He should have held up a sign saying "Stop Harper".
And so a new era begins in Canadian politics.......
Sun, 2015-11-29 18:13
#252
Wed, 2015-12-02 15:18
#253
Agreed!
Trudeau's nannies are trivial compared to scandal of corporate tax cuts
It was bound to happen. Political honeymoons inevitably hit rough patches.
For Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that rough patch has come in the form of nannies on the federal payroll.
It is not a real scandal.
The federal government pays for all kinds of goods and services public officials might need.
And even if there were anything scandalous about it, it would hardly qualify as major league.
Indeed, what is probably most scandalous about the nanny business is how little the people who care for the prime minister's children get paid.
From the taxpayers' point of view, the total amount of money involved is tiny, in the context of the vastness of federal spending.
However, as a friend who grew up in another political culture once commented, Canadians have a great capacity to sweat the small stuff.
That might be because we can all relate more easily to an expenditure of $15-$20 per hour than to the billions a government might waste on ineffective spending …
… Or, the billions governments might, in effect, give away in ill-conceived tax breaks that do not achieve their putative purpose.
Let's take the corporate income tax, for instance.
What that rate should be was a bit of an issue during the last election.
The Harper Conservatives boasted of having reduced the Canadian corporate tax rate to one of the lowest in the developed world -- which, they argued, is good for business investment.
The Liberals agreed.
They promised to keep the federal corporate rate at 15 per cent, where the Harper government had pegged it in 2012.
The NDP argued for a modest and gradual increase to 17 per cent, lower than the average rate over the nearly 10 years of Conservative rule.
Corporate tax rate cuts have not generated growth
The justification for keeping the corporate rate low is that it will create investment and jobs.
The classic economists' view is that as taxes go down, business investment will increase.
That may not be the case, however.
A new study from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) shows that, in Canada, the promise of jobs and investment in exchange for low corporate taxes has been, mostly, illusory.
In fact, the study's author Jordan Brennan says, "corporate tax reductions happened alongside under-investment, a job crisis, and deep stagnation … Far from spawning higher levels of business investment and GDP growth, [they] indirectly fostered slower growth."
Brennan analyzed business investment growth in Canada going back to the 1920s and found that it was highest when the corporate tax rate was also highest, in the mid-1950s.
As the tax rate has dropped, Brennan found, so has investment -- the opposite of what mainstream economists tell us should happen.
The CCPA report refers to the 40-odd years following the Second World War as the "pre corporate tax cutting era" and to the period from the late 1980s to the present as the "corporate tax reduction obsessed era" and concludes:
"When we contrast the experience prior to the rate reduction era (1945-1988) with the rate-reduction-obsessed era (1988-2013), we see a move from heightened industrial capacity expansion to capacity stagnation."
What happened is that instead of investing in job-creating activities major corporations have been sitting on mountains of cash.
Corporate concentration and precarious workers
Brennan argues that large corporations are not motivated by national growth but by "increased margins and deepening of their income share."
He says, in fact, that corporations might be wary of a full employment scenario in which labour's bargaining power would increase. Many corporations, he says, believe they have an interest in keeping labour in a precarious state.
Brennan cites the distinguished Polish economist Michal Kalecki who -- decades ago during the Great Depression -- commented on business' opposition to government spending to generate jobs.
Why did Big Business oppose measures that would mitigate widespread misery and hunger?
Kalecki's answer was, "the 'sack' would then cease to play its role as a disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined and the self-assurance … of the working class would grow."
Brennan points to a relationship, in Canada, between the frenzy to cut the corporate income tax rate and the trend to corporate concentration.
"That Canada's largest corporations have doubled their income share in the past two decades in tandem with excessive cash hoarding indicates the growth of corporate power itself might be one determinant of cash stockpiling, and hence of slower growth," he writes. " … insofar as corporate tax rate reductions have enabled greater cash hoarding they have indirectly served to dampen growth."
In other words, if Brennan's findings are correct, cuts in the corporate tax rate over the past 15 years have had the opposite of their intended effect.
They have not increased investment and economic growth. They have only helped over-sized corporations take up more and more space in the economic landscape.
And those mega-corporations would just as soon stockpile their cash windfalls from tax cuts as invest them.
The cumulative cost in lost revenue to the federal government of ill-conceived corporate tax cuts has been in the multiple billions of dollars.
You could hire whole armies of nannies with that wasted money.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/12/trudeaus-nannies-...
Wed, 2015-12-02 15:48
#254
I want to hear about how the NDP is going to embrace the new era in Canadian politics.
Wed, 2015-12-02 18:32
#255
For Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that rough patch has come in the form of nannies on the federal payroll.It is not a real scandal.
someone who obviously doesn't have children needing care and doesn't scramble working 2-3 jobs to pay childcare, put a roof over their head and buy essentials is hardly a voice on the subject i'm going to believe or think believable. it's a scandal maybe not for the 45+ crowd and the "middle class" but for the rest of us struggling to try and pay fees after denying universal childcare to us. it's a scandal.
do you most of you people understand how many children between the ages of 6 and 9 are left at home alone across Canada because childcare costs are beyond reach? i don't think so, as it's "let's worry about children working on the family farm instead".
it'll take a tragedy of children being left alone before things might change
Wed, 2015-12-02 18:49
#256
The new era is quickly beginning to look and sound much like the old era. Curry favour and help the multimnationals and the rich and screw the poor.
Thu, 2015-12-03 13:31
#257
According to the cd Howe institute Trudeau smoked the voters on taxes and now we are screwed
But liberal supporters knew that didn't they!
Thu, 2015-12-03 13:37
#258
According to the cd Howe institute Trudeau smoked the voters on taxes and now we are screwed But liberal supporters knew that didn't they!
Yeah, that report is here: https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/m...
I'm pretty sure various people pointed out that it was likely not a revenue-neutral proposition, and in fact was probably a revenue losing gimmick. People didn't listen. I'm anticipating a large movement toward privatization and service cuts, perhaps even transfer payment cuts, from this Liberal government later on in their term.
Thu, 2015-12-03 13:53
#259
Erika Shaker, in what must be the zillionth time I've seen an article with the same theme at Rabble, writes that while it's good news that Harper is gone, we should not let our guard down with this new Liberal government.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/behind-numbers/2015/12/trudeaumania-20-a...
Let's hope that the rhetoric (or even the visuals) of change isn't seen as a convenient, feel-good substitute for the measureable, targeted, enforceable actions required to address the inconvenient truths of our time.
Let's hope -- no, let's prove that our standards haven't fallen that far.
Thu, 2015-12-03 20:33
#260
According to the cd Howe institute Trudeau smoked the voters on taxes and now we are screwed But liberal supporters knew that didn't they!Yeah, that report is here: https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/m...
I'm pretty sure various people pointed out that it was likely not a revenue-neutral proposition, and in fact was probably a revenue losing gimmick. People didn't listen. I'm anticipating a large movement toward privatization and service cuts, perhaps even transfer payment cuts, from this Liberal government later on in their term.
First we should recognize that the CD Howe Institute is Conservative in outlook.
Second, let's look at the CD Howe's biased argument a little closer. They talk about how wealthy people respond to an increase in taxes as an argument for tax cuts for the wealthy and avoiding reversing those cuts. But check out the explanation a little more closely:
They say that wealthy people may choose to work less and earn less opting for more leasure. So this might mean that several people work less and then one more person gets a job. So overall likely the government gets similar revenue (they are taxed at a lower rate but more people are employed and lower incomes tend to be more fluid in the economy than higher ones). What is so bad about that?
I agree there are issues with the Liberal projections but don't bite down on that morsel from the CD Howe -- it's a fish hook.
Imperfect that it may be the shift to tax higher income people a little more and lower incomes less is a good move. I would use the money right at the bottom to increase the basic exemption and get more of the lowest income earners off the tax rolls but I am not a Liberal. I am to the left of them.
Fri, 2015-12-04 15:46
#261
Liberal throne speech, live. Expected to deliver tax breaks and more smiles.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/throne-speech-liberal-trudeau-1.3350618
ETA: well, it's done. A lotta big broad commitments with no timelines.
text: http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2641648/Speech-from-the-throne-Dec...
Fri, 2015-12-04 15:53
#262
Reaction from Rona Ambrose on Throne Speech: not enough love for the private sector, and didn't even mention 'ISIS', so not enough focus on security for her.
Fri, 2015-12-04 16:03
#263
Tom Mulcair on Throne Speech: he's thrilled that relationship with Indigenous peoples is a priority. Happy that partisan government advertising will be stopped and happy about ending omnibus bills. He feels it came up short about not including changing the retirement age from 67 to 65, also no mention of continuing door-to-door mail delivery, and disappointed about no mention of including an oversight reference in Bill C-51, and disappointed that there was no mention of child care.
Fri, 2015-12-04 17:07
#264
Tom Mulcair on Throne Speech: he's thrilled that relationship with Indigenous peoples is a priority. Happy that partisan government advertising will be stopped and happy about ending omnibus bills. He feels it came up short about not including changing the retirement age from 67 to 65, also no mention of continuing door-to-door mail delivery, and disappointed about no mention of including an oversight reference in Bill C-51, and disappointed that there was no mention of child care.
His responses were very good and so was his tone in delivering them -- in my view. Does not change my opinion of the broader picture but he did not do himself any harm today, even a little good.
Fri, 2015-12-04 19:09
#265
a political question: does the Senate have a vote on accepting the Throne Speech or just the HoC?
Fri, 2015-12-04 19:27
#266
a political question: does the Senate have a vote on accepting the Throne Speech or just the HoC?
Neither vote on the speech.
The Commons could have a motion of non-confidence but that is not going to happen but there is no vote introduced by the government or part of the process.
BTW -- we saw the Conservatives trying to get the government speaker elected with their unelected majority. Strange that few people pointed out just how silly that is.
Fri, 2015-12-04 22:11
#267
i don't know what happened there Sean, how'd they try to and why? maybe people dn't kno what was going on.
Fri, 2015-12-04 22:40
#268
What new era? On anything that matters like the TPP, Canadian economic policy sovereignty or foreign policy the mandate carries on unbroken from Harper's neo con heavy to Trudeau's neo con lite. On issues that don't matter to the western power elites Turdeau and crew can fill their collective boots in trying to hoodwink Canadians with their talk and faux concern over issues fed to the insouciant Canadian public as issues that supposedly matter. Those who pay attention know their is a much bigger game afoot. While an inquiry into indigenous missing women and girls is important to Canadian society it really doesn't concern the power elites in the least, as with whether the budget is balanced or run as a prudent deficit.
Sat, 2015-12-05 00:45
#269
What new era? On anything that matters like the TPP, Canadian economic policy sovereignty or foreign policy the mandate carries on unbroken from Harper's neo con heavy to Trudeau's neo con lite. On issues that don't matter to the western power elites Turdeau and crew can fill their collective boots in trying to hoodwink Canadians with their talk and faux concern over issues fed to the insouciant Canadian public as issues that supposedly matter. Those who pay attention know their is a much bigger game afoot. While an inquiry into indigenous missing women and girls is important to Canadian society it really doesn't concern the power elites in the least, as with whether the budget is balanced or run as a prudent deficit.
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately the Council of Canadians isn't a political party.
Sat, 2015-12-05 15:30
#270
i don't know what happened there Sean, how'd they try to and why? maybe people dn't kno what was going on.
They just tried to shame the Liberals into making a vote claiming it would be no change if they did not let it be by vote. Quite a dishonest push really but it was mostly ignored.
Turns out I was not correct -- there will be a confidence motion on the Throne speech -- just so you know. Will not be in doubt of course.
Sat, 2015-12-05 15:39
#271
Sean in the Senate?
Sat, 2015-12-05 16:16
#272
Sean in the Senate?
I don't think so as it is not about legislation but rather Commons confidence.
Sat, 2015-12-05 16:19
#273
Come on, Sean - she's nominating you for the Senate. Read more carefully!
Sat, 2015-12-05 16:24
#274
Come on, Sean - she's nominating you for the Senate. Read more carefully!
Oh my mistake.
Thanks Quizzical -- I would return the favour and nominate you as well.
We could start a caucus for a new party the -- SDP.
(Shit Disturbers Party)
Mon, 2015-12-07 12:47
#275
Sean in the Senate?I don't think so as it is not about legislation but rather Commons confidence.
i knew about the vote in HoC wasn't sure if it had to go through the Senate or not.
and you would be a good Senator. ;)
Mon, 2015-12-07 12:47
#276
I'm watching Replies and Debate on the Throne Speech live: http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2586932193
Hedy Fry seems to be the spokesperson for the government.
ETA: Well, it's over. I didn't find it very interesting, though I missed the beginning.
Mon, 2015-12-07 13:13
#277
Sunday Scrum on the Throne Speech was interesting. Ibbitson is concerned about the finances, Riley is concerned that so far the Lib's climate change commitments are the same as Harpers, and the CBC's Lunn loves Trudeau and his new tone.
Mon, 2015-12-07 13:39
#278
Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has been asked to help facilitate negotiations on a global climate change deal this week. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canada-climate-change-cop21-talks-facilitat...
Mon, 2015-12-07 13:56
#279
Sean in the Senate?I don't think so as it is not about legislation but rather Commons confidence.
i knew about the vote in HoC wasn't sure if it had to go through the Senate or not.
and you would be a good Senator. ;)
awwww thanks. So would you.
Of course I do represent an over represented demographic in power and politics though...
But I have to admit I think I would like the job and would work hard to empower the public which is what I think the Senate should be doing.
Mon, 2015-12-07 15:21
#280
i think so too on all accounts. your impartiality while in essence being partial on social democracy means would make a good Senator.
Mon, 2015-12-07 15:46
#281
i think so too on all accounts. your impartiality while in essence being partial on social democracy means would make a good Senator.
Now I am blushing. I try. I think we have to be fair and there are always limits based on our experience. We also have to be passionate which means we are not always totally objective but at least we can be aware of that and make the effort.
It is so much more enjoyable when we get along....
Thu, 2016-02-04 23:52
#282
Just heard that the NDP motion on pay equity was supported by the Liberals. Good stuff.
“For decades, New Democrats pushed hard for pay equity. With the adoption of our NDP motion today, the real work begins now and we can take concrete action towards real, tangible equality for women,” said NDP Status of Women Critic Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith), who introduced the motion. “The wage gap discriminates against women and there’s no excuse for the fact that women in Canada continue to make substantially less than men.”
The NDP motion, which was their first opposition day motion this sitting, recognizes pay equity as a human right and urges the federal government to take immediate action. With the adoption of the motion, a special committee will be put together to develop an action plan to finally legislate equal pay for work of equal value.
http://www.ndp.ca/news/adoption-ndp-pay-equity-motion-step-right-directi...
Fri, 2016-02-05 00:04
#283
Just heard that the NDP motion on pay equity was supported by the Liberals. Good stuff.
“For decades, New Democrats pushed hard for pay equity. With the adoption of our NDP motion today, the real work begins now and we can take concrete action towards real, tangible equality for women,” said NDP Status of Women Critic Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith), who introduced the motion. “The wage gap discriminates against women and there’s no excuse for the fact that women in Canada continue to make substantially less than men.”
The NDP motion, which was their first opposition day motion this sitting, recognizes pay equity as a human right and urges the federal government to take immediate action. With the adoption of the motion, a special committee will be put together to develop an action plan to finally legislate equal pay for work of equal value.
http://www.ndp.ca/news/adoption-ndp-pay-equity-motion-step-right-directi...
Nooooooooo! that can't be! What are the Conservatives going to label Trudeau and the Liberals now??
I've personally felt, right from the time of the final outcome on election day that this could turn into the perfect storm. And this is about as good as it's got for quite a while.
Sadly, on another scene, it was pointed out by Mansbridge and his flock tonight on the National that Canadians are bout 2/3's in favour of leaving the 6 bombers in. And none of them had the gumption to side with the Liberals on taking them out. Could this be where Trudeau asks for the favour to be returned?
Fri, 2016-02-05 00:25
#284
Just heard that the NDP motion on pay equity was supported by the Liberals. Good stuff.
“For decades, New Democrats pushed hard for pay equity. With the adoption of our NDP motion today, the real work begins now and we can take concrete action towards real, tangible equality for women,” said NDP Status of Women Critic Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith), who introduced the motion. “The wage gap discriminates against women and there’s no excuse for the fact that women in Canada continue to make substantially less than men.”
The NDP motion, which was their first opposition day motion this sitting, recognizes pay equity as a human right and urges the federal government to take immediate action. With the adoption of the motion, a special committee will be put together to develop an action plan to finally legislate equal pay for work of equal value.
http://www.ndp.ca/news/adoption-ndp-pay-equity-motion-step-right-directi...
Nooooooooo! that can't be! What are the Conservatives going to label Trudeau and the Liberals now??
Given that, unlike the NDP and Liberals, the Conservatives are currently led by a woman, it's a bit ironic that they were the party that voted against the NDP's pay equity motion.
Fri, 2016-02-05 00:28
#285
Just heard that the NDP motion on pay equity was supported by the Liberals. Good stuff.
“For decades, New Democrats pushed hard for pay equity. With the adoption of our NDP motion today, the real work begins now and we can take concrete action towards real, tangible equality for women,” said NDP Status of Women Critic Sheila Malcolmson (Nanaimo—Ladysmith), who introduced the motion. “The wage gap discriminates against women and there’s no excuse for the fact that women in Canada continue to make substantially less than men.”
The NDP motion, which was their first opposition day motion this sitting, recognizes pay equity as a human right and urges the federal government to take immediate action. With the adoption of the motion, a special committee will be put together to develop an action plan to finally legislate equal pay for work of equal value.
http://www.ndp.ca/news/adoption-ndp-pay-equity-motion-step-right-directi...
Nooooooooo! that can't be! What are the Conservatives going to label Trudeau and the Liberals now??
Given that, unlike the NDP and Liberals, the Conservatives are currently led by a woman, it's a bit ironic that they were the party that voted against the NDP's pay equity motion.
I get your idea but I don't think it's ironic. They are Conservatives first, as is evidenced by that vote.
Fri, 2016-02-05 08:58
#286
yes of course I agree...when are people finally going to get it, that what takes place within the grey matter and hearts of people has nothing to do with their physical appearances, gender, skin colour sexual orientation ad nauseum...
more generally I was attracted to this thread title...that a new era in Canadian politics will begin, when finally people come to understand that our democratic system is a fraud, that our political institutions are bought and paid for via innumerable mechanisms, and that a holistically oriented populist bioregionalist autonomist movement under control and autonomy of the grass roots communities...comes to emerge!
Fri, 2016-02-05 09:40
#287
Given that, unlike the NDP and Liberals, the Conservatives are currently led by a woman, it's a bit ironic that they were the party that voted against the NDP's pay equity motion.
I get your idea but I don't think it's ironic. They are Conservatives first, as is evidenced by that vote.
The Conservatives, specifically Rempel and Ambrose, explain their rationale for rejecting the motion here (link). The claim that the creation of a new committee to look specifically at this was unnecessary, feeling that it could have been done through the Status of Women Committee. And they felt that the NDP took an unnecessary swipe at the Conservative Party in the motion, since the motion stated,
(c) call on the government to implement the recommendations of the 2004 Pay Equity Task Force Report and restore the right to pay equity in the public service which was eliminated by the previous Conservative government in 2009;
Conservatives feel that the changes they made were fine, which were making pay equity a labour issue rather than a human rights issue:
Six years ago, the Conservative government passed the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which meant complaints about pay equity would be handled by the Public Service Labour Relations Board, not the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
So, Conservatives stated they would support the motion if the NDP removed what the Cons felt was a swipe by the NDP against the Conservatives, and if they steered the motion toward the Status of Women committee rather than creating a new committee specific to this issue. The NDP rejected both requests, feeling it would water down the motion too much (a correct call, IMO -- pay equity should be seen as a right rather than as a labour issue).
So, this is very good.
Fri, 2016-02-05 14:09
#288
There was no need to mention the Conservatives in the motion. By doing so they make it about partisanship rather than about the legislation.
I'm fine with having a separate committee but it would make sense that it would work with the Status of Women committee. What is the Status of Women committee for? If they haven't got a big enough committee to address pay equity couldn't they just increase the size of the Status of Women committee? Apparently the Status of Women committee has only one man involved. What will the gender balance be in the Pay Equity committee?
I'd rather see a new special committee on childcare and eldercare.
Fri, 2016-02-05 15:28
#289
The motion was about undoing some of the damage that the Cons did. I have no problem with that being identified in it. Undoing that damage was what the motion was about. Good for the Liberals to support it.
Fri, 2016-02-05 16:09
#290
There was no need to mention the Conservatives in the motion. By doing so they make it about partisanship rather than about the legislation.
I am glad that the Liberal MP's are more concerned about pay equity than some of their supporters appear to be. Is there nothing you won't take a partisan swipe at? That was a great day for all women in this country and you need to dis the NDP. 
Fri, 2016-02-05 18:37
#291
Arthur Cramer
There was no need to mention the Conservatives in the motion. By doing so they make it about partisanship rather than about the legislation.
I am glad that the Liberal MP's are more concerned about pay equity than some of their supporters appear to be. Is there nothing you won't take a partisan swipe at? That was a great day for all women in this country and you need to dis the NDP.
Pondering would have said nothing if the Libs had authored the exact same motion. She is simply mad the NDP is able to tske credit for this instead of the Liberals. For Pondering it isn't about women, it's about the Liberals. That is all any of her posts are about. They certainly aren't about anything else.
Fri, 2016-02-05 22:52
#292
There was no need to mention the Conservatives in the motion. By doing so they make it about partisanship rather than about the legislation.
I am glad that the Liberal MP's are more concerned about pay equity than some of their supporters appear to be. Is there nothing you won't take a partisan swipe at? That was a great day for all women in this country and you need to dis the NDP.
The NDP did take a swipe at the Conservatives. That's a fact. In so doing the gave the Conservatives an opportunity to make it about Conservative-NDP hostility with pay equity being the tool. I would bet that more than a few Canadians are wondering what the Status of Women committee is for.
Fri, 2016-02-05 23:44
#293
Gee Pondering. In post #481 I acknowledged the Liberal support of the pay equity motion and gave them kudos for it ("good stuff") and you still go looking for squabbles. Yeesh. It was the Conservatives who first weakened pay equity (with Liberal support by the way -- it was at the time just after prorogation when the Libs could have joined with the NDP to form a coalition and boot Steve out, but instead they supported Harpo and his weakening of pay equity). I say good for the Liberals to now side with the NDP against the Conservative weakening of pay equity, and you condemn the NDP (and presumably the current Liberals too) for doing this? That's just nuts.
Fri, 2016-02-05 23:54
#294
Arthur Cramer
There was no need to mention the Conservatives in the motion. By doing so they make it about partisanship rather than about the legislation.
I am glad that the Liberal MP's are more concerned about pay equity than some of their supporters appear to be. Is there nothing you won't take a partisan swipe at? That was a great day for all women in this country and you need to dis the NDP.
The NDP did take a swipe at the Conservatives. That's a fact. In so doing the gave the Conservatives an opportunity to make it about Conservative-NDP hostility with pay equity being the tool. I would bet that more than a few Canadians are wondering what the Status of Women committee is for.
Your post is nonsense Pondering.
Sat, 2016-02-06 00:20
#295
Gee Pondering. In post #481 I acknowledged the Liberal support of the pay equity motion and gave them kudos for it ("good stuff") and you still go looking for squabbles. Yeesh. It was the Conservatives who first weakened pay equity (with Liberal support by the way -- it was at the time just after prorogation when the Libs could have joined with the NDP to form a coalition and boot Steve out, but instead they supported Harpo and his weakening of pay equity). I say good for the Liberals to now side with the NDP against the Conservative weakening of pay equity, and you condemn the NDP (and presumably the current Liberals too) for doing this? That's just nuts.
Correct. I think the Liberals supported it for political reasons. Such a study should be under the authority of the Status of Women committee. I think it's a waste of money that is intended to make brownie points for politicians.
I am pleased with Cullen's suggestion that the democratic reform committee be balanced by popular vote rather than number of seats. When the NDP does something I appreciate I acknowledge it. This isn't one of those times.
Sat, 2016-02-06 00:34
#296
Arthur Cramer
Gee Pondering. In post #481 I acknowledged the Liberal support of the pay equity motion and gave them kudos for it ("good stuff") and you still go looking for squabbles. Yeesh. It was the Conservatives who first weakened pay equity (with Liberal support by the way -- it was at the time just after prorogation when the Libs could have joined with the NDP to form a coalition and boot Steve out, but instead they supported Harpo and his weakening of pay equity). I say good for the Liberals to now side with the NDP against the Conservative weakening of pay equity, and you condemn the NDP (and presumably the current Liberals too) for doing this? That's just nuts.
Correct. I think the Liberals supported it for political reasons. Such a study should be under the authority of the Status of Women committee. I think it's a waste of money that is intended to make brownie points for politicians.
I am pleased with Cullen's suggestion that the democratic reform committee be balanced by popular vote rather than number of seats. When the NDP does something I appreciate I acknowledge it. This isn't one of those times.
More nonsense Pondering.
Sat, 2016-02-06 09:33
#297
http://www.ndp.ca/news/adoption-ndp-pay-equity-motion-step-right-directi...
Kudos to the NDP and to the Liberals for supporting the motion to make pay equity a human right. Equal pay for work of equal value. This is an important step forward in moving to close the wage gap between men and women.
Sat, 2016-02-06 11:04
#298
Wonderful, my own M.P. Shiela Malcolmson introduced the bill. It can be seen as another step forward by a Nanaimo M.P., even though within a Liberal government. Now that's the beginning of some great cooperation!
Another in that good things have come from Nanaimo in the past. Maybe the most NDP city in the entire country? a challenge?
Sat, 2016-02-06 23:47
#299
Arthur Cramer
I don't understand the title of this thread.
Trudeau has reneged on cancelling anti union legislation saying instead he'll study it, is going to go through with TPP after "consultations", is still pushing through with anti democratic bill C51, mislead Canadians about his tax break, and won't admit that something needs to be done about minimum wages. What's really changed when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of improving people's economic fortunes, except for the 1%? This thread really should be titled, "meet the old boss, same as the new boss; Liberal-Tory, STILL, the same old story!
Sat, 2016-02-06 23:58
#300
Got any links for that claim AC? Last I heard the bills are being repealed and the Conservative senate is threatening to block him.
Sun, 2016-02-07 00:15
#301
Got any links for that claim AC? Last I heard the bills are being repealed and the Conservative senate is threatening to block him.
Few of them have any real evidence but it's pretty sure they want to see Trudeau fail. Please, please, please, prove to us that you're just another cat and will never do anything good for us meeses.
Tommy would have dealt with this alot differently. In fact, Tommy would have never got the NDP into this jackpot where they have no agenda to call their own and they are helping to create the perfect storm by having to go along with Liberal progressiveness.