voted for them and finding out about this is pissing me off. So you're not wrong.
No party wants to deal with immigration though, legal or illegal. It's a huge problem in this country and this will only make it worse. They really expect them to just leave?
I'm most shocked they are pursing a pro-jobs-for-immigrants policy here. I can't see this going over well with their base.
I mean, corporate handjobs are to be expected. But bringing in immigrants to take jobs? That's the kind of shit conservatives generally complain about.
Blah blah gun registry blah sponsorship scandal blah blah other parties are pro-hitler blah.
I'm most shocked they are pursing a pro-jobs-for-immigrants policy here. I can't see this going over well with their base.
I mean, corporate handjobs are to be expected. But bringing in immigrants to take jobs? That's the kind of shit conservatives generally complain about.
Blah blah gun registry blah sponsorship scandal blah blah other parties are pro-hitler blah.
Base appeased.
I don't know, this issue is pretty red meat for many.
I'm most shocked they are pursing a pro-jobs-for-immigrants policy here. I can't see this going over well with their base.
I mean, corporate handjobs are to be expected. But bringing in immigrants to take jobs? That's the kind of shit conservatives generally complain about.
Blah blah gun registry blah sponsorship scandal blah blah other parties are pro-hitler blah.
Base appeased.
I don't know, this issue is pretty red meat for many.
Then you're much more optimistic about our fellow voters than I am. I fully expect Conservative voters to suffer massive paycuts and/or lose their jobs because of this, blame the Liberals for it, and vote Conservative even harder.
JacobyOHHHHH IT’S A SNAKECreature - SnakeRegistered Userregular
If it goes the way they propose, this might not be a bad thing. New and upcoming Canadian artists get worldwide exposure, galleries get the paintings at discount prices when they're established enough to warrant the space, the public gets to actually see the pieces and Foreign Affairs gets extra cash. Seems good to me... if they don't fuck it up...
This isn't up & coming artists, it's "some of the most famous and sought after artists in Canadian history" ie, already established guys who have pieces that go for millions. There's nothing stopping them from just loaning them to galleries anyway
There's nothing really wrong about what they're doing here. It's not like they're selling something useful like a railroad or a highway, it's just paintings. Art that people barely knew existed will go to galleries where people can actually see it. Meanwhile, the now empty spaces at the various foreign affairs offices will be filled with new stuff by young Canadian artists. Young artists get some cash, the public gets to see some paintings that have been hidden away for decades, and Foreign Affairs won't have to fire quite so many people in the future. What exactly is the downside?
There's nothing really wrong about what they're doing here. It's not like they're selling something useful like a railroad or a highway, it's just paintings. Art that people barely knew existed will go to galleries where people can actually see it. Meanwhile, the now empty spaces at the various foreign affairs offices will be filled with new stuff by young Canadian artists. Young artists get some cash, the public gets to see some paintings that have been hidden away for decades, and Foreign Affairs won't have to fire quite so many people in the future. What exactly is the downside?
One might argue that truly excellent Canadian art has no real monetary value and that if the Canadian government ends up selling it off to private collectors - nothing in the article explicitly mentions galleries only - then as Canadians, we may have lost a significant cultural cache. Like if the French sold the Mona Lisa.
Also, art accumulates in value. Also, selling it all off at once in this manner under a political directive is effectively a fire sale.
There's nothing really wrong about what they're doing here. It's not like they're selling something useful like a railroad or a highway, it's just paintings. Art that people barely knew existed will go to galleries where people can actually see it. Meanwhile, the now empty spaces at the various foreign affairs offices will be filled with new stuff by young Canadian artists. Young artists get some cash, the public gets to see some paintings that have been hidden away for decades, and Foreign Affairs won't have to fire quite so many people in the future. What exactly is the downside?
One might argue that truly excellent Canadian art has no real monetary value and that if the Canadian government ends up selling it off to private collectors - nothing in the article explicitly mentions galleries only - then as Canadians, we may have lost a significant cultural cache. Like if the French sold the Mona Lisa.
Also, art accumulates in value. Also, selling it all off at once in this manner under a political directive is effectively a fire sale.
Hmm. Actually, the article did mention going to museums and public institutions. I think I missed that. Though in that case, then I'm not sure how much money you actually expect to get, and if they're governmental museums, then we're just transferring public funds around.
Hmm. Actually, the article did mention going to museums and public institutions. I think I missed that. Though in that case, then I'm not sure how much money you actually expect to get, and if they're governmental museums, then we're just transferring public funds around.
Yeah, I'm not 100% sure how much extra money this sort of thing would end up generating. Maybe hanging the stuff in public galleries would get more people to visit and raise revenues through ticket sales.
These paintings are from "some of the most sought-after Canadian artists". They are a piece of Canadian artistic history and national pride. No, they do not serve a utilitarian function the way roads or highways do, but they serve a symbolic function. And the Harper Government considered selling them off for a one-time payment of a few million dollars - a meaningless drop in the bucket in our nation's budget this year and nothing in future years.
It'd be like selling off the Parliament building to a condominium developer. Sure, we get a few million dollars now, the new housing would benefit many Canadians, and the Commons and Senate can just rent a conference room in a hotel at much cheaper annual cost than maintaining a 100-year-old stone building. It'd still be a national embarassment if they did it.
These paintings are from "some of the most sought-after Canadian artists". They are a piece of Canadian artistic history and national pride. No, they do not serve a utilitarian function the way roads or highways do, but they serve a symbolic function. And the Harper Government considered selling them off for a one-time payment of a few million dollars - a meaningless drop in the bucket in our nation's budget this year and nothing in future years.
It'd be like selling off the Parliament building to a condominium developer. Sure, we get a few million dollars now, the new housing would benefit many Canadians, and the Commons and Senate can just rent a conference room in a hotel at much cheaper annual cost than maintaining a 100-year-old stone building. It'd still be a national embarassment if they did it.
Selling some paintings that almost no one has ever seen and which, in some cases, have been stashed away in boxes for years is hardly a national embarrassment. Do you prefer the current plan: Keeping these great national treasures hanging on office walls in Tunisia? It's not like they'd be selling them off to private collectors. They'd be going to publicly-accessible museums and galleries, which I'd say is inarguably the best place for them.
These paintings are from "some of the most sought-after Canadian artists". They are a piece of Canadian artistic history and national pride. No, they do not serve a utilitarian function the way roads or highways do, but they serve a symbolic function. And the Harper Government considered selling them off for a one-time payment of a few million dollars - a meaningless drop in the bucket in our nation's budget this year and nothing in future years.
It'd be like selling off the Parliament building to a condominium developer. Sure, we get a few million dollars now, the new housing would benefit many Canadians, and the Commons and Senate can just rent a conference room in a hotel at much cheaper annual cost than maintaining a 100-year-old stone building. It'd still be a national embarassment if they did it.
Selling some paintings that almost no one has ever seen and which, in some cases, have been stashed away in boxes for years is hardly a national embarrassment. Do you prefer the current plan: Keeping these great national treasures hanging on office walls in Tunisia? It's not like they'd be selling them off to private collectors. They'd be going to publicly-accessible museums and galleries, which I'd say is inarguably the best place for them.
Or, they could go with a sane plan, and rent them out to museums and galleries to show, to make sure that they retain full control over important peices of Canadian culteral heritage. The only other acceptable solution would be to "sell" them to Government owned Museums, who could show the peices or rent them out, as I would assume they are better equipped to handle the management of artwork and culteral items.
University of Toronto and York University squabble over who gets Waterloo and who gets Laurier.
New Spadina line extension to Waterloo to be completed by 3075.
City council split between urban, suburban, and really fucking rural councilors!
I like what great pains to say that he hasn't left the NDP, just the NDP caucus.
It would have been better if he'd just shut up and dealt with being independent due to having a temper tantrum. Now everyone knows he's a prideful idiot, who left on a whim due to a temper tantrum.
Posts
He made alot of money.
>:[
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1169520--mpp-elizabeth-witmer-leaves-tories-for-wsib-post?bn=1
Also, WSIB? Christ, I'm not sure she knows what she's getting into....
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
EDIT: More #HarperHistory
Not just Harper, but also Baird and Scott Armstrong. I'm not sure which party strategist told them this would be a good idea, but that person needs to be fired.
Fixed.
In any case, I must agree with King as far as Woodsworth is concerned:
Woodsworth, a religious pacifist, voted against the motion completely alone; the rest of his party supported the motion. We have the benefit of hindsight, knowing what the German dictatorship would do over the next 6 years - Woodsworth had no way of knowing that, and nor did anyone who voted in favor of the war. Certainly we weren't interested in coming to the rescue of those targeted for liquidation in any case: we turned-away the majority of refugees trying to escape the teeth of the Gestapo.
It's a good thing that we participated in the war, but we were not sending troops into Europe with some selfless agenda of rescue.
'“CCF, NDP, same difference,” Harper responded curtly.'
What is he, a 13 year-old girl now? Is he going to start making the "whatever" symbol with his hands every time he disagrees with someone across the aisle? Perhaps he will begin to make an L shape on his forehead at Mulcair during question period when nobody else is looking?
Actually, there was strong evidence regarding the German's actions against "unfavourable" minorities through Jewish groups from quite early on. While I agree, this isn't exactly why Canada got involved, I think your point here of painting Woodsworth as some great hero of the people for voting against WWII is ridiculous. We do have the benefit of hindsight, but Hitler - and the Nazi Party's - extremism wasn't exactly a closely guarded state secret.
Walkom: Ottawa’s low-wage immigration policy threatens turmoil:
What the fuck, Conservatives? So the plan is to bring in people from poor countries who will have no vested interest in Canada's future to drive down wages and the standard of living while raising the unemployment rate?
Do we have a need for skilled labour? Yup.
Do we have high youth unemployment, especially amongst first nations? Yessir.
Could we get those guys trained up by tomorrow? Well...no, we'd probably need a few years.Fuck that shit, get us some foreign workers! Right away!
And we want to be able to pay them as little as possible! We can do that!
Why are we hiring any local workers at all? Beats us! Dumbasses probably should have insisted on self-imposed paycuts.
Sorry, reading that, from my own experience trying to get a trade, that means I'm fucked and whole lot of other people from "the wrong side of the tracks". Wealth disparity widening policies suck balls.
I mean, corporate handjobs are to be expected. But bringing in immigrants to take jobs? That's the kind of shit conservatives generally complain about.
I voted for them and finding out about this is pissing me off. So you're not wrong.
No party wants to deal with immigration though, legal or illegal. It's a huge problem in this country and this will only make it worse. They really expect them to just leave?
Blah blah gun registry blah sponsorship scandal blah blah other parties are pro-hitler blah.
Base appeased.
I don't know, this issue is pretty red meat for many.
Then you're much more optimistic about our fellow voters than I am. I fully expect Conservative voters to suffer massive paycuts and/or lose their jobs because of this, blame the Liberals for it, and vote Conservative even harder.
Switch: nin.codes/roldford
One might argue that truly excellent Canadian art has no real monetary value and that if the Canadian government ends up selling it off to private collectors - nothing in the article explicitly mentions galleries only - then as Canadians, we may have lost a significant cultural cache. Like if the French sold the Mona Lisa.
Also, art accumulates in value. Also, selling it all off at once in this manner under a political directive is effectively a fire sale.
It's moot. Apparently Baird called it off
Yeah, I'm not 100% sure how much extra money this sort of thing would end up generating. Maybe hanging the stuff in public galleries would get more people to visit and raise revenues through ticket sales.
It'd be like selling off the Parliament building to a condominium developer. Sure, we get a few million dollars now, the new housing would benefit many Canadians, and the Commons and Senate can just rent a conference room in a hotel at much cheaper annual cost than maintaining a 100-year-old stone building. It'd still be a national embarassment if they did it.
Selling some paintings that almost no one has ever seen and which, in some cases, have been stashed away in boxes for years is hardly a national embarrassment. Do you prefer the current plan: Keeping these great national treasures hanging on office walls in Tunisia? It's not like they'd be selling them off to private collectors. They'd be going to publicly-accessible museums and galleries, which I'd say is inarguably the best place for them.
http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhallpolitics/article/1170530--mayor-rob-ford-says-he-ll-try-to-defeat-liberals-in-kitchener-waterloo
Or, they could go with a sane plan, and rent them out to museums and galleries to show, to make sure that they retain full control over important peices of Canadian culteral heritage. The only other acceptable solution would be to "sell" them to Government owned Museums, who could show the peices or rent them out, as I would assume they are better equipped to handle the management of artwork and culteral items.
MWO: Adamski
TORONTO ANNEXES KITCHENER-WATERLOO.
University of Toronto and York University squabble over who gets Waterloo and who gets Laurier.
New Spadina line extension to Waterloo to be completed by 3075.
City council split between urban, suburban, and really fucking rural councilors!
This comment is just .. weird.
Yeah, he's not helping his cause here. Now he's just looking like a spoiled brat to me.
Harper would never do this. He would go off and create his own fundie party, then use it to come back and take over his original party.
It would have been better if he'd just shut up and dealt with being independent due to having a temper tantrum. Now everyone knows he's a prideful idiot, who left on a whim due to a temper tantrum.