Upcoming Canadian Election

[Zowpeb]

Yeah, the amount of fear mongering that is coming from the other parties is pretty ridiculous...

Now you have Duceppe saying the Tories youth crime proposal will amount to kids being "young flesh" to jailed pedophiles...I can't believe this guy still has any credibility with voters. Canadian federal prison may not be easy street but it's not even close to being as violent as US prisons.

[Athlétique.Canadien]

Did the program explain the reason behind increasing arts funding by $45 million, and then reducing it the very next year? Most programs fare better with stable funding, so I'm not sure this paints Harper in a better light when it comes to supporting arts. Secondly, my opinion of funding of the arts is aligned with Zowpeb's (i.e. better if they support themselves), so I would have preferred that they cut $45 million from the previous levels. So, either way, it's not looking good on Harper in my view. However, I realize this is all posturing for Quebec voters, who seem to be the only ones who care about arts funding.

All of the raises to the arts program occured in the 2006 budget with 2006, 2007 and 2008 money earmarked for those years. Harper actually isn't cutting anything really. It's more of a discontinuation.

[JoeLassister]

All of the raises to the arts program occured in the 2006 budget with 2006, 2007 and 2008 money earmarked for those years. Harper actually isn't cutting anything really. It's more of a discontinuation.

Reality is : back with the same amount, but more divisions in the funding. For example : the relay of Olympic torch 2010 in vancouver is part of the "patrimoine et arts" minister. This relay is evaluated at 40M$ something you guys, forgot to mention....

[CerebusClone]

I guess under these assumption one could argue that the Conservatives funded the Olympic torch relay with a temporary 45 million dollar infusion into the arts and culture budget. However, one would also think that the Conservatives would have mentioned something along those lines when the announced the cuts, instead of making dumb-although-not-untrue comments such as “ordinary people don’t care about culture.”

The fact is that people have no idea how that money is spent, and most “ordinary” people who complained did so because they either hate the conservatives, hate all kinds of budget cuts (unless it affects Bill Gates, oil companies, or politicians), or can’t from their own opinion and are just agreeing with whatever the TV tells them.

Personally I don’t have much of a problem with those cuts in arts and culture, in part because I agree that this industry needs to better auto-finance itself. Where the government needs to keep investing is in the infrastructures, making sure there are establishments available for the various arts (just like we make sure there are arenas, baseball fields, American/Euro football field, etc), and that people have access to museums, art displays, ballets, operas, … I’m not saying they should build and maintain all those things, most of it should be privately-owned, but the government can certainly help finance such projects in exchange for various concessions such as free-visit days, involvement in the community, etc.

For example, I would support assistance to help build a true opera house in Montreal because it would be good for the community, benefit many people for a very long time, would help tourism, would attract events reserved for larger venues, it can finance itself, and it will pay taxes in return. Like I said, in return perhaps the owners could frequently invite school groups to meet with the artists, musicians, etc, to attend seminars, and other such culturally-oriented events.

However, where I don’t think those budgets should go is in the pockets of individuals, and I don’t think we should finance people who want to pursue their dreams and passions just because they are artists; it is their choice, and they must live with it. Stephane Dion was saying that artist only make 23,000$ a year on average, well again it’s a personal choice, and it’s still more than people who work at Wal-Mart. We don’t finance individuals who aspire to play in the NHL – and we don’t support those who fail to succeed as professionals - and we shouldn’t finance people aspire to be painters, sculptors, etc either.

[JoeLassister]

Yeah, the amount of fear mongering that is coming from the other parties is pretty ridiculous...

Now you have Duceppe saying the Tories youth crime proposal will amount to kids being "young flesh" to jailed pedophiles...I can't believe this guy still has any credibility with voters. Canadian federal prison may not be easy street but it's not even close to being as violent as US prisons.

Seriously, I wouldn't bet on my chances to comes out of jail with a "cock-free ass" if I was going to jail at 14 yo....

[Zowpeb]

Seriously, I wouldn't bet on my chances to comes out of jail with a "cock-free ass" if I was going to jail at 14 yo....

Of course the assumption everyone is making is that Corrections Canada would throw them into general population...part of Corrections Canada's role is to integrate prisoners in the system. It's highly doubtful they would have 14 year olds in that position.

While I like the crack down on young offenders I do think that 14 years old is pushing it...

What I'd like to see is:

1) This "you can't name young offenders" and "your record is wiped clean at 18" is a bunch of BS. That stuff should be reversed...down to the age of 14. Every kid knows the YOA is a primo defence against screwing up their future...that goes back to when I was a teenager. On top of that, many teenagers are roped into a life of crime just based on their YOA shielded status...eg. drug dealers get 16 year olds to deal for them since they get off light, etc...B&E's, etc. Teenagers are smart enough to know if the rules and consequences change that this stuff is not worth it as much...sure, some won't care but some will...

2) The age for being tried as an adult should be dropped to 16, not 14...which I believe is likely their ultimate goal but they're pushing for more up front. I don't buy into this whole "14 year olds aren't mature enough" BS either. They know exactly what they're doing BUT I do think that they are easily led down the wrong path by peer pressure and that sometimes, they react to things without thinking...for that reason I'd make it 16 years old for trial as an adult on violent offences.

It's also worth noting that their proposal gives every province the ability to push the age up to 15 or 16 years old if they want...which is a nice move to appease some of the more left of centre provinces and voters.

[Jean]

They're is something that really irks me in the Liberal budget plan

They predict a FOUR PERCENT GDP GROWTH per year for the next 4 years.

Considering all what's going on that's way past being optimist and falls downright into irresponsible or downright naive territory. Earth calls Dion : We're in a recession, or very close to it at the very best and things will get worse before they get better.

So what this means is than the Liberal budget plan contain at least one major lie

Either

- The carbon tax wont be revenue neutral

- They will have to cut even more spending that what they are telling us

- They plan on having a deficit

- They wont create all those programs they are promising

- They will have to raise other taxes to balance the budget

Pick your poison.

To me it doesnt really matter what the lie is. What I do know is than I cant trust Stéphane Dion with Canada's economy.

[BTH]

2) The age for being tried as an adult should be dropped to 16, not 14...which I believe is likely their ultimate goal but they're pushing for more up front. I don't buy into this whole "14 year olds aren't mature enough" BS either. They know exactly what they're doing BUT I do think that they are easily led down the wrong path by peer pressure and that sometimes, they react to things without thinking...for that reason I'd make it 16 years old for trial as an adult on violent offences.

It's also worth noting that their proposal gives every province the ability to push the age up to 15 or 16 years old if they want...which is a nice move to appease some of the more left of centre provinces and voters.

I don't follow politics in any way, I was just strolling through the thread and was somewhat interested by this. If you believe that 15 or 16 year olds should be tried as adults, do you also believe the legal drinking age should be lowered to 16? As well as all the other landmarks people pass at 18 (eligibility for the army right down to R-rated movies). I think if you're deemed responsible enough for your actions to be tried as an adult, whatever that age is, you should also be judged responsible or mature enough to have a sip of alcohol, see some nudity in a film, etc... Simply changing one law and not the rest seems inconsistent to me.

[JoeLassister]

http://mikesoron.com/tory-mp-lee-richardso...r-gun-violence/

omg, what a jerk, this man is gone by tomorrow.

:ninja:

actually not, he's as smart as mr. Ritz, so I guess he will remain as the PCC Calgary Centre candidate. This party is run by bright men.

[Athlétique.Canadien]

Once again a simple issue is an ant which we see as an anthill. Judges will make decisions on these cases. If a 14 year old goes to jail, that person will go through the youth system 1st. It's highly likely that the maximum sentence will be 10 years in extreme cases.

I agree with the policy but only with tight restrictions. The YOA is a joke and kids know it. We're talking violent crimes, extremely violent that this policy is likely aimed for! How many news reports do we have to read? Violent crime aongst the very young is IMO getting a little out of hand.

Many people are concerned about the amount of people who are subject to early incarceration. The good news about this idea is it's a deterrent. There are now consequences. Think twice kid!

[Zowpeb]

I don't follow politics in any way, I was just strolling through the thread and was somewhat interested by this. If you believe that 15 or 16 year olds should be tried as adults, do you also believe the legal drinking age should be lowered to 16? As well as all the other landmarks people pass at 18 (eligibility for the army right down to R-rated movies). I think if you're deemed responsible enough for your actions to be tried as an adult, whatever that age is, you should also be judged responsible or mature enough to have a sip of alcohol, see some nudity in a film, etc... Simply changing one law and not the rest seems inconsistent to me.

I do think the drinking age should be lowered to 17 or 18...let's face it, many will drink at parties already and often do because it's a rebelious thing to do. R rated movie ages should be dropped down...nudity or overt sexuality is the most common reason for an R rating, violence rarely registers it, the consenting age is 16...

I'm not sure I would let them vote or join the army for a couple reasons:

a) I just wouldn't send a teenager to war...

b) If they voted it would be largely influenced by their parents and teachers...so it would be a proxy vote for those influences in their life. Young 18-23 year olds are already overly influenced by the academia and their parents...jmho

[Athlétique.Canadien]

Either

- The carbon tax wont be revenue neutral

- They will have to cut even more spending that what they are telling us

- They plan on having a deficit

- They wont create all those programs they are promising

- They will have to raise other taxes to balance the budget

Pick your poison.

What once worked doesn't anymore. Chretien promised to abolish the GST but didn't. The Grits promised to rip up NAFTA and did the exact opposite. In 1993 Chretien campaigned on jobs, jobs and more jobs. Today, Dion is under daily pressure to put across a policy for everyone and their dog. The Liberal's are trying to be everything for everyone and it's not a swan song that people are going to fall for anymore.

No governement can possibly be everything for everyone. It's not realistic.

[CerebusClone]

I do think the drinking age should be lowered to 17 or 18...let's face it, many will drink at parties already and often do because it's a rebelious thing to do. R rated movie ages should be dropped down...nudity or overt sexuality is the most common reason for an R rating, violence rarely registers it, the consenting age is 16...

Personally I thought things were just fine when you had two categoties: adult and everthing else. Not only that, but I think censorship may have a lot more negative effects on youth and their future than positive ones.

[Zowpeb]

Personally I thought things were just fine when you had two categoties: adult and everthing else. Not only that, but I think censorship may have a lot more negative effects on youth and their future than positive ones.

I agree...ever seen the list of banned books for public schools in Ontario? It's a ridiculous list. I've always found it ironic that Farenheit 451 is banned. A book about how everything gets banned because it offends someone is banned from schools. LOL

There is not one overly violent or sexual act in the book. Of course, they wouldn't want to have people start questioning the ethics of censorship since that's being practiced by school boards on an enormous level.

[Athlétique.Canadien]

I like some of the NDP approach but $400 for each child until 18 is one heck of a questionable commitment.

Yikes.

I say add $25 to what it currently is and donate $40 a month in another program to a post secondary education fund. That money can only be cashed by Canadian college students if they attend school or use it towards a legitimate job training project.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Athlétique.Canadien

[MAK]

I like some of the NDP approach but $400 for each child until 18 is one heck of a questionable commitment.

as a young father Id love it but it would never happen.

I remember when the liberals in the Q came back they promissed to help day care and that they would try to lower the cost of it. next thing you know they go from 5$ to 7$ a day...when you have a place.

[CerebusClone]

as a young father Id love it but it would never happen.

I remember when the liberals in the Q came back they promissed to help day care and that they would try to lower the cost of it. next thing you know they go from 5$ to 7$ a day...when you have a place.

A 2$ increase was still reasonable considering inflation and the higher demands of day care workers; they're allowed to ask for more, and most people supported them, but then again people must realize that that extra money had to come from somewhere, either through a small fee increase, higher taxes, and/or cuts in other budgets.

I don't have the numbers, but if I remember the number of spaces available has been increased since then as well. Therefore in a sense, the overall cost of day care was lowered, considering that the alternative is 25+ $ a day.

[Athlétique.Canadien]

:que: Est ce soir le débat français de langue. :can:

Too bad I'll likely watch The Habs and Wings on TSN. Maybe I can tape the debate.

Stephen Harper's character assassination take one.

Whoops, tomorrow is the debate and anglais on Thursday - me bad

Edited September 30, 2008 by Athlétique.Canadien

[Jean]

Yup, 8 to 10 PM for the French and 9 to 11 for the English one (eastern time)

Harper needs a very good performance in French to reverse the negative momentum he currentlly have in Québec. I dont want 40+ Bloc MP again

[Colin]

Nice to see our honest PM using a plagerized speech. I know, I know. Not his fault, someone else wrote it. He's not required to be accountable for what someone does for him, for the words put in his mouth.

Or...

...is he??

[CerebusClone]

Nice to see our honest PM using a plagerized speech. I know, I know. Not his fault, someone else wrote it. He's not required to be accountable for what someone does for him, for the words put in his mouth.

Or...

...is he??

Not to defend Harper, and he's without a doubt responsible for whaever ideas that come out of his mouth - and therefore the ideas of his party - however that some of the actual phrasing was plagiarized from the other speeches by his writer has very little to do with him or even his own integrity.

If Tom Hanks uses a line that is historically inaccurate in a movie, are you going to blame Tom Hanks or the writer?

That's why people have writers in the first place, so that they don't have to worry about things like this. Harper gave his writer general directives, he liked to result (he had other things to do review everything to make sure it's new), and used the speech.

If people don't want to vote for Harper, I'm sure they can find better reasons... unfortunately people are dumb, and this could actual make a difference for some...

[Colin]

Not to defend Harper, and he's without a doubt responsible for whaever ideas that come out of his mouth - and therefore the ideas of his party - however that some of the actual phrasing was plagiarized from the other speeches by his writer has very little to do with him or even his own integrity.

If Tom Hanks uses a line that is historically inaccurate in a movie, are you going to blame Tom Hanks or the writer?

That's why people have writers in the first place, so that they don't have to worry about things like this. Harper gave his writer general directives, he liked to result (he had other things to do review everything to make sure it's new), and used the speech.

If people don't want to vote for Harper, I'm sure they can find better reasons... unfortunately people are dumb, and this could actual make a difference for some...

The line in the movie isn't making global policy. Everything Harper says means something. He's the leader of our country and has to be held accountable to a higher standard in that respect. And I agree, it's the writer that should take the brunt, and he has. But if that's the case, then should we not question Harper's judgement in hiring someone that would do this?

I haven't read any news today, but one way or another, I think he needs to come out and apologize - not hide behind the fact that 'someone else was responsible and not me'. He needs to explain why he hired the guy in the first place, explain the guy's credentials and why Harper was sure he was the guy for the job, then again apologize on behalf of himself and his party for having let something like this happen.

Tangent: Look, everyone is human and therefore is succeptible to making mistakes. I want accountability rather than excuses. If a guy promises something and can't deliver because of circumstance, don't lie and blame others etc, explain and apologize. I'm not interested in voting for liars. There are some traits that I could care less about when it comes to a leader: staining a blue dress in the Oval Office means absolutely nothing when it comes to leading a country. But lying about it afterwards?

[Quebecois]

Entertaining debate to say the least.

Im giving Layton the victory on that one, seemed to display the most confidence and really did a good job of attacking Harper will still putting forth his own policies.

Dion is just handicapped by his poor english which is unfortunate but thats the way it goes.

[KoZed]

You know what?

Screw party lines, screw ideology, screw pundits, screw everything.

For once, I want the nerd with glasses to win. Just for the sake of it.

Go Dion!

[Mont Royale]

Layton was calm, confident, and professional. If anything, I thought he was almost too polished in his delivery. Anyway, he did well sticking to his key themes and pushing his agenda.

Gilles Duceppe did well enough, and I'm sure somebody cares, but not me.

This was the first time I've seen Elizabeth May in action, and she pleasantly surprised by having something of substance to say on a wide range of topics. On her key issue of the environment, I don't think she succeeded in differentiating herself enough from the Liberal platform to make a major breakthrough, but it was a solid performance that will raise the profile of the Green party.

Harper handled a difficult situation well. Every party leader aimed their rhetoric at him virtually without respite, but he stayed calm and projected that 'prime ministerial' demeanour that he was prepped to. Those looking for substance would have to look elsewhere, as he sticked to broad generalizations and past initiatives rather than identifying a platform for the future.

Stephane Dion had the most interesting and unusual approach. He would often look directly into the camera (instead of at Harper, who was the target) and almost plead for the viewer to give him a chance, to not believe Harper, to understand his policy on a given issue, etc. I can definitely understand why the Conservatives would portray him as a weak leader, since he didn't have the flair, the swagger, the bluntness that we often associate with leadership. On the other hand, he came across to me as the most human and well-meaning of the group.

At the end, I still haven't decided who I'll be voting for, but this debate helped to sharpen my perception of the candidates and where they stand.