get rid of GMO's and we wouldn't need herbicides and pesticides.
stop supporting Monsanto
Tracking the Liberal government's record of keeping promises (a.k.a. Trudeaumeter 2)
Fri, 2016-02-12 17:48
#152
Fri, 2016-02-12 17:59
#153
again what do you people not get about competition to maximize profit and killing bees while doing?
continuing this use will destroy the whole ecosytem. it destroys other market gardens and orchard farmers crops and their ability to grow them forever.
NO BEES NO FOOD CHAIN
I agree with you. So why do farmers of corn, soybean and grain want to keep using it if it will destroy their farms?
Party leaders should not make decisions on a whim unless you are promoting dictatorship. I'm not saying the decision to ban them is wrong. I'm saying it's wrong to want leaders to take decisions without studying an issue and hearing all sides no matter what the issue is.
Fri, 2016-02-12 18:35
#154
Arthur Cramer
again what do you people not get about competition to maximize profit and killing bees while doing?
continuing this use will destroy the whole ecosytem. it destroys other market gardens and orchard farmers crops and their ability to grow them forever.
NO BEES NO FOOD CHAIN
I agree with you. So why do farmers of corn, soybean and grain want to keep using it if it will destroy their farms?
Party leaders should not make decisions on a whim unless you are promoting dictatorship. I'm not saying the decision to ban them is wrong. I'm saying it's wrong to want leaders to take decisions without studying an issue and hearing all sides no matter what the issue is.
All sides? What are you talking about? The science is in. It's time for him to announce he intends to ban more restrict pesticide use and invite those affected to discuss implementation. There is nothing left to discuss. This kind of argument you advance Pondering is how the Libs stall while trying how to do something without taking a political hit. It's all about politics, power, and patronage. It should always not be about the LPC.
What, what's good for the LPC is good for Canada?
Fri, 2016-02-12 21:35
#155
again what do you people not get about competition to maximize profit and killing bees while doing?continuing this use will destroy the whole ecosytem. it destroys other market gardens and orchard farmers crops and their ability to grow them forever.
NO BEES NO FOOD CHAIN
I agree with you. So why do farmers of corn, soybean and grain want to keep using it if it will destroy their farms?
i don't know maybe they're shills for Monsanto like the Liberals are. maybe they're lazy selfish, narrow minded. who the fuck gives a fuck what stupid reason they have to continue to destroy the environment completely.
Party leaders should not make decisions on a whim unless you are promoting dictatorship. I'm not saying the decision to ban them is wrong. I'm saying it's wrong to want leaders to take decisions without studying an issue and hearing all sides no matter what the issue is.
the government should listen to their own scientists and not Monsanto lobbyists imv.
and no it's not wrong to want the government to do what is good for Canadians and the planet and not corporations. and it's not a whim ffs. stop with the spin bs. it's just a piss off pondering. you know better. the science has been in on this for a long fking time.
Fri, 2016-02-12 21:49
#156
get rid of GMO's and we wouldn't need herbicides and pesticides.
I'm just a city-slicker here, who assumes that all farmers have a cow, a horse, a chicken and a sheep like in that colouring book.
So can you explain how not planting GMO crops will mean no more weeds and no more insects?
Have farmers just always known "ways" -- like planting an onion on every row, and then there won't be aphids any more?
Fri, 2016-02-12 22:06
#157
the government should listen to their own scientists and not Monsanto lobbyists imv.
and no it's not wrong to want the government to do what is good for Canadians and the planet and not corporations. and it's not a whim ffs. stop with the spin bs. it's just a piss off pondering. you know better. the science has been in on this for a long fking time.
Absolutely, and so far no government scientists have told him to ban it.
All they have said is that it is killing bees in Ontario and Quebec. No mention of the prairies so maybe it isn't a problem there. Ontario and Quebec are not known for wheat or soybeans so maybe it is the corn farmers using it?
Sat, 2016-02-13 00:33
#158
still playing silly bugger.
the scientists mandate would NOT be to say "ban it".
their mandate is to say what the fk it's doing. the government is the one who should be taking the next measures. NOT saying "the scientists didn't tell us what to do"
eta: .....all those orchard and market farmers who voted for the Liberals are getting a rude awakening again. if i didn't care about the planet i would be happy the Liberals are shooting themselves in the foot and would be happily saying 'carry on Justin'.
little groups of people getting pissed off here, there and everywhere already. the glam is wearing thin in just 100 days.
Sat, 2016-02-13 00:48
#159
still playing silly bugger.
the scientists mandate would NOT be to say "ban it".
their mandate is to say what the fk it's doing. the government is the one who should be taking the next measures. NOT saying "the scientists didn't tell us what to do"
eta: .....all those orchard and market farmers who voted for the Liberals are getting a rude awakening again. if i didn't care about the planet i would be happy the Liberals are shooting themselves in the foot and would be happily saying 'carry on Justin'.
little groups of people getting pissed off here, there and everywhere already. the glam is wearing thin in just 100 days.
There are no little groups of people getting mad. The convention was a year and a half ago. You're saying he should have made a decision over a year before he was even elected.
The correct procedure is to refer it to the dept. of agriculture or health or whomever else has to be consulted and request a report or recommendation then follow-up but even that might wait until someone raises the topic to the government that is in office. People can petition MPs to introduce it as a motion or private members bill.
I know Harper made it seem as though government is run single-handed but it isn't so.
Sat, 2016-02-13 00:51
#160
No good reason Canada couldn't benefit from going GMO-free as well...
Russia Wants To Be World's Top Exporter of Non-GMO Food
http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/09/russia-non-gmo-food/
"Russia is notoriously anti-GMO..."
Sat, 2016-02-13 01:19
#161
you just repeated my words to repeat? eta oh you forgot to copy in answer.
oh yes there is. Tom Clark was even talking smack tonight.
environmentalists.
farmers.
veterans.
anti-war advocates.
anti-pipeline
boaters.
marijuana activists
Tue, 2016-02-16 19:00
#162
Arthur Cramer
Regarding Trudeau's promise of openess. Murray Dobbin Trudeau is failing in this article:
http://murraydobbin.ca/2016/02/05/trade-minister-needs-to-break-out-of-bureaucrats-bubble-on-tpp/
This is CLEARLY a failure! It shows how Trudeau really wants to do, the same old LPC double shuffle, appear to do one thing while actually doing something else.
Tue, 2016-02-16 23:00
#163
Regarding Trudeau's promise of openess. Murray Dobbin Trudeau is failing in this article:
http://murraydobbin.ca/2016/02/05/trade-minister-needs-to-break-out-of-bureaucrats-bubble-on-tpp/
This is CLEARLY a failure! It shows how Trudeau really wants to do, the same old LPC double shuffle, appear to do one thing while actually doing something else.
It's a silly article.
The more serious sign that trade officials are busy manipulating their minister is revealed in the answers the government provides to Canadians who take it up on the offer to engage.
Nobody is manipulating or misleading Freeland on this. She knows exactly what she is doing. The Liberals have been very clear that they support trade deals both before and after the election. They did promise debate and to consult the provinces. This is the beginning of a two year process. The government is not going to volunteer to meet with labour or NGOs neither of which are traditional members of trade discussions.
Tue, 2016-02-16 23:15
#164
Arthur Cramer
http://linkis.com/www.thetelegram.com/iiJ7l
Austerity comes to Newfoundland, This is the REAL and ONLY result of Lib governance. Promise one thing with one hand while taking away with the other and then telling everyone else they had no choice.
Liberal, Tory, very same, very old, very nasty, very dishonest, story!
Tue, 2016-02-16 23:17
#165
Arthur Cramer
I don't know, I think Dobbin makes a very strong case. Lately people of the LPC persuasion have been citing various journalists to support their ases. I guess this only applies when it jives with the current Liberal spin. There is no question that Freeland has no business holding a seat in the House. She's an ellite 1%er who will happily collect her big fat MP pensions while aiding and abetting Justin Trudeaus destruction of basic services and war on working people as embodied in the TPP. Sorry, if you are right that Freeland knows what she's doing, then she knows how bad the TPP is, and going ahead knowing this can mean only one thing, she is evil, and calous. What, "let them eat cake"?
ETA: Does ANYONE really believe the Libs are going to take 2 years to ratify the TPP. And one other thing, LE DEAUPHIN, that's right, "JUNIOR", promised open consultations. EVERYONE KNOW that people expected that wold mean they would have a chance to make their case directly to Parlimentarians. The fact that this "wasn't done before", is irrelvant! Just-in-it-for-me, PROMISED people would have a meaningful voice.
Oh, no, we can't hear from the peasants. Imagine the riff-raff being haerd, who could imagine? Clutch those pearls!
Wed, 2016-02-17 13:30
#166
montrealer58
It is a shame the NDP did not run against austerity in the last federal election. Perhaps the anti-austerity sentiment could be directed to the NDP, who should have known better than to run on a balanced budget.
Wed, 2016-02-17 13:51
#167
They did run against austerity. Keep in mind that the Liberals promised $6.5B in cuts to services in their term (1/2 billion the first year, $1B the next year, $2B the third year, and a $3B cut the fouth year ). The NDP ran against this. Rather than $26B in deficits for the first three years accompanied by a cumulative $6.5B in cuts, the NDP had revenue increases (beyond the Libs) of $16.8B over the term that would continue beyond for longer term programming without cuts (with an admittedly more modest infrastructure proposal and a slower implementation of a child care plan -- but this would have been better in the long term and done without the cuts that the Liberals plan to do). The Liberals, not the NDP, were preaching cuts and austerity -- $6.5B in cuts as laid out in their platform, while refusing to increase corporate taxes.
Thu, 2016-02-18 11:17
#168
Arthur Cramer
I politics is quoting the MND saying the F35 is in the running now. Odd considering Junior said in his Party's platform the F35 was out. Trudeau is a LIAR.
Thu, 2016-02-18 13:14
#169
They did run against austerity. Keep in mind that the Liberals promised $6.5B in cuts to services in their term (1/2 billion the first year, $1B the next year, $2B the third year, and a $3B cut the fouth year ). The NDP ran against this. Rather than $26B in deficits for the first three years accompanied by a cumulative $6.5B in cuts, the NDP had revenue increases (beyond the Libs) of $16.8B over the term that would continue beyond for longer term programming without cuts (with an admittedly more modest infrastructure proposal and a slower implementation of a child care plan -- but this would have been better in the long term and done without the cuts that the Liberals plan to do). The Liberals, not the NDP, were preaching cuts and austerity -- $6.5B in cuts as laid out in their platform, while refusing to increase corporate taxes.
Since Uncle Tom was running against Just'Isnt TrueDo and his promise of Real Change voters got confused and thought the Liberals were the progressive party, after all Mulcair was a Liberal Cabinet Minister and pledged to help the class he comes from and that was not an underclass. The party wiped out democratic socialism as an NDP approved ideal and working class as a focus of their ideas and replaced it with a leader who bragged about his time in an austerity cabinet while promising to give the middle class more.
The sad part is that only a policy wonk would have any idea what was in the NDP platform. All the masses got from the Mulcair NDP's message was we can make Change if We Have To , I guess, but we promise it will be Slow and Incremental Change so you'll hardly notice a thing.
Thu, 2016-02-18 13:18
#170
I politics is quoting the MND saying the F35 is in the running now. Odd considering Junior said in his Party's platform the F35 was out. Trudeau is a LIAR.
There is no contradiction. You can call him a liar if he actually buys an F35 or if the F35 is in the running once the specs have been determined.
While delivering an address at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute in Ottawa, Harjit Sajjan was asked whether the Liberals would allow the F-35 jet to be part in the bidding competition to replace Canada’s current CF-18 aircraft. He replied that the bidding process would be “open,” and explained that the government first needs to work out the specific requirements for its new jets, then it will move to accept bids.
Pressed further, Sajjan referred reporters to his ministerial mandate letter, which states that he must work “with the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft, focusing on options that match Canada’s defence needs.”
Sajjan’s statements on Thursday seemed to directly contradict the Liberal election platform, which explicitly states that Canada “will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber” under a Liberal government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged that his government would withdraw from the program, buy a cheaper fighter jet chosen by competition and redirect the savings into rebuilding the navy.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2525385/harjit-sajjan-backs-away-from-election...
The specific requirements of the new jets will exclude the F 35 but he can't say that because Canada could be sued if it were determined that the F 35 was specifically targeted to be excluded as opposed to just didn't meet the specs. They can't say in advance that the F 35 will not be considered even if it meets the specs.
Thu, 2016-02-18 13:52
#171
They did run against austerity. Keep in mind that the Liberals promised $6.5B in cuts to services in their term (1/2 billion the first year, $1B the next year, $2B the third year, and a $3B cut the fouth year ).
Liberals never said they would cut services. They said they would find savings and increase services.
Now that economic conditions have changed they plan on increasing deficit spending which they can do because they clearly supported the principle of deficit spending during the campaign.
The NDP would have to be making massive cuts or massive tax increases if they had won the election to meet their pledge of balanced budgets in every year of their mandate.
They did run against austerity. Keep in mind that the Liberals promised $6.5B in cuts to services in their term (1/2 billion the first year, $1B the next year, $2B the third year, and a $3B cut the fouth year ). The NDP ran against this. Rather than $26B in deficits for the first three years accompanied by a cumulative $6.5B in cuts, the NDP had revenue increases (beyond the Libs) of $16.8B over the term that would continue beyond for longer term programming without cuts (with an admittedly more modest infrastructure proposal and a slower implementation of a child care plan -- but this would have been better in the long term and done without the cuts that the Liberals plan to do). The Liberals, not the NDP, were preaching cuts and austerity -- $6.5B in cuts as laid out in their platform, while refusing to increase corporate taxes.
Austerity or radical tax increases are the only way Canada can stay out of deficit for the next four years. It was not humanly possible for the NDP to keep all their promises and the public knew it. When you make a promise people know you can't keep all credibility is lost. If there is a hierarcy to those promises people might be more easily convinced that you are being truthful because they can see what will fall off the list if circumstances differ from what was expected.
The Liberal hierarchy of promises put deficit spending first, restoring government ability to serve second, and balancing the budget third. The opposition parties can cry and moan about the deficit being larger than expected but after the Harper deficits the Liberals will have no trouble justifying theirs.
The NDP hierarchy of promises put balancing the budget first because of the emphasis placed on it. On closer inspection the daycare program was nothing more than an idea with no provincial buy in. The increase in federal minimum wage wouldn't apply to the grand majority of minimum wage workers. Dumping the Senate would have required constitutional talks.
You are still promoting a plodding style of governance that basically accepts the status quo with some modest tweaking to improve things a bit. A 2% corporate tax increase is a drop in the bucket.
There is really no point to the NDP's existence if it isn't willing to stand up for the 99%. I don't agree that the NDP has to endorse the Leap Manifesto but it does have to adopt the general drift. It has to fight the trade deals like CUPE and the Council of Canadians. This is no time for the NDP to be timid nor to reassure the public that business as usual with a couple of tweaks is just fine so they can trust the NDP not to change anything too dramatically.
It's true that the Liberals aren't going to change things too dramatically either but the deficit spending will have an immediate impact on people's lives and will allow the Liberals to keep many if not all of their campaign commitments.
Thu, 2016-02-18 14:03
#172
Liberals Back CSIS In Torture Lawsuit
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/06/liberals-back-csis-in-tort...
"The Liberal government has taken up the former Conservative government's legal fight against an apology and compensation for three Canadians tortured in the Middle East, despite voting in favour of the former detainees' cause while they sat in opposition.
As well, in aggressively defeating the actions of CSIS and trying to prevent the release of thousands of unredacted documents that a judge is now poring over, the Liberals are going further than their Conservative predecessors did to protect CSIS sources.
Put together, the moves have stunned a team of lawyers at Toronto's Stockwood's firm that took up the cause of Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nureddin and Ahmad El Maati, as well as others who closely follow developments in security law.
"It's a continuation of this incredibly litigious no-holds-barred-scorched-earth defence strategy which we've been experiencing for 10 years under the Harper government,' said lawyer Phil Tunley. Tunley, who is leading the team of counsel to the men, is shocked by the moves of a Liberal government that explicitly promised to bring accountability to the nation's national security regime."
No surprise here. This is the where we see revealed their true intentions - to preserve and defend the worst aspects of the Canadian security state. There will undoubtedly follow more such indications...
Hey Ralph! Liberal-Tory same old story? WTF?
I'd like to see some follow-up on this story.
Thu, 2016-02-18 16:06
#173
They did run against austerity. Keep in mind that the Liberals promised $6.5B in cuts to services in their term (1/2 billion the first year, $1B the next year, $2B the third year, and a $3B cut the fouth year ).
Liberals never said they would cut services. They said they would find savings and increase services.
Did they? I don't remember expansion of services in their platform. I remember 'middle class' well upper middle and upper class tax cuts, but the paltry increase at the top will not pay for it.
How have they done with bringing back Postal services at home. Oh right they aren't.
How about the news today they are going to review and likely reinstate the TFWP to what it was before Harper changed it.
It noted the chamber of commerce had complainst so they will review it.
Imagine Harper is more progressive than Trudeau. Who would have thought.
Thu, 2016-02-18 16:37
#174
Arthur Cramer
I politics is quoting the MND saying the F35 is in the running now. Odd considering Junior said in his Party's platform the F35 was out. Trudeau is a LIAR.There is no contradiction. You can call him a liar if he actually buys an F35 or if the F35 is in the running once the specs have been determined.
While delivering an address at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute in Ottawa, Harjit Sajjan was asked whether the Liberals would allow the F-35 jet to be part in the bidding competition to replace Canada’s current CF-18 aircraft. He replied that the bidding process would be “open,” and explained that the government first needs to work out the specific requirements for its new jets, then it will move to accept bids.
Pressed further, Sajjan referred reporters to his ministerial mandate letter, which states that he must work “with the Minister of Public Services and Procurement to launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft, focusing on options that match Canada’s defence needs.”
Sajjan’s statements on Thursday seemed to directly contradict the Liberal election platform, which explicitly states that Canada “will not buy the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber” under a Liberal government. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged that his government would withdraw from the program, buy a cheaper fighter jet chosen by competition and redirect the savings into rebuilding the navy.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2525385/harjit-sajjan-backs-away-from-election...
The specific requirements of the new jets will exclude the F 35 but he can't say that because Canada could be sued if it were determined that the F 35 was specifically targeted to be excluded as opposed to just didn't meet the specs. They can't say in advance that the F 35 will not be considered even if it meets the specs.
Actually I have a bit of experience with DND acquisition projects from my service time. The government at the time had no problem saying no to the EH 101 when announced acquisition plans. The Libs will buy the F35 and its billions of dollars of trouble because Junior will NEVER say no to the Americans. We shouldn't have hired a celebrity monger as country leader.
Thu, 2016-02-18 22:00
#175
They did run against austerity. Keep in mind that the Liberals promised $6.5B in cuts to services in their term (1/2 billion the first year, $1B the next year, $2B the third year, and a $3B cut the fouth year ). The NDP ran against this. Rather than $26B in deficits for the first three years accompanied by a cumulative $6.5B in cuts, the NDP had revenue increases (beyond the Libs) of $16.8B over the term that would continue beyond for longer term programming without cuts (with an admittedly more modest infrastructure proposal and a slower implementation of a child care plan -- but this would have been better in the long term and done without the cuts that the Liberals plan to do). The Liberals, not the NDP, were preaching cuts and austerity -- $6.5B in cuts as laid out in their platform, while refusing to increase corporate taxes.
Mulcair and Harper both promised to only run surpluses because the economy is in strong shape for years to come. Trudeau said the Conservatives and NDP were wrong and that the economy was weak and because of this deficit spending was required, especially because interest rates are near zero. The public sided with Trudeau and the Liberals on this. As it turns out, the public and the Liberals were right and this might explain why the Liberals won the election. It might also explain why Trudeau's approval ratings are now far ahead of Mulcair's and Ambrose's.
Fri, 2016-02-19 15:12
#176
Raising corporate taxes rather than running deficits makes more sense to me in current circumstances. The Liberals previously in the 90s cut transfer payments to bring things to balance after years of Cons and Libs running deficits. They did this while cutting taxes. Disgusting. So the deficit and service issues were simply transfered to the provinces and municipalities. So now there's a problems in such things as repairs to social housing in Toronto (a $2.6B backlog, apparently). Never mind shortcomings in child care, shelter, transit, roadways, education, health care, etc. So, the Liberals can now borrow to fix what they created. And keep taxes low (hey, and spend another $1B on their recent not-revenue-neutral tax cut.) And keep wasting money in the war overseas! Then maybe after running up a federal deficit, if their promised $6.5B cut ain't enough for 'em, they can transfer the headache back to the provinces and municipalities again! No. It's stupid. The real issue is a revenue shortfall. Only the NDP was willing to tackle this by increasing government revenues. Perpetual deficits eventually lead to a lower credit rating, high inflation, and service cuts. Deficits with tax cuts and service cuts to the public sector is what Libs and Cons do. Not the answer.
Fri, 2016-02-19 15:24
#177
Childcare: The Trudeaumetre has this down as "not yet started" (link). Their promise stated:
Develop a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework to ensure affordable, high-quality, and fully inclusive child care is available to all families who need it.We will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families. This work will begin in the first 100 days of a Liberal government and will be funded through our investments in social infrastructure.
It's been more than 100 days, yet I haven't heard anything of this (besides this one news item, which frankly hinted that they're not putting much effort into this promise of theirs).
Fri, 2016-02-19 17:14
#178
Raising corporate taxes rather than running deficits makes more sense to me in current circumstances. The Liberals previously in the 90s cut transfer payments to bring things to balance after years of Cons and Libs running deficits. They did this while cutting taxes. Disgusting. So the deficit and service issues were simply transfered to the provinces and municipalities. So now there's a problems in such things as repairs to social housing in Toronto (a $2.6B backlog, apparently). Never mind shortcomings in child care, shelter, transit, roadways, education, health care, etc. So, the Liberals can now borrow to fix what they created. And keep taxes low (hey, and spend another $1B on their recent not-revenue-neutral tax cut.) And keep wasting money in the war overseas! Then maybe after running up a federal deficit, if their promised $6.5B cut ain't enough for 'em, they can transfer the headache back to the provinces and municipalities again! No. It's stupid. The real issue is a revenue shortfall. Only the NDP was willing to tackle this by increasing government revenues. Perpetual deficits eventually lead to a lower credit rating, high inflation, and service cuts. Deficits with tax cuts and service cuts to the public sector is what Libs and Cons do. Not the answer.
The real issue is our own Canadian "Wall Street". What the Liberals did in the 90s is immaterial. All that matters is what they are doing now and if they have the support of the majority of Canadians and little opposition from the public for doing whatever they are doing or not doing.
What the NDP was selling is clearly not what the public was buying and they still aren't buying it. You are not going to convince people that the Liberals are bad fiscal managers with that approach.
It is only by pointing out the big winners and the tools they are using that neoliberalism will be exposed. Once it is exposed people will demand that it be reversed. That is when a party like the NDP can rise.
Fri, 2016-02-19 17:47
#179
What the NDP was selling is clearly not what the public was buying and they still aren't buying it.
How about you Pondering? Do you still buy Trudeau's corporate loving spiel? That McCorp must not have their taxes raised?
Fri, 2016-02-19 20:18
#180
....What the Liberals did in the 90s is immaterial. All that matters is what they are doing now....
NO it's not immaterial. we've had this conversation before.
we keep paying as taxpayers for gutted and renewed services over and over again. it's bs. all the thing the Liberals cut and now need to be replaced.
also, what they did is a good baseline for the promised cuts in the future instead of making the money from taxing corporations as they should be. we can clearly see what their pattern of cutting and gutting is in their past actions.
Fri, 2016-02-19 23:28
#181
Raising corporate taxes rather than running deficits makes more sense to me in current circumstances.
I think raising corporate taxes and running deficits are both required in current circumstances. If the federal government runs surpluses or even just balances the budget now, they will have to undertake huge cuts. With our weak economy, deficits in the tens of billions of dollars is now required. This is why Mulcair's promise to run surpluses was received so negatively by left of centre voters. I think on this very important issue the Liberals were right and the NDP was wrong. I was canvassing for the NDP during the election and the NDP's position on this issue made it difficult for me to make a very good case for the NDP. I was flabbergasted when Mulcair took the stance that the NDP would never run deficits during their first term as the strong economy didn't warrant deficit spending. Mulcair's position just supported Harper's position that the economy was strong which very few on the centre and left believed to be true. Of course the argument that the economy was strong was all hogwash and the voters knew it and so they supported the Liberals over the NDP and Conservatives. I think if Mulcair had come out and said that the NDP's primary goal was creating good jobs and full employment, which would require deficits, Mulcair would have had a shot at becoming p.m. As it is, Mulcair fumbled the ball on this issue and that might end up precluding his chance of ever becoming p.m.
Sat, 2016-02-20 03:00
#182
*
Sat, 2016-02-20 04:28
#183
While technically this isn't a broken promise it is a broken promise in spirit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/19/stephane-dion-bds-israel-conserv...
Liberals will support a Conservative motion condemning the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, even if the foreign affairs minister sees it as an attempt to spark division.
Yes that is what they are doing so why are the Liberals cooperating? Are they going to agree to condemn environmentalists next in order to not be divisive? Where are the modifications to C 51? They have had months and months to prepare on that. The modifications, or at least some of them, should be a no brainer. The Liberals say they want to consult everyone so time to consult with Canadian organizations that are concerned with protecting our rights.
Sat, 2016-02-20 04:32
#184
How have they done with bringing back Postal services at home. Oh right they aren't.
How about the news today they are going to review and likely reinstate the TFWP to what it was before Harper changed it.
It noted the chamber of commerce had complainst so they will review it.Imagine Harper is more progressive than Trudeau. Who would have thought.
I don't think they have made an announcement on the postal service changes. I did not hear that they are going to reinstate the TFWP. If so I am strongly against it.
Sat, 2016-02-20 12:34
#185
pondering, and here ya go on the Liberals failed promise due to ban neonicotinoids and what bs it is on the science not being there after even government scientists have said so....
European scientists have discovered that bee populations are experiencing a resurgence after three neonicotinoid insecticides, clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were banned by the European Commission in 2013. Unfortunately, all three are still used heavily in the USA.
and Canada!!!!!!
Sat, 2016-02-20 13:09
#186
Re: post #182
The exact motion by Conservative member Tony Clement is:
That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.
I wasn't sure if the Liberals were in fact going to support it or not (wasn't really clear in the CBC article on it that I read), but then I found this from Stephane Dion:
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the entire government, I will begin by saying that the government will be supporting the motion by the official opposition. We will support it because we agree with the substance of it, although we do have some reservations about its form and about the Conservative Party's real intentions.
So even though Dion expressed reservations about it (almost twisting himself into a pretzel), they will support it anyway. Later he was clear why:
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech and I thank him for it. His speech emphasizes that Canada must strengthen its ties with Israel and oppose anything that could turn us away from this friend.I would like to give him the opportunity to repeat his point of view by asking him what he and the Minister of International Trade are going to do to implement the Canada-Israel free trade agreement as effectively as possible. This agreement is in our best interest because Israel has had such economic success. After all, Israel is the second-largest investor in research and development in the OECD.
We must not miss out on this opportunity. We have to develop the best possible strategy for implementing this agreement in the most effective way possible.
Con member Garnet Genius asked if the Liberals were going to whip the vote in favour of the motion, to which Lib member Lametti basically said, I dunno -- gotta talk to the PM about it.
Sat, 2016-02-20 13:46
#187
How about the news today they are going to review and likely reinstate the TFWP to what it was before Harper changed it.
It noted the chamber of commerce had complainst so they will review it.Imagine Harper is more progressive than Trudeau. Who would have thought.
I did not hear that they are going to reinstate the TFWP. If so I am strongly against it.
I don't recall any promise from the Liberals about the TFWP. The NDP promised to reform it (but not eliminate it -- they promised "These changes will ensure that all TFWs, current and future, will have the ability to access a path to citizenship." -- I didn't see anything in the Lib platform about it though).
Article here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/temporary-foreign-worker-program-liberal...
Sounds messy, so it's good the Libs are going to try to sort it out. Regarding undoing the reforms that the Cons had brought in, these apparently were scheduled to be phased in over time. The Libs themselves brought in measures on Dec 1, so it's felt that if the reforms of the Cons kick in that it would be too limiting. Thus they may undo some of the Cons' reforms to not conflict with the reforms the Libs themselves brought in (meaning they're not going back to what existed before Harper put in some reforms).
The NDP are concerned about how the TPP will affect any reforms the Libs may wish to do:
"How do they expect to fix the broken temporary foreign worker program while they ram through a trade deal that would create new loopholes," Mathyssen said on Thursday.
Sat, 2016-02-20 15:36
#188
pondering, and here ya go on the Liberals failed promise due to ban neonicotinoids and what bs it is on the science not being there after even government scientists have said so....
European scientists have discovered that bee populations are experiencing a resurgence after three neonicotinoid insecticides, clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam were banned by the European Commission in 2013. Unfortunately, all three are still used heavily in the USA.and Canada!!!!!!
Trudeau did not promise to ban it. Procedurally Trudeau does not wake up in the morning, read the paper, and decide to ban a product based on what European scientists are saying. When he actively refuses to ban it then I will have a problem with the decision. There will always be stuff that hasn't been done yet, or that he will change with the support of Canadians.
My sense prior to the election was that C 51 would be addressed quickly. The government is trying to exclude two citizens from restitution for having been tortured overseas based on a technicality. I want to know if that is left over from the Cons and if so it needs to be dropped.
Going along with the Conservatives on their clearly divisive motion is disturbing because he his agreeing to condemn major well-respected groups for a political position.
Sat, 2016-02-20 15:39
#189
How about the news today they are going to review and likely reinstate the TFWP to what it was before Harper changed it.
It noted the chamber of commerce had complainst so they will review it.Imagine Harper is more progressive than Trudeau. Who would have thought.
I did not hear that they are going to reinstate the TFWP. If so I am strongly against it.
I don't recall any promise from the Liberals about the TFWP. The NDP promised to reform it (but not eliminate it -- they promised "These changes will ensure that all TFWs, current and future, will have the ability to access a path to citizenship." -- I didn't see anything in the Lib platform about it though).
Article here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/temporary-foreign-worker-program-liberal...
Sounds messy, so it's good the Libs are going to try to sort it out. Regarding undoing the reforms that the Cons had brought in, these apparently were scheduled to be phased in over time. The Libs themselves brought in measures on Dec 1, so it's felt that if the reforms of the Cons kick in that it would be too limiting. Thus they may undo some of the Cons' reforms to not conflict with the reforms the Libs themselves brought in (meaning they're not going back to what existed before Harper put in some reforms).
The NDP are concerned about how the TPP will affect any reforms the Libs may wish to do:
"How do they expect to fix the broken temporary foreign worker program while they ram through a trade deal that would create new loopholes," Mathyssen said on Thursday.
Thanks for that and happy to see the trade deal being brought into it. I hope he is referring to CETA. Over a year ago when Trudeau was in Alberta he promised to support temporary workers for them. That may have changed now that Alberta is in a severe downturn.
Wed, 2016-02-24 20:46
#190
Finance minister defends Liberal government's willingness to run larger-than-expected deficit
The deficit for this year might be $30B rather than $10B. Not sure what to think of this. The article clearly mentions that the balanced budget by 2019 promise is also gone. Kevin Page, once a firm supporter of the Liberal plan, is sounding far more reticent now:
"I think these big movements in numbers, with the lack of information and analysis, from a government that said they were going to be more transparent, more analytical, you do get concerned," he [Kevin Page] said.
The trudeaumetre.ca site now lists this as a broken promise.
Wed, 2016-02-24 20:55
#191
Watching X-Company, the character who is a tough cop from the East End of London called the Nazi occupiers (of France) "efficient bastards". I guarantee that the character wasn't thinking of their parents' marital status or faithfulness. There are good reasons not to use the expressions "bastard" or "bitch", but most using them aren't thinking of so-called illegitimate children, or lady dogs.
Wed, 2016-02-24 21:25
#192
Finance minister defends Liberal government's willingness to run larger-than-expected deficit
The deficit for this year might be $30B rather than $10B. Not sure what to think of this. The article clearly mentions that the balanced budget by 2019 promise is also gone.
I'm very happy they're breaking this promise. I think large deficits while interest rates are at historic lows will help the long term growth of the economy and create long term jobs. I wish the NDP had proposed this kind of stimulus budgeting. I know that here in Vancouver we need extensive short term infrastructure spending to help increase the long term capacity of our economy. Amongst other things, we desperately need tons of new affordable housing and social housing and a new rapid transit line down Broadway to UBC.
As it is, Mulcair's promise to have only surpluses until 2019 seems even more unreasonable to me now than it did during the election campaign. Maintaining surpluses for four years would just shrink the economy.
Wed, 2016-02-24 21:46
#193
Watching X-Company, the character who is a tough cop from the East End of London called the Nazi occupiers (of France) "efficient bastards". I guarantee that the character wasn't thinking of their parents' marital status or faithfulness. There are good reasons not to use the expressions "bastard" or "bitch", but most using them aren't thinking of so-called illegitimate children, or lady dogs.
Speaking of, those bitching bastard Liberals better not break their promise of "Renewed investment in CBC/Radio-Canada".
Wed, 2016-02-24 21:48
#194
lolol ya you're kidding yourself jkr.
Wed, 2016-02-24 22:09
#195
Yeah, since interest rates are low, rather than just increasing it to three times the deficit they initially planned, why not make it ten times? Or twenty times? Or a hundred times? Free money. I believe Keynes said, "Run deficits to the moon, that'll fix everything."
Wed, 2016-02-24 23:50
#196
Yeah, since interest rates are low, rather than just increasing it to three times the deficit they initially planned, why not make it ten times? Or twenty times? Or a hundred times? Free money. I believe Keynes said, "Run deficits to the moon, that'll fix everything."
Keynesianists like Paul Krugman are advocating large deficits in the current global economic situation. It will be interesting to see how the Canadian economy is performing by 2019 and which political party reaps the benefit electorally from what kind of shape the economy is in by the election in October 2019.
Wed, 2016-02-24 23:51
#197
lolol ya you're kidding yourself jkr.
I think people who support balanced budgets now are the ones who are kidding themselves. They seem to be supporting balanced budgets and even surplus budgets because their favourite party, be it the NDP or Conservatives, promised to maintain surpluses during the election. I think if the NDP or Conservatives were the government now they too would have to bend to economic reality and run big deficits like the Alberta NDP is doing now.
Thu, 2016-02-25 00:01
#198
Keynes was an asshole who just wanted to save capitalism with the occasional gov't injection of funds to support private enterprise with public funding (followed by cuts to the public service) on occasion when capitalism fucked up. Screw Keynes. Begin the move to Marx. Increase corporate taxes and begin slowly but surely fighting corporate power.
Thu, 2016-02-25 00:06
#199
Mulcair wants to fight corporate power?!?!
Thu, 2016-02-25 00:09
#200
Well, it really depends what the Liberals will be spending the deficit on. If they spend most of it on useful infrastructure, as JKR hopefully imagines, then yes, that would help the economy, just as Krugman says. On the other hand, tax cuts for corporations and the upper middle class, more international military adventures and the like do little to stimulate the economy. So, it'll be interesting to see in the budget just where this larger deficit is spent.
Thu, 2016-02-25 00:11
#201
Mulcair wants to fight corporate power?!?!
Trudeau condemning Mulcair for not being a corporate toady like Trudeau is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUWurysfiB0