153

The Liberal platform


 

The Liberals have now released—and are currently presenting for television and online audiences—their election platform.

That’s our election pledge to you: a government that respects our democracy and strengthens equal opportunity for every man, woman and child in this incredible country. When each of us gets a chance to succeed, we all succeed together.


 

The Liberal platform

  1. I like what's in the document, and I love the team approach they took to launching it.

    Liberals are presenting a credible foil to Canadians to choose between them and conservative budget platform. Clear choices.

    We're lucky to live in a land with clear choices, however you choose to make them.

    Vote!

  2. I like what's in the document, and I love the team approach they took to launching it.

    Liberals are presenting a credible foil to Canadians to choose between them and conservative budget platform. Clear choices.

    We're lucky to live in a land with clear choices, however you choose to make them.

    Vote!

  3. Who else here has signed up to help a campaign for a worthy candidate you believe in?

    I encourage you to do something to support this democracy we all love, whatever your views and whoever you want to win.

    You will feel good knowing you are putting your time and effort where your mouth usually is.

  4. Who else here has signed up to help a campaign for a worthy candidate you believe in?

    I encourage you to do something to support this democracy we all love, whatever your views and whoever you want to win.

    You will feel good knowing you are putting your time and effort where your mouth usually is.

    • You go, girl!

  5. Red book!

    You know who else likes the colour red: communists and socialists.

    Coincidence.

    I think not.

    P.S. Not a single word about troops in the Liberal platform. Yet another sign of a dangerous coalition.

  6. Red book!

    You know who else likes the colour red: communists and socialists.

    Coincidence.

    I think not.

    P.S. Not a single word about troops in the Liberal platform. Yet another sign of a dangerous coalition.

    • Be serious.

      • Tories don't even know they are Republicans. That would take some research and Harpers bosses don't allow that!

    • "Not a single word about troops in the Liberal platform."

      Wrong.

      Pages 82 through 85 of the platform talk explicitly about the Canadian Forces. http://cdn.liberal.ca/files/2011/04/liberal_platf

      I'd say the biggest announcement from it is the Veterans Learning Benefit – I'd say assisting our veterans in getting an education after their service is a great help to our troops.

    • Just to correct the record, since it seems Wherry's link didn't work for you.

      Veterans Learning Benefit

      A Liberal government will implement a new Veterans' Learning Benefit that provides full support for the costs of up to four years of college, university or technical education for Canadian Forces veterans after completion of service.
      Show More

      Following the Second World War, both Canada and the United States offered veterans full support for their post-secondary education. Although the GI Bill continues in the United States today, no similar program remains in Canada. It's time we did more.

      In addition to honouring veterans, post-service education support would contribute to other important objectives. It would provide a significant boost for recruitment at a time when the Forces face difficulty in meeting enrollment needs in many specific occupational categories, particularly high-skill and technical areas. In addition, education support would smooth the reintegration of Canadian Forces personnel into society and the workforce. That makes sense for both the individuals involved, and the knowledge and skills-dependent Canadian economy.

      Based on current projections of attrition rates and the Forces' needs, and assuming a high take-up rate, this represents an estimated investment of up to $120 million in veterans' learning over the first two years of a Liberal government.

    • Come on, Anon, don't whip Emily in a frenzy on Sunday morning. She's just come back from her weekly Catch 22 mass.

    • You know who else likes the colour red?

      People who attend Red Friday rallies.

    • It's the time of year when all hunters in the forest are advised to wear bright orange sarcasm tags, Anon.

    • Craigslist.

  7. Be serious.

  8. Oooh… I'm so scared!

  9. Oooh… I'm so scared!

    • You must be a timid creature, indeed, if you're scared by the seniors, families, and students this platform supports.

      • My comment was meant for Anon who warned of the dangers attached to the colour red. In fact, red is the colour my face takes on whenever I think of Stephen Harper's BS.

        Somehow my reply wound up in the wrong place, hence the wrong context.

        • OK

  10. I believe in our Canadian Constitution outlining which powers are to be federal and which powers are to be provincial.

    I will never accept being treated as a second rate Canadian citizen when my federal vote will be sold out to the BQ – a separatist/provincial party being invited by the NDP/LIB coalition to sit at the federal table for consultation. My province does not get to sit at the federal table for permanent consulting purposes.

    Why does the Liberal party of Canada believe it is democratic to have one province sit in consultation with the federal government?

    I want an equal voter in a federal Canada. Why did Ignatieff sign away my equal rights in 2008 when he gave the BQ such special status, when he agreed in 2008 to the following:

    "Furthermore, upon its formation (2008 NDP/LIB coalition government), the government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Accord_en.pdf

  11. I believe in our Canadian Constitution outlining which powers are to be federal and which powers are to be provincial.

    I will never accept being treated as a second rate Canadian citizen when my federal vote will be sold out to the BQ – a separatist/provincial party being invited by the NDP/LIB coalition to sit at the federal table for consultation. My province does not get to sit at the federal table for permanent consulting purposes.

    Why does the Liberal party of Canada believe it is democratic to have one province sit in consultation with the federal government?

    I want an equal voter in a federal Canada. Why did Ignatieff sign away my equal rights in 2008 when he gave the BQ such special status, when he agreed in 2008 to the following:

    "Furthermore, upon its formation (2008 NDP/LIB coalition government), the government will put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc Québécois."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/081201_Accord_en.pdf

      • I wrote Harper at the time that Quebec does not deserve such separate nation status. But tell me, brooster2, does the Quebec 'Nation' status give them a "permanent consultation" position at the federal table?

        Now, have you asked Ignatieff, the great Canadian leader to be, if he has signed an agreement for letting the province of Quebed sit permanently at the federal table for consulting? Ask Ignatieff. Ask the great leader why he did sign such a document.

        • I'd hope that every province has a "permanent consultation" position at the federal table.

          • Just what I was thinking as I read the Francien's diatribe. She seems to be from Quebec, even, but apparently the last thing she wants is for Quebec's interests to be given any consideration whatsoever.

            Not that I think she's totally wrong about the Bloc. I, too, have trouble with a regional-only party. But that's why I wouldn't vote for one. I can urge and encourage votes to go one way or another, but I can't TELL a fellow Canadian how to vote. Well, I can, but it would reflect badly on me.

    • It is not giving a 'province' anything, it is giving 25% of the Canadian population, which choose Quebec as their home, a voice. It is unfortunate for sure that half of their population want out of the Dominion but what about the other half? 12.5% of the countries population that love and want to stay in Canada. May I suggest that you and your tory brethern try treating Canadians with respect instead of Contempt! (there's that word again!).

      • You call yourself a proud Canadian when your vote is being sold out through the back door to a party which is solely provincial and separatist in outlook?

        I'm not willing to sell out my Canadian voting rights that cheaply. I want all provinces to be equal in a federally run government.

        • Tories scare me more than Quebecers, that said, your comment "I'm not willing to sell out my Canadian voting rights that cheaply" leads me to ask, what price do you ask for your voting rights?

          • Proud Canadian, in this election there is a leader for everything. If you believe Quebec should have a veto over the ROC, vote for Ignatieff or Layton.

            I will always vote for the genuine Canadian leader. But I will never tell others how to vote. I'm sure most Canadians are real Canadians when the x needs to be marked.

          • If you believe Quebec should have a veto over the ROC, vote for Ignatieff or Layton.

            Whereas if you believe the White House and Wall Street should have that veto, you vote Harper? Is that how it works?

          • If you believe Quebec should have a veto over the ROC….

            Quebec has 75 seats in a 308 seat house.

            With those 75 seats, Quebec MPs (BQ or otherwise) can not do anything at all to stop the reamaining 233 MPs from implementing whatever legislation those ROC MPs desire, whether it is bad, neutral or good for Quebec – Quebec simply does not have a veto.

          • Some days, EeeOar, I really wonder if it's worth it. You know, if the average Canadian no longer understands how politics are being played here in Canada, then why try and defend this federation?

            But I will try again:

            I'm taking the numbers from the last sitting of the House (if you wish to counter my argument based on faulty numbers, then please take your own pick of numbers and proceed as follows!).

          • Oh, I see where we went wrong. I thought you were talking about the upcoming parliament, but you were actually talking about the seat distribution at dissolution.

            In terms of the upcoming parliament, ROC voters should not be withholding their vote from any of the ROC parties (CPC, LPC, NDP) based on a concern about how the seat totals for those ROC parties might shake out.

            After the election, the most logical governing arrangement will be obvious – I guarantee it.

            And I do agree, the playing of politics these days is a HUGE problem.

        • You do realize that when you add all the other provinces' populations together, without Quebec, they still total less than Ontario? What kind of democracy gives equal power to a province with 143k population as opposed to one with 13,210k?

          Silly me, I forgot there's that fine example of the rich man's club south of the border, the senate, where democratically realized decisions of the congress can be blocked by 40% of the members.

        • Did you really say that? qoute, "I'm not willing to sell out my Canadian voting rights that cheaply" end quote. My question to you now is 'What price do you have on your Canadian voting rights"?

          • sorry for the double post folks.

    • Allowing people to run for office and collect votes on whatever platforms they wish to put forth is soooooo troubling, isn't it?

      • No, but it is troubling when a Liberal leader makes campaign promises to not form a coalition after the elections, and then forthwith wants to take power by means of a coalition. Dion was the Libeal leader at the time, but Ignatieff signed onto the flip-flop.

        You think Ignatieff believes in promising one thing during the election campaign and then do the exact opposite?

        He must believe that a promise during election time doesn't mean very much. Ignatieff did sign onto the 2008 coalition agreement. But then again, during the last elections, Ignatieff believed in the Green shift, too, with all of his heart, only to trhow it as far as he could into one ditch or another after he was appointed leader of the Liberal party.

        Double hooray for Liberal hypocricy!!!

        • "He must believe that a promise during election time doesn't mean very much" you talking about Harper here. two words "Income Trust"

  12. Now THIS is Canadian. Great stuff.

    Time to hit the campaign trail.

  13. Now THIS is Canadian. Great stuff.

    Time to hit the campaign trail.

  14. You must be a timid creature, indeed, if you're scared by the seniors, families, and students this platform supports.

  15. "Not a single word about troops in the Liberal platform."

    Wrong.

    Pages 82 through 85 of the platform talk explicitly about the Canadian Forces. http://cdn.liberal.ca/files/2011/04/liberal_platf

    I'd say the biggest announcement from it is the Veterans Learning Benefit – I'd say assisting our veterans in getting an education after their service is a great help to our troops.

  16. Just to correct the record, since it seems Wherry's link didn't work for you.

    Veterans Learning Benefit

    A Liberal government will implement a new Veterans' Learning Benefit that provides full support for the costs of up to four years of college, university or technical education for Canadian Forces veterans after completion of service.
    Show More

    Following the Second World War, both Canada and the United States offered veterans full support for their post-secondary education. Although the GI Bill continues in the United States today, no similar program remains in Canada. It's time we did more.

    In addition to honouring veterans, post-service education support would contribute to other important objectives. It would provide a significant boost for recruitment at a time when the Forces face difficulty in meeting enrollment needs in many specific occupational categories, particularly high-skill and technical areas. In addition, education support would smooth the reintegration of Canadian Forces personnel into society and the workforce. That makes sense for both the individuals involved, and the knowledge and skills-dependent Canadian economy.

    Based on current projections of attrition rates and the Forces' needs, and assuming a high take-up rate, this represents an estimated investment of up to $120 million in veterans' learning over the first two years of a Liberal government.

  17. What was that the Phil Donahue show. I just don't trust thi guy

  18. What was that the Phil Donahue show. I just don't trust thi guy

    • Yeah, well Stephen Harper is starting to remind me of Lewis Black, only not as funny.

  19. The LPC continues to fudge the numbers and hide the math on the corporate income tax hikes–one of the key parts of their platform. They must be hoping that the press gallery is too innumerate to call them on it.

  20. The LPC continues to fudge the numbers and hide the math on the corporate income tax hikes–one of the key parts of their platform. They must be hoping that the press gallery is too innumerate to call them on it.

    • It's the same kind of funny math the CPC uses when they put numbers on the cost of 65 F35s. It's an odd type of Ottawa numeracy that all the parties use when it suits them.

      • Ah, don't worry so much, brooster2. Soon the CBC will air another documentary revealing to us how correct the Liberal numbers are and how the Conservative numbers can never be trusted.

        Our treasured CBC would never let a man like Ignatieff run free.

        • Would that be the same CBC running the headline "Harper vows to end party subsidies", when in fact he has vowed to do nothing of the sort?

          The conservative belief that everyone is out to get them is interesting. Does it result from the enlarged fear-centres in conservative brains?

          • Hemispheric underdevelopment combined with an enlarged amygdala is a troubling combination to be sure.

      • It's the same kind of funny math the CPC uses when they put numbers on the cost of 65 F35s.

        Nope. It's a different kind of funny math. The gov't used DoD estimates on the F35s, which is what they're supposed to do. Meanwhile, according to credible economists, the Liberals appear to have extracted their CTC numbers from their nether regions. Unfortunately, the CPC is going along with the charade because it makes the Liberal tax hike seem even bigger.

        The reality is that the expected revenues from increasing the corporate tax rate won't even come close to covering the cost of all those new Liberal promises.

        On a related note, it would sure be nice if the LPC platform was fully costed. That way, we'd have a rough idea which of their promises they intend to keep.

        • " it would sure be nice if the LPC platform was fully costed. That way, we'd have a rough idea which of their promises they intend to keep."

          They claim it has been fully costed. I somehow don't think it matters because the media and other parties' spin doctors will, no doubt, criticize both the numbers and the credibility of the Liberals' economic experts. Isn't that pretty much how the game is played?

          • Brooster, I'd be interested if every major party's platform could be fully costed by nonpartisan, independent third parties.

            Fortunately, some well-respected, nonpartisan economists like Dr. Stephen Gordon have already taken steps in this direction: http://twitter.com/stephenfgordon

            He was pretty scathing about the Liberal CIT hocus-pocus, and it should be noted that he has also been sharply critical of the Conservatives for policies like the GST cut.

          • Yeah, I'd describe this quip as sharply critical:

            "The GST cut was stupidest policy move of the century."

            I also agree with the notion that restoring the CIT to 18% will not generate $6 billion like the Liberals seem to be implying.

            I think it would be great for the discourse if Stephen Gordon (heck, how about the whole crew over at WCI) get some more exposure during the campaign.

          • Stephen Gordon for Finance Minister in a Dan Gardner led cabinet!!

    • I don't know about that. I don't think the media pushed all that hard on getting Mr. Flaherty to explain how they think the budget will be balanced in 2015-16 when the PBO, working from the same set of economic forecasts, arrived at a deficit of $9.7 billion in 2015-16.

      Sadly, I don't think our media is really interested in pushing that hard on understanding the parties' numbers. I hope they will push both parties to explain themselves better.

      • I would LOVE IT if the media had the ability to fact-check numbers in a semi-credible way.

        It really annoys me when the media waste time on incredibly trivial campaign-related BS but fail at their job of holding political parties to account, because it's too hard to check the math.

    • To be fair, Ignatieff is also counting on cancelling tax breaks for oil sands development, and cancelling a PPP infrastructure program (although I thought the whole point of doing something as a PPP was to save money? Wouldn't cancelling it result in higher expenditures by the gov't?).

      I also question the numbers, but like Brooster2 says above, both the Tories and Libs are going with the 6B $ figure, so don't expect one party to state that the other is inflating their figures.

      • Both parties should be called out on this ridiculous $6B charade.

    • Try reading the platform document (Appendix One).

    • They must be hoping that the press gallery is too innumerate to call them on it.

      If the press gallery is like millions of Canadians, rushing out to the Lotto terminal before they close it for the draw, you can bet on the innumeracy thing.

  21. It is not giving a 'province' anything, it is giving 25% of the Canadian population, which choose Quebec as their home, a voice. It is unfortunate for sure that half of their population want out of the Dominion but what about the other half? 12.5% of the countries population that love and want to stay in Canada. May I suggest that you and your tory brethern try treating Canadians with respect instead of Contempt! (there's that word again!).

  22. It's the same kind of funny math the CPC uses when they put numbers on the cost of 65 F35s. It's an odd type of Ottawa numeracy that all the parties use when it suits them.

  23. Tories don't even know they are Republicans. That would take some research and Harpers bosses don't allow that!

  24. I wrote Harper at the time that Quebec does not deserve such separate nation status. But tell me, brooster2, does the Quebec 'Nation' status give them a "permanent consultation" position at the federal table?

    Now, have you asked Ignatieff, the great Canadian leader to be, if he has signed an agreement for letting the province of Quebed sit permanently at the federal table for consulting? Ask Ignatieff. Ask the great leader why he did sign such a document.

  25. My comment was meant for Anon who warned of the dangers attached to the colour red. In fact, red is the colour my face takes on whenever I think of Stephen Harper's BS.

    Somehow my reply wound up in the wrong place, hence the wrong context.

  26. You call yourself a proud Canadian when your vote is being sold out through the back door to a party which is solely provincial and separatist in outlook?

    I'm not willing to sell out my Canadian voting rights that cheaply. I want all provinces to be equal in a federally run government.

  27. I don't know about that. I don't think the media pushed all that hard on getting Mr. Flaherty to explain how they think the budget will be balanced in 2015-16 when the PBO, working from the same set of economic forecasts, arrived at a deficit of $9.7 billion in 2015-16.

    Sadly, I don't think our media is really interested in pushing that hard on understanding the parties' numbers. I hope they will push both parties to explain themselves better.

  28. To be fair, Ignatieff is also counting on cancelling tax breaks for oil sands development, and cancelling a PPP infrastructure program (although I thought the whole point of doing something as a PPP was to save money? Wouldn't cancelling it result in higher expenditures by the gov't?).

    I also question the numbers, but like Brooster2 says above, both the Tories and Libs are going with the 6B $ figure, so don't expect one party to state that the other is inflating their figures.

  29. The CBC mentions "they would fund their policy spending with a cancellation of the F-35 fighter jet deal."

    I'm a little confused about where MI stands on that one… I know he doesn't want to proceed with purchasing those jets, but what is he proposing as an alternative? To buy a cheaper kind of jet? To not buy any jets at all? (which would mean an additional 30B $ available to spend on families or other initiative?…)

  30. The CBC mentions "they would fund their policy spending with a cancellation of the F-35 fighter jet deal."

    I'm a little confused about where MI stands on that one… I know he doesn't want to proceed with purchasing those jets, but what is he proposing as an alternative? To buy a cheaper kind of jet? To not buy any jets at all? (which would mean an additional 30B $ available to spend on families or other initiative?…)

    • He is proposing having an open bid.

    • It will be tendered getting the best possible price for jets for Canada's military.

      I hope the troops remember that they swear allegiance to the Crown and not to the PM; Harper has sure muddied those waters .

    • I'm also not clear on how the Liberals would proceed with equipping the forces. Personally, I hope they'd re-examine the whole assumption that high tech jets are the best way to spend limited resources. We have defence, border, drug interdiction, and sovereignty issues that, IMO, can be better addressed with icebreakers and helicopters. Much of today's military activity seems to involve theaters where the use of jets presents a threat to civilian populations.

      To me, the question is not whether we need F35s. It's whether we need a new fleet of jets at all.

  31. Ah, don't worry so much, brooster2. Soon the CBC will air another documentary revealing to us how correct the Liberal numbers are and how the Conservative numbers can never be trusted.

    Our treasured CBC would never let a man like Ignatieff run free.

  32. Try reading the platform document (Appendix One).

  33. Credit to Ignatieff and the Liberals. He's finally come out with some policies, and they'll probably appeal to many voters. I'm no fan of MI, but I'll give him credit where it's due. Some of those policies could certainly benefit our family.

  34. Come on, Anon, don't whip Emily in a frenzy on Sunday morning. She's just come back from her weekly Catch 22 mass.

  35. Now that's my kind of Canada! Everyone included. Glad to see our First Nations brothers and sisters treated with the respect they deserve and be included as well.

  36. Now that's my kind of Canada! Everyone included. Glad to see our First Nations brothers and sisters treated with the respect they deserve and be included as well.

  37. I would LOVE IT if the media had the ability to fact-check numbers in a semi-credible way.

    It really annoys me when the media waste time on incredibly trivial campaign-related BS but fail at their job of holding political parties to account, because it's too hard to check the math.

  38. Tories scare me more than Quebecers, that said, your comment "I'm not willing to sell out my Canadian voting rights that cheaply" leads me to ask, what price do you ask for your voting rights?

  39. Both parties should be called out on this ridiculous $6B charade.

  40. You do realize that when you add all the other provinces' populations together, without Quebec, they still total less than Ontario? What kind of democracy gives equal power to a province with 143k population as opposed to one with 13,210k?

    Silly me, I forgot there's that fine example of the rich man's club south of the border, the senate, where democratically realized decisions of the congress can be blocked by 40% of the members.

  41. It's the same kind of funny math the CPC uses when they put numbers on the cost of 65 F35s.

    Nope. It's a different kind of funny math. The gov't used DoD estimates on the F35s, which is what they're supposed to do. Meanwhile, according to credible economists, the Liberals appear to have extracted their CTC numbers from their nether regions. Unfortunately, the CPC is going along with the charade because it makes the Liberal tax hike seem even bigger.

    The reality is that the expected revenues from increasing the corporate tax rate won't even come close to covering the cost of all those new Liberal promises.

    On a related note, it would sure be nice if the LPC platform was fully costed. That way, we'd have a rough idea which of their promises they intend to keep.

  42. The only part that matters is the missing explanation for how we get from $40B projected deficit for 2010-11 down to $14B (perhaps a little more due to GDP growth) within two years. All we need is a one-page document which sums up the new spending, and subtracts the new revenue and spending cut assumptions. Either the numbers will add up or not; either the revenue/cut assumptions will be reasonable or not. Absent that, the Liberal platform is just hand-waving.

  43. Did you really say that? qoute, "I'm not willing to sell out my Canadian voting rights that cheaply" end quote. My question to you now is 'What price do you have on your Canadian voting rights"?

  44. Proud Canadian, in this election there is a leader for everything. If you believe Quebec should have a veto over the ROC, vote for Ignatieff or Layton.

    I will always vote for the genuine Canadian leader. But I will never tell others how to vote. I'm sure most Canadians are real Canadians when the x needs to be marked.

  45. The only part that matters is the missing explanation for how we get from $40B projected deficit for 2010-11 down to $14B (perhaps a little more due to GDP growth) within two years. All we need is a one-page document which sums up the new spending, and subtracts the new revenue and spending cut assumptions. Either the numbers will add up or not; either the revenue/cut assumptions will be reasonable or not. Absent that, the Liberal platform is just hand-waving.

  46. " it would sure be nice if the LPC platform was fully costed. That way, we'd have a rough idea which of their promises they intend to keep."

    They claim it has been fully costed. I somehow don't think it matters because the media and other parties' spin doctors will, no doubt, criticize both the numbers and the credibility of the Liberals' economic experts. Isn't that pretty much how the game is played?

  47. OK

  48. Would that be the same CBC running the headline "Harper vows to end party subsidies", when in fact he has vowed to do nothing of the sort?

    The conservative belief that everyone is out to get them is interesting. Does it result from the enlarged fear-centres in conservative brains?

  49. Allowing people to run for office and collect votes on whatever platforms they wish to put forth is soooooo troubling, isn't it?

  50. No, but it is troubling when a Liberal leader makes campaign promises to not form a coalition after the elections, and then forthwith wants to take power by means of a coalition. Dion was the Libeal leader at the time, but Ignatieff signed onto the flip-flop.

    You think Ignatieff believes in promising one thing during the election campaign and then do the exact opposite?

    He must believe that a promise during election time doesn't mean very much. Ignatieff did sign onto the 2008 coalition agreement. But then again, during the last elections, Ignatieff believed in the Green shift, too, with all of his heart, only to trhow it as far as he could into one ditch or another after he was appointed leader of the Liberal party.

    Double hooray for Liberal hypocricy!!!

  51. A lot of bitter people here today for some reason. Tsk tsk.

    Chicken Harper pays the price I guess.

  52. A lot of bitter people here today for some reason. Tsk tsk.

    Chicken Harper pays the price I guess.

    • Aside from the obviously sarcastic comment by Anon, who's bitter? I guess FVerhoeven's comments could be considered bitter, but that's just one person.

      Why do you say there are "a lot of biter people here today"? What do you consider "a lot"? Two?

      I see a lot of people engaging in constructive criticism/dialogue today.

      • Haven't read the threads yet I guess. LOL

        • On the contrary, I've gone through all the threads today. There are maybe two commenters that I might consider bitter.

          Why do you say "a lot of bitter people here today"?

          • I don't have time to play the 'stupid game' today, K?

          • Substantiating baseless accusations against "lots" of other commenters is both a stupid game and a waste of time?

          • Playing the 'stupid game' is stupid. Go watch hockey or something.

  53. sorry for the double post folks.

  54. "He must believe that a promise during election time doesn't mean very much" you talking about Harper here. two words "Income Trust"

  55. Brooster, I'd be interested if every major party's platform could be fully costed by nonpartisan, independent third parties.

    Fortunately, some well-respected, nonpartisan economists like Dr. Stephen Gordon have already taken steps in this direction: http://twitter.com/stephenfgordon

    He was pretty scathing about the Liberal CIT hocus-pocus, and it should be noted that he has also been sharply critical of the Conservatives for policies like the GST cut.

  56. Yeah, I'd describe this quip as sharply critical:

    "The GST cut was stupidest policy move of the century."

    I also agree with the notion that restoring the CIT to 18% will not generate $6 billion like the Liberals seem to be implying.

    I think it would be great for the discourse if Stephen Gordon (heck, how about the whole crew over at WCI) get some more exposure during the campaign.

  57. You know who else likes the colour red?

    People who attend Red Friday rallies.

  58. Yeah, well Stephen Harper is starting to remind me of Lewis Black, only not as funny.

  59. He is proposing having an open bid.

  60. It will be tendered getting the best possible price for jets for Canada's military.

    I hope the troops remember that they swear allegiance to the Crown and not to the PM; Harper has sure muddied those waters .

  61. Today, 14 percent of the population is 65 or older; by 2040 the figure will be roughly 25 percent. That means fewer working age Canadians to support the elderly, at the same time as costly demands on social services, especially health care, continue to increase.

    So you'll increase the retirement age, right? Productive, healthy people living way longer might stay at work, and bring down the percentage of the population who have passed beyond working age. Right? Splendid!

    That's why it's more important than ever that our economy becomes more productive more quickly.

    So you can tax that economy to within a hair of its survival in order to feed, water and diaper the retirement class. Aaaaargh!

  62. Today, 14 percent of the population is 65 or older; by 2040 the figure will be roughly 25 percent. That means fewer working age Canadians to support the elderly, at the same time as costly demands on social services, especially health care, continue to increase.

    So you'll increase the retirement age, right? Productive, healthy people living way longer might stay at work, and bring down the percentage of the population who have passed beyond working age. Right? Splendid!

    That's why it's more important than ever that our economy becomes more productive more quickly.

    So you can tax that economy to within a hair of its survival in order to feed, water and diaper the retirement class. Aaaaargh!

    • We don't have a retirement age.

      Don't you ever get tired of going over the top?

      • OK, you're right, I need to rephrase. The CPP kick-in dates and the mandatory conversion from RRSP to RRIF (and OAS and GIS rules, etc., etc.) have got to shift upwards, reflecting the fact that we are living waaaaay longer on average than ever before. We need more working taxpayers and fewer leisurely drains on our economy.

        Good luck to anyone politically suicidal enough to bring that up, though.

        • Most people want to work past the long outdated 'retirement age'. Golfing and afternoon TV are vastly overrated. LOL

  63. Hemispheric underdevelopment combined with an enlarged amygdala is a troubling combination to be sure.

  64. It's the time of year when all hunters in the forest are advised to wear bright orange sarcasm tags, Anon.

  65. If you believe Quebec should have a veto over the ROC, vote for Ignatieff or Layton.

    Whereas if you believe the White House and Wall Street should have that veto, you vote Harper? Is that how it works?

  66. Aside from the obviously sarcastic comment by Anon, who's bitter? I guess FVerhoeven's comments could be considered bitter, but that's just one person.

    Why do you say there are "a lot of biter people here today"? What do you consider "a lot"? Two?

    I see a lot of people engaging in constructive criticism/dialogue today.

  67. Haven't read the threads yet I guess. LOL

  68. We don't have a retirement age.

    Don't you ever get tired of going over the top?

  69. Craigslist.

  70. I'd hope that every province has a "permanent consultation" position at the federal table.

  71. This platform is simply not credible. When expenses are increasing faster than revenues, it is impossible to square away the deficit. And this doesn't even include all the additional spending that will be required to buy the support of the NDP for their coaltion.

  72. This platform is simply not credible. When expenses are increasing faster than revenues, it is impossible to square away the deficit. And this doesn't even include all the additional spending that will be required to buy the support of the NDP for their coaltion.

  73. Stephen Gordon for Finance Minister in a Dan Gardner led cabinet!!

  74. On the contrary, I've gone through all the threads today. There are maybe two commenters that I might consider bitter.

    Why do you say "a lot of bitter people here today"?

  75. I'm also not clear on how the Liberals would proceed with equipping the forces. Personally, I hope they'd re-examine the whole assumption that high tech jets are the best way to spend limited resources. We have defence, border, drug interdiction, and sovereignty issues that, IMO, can be better addressed with icebreakers and helicopters. Much of today's military activity seems to involve theaters where the use of jets presents a threat to civilian populations.

    To me, the question is not whether we need F35s. It's whether we need a new fleet of jets at all.

  76. OK, you're right, I need to rephrase. The CPP kick-in dates and the mandatory conversion from RRSP to RRIF (and OAS and GIS rules, etc., etc.) have got to shift upwards, reflecting the fact that we are living waaaaay longer on average than ever before. We need more working taxpayers and fewer leisurely drains on our economy.

    Good luck to anyone politically suicidal enough to bring that up, though.

  77. You go, girl!

  78. Just what I was thinking as I read the Francien's diatribe. She seems to be from Quebec, even, but apparently the last thing she wants is for Quebec's interests to be given any consideration whatsoever.

    Not that I think she's totally wrong about the Bloc. I, too, have trouble with a regional-only party. But that's why I wouldn't vote for one. I can urge and encourage votes to go one way or another, but I can't TELL a fellow Canadian how to vote. Well, I can, but it would reflect badly on me.

  79. I don't have time to play the 'stupid game' today, K?

  80. Most people want to work past the long outdated 'retirement age'. Golfing and afternoon TV are vastly overrated. LOL

  81. Substantiating baseless accusations against "lots" of other commenters is both a stupid game and a waste of time?

  82. Playing the 'stupid game' is stupid. Go watch hockey or something.

  83. They must be hoping that the press gallery is too innumerate to call them on it.

    If the press gallery is like millions of Canadians, rushing out to the Lotto terminal before they close it for the draw, you can bet on the innumeracy thing.

  84. 8 billion over two years is their projection? But I dont see any of his platform goodies lasting only 2 years. So based on the Liberals own math if we are to cost this over 30 years, (the timeline the libs cost the new jets) then this platform Iggy announced is 120 billion dollar platform. It is not only the jets iggy will have to cut to pay for this. This is a reckless big spending platform from the tax and bribe liberals. This country does not need mor national handouts. If the libs want national daycare tell me what national program he will cut. …. A one time buy of jets does not cut it. He needs to cut a current national program or the result is simple. Taxes are going up and going up fast. I made the mistake to vote for McGuinty here in Ontario and the Liberal government here has raised taxes on everything to the point where any cuts the federal tories gave us were taken by the provincial liberals. I am worse off today financilly in spite of 2 protions at work. Promises of new spending with out promises of corresponding cuts means big deficits and higher taxes. I know i live in Liberal Ontario.

  85. 8 billion over two years is their projection? But I dont see any of his platform goodies lasting only 2 years. So based on the Liberals own math if we are to cost this over 30 years, (the timeline the libs cost the new jets) then this platform Iggy announced is 120 billion dollar platform. It is not only the jets iggy will have to cut to pay for this. This is a reckless big spending platform from the tax and bribe liberals. This country does not need mor national handouts. If the libs want national daycare tell me what national program he will cut. …. A one time buy of jets does not cut it. He needs to cut a current national program or the result is simple. Taxes are going up and going up fast. I made the mistake to vote for McGuinty here in Ontario and the Liberal government here has raised taxes on everything to the point where any cuts the federal tories gave us were taken by the provincial liberals. I am worse off today financilly in spite of 2 protions at work. Promises of new spending with out promises of corresponding cuts means big deficits and higher taxes. I know i live in Liberal Ontario.

  86. If you believe Quebec should have a veto over the ROC….

    Quebec has 75 seats in a 308 seat house.

    With those 75 seats, Quebec MPs (BQ or otherwise) can not do anything at all to stop the reamaining 233 MPs from implementing whatever legislation those ROC MPs desire, whether it is bad, neutral or good for Quebec – Quebec simply does not have a veto.

  87. Some days, EeeOar, I really wonder if it's worth it. You know, if the average Canadian no longer understands how politics are being played here in Canada, then why try and defend this federation?

    But I will try again:

    I'm taking the numbers from the last sitting of the House (if you wish to counter my argument based on faulty numbers, then please take your own pick of numbers and proceed as follows!).

  88. Oh, I see where we went wrong. I thought you were talking about the upcoming parliament, but you were actually talking about the seat distribution at dissolution.

    In terms of the upcoming parliament, ROC voters should not be withholding their vote from any of the ROC parties (CPC, LPC, NDP) based on a concern about how the seat totals for those ROC parties might shake out.

    After the election, the most logical governing arrangement will be obvious – I guarantee it.

    And I do agree, the playing of politics these days is a HUGE problem.

  89. Where are we??

  90. DO WE love the Mallotta liaer Obama [the braindrain}

  91. Send the people to brainwash school

  92. Calln Fox a liar, ojnly if you have the fact of your claim jackasses

Sign in to comment.