Yeah... except I dont really believe in the whole corporate lobby thing. Imagine a Russian corporation offering Harper to give them any of our resources, our PM would be at the bottom of some lake pretty fast. Same with anyone (politician\celeb\sports star) going public with the idea of nationalizing I can imagine.

Here's a link to the debate: I've watched most debates since 2008, and have found this one the most entertaining and definitely worth a watch.

Here's a quick overview of how the debate went:

• Harper was definitely on the defensive, often making claims without facts. Others looked disgusted by some of the things that he sometimes said. It's admirable to hear him defend his position on things like ISIS and C51.
• Elizabeth May almost acting as a moderator and siding with whoever was being the most reasonable. Not only did she give many many facts to back up her claims, she fact checked and went after all other leaders as she needed to. Also had a realistic and concise closing statement.
• Trudeau being a charismatic speaker - quite a bit of rhetoric but not too much substance. Had a good explanation of his party's position on C51.
• Mulcair being calm and perhaps a bit defensive. Did a good job of staying on top when all leaders are speaking at once

Highlights of the debate to me:

• Trudeau telling Harper that "nobody believes you". Harper's reaction was quite amusing
• Harper slipped up and admitted that the economy was in a recession
• Trudeau and Mulcair slipped up in their closing statements. Mulcair recovered quite well since his gaffe was in the middle, while Trudeau slipped as the closing speaker at the very end of his speech
• Trudeau and Mulcair having a bit of a verbal fight over "the number" needed for a Quebecois sovereignty referendum to succeed.
• Trudeau and Mulcair using some similar structure. E.g. Mulcair: The Greens want to say no to all pipelines, the Conservatives want to say yes to all pipelines, we want to evaluate and keep processing jobs in the country....
• Harper stating that he doesn't take responsibility for the mess that is the Senate and would just let it get worse until the provinces want something done

Care to provide some examples? (Other than the one example everyone knows about which is BK)

Yes tax rates are lower now because the rate has been cut approximately 8-10% between the last liberal and conservative governments, still not attracting people to do their business in Canada, just look at trade deficit and GDP if you don't agree.

Point is, we have slashed corp taxes and that did not stimulate business enough, so why elect someone who wants to increase corporate taxes?

The thing is, we aren't talking about switching to the communist party of Canada. There are no far left options in the running. We are talking about somewhere between the slightly right (the cons), the ever so slightly left (liberals) and the tiny bit more left than the others. (NDP)
Lazy people aren't suddenly going to get a free ride, its more likely that people will get that boost that actually gives them incentive to work harder because they might have a chance to get educated in a field they are passionate in when otherwise that post secondary was too far out of reach for them. People who are actually growing up poor have no chance here under the cons.

How can anyone look at the NDP's platform and not realize the only realistic outcome will be higher taxes and more debt.

- Creating middle class jobs by cutting tax rate for SB 2% and investing money in innovation and clean technologies. (Less tax revenue and more money spent on "job creation" = debt)

- Create a million childcare spaces for our kids and cap fees for parents – no more than $15 a day. It’s a plan that will save young families money and enable greater participation in the workforce – especially for women. (Will be subsidized by the Gov = debt)

- Help communities fix roads and bridges by transferring an extra cent of the existing gas tax to municipalities. And he’ll shorten commute times by partnering with cities on a Better Transit Plan — creating 31,000 good jobs in the process. (More gov. spending = debt)

- Cancel the Conservative decision to raise the retirement age — bringing it back down to 65. And he’ll work tirelessly to strengthen public pensions while protecting workplace pensions. (Chretien gov. was the first to say the CPP was broken, Cons made the choice that had to be made and expect that age to slip more, paying out more CPP = debt)

- Stop unilateral Conservative cuts to health and get back to working collaboratively with provinces and territories to improve primary care and expand access to long-term and primary care. (More health care = debt)

I also don't personally feel like Canada lacks reasonable environmental policies, between the laws and regulations at provincial and federal levels you can't get away with basically anything. Do emissions concern me? Yes, but our emissions are a drop in the bucket in the global picture (@1.47% compared to China and USA at approximately 20% each) though I will concede that our emissions per capita are high but that's only a result of us being a very resource based economy with an insane amount of vehicles on the road.

People in this thread shaming the cons for the current senator "scandals" and overspending, well you can apply that to every party that's ever served Canada lol.

Though Harper is totally full of shit with his balanced budget rhetoric.

Edit: We have generationally fucked as millennials (A large portion of this site), you had the boomers that did well and got filthy rich, and you have the boomers who shit the bed in life, now we are in a situation where today we have 4.9 tax payers per retiree and by 2030 that number is estimated to be 2.7, CPP will but incredible pressure on the Canadian economy in the coming years while these people also burden the health care system like never before. ( Due to the number of people >65)

http://www.taxpayer.com/commentaries...more-attention

So while our generation seems very cranky with the cons, keep in mind that the problems we face today, are largely caused by decisions made decades ago, and there should probably be a limit to how much we let past generations burden us, just as we should be responsible to not burden those that come after us.

I disagree...


With my poor upbringing and zero education, I could still make it to where I am today.


My belief is that people keep voting for change because they see politicians as the only route for change when change actually comes from within the people themselves.

+ 1 here for growing up a total screw up from a very low class family (if you can call it that, I have seen my dad once in 8 years, my mom once in the last 3 years) and somehow still "making it".

One side note, if there is something that pisses me off about all candidates it's been the total disregard towards aboriginal affairs to date.

People think they had a bad childhood, try growing up on a reserve, It's a miracle any of those kids turn out to be functional.

Plus student loans and tuition are cheap here.

Seems like people are unwilling to improve themselves and blame others.

My big problem is that all the parties have at least a few stances I agree with, but they also all have stances I completely disagree with. What I wish we could do is vote on individual categories instead of having to pick one group to control it all, when everyone knows full well any party is going to be shit with at least one thing.

Which puts me back to having to weigh what I agree and disagree with for each group, and then have to guesstimate the likelihood of them actually doing the things they say, both good and bad. Normally I'd expect the Liberals to land at more of a middle ground, but they're pushing some rather stupid ideas at the moment and to me Trudeau comes across as a bit of an idiot. The Cons are starting to go full-'murica when it comes to fears of terrorism, the NDP want to throw money at everything and the Greens...well just no.

All good points, but basing your vote on the wasting of millions when the budget is nearly $300 billion seems like pretty narrow thinking.

underscore,

I just did some fact checking since when I wrote the previous post, here are some good tidbits of information:

1. The conception (1995): The government says the registry will cost about $119 million, but the revenue generated by registration fees would mean taxpayers would only be on the hook for $2 million.
2. 2001: The cost has risen to an estimated $527 million
3. 2002: The tab for implementing the registry rises to $629 million, according to an audit of the registry. Here is a breakdown of the bulk of the spending: $2 million to help police enforce legislation, at least $60 million for public-relations programs, including television commercials ($18 million of which went to ad agency GroupAction, which received millions in sponsorship scandal contracts) and $227 million in computer costs. Complicated application forms are slowing processing times and driving costs higher than anticipated. Then there is $332 million for other programming costs, including money to pay staff to process the forms.
4. 2003: Audit reveals the program costs $1 billion
5. 2004: Firearm registry now costs $2 billion

More info:
The rise and fall of Canada's long-gun registry - CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News

Over the course of 9 years, if $2 billion was spent on it, I would hardly consider it something to scoff at.

You are not the norm Jason. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you based on the path you took. I know you worked your ass off to get to where you are, but say your true interests lied within the medical profession? Social work? Without being willing to essentially write off successful financial living until you are 35-40 due to student loans, or having someone to pay your way, its simply not happening.

You work in porn multi. I have no problem with it, but there is a certain moral compass most people have that wouldn't be able to make their money that way.

Thats not even close to true. Post secondary is not accessible to everyone by any stretch of the imagination. Not to mention the irresponsibility caused by our for profit education system that pumps out tens of thousands of graduates for fields with no jobs. Moderate socialism is working extremely well in the countries that always are at the top of livability and happiness levels for its citizens. Why is it so out of the question that it will work here? Denmark, Sweden, etc. haven't just become a place for the lazy to relax while the hard working rich support them.

Ya, dropping out and being homeless in my teens was actually a GOOD thing because it got me away from the other low-class high school kids that would have fucked me up even more if I considered them peers. I learned how to use a modem and made older friends who somewhat had their shit together and began emulating them instead.


Reserves are fucked, but chiefs do nothing to make them better. I used to be friends with an indian dude who came from a band outside of Lytton, he told me that the chief and his cronies kept all the money and did nothing for the community other than blame the government for doing nothing. The people, of course, believed the chief and the cycle continues...

"It is not the strongest or smartest who survive but those most adaptable to change"


Morality is changing, I'm just ahead of the curve

I can only find numbers as far back as 2002 saying we had a total budget of ~$175B, so lets say the average was $150B across those 9 years, which is a total of $1,350B. $2B of $1,350B is 0.148%. Yes $2B is a lot of money, but compared to the budget of the entire nation, which is what the federal election has an effect on, the cost of the gun registry was effectively meaningless.

I currently know more people with degrees that have gone back to school for something they can get a job in, than I know who got degrees and are currently using them.

I will say that my situation is only unique in one way, ambition.

If tomorrow my industry died I would immediately be pursuing other lucrative career fields in other industries. It's like math equation to me, you sacrifice while you are young so that you can work less and make more the rest of your life.

My only regrets relate to the nature of my work, I certainly lack fulfillment and would prefer a career in sciences that involved animals and environmental preservation, mainly with aquatic life. But it took me a long time to figure that out.

I do find it hard to sympathize with someone who has 100k in student debt that spend 7 years studying philosophy etc.

And for gods sake, will someone pay teachers more money?????

Edit: Also on the subject of me making it, I felt like the education I got from my Jr. High was incredible, High School was also good... but damn I learned a lot between grades 7-9. I feel like our school system here is amazing if you make the most of it.

The problem with the LGR isn't just the cost, but also that it is an unnecessary attempt anyway. Registering long guns like 22s, shotguns, and hunting rifles that are bought and sold does nothing to prevent firearm crimes. The 'cool' guns that are restricted and prohibited all need to be registered, and no criminal is going to use a 22 or hunting rifle for crime.

So then where do we draw the line? At what amount (or percentage) does it make it meaningful?

I'm not saying 'don't look at the larger picture' but I'm looking at making the most out of the money we have. Remember, we're in a recession here and every penny (or billion in this case) counts.

Honestly I'm not sure, but it should be higher than 0.15% since some people:

Are going to base their vote, something that affects millions of people and hundreds of billions of dollars, on one issue that made up an insignificant part of the budget.

I could see why you think that way, but at the same time, many of these projects involve short term spending, but significant long term benefits to the economy and society that can help increase tax revenue. Allow me to explain :)

- Creating middle class jobs by cutting tax rate for SB 2% and investing money in innovation and clean technologies.
> The last several months have shown that oil prices can fluctuate. We also don't process any of our oil before shipping it overseas, which limits jobs to extraction. Check out this calculator from the NPR which uses research from Oxford university - it predicts the likelihood of your job being automated: Will Your Job Be Done By A Machine? : Planet Money : NPR

Speaking of automation, if we become a leader in innovation, others economies could eventually become more dependent on us for their software and hardware needs in order for them to stay competitive, instead of us remaining dependent on oil prices, and others' economies for processed petroleum and other goods.

Developing/developed economies are also likely to move towards clean energy, China is one big example of that. By innovating in growing areas of clean energy and innovation, we are participating in a growing industry, which would mean more jobs and opportunities for future Canadians.

- Create a million childcare spaces for our kids and cap fees for parents – no more than $15 a day. It’s a plan that will save young families money and enable greater participation in the workforce – especially for women.
> If young families have one more member that is available to work, they would be able to... you guessed it! Spend more at small businesses/corporations (more revenue for them!) and afford better opportunities for their children. This sounds win win to me.

- Help communities fix roads and bridges by transferring an extra cent of the existing gas tax to municipalities. And he’ll shorten commute times by partnering with cities on a Better Transit Plan — creating 31,000 good jobs in the process.
> The reality is that a number of people take buses, and since our Prime Minister emphasized that immigration is a part of his Economic Action Plan, we can expect more people who need to get around. I live in Waterloo Ontario now, where buses come every 5-10 minutes, even at night. I'm happy, and I'm more likely to go out and spend money.

As well, traffic on the 401, Highway 7, DVP, 404, and other major throughways in Toronto is sometimes insultingly bad. Traffic makes me worn out and less likely to go out or do things after work - People are unable to get where they want to quickly, goods aren't able to get around, etc. Transit would help people save money on transport, spend more time with their families or on their own pursuits, and spend more money!

Article: The Economist explains: The cost of traffic jams | The Economist

- Stop unilateral Conservative cuts to health and get back to working collaboratively with provinces and territories to improve primary care and expand access to long-term and primary care.
> Wouldn't you agree that a healthy workforce is a more productive workforce? Our economy relies on our workforce, and preventative care is almost always cheaper than treatment.

Article: "Canada's only supervised drug injection site can save the Canadian health-care system as much as $20 million and substantially increase a population's life span over a 10-year period in Vancouver"
Insite can save Canada's health-care system $20M: Study

I know it can be scary sometimes to spend money, but these proposals seem like a great way to add lasting value and growth to our economy. I can go into detail with regards to why some of our government's current spending imo is "bad" spending, but I wanted to address some of your points first :)

Ontario lawl... I spent way too much time there over the last year.

I'll just leave this here...

With twice the debt of California, Ontario is now the world?s most indebted sub-sovereign borrower | Financial Post

With regards to exporting refined products you have two problems:
1. Additional logistics and costs associated with moving a number of refined products vs crude which will later be refined into these products.
2. Which party would be interested in constructing more refineries in Canada? (And where would they be located, are you saying you would be supporting a refinery in Kitimat?) The cons would be the only ones quick to say yes to a new refinery, the libs,NDP, and most certainly the greens would just kill it with red tape.

Clean energy is a misnomer, while over the long term we can certainly consider hydro and wind power less damaging in terms of emissions, there are other environmental issues associated with these energies. I think the more appropriate way of saying it is that more and more companies and countries are capitalizing on the diversity afforded by alternative energy sources.

With regards to child care take a look at they programs the have in Quebec and what the costs have been like to the federal and provincial gov. in terms of child tax credits and day care reduced contribution programs. Quebec has long been the leader in terms of these sort of "incentives" and their economy is 100% shit. Obviously there are other cultural and corruption issues that contribute to Quebec being an economic nightmare... but you get the idea. BTW Quebec has insanely high personal, corp, and sales taxes.

GTA traffic makes me want to kill myself, the real lesson to be learned there is actually in the housing market - if we don't facilitate a housing bubble where everyone and their cousin needs a house in the burbs we wouldn't have the transportation burdens we have today. What's fair, more tax on the people that use this infrastructure aka higher taxes on gasoline. Live near where you work like a reasonable person and the problem goes away. I know this is simplistic, but I'm sure you can appreciated the perspective to some extent. (IE: Those who live in abby and commute to DT Van :hay:)

Yes i would prefer a healthy work force, but I doubt it's the work force that burdens the health care system - it's old people slowly dying.. and there are a lot of them set to die in the next 30 years compared to the number of tax payers.



Having said all that, there is nothing wrong with your position or thoughts on the issues. I just have very little faith that any of the left leaning parties will successfully execute. To facilitate these programs costs money, people need to administer them, and next thing you know you are paying more taxes for the program and people who make it functional. Only after many years will we know if the programs were worth the money, at which point someone gets tasked with cutting this piece of the Gov. off.. which will be an election issue in something like 2041 etc.

Economic outlook for Canada is not good IMO, I think we're going to have a very nasty 20 year patch while the boomers die off and our economy diversifies. It's not the Gov. that's going to fix it, it's up to the people to push their kids into the right sectors, to ditch their jobs as EIT's at pipeline companies and go do something innovative as opposed to worrying about how many ppm of magnesium made it into the last batch of crude etc. Right now there are too many smart people being sucked into finance, construction, and resource development - need to convince these people technology is where it's at.. but the pay does not seem to compare, so what can you do?

I caught about 75% of the debate, and what a snooze fest. I don't follow politics everyday anymore, but know enough of the history to not have learned anything new at all.

What was clear was the strategy each party took.

NDP wanted to look like they were calm now, and could actually govern. They did not want to look like a protest vote, and were acting as if they were the official opposition. good for them. (still hate them, but I like the approach)

Everyone is saying the debate NEEDS Elizabeth May. I disagree. She said what she needed to say, and she came prepared. She is now a veteran life-long politician, and spoke like one.

Trudeau came out scrappy, aiming directly at the NDP. He did not look stately at all. He knows that most of the votes he can sway will be from the NDP, and had a clear plan to attack them. He's just not ready (tm).

with so many years in office, and so much potential ammo, no one could muster anything against Harper. By default, as the ruling PM for an extended period of time, it should've been easy to lay it on him, issue after issue after issue. He came out completely unscathed. The fight the 3 other leaders had, were with each other mainly. Simply by not losing, Harper came out as a winner.

I appreciate the detailed response! The current Liberal provincial government in Ontario and their leader aren't exactly well received ;)

Could you point me in the direction of some literature with regards to the complexities of moving refine vs crude petroleum?

I took a look at Quebec's child care scheme, and this is what I was able to find:
Quebec?s child-care scheme pays for itself, economist | Toronto Star

I question the NDP's ability to execute their plans myself, my question is how much expertise they have within the party? I think I remember the Liberals having quite the expertise military wise within their nominees: Trudeau unveils foreign policy team of ex-military officers, ambassadors - The Globe and Mail

With regards to the pay not comparing in tech, I'm curious. Although pay south of the border is much better (especially with the value of CAD right now), even starting pay for a good developer in Vancouver is about $70k. Hell, even Google pays their a second year co-op student $25+ an hour in Kitchener (near Waterloo), and pay in this region seems to be much lower than in Toronto.

There is, however, a ceiling for engineers/soft devs at about $150k, but from what I see around me, pay doesn't seem to be a big issue in tech/innovation - brain drain due to high US incomes is.

As well, one thing that I've found is that Canadian investors seem to be much more risk averse, while startup money flows much more easily in the States. Their investors seem to better understand that there is a certain risk associated with startups, but also significant reward if success is to be found.

I'm invested in two Canadian start ups that moved their ops to SF lol.

Child care - for every positive perspective in the media expect a negative as well Quebec's failed child-care model

I've heard locals in Montreal bitch and complain about how it cost the gov. billions, 2.2B to be exact. Obviously anecdotal, but you get the idea.

Literature for the crude issue is not easy to find, but I'll do my best to explain.

Exporting crude is simple, you export one product that a large number of customers want, and you can do it with one type of vessel for virtually any geographic area. Refineries are typically strategically located to service immediate geographic regions. Take a domestic refinery that converts crude into gasoline, getting the oil to the facility was cheap and easy via pipeline, once it becomes gasoline it's now three separate grades that must be trucked to consumers. That costs a lot of money.

If you wanted to export refined products you need to find a buyer for the products you can refine for them. That is to say that many geographic areas require specific types of fuels and other petroleum derivatives. To set your refinery up to make a wide variety of these products is difficult and expensive. Refining is by in large, a low margin business actually. Someone needs to have or build a facility to receive these individual refined products and then arrange for their retail distribution.

Then there is the shipping, you can ship all the crude in one large single vessel. With refined products you will need specific smaller vessels and compartments for each product. How many stops will this ship make while it delivers the various products? Are there unique double bottom or double hull requirements for the types of products you are shipping? etc.

The Tanker Business

Keep in mind when you refine crude you cannot turn 1 BBL of oil into 1 BBL of gasoline, during the distillation process you typically receive something like this;

So you would have to find a buyer for each of the products, not just one etc.

On top of that, we are in a situation where people do not depend on Canadian oil exports. If you told a trade partner that we didn't want to ship them crude, we would only shipped them refined products, they would buy their crude elsewhere and continue to use their existing refining capacity which is no doubt much cheaper than ours would ever be even before the costs associated with shipping products vs crude.

Scattered I know, my level of caring has been very low today, but I felt a duty to respond lol.

hm, it hasn't really happened in the last year (at least with major firms) thanks to the US' moves to prevent 'tax inversions' from happening

but another major publicly traded company that i can recall is Valeant Pharmaceuticals from the US, and Allergan iirc

if you read the business section of 'globe and mail' they were constantly printing stories regarding US firms small and large leaving the US and coming to Canada and elsewhere

so what you're saying is the conservatives tried and failed with their easing up on corporations...they also neglected our manufacturing sector (it's gone...) why not raise the taxes up a bit? we are still incredibly competitive worldwide and among OECD member states (KPMG argues Canada has the best corporate tax system with all things considered)

the NDP on the other hand wants to support the manufacturing industry and create jobs in canada...with our low dollar now, and likely for some time, i could see a manufacture sector thriving, if properly supported but the cons want to pretend that there isn't a problem, while selling away everything to foreign corporations/nations

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but this might help some people

Canada?s most popular voting guide for elections, political issues, candidates, and poll data