Canadian Democracy - Takes another hit under Harper

[Cabbagesandking]

I have lost track!

However, there is a distinction between Common Good and Public Good that matters if the terms are to be used in discussion. Public Good includes services that government provides for all: like say, National Parks and Statscan. Not necessarily imperatives but useful to the advancement of the condition of society as a whole.

Commom Good extends to things like National defense.

Public good is an indicator of the social standing of a nation. It would affect the "Happiness" index as used by - is it Bhutan?

 

[captain morgan]

If we make some changes and remove the debt based monetary system from existence in our country I will gladly sell 1 and donate the money to something good. Until that change happens I am keeping it to sell upon retirement because I am not counting on any pension or benefits from the govt.

No debt-based monetary system will eliminate the possibility of anyone owning a house, let alone 2.

Catch-22, ain't it?

 

[PoliticalNick]

No debt-based monetary system will eliminate the possibility of anyone owning a house, let alone 2.

Catch-22, ain't it?

It's not about owning a house, or 2, or 3. It is about removing the debt based system so as to remove the national debt and not incur anymore. It is a complete change from business as usual where we, the nation, no longer need to borrow money from banks or the IMF and can fully fund all essential services and CPP forever without worrying about if our children or grandchildren will be able to afford to live.

Individuals would still have to work and earn a house or a car etc but as a nation we would be free from encumberance by any financial institution forever. If you don't think this is a good idea then I don't know what more to say.

 

[captain morgan]

It's not about owning a house, or 2, or 3. It is about removing the debt based system so as to remove the national debt and not incur anymore. It is a complete change from business as usual where we, the nation, no longer need to borrow money from banks or the IMF and can fully fund all essential services and CPP forever without worrying about if our children or grandchildren will be able to afford to live.

Individuals would still have to work and earn a house or a car etc but as a nation we would be free from encumberance by any financial institution forever. If you don't think this is a good idea then I don't know what more to say.

Eliminating the national debt would be a great event. Of course, we'd have to eliminate deficits as well, but that would certainly be made easier if there was no debt to service.

That all said, the fly in the ointment here relates to the degree and scope of services that we as Canadians demand. Clearly, those services could be delivered based on the proverbial 'account balance' however, this will demand that tere be restrictions on the services. My (rhetorical) question is this: Considering that we got ourselves in the quagmire of debt by demanding the gvt provide support/services that we needed to finance through debt in the first place, will we simply just do it again?

 

[Niflmir]

I've been thinking of weighing in, but I've been confused by some of the terminology and I'm not sure I understand what people think they're talking about. The notion of a public good that I understand, for instance, doesn't seem to bear any relationship to what you guys are talking about. I understand it in the economist's sense, a good the consumption of which by one person doesn't reduce its availability to anyone else, and that people can't be prevented from using, except at prohibitive cost. Like a bridge, for example: my crossing it doesn't sensibly reduce its availability to you, and I can't legitimately block your access to it. (We'll leave traffic congestion out of consideration.) I also thought the Dunning-Kruger effect was about incompetent people failing to perceive their incompetence and instead judging themselves to be far more able than they are. Everybody thinks they're a better than average driver, for example. Similarly, the Abilene paradox is about groups making choices that no individual in the group actually wanted; voters are such a large, diverse group I can't imagine them electing a candidate that *nobody* wanted, surely everybody running has *some* supporters.

Well, the other side of the Dunning-Kruger effect is that competent people overestimate the abilities of the less competent. Either Dunning or Kruger, I can't recall which, went on to show via experiment that this resulted, at best, in voters electing an average candidate. This can be viewed negatively or positively; in the negative view, the best candidate is less likely to be elected than they ought to be, and in the positive view, an average candidate is usually much better over a bad candidate than the best candidate is over an average one.

The Abilene paradox is much more severe when there actually are people in the group that want that option. In that case, the vocal group is able to convince the majority that the amount of people that want their option are a majority, and the actual majority erroneously reacts to the false perception. One need not always consider the extreme case that nobody wants that option. Although in this case it isn't as big of a paradox, since one can understand more readily how the option that the majority didn't want was ultimately chosen by the majority.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Eliminating the national debt would be a great event. Of course, we'd have to eliminate deficits as well, but that would certainly be made easier if there was no debt to service.

That all said, the fly in the ointment here relates to the degree and scope of services that we as Canadians demand. Clearly, those services could be delivered based on the proverbial 'account balance' however, this will demand that tere be restrictions on the services. My (rhetorical) question is this: Considering that we got ourselves in the quagmire of debt by demanding the gvt provide support/services that we needed to finance through debt in the first place, will we simply just do it again?

From what I understand of the model that Guernsey has used by removing the debt attached to money at it's creation the needs can be fulfilled without incurring any debt. It is a simple system whereby instead of issuing interest bearing bonds (the interest is where the debt comes from) to generate funds for the govt they simply print the money and use it to pay for things which puts it into general circulation in the economy. Lincoln did this to fund the civil war (the greenback dollar) and Guernsey has now done this for some time. The net result in Guernsey is a lower tax rate and fully funded services for the citizens and, of course, no national debt. The one thing you mention that does have an influence is it requires a much more fiscally responsible govt but once the system takes hold it is in the best interest of the govt to be responsible as if they are not they won't last long.

 

[Goober]

Well Steve - If the economy changes- or there is a major problem with all these changes being rammed up Canadian Arses - You may be sitting with a minority.
From the massive crime bill to the ton of changes in the Budget - so called budget as you have everything in there and yes I understand the kitchen sink has also been added. The odds of having a major blowout rise accordingly.
And by doing so if handed a minority the Public will think more than twice about supporting you in the future.
And yes those changes you have made can be changed again.

How Stephen Harper learned to love the omnibus bill: John Ivison | Full Comment | National Post

Stephen Harper must wish all his old speeches had been burned. A lament from his opposition days about the former Liberal government’s use of omnibus bills was cast up by NDP House leader, Nathan Cullen, Thursday, in protest at the government’s decision to pile everything but the kitchen sink into its 421 page budget implementation bill.

At that time, the Prime Minister considered the use of omnibus bills undemocratic and “a contradiction to the conventions and practices of the House.”
Now the 2005 Liberal omnibus is a model of governance to be admired and aped.

Such is the Harper government’s contempt for normal process, it announced Thursday that it will limit debate on the bill to six more sitting days before it is sent to committee. There is simply no way that MPs will be able to give the budget bill the scrutiny it deserves.

It makes you wonder: What is the point of Parliament? Why not have one whopper of a bill once a year, allow MPs to give it a cursory skim and then send them back to their constituencies to do the ceremonial work of opening supermarkets and attending Rotary barbecues?

“Lumping it together in an omnibus bill like this is undermining the very institution that we all represent, and our ability to hold government to account,” said Mr. Cullen in the House.

The main source of angst is the 150 page section of the bill focused on “streamlining” environmental oversight of industrial development – legislation the opposition parties believe guts environmental protection.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Every day brings fresh revelation about this "Budget" Bill. The latest is that oversight of CSIS is removed All these drastic measures are hidden in obscure paragraphs of a 472 Page document that no one will have time to even read, let alone study, before it is passed.

Particularly since this one is now added tot he long list of Bills that have been Time Allocated to avoid debate and publicity.

 

[Goober]

A link

Budget 2012

 

[Goober]

Some here compare Harpers supesized Bills as just doing what the Libs did.

Myself I disagreed with that viewpoint - And here is the link.

Canada News: Tim Harper: Prime Minister Stephen Harper is the king of the omnibus bill - thestar.com

Chris Selley’s Full Pundit: The un-Canadian Conrad Black | Full Comment | National Post

Missing the old Stephen Harper
The Post‘s John Ivison notes Stephen Harper’s stated distaste, in the past, for giant omnibus bills that encompass all sorts of unrelated, under-examined legislation. These constitute, in Harper’s words in 2005, “a contradiction to the conventions and practices of the House. … In the interests of democracy, I ask how can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote on a block of such legislation.” It’s a real pity, as Ivison says, that that person doesn’t exist anymore.

The Star‘s Tim Harper, citing Ned Franks, notes that the longest omnibus bill tabled by the Liberals was 102 pages long, while “[Stephen] Harper has already tabled budget implementation bills of 528, 644 and 880 pages before the current one, and in the last Parliament, 38% of all the legislation passed by the Conservatives was wrapped up in budget implementation bills.” Tim Harper notes an intriguing history of pushback against such bills: “In 1982, the Progressive Conservatives refused for 15 days to return to the Commons for a vote on a Liberal omnibus energy bill”; and in 1995 in Ontario, “opposition MPPs staged a sit-in” against a PC government bill, and won. Sadly, there seems little sign of similar protests in Ottawa this time around.

 

[Goober]

John Ivison: Liberty lost in stampede to pass Tories’ omnibus budget bill | News | National Post

Joe Oliver has been watching too much Glengarry Glen Ross, the award-winning American film about four real estate salesmen who are taught ABC — always be closing.

The Conservative omnibus budget implementation bill is “urgent,” the Natural Resources Minister said Monday. There are great opportunities to export Canadian resources, “but the world will not stand by and wait while Canada endlessly debates its resource potential and squanders its legacy,” he said.


The government claims it has stuffed non-budgetary items ranging from environmental regulations to EI reforms into its budget bill in order to speed the legislation through parliament and get Canadian resources to market.

There is a need to streamline the regulatory process for big infrastructure projects, as Simon Henry, the chief financial officer of Royal Dutch Shell, told the Financial Post in March. “The regulatory framework [in Canada] is fractured and tends to make some projects, particularly pipelines, take longer than one might hope,” he said. But it’s not so “urgent” that it justifies an end-run around 145 years of parliamentary tradition.

In any case, the Conservative action premises a gridlock in the Parliament that does not, in reality, exist.

The Tories have introduced 38 bills since being returned with a majority. Fifteen of them have passed into law already and only three have been hanging around since last summer.

Moreover, the government is getting even its most controversial reforms passed (albeit with liberal use of time allocation to limit debate). The scrapping of the Canadian Wheat Board took just 37 sitting days from its introduction to royal assent; deep-sixing the long-gun registry took 70 sitting days; the addition of new seats to the House of Commons took 31 sitting days.
Someone, somewhere deep within the Prime Minister’s Office took the decision to try to cram as much contentious legislation in one mega-bill to minimize the political fallout. It was a dumb move and it has blown up in their faces.

The attempt to bury potentially factious news has been condemned by all but the most blinkered of partisans.

The NDP has relished another government misstep by condemning the “Trojan Horse” bill. “Parliament is just an obstacle you need to get around,” said Guy Caron, the NDP MP.

 

[Goober]

Clearly the Ministers have a problem with 5 letter words- Truth- ethics -

Pushing carbon tax cost research agency its funding, Tories confirm - The Globe and Mail

The federal government has confirmed what the rumour mill suspected: it shut down an arm’s length, independent advisory group because it didn’t like the advice it was getting on addressing climate change.

Funding for the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) was cut in the last budget, giving the group just one year to live. Since 1988, it has been producing research on how business and government policies can work together for sustainable development — including the idea of introducing carbon taxes.

Environment Minister Peter Kent had initially said the reason for the closure was because such research can now be easily accessed through the Internet, and through universities and other think tanks.
But Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said Monday the shuttering of the round table had more to do with the content of the research itself.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Baird is jostling for his place as chief misrepresenter of the CPC. NRTEE is not political. It conducts assessments and assesses research information. It dies not push`` for a carbon tax. What it did is advise that the weight of expert opinion favours a carbon tax. As it does. Overwhelmingly.

Virtually every developed country outside North America has some form of carbon tax. They have proved to be successful. The first - I forget, offhand, just which European country introduced it - has been in effect since 1991.

Baird is a vile bullying liar. He is answering, presumably, because Peter Kent is not strong enough or bullying enough for the task.

 

[CDNBear]

Virtually every developed country outside North America has some form of carbon tax. They have proved to be successful. The first - I forget, offhand, just which European country introduced it - has been in effect since 1991.

Besides being successfully downloaded on the rate payer...

Looking back at the French and European carbon tax systems' failure | Nouvelle-Europe.eu

 

[Goober]

Besides being successfully downloaded on the rate payer...

Looking back at the French and European carbon tax systems' failure | Nouvelle-Europe.eu

And Canada still does not have a policy -

 

[CDNBear]

And Canada still does not have a policy -

No policy v. failed policy?

It would be a wash if the costs of failure in the EU wasn't so high.

 

[Goober]

No policy v. failed policy?

It would be a wash if the costs of failure in the EU wasn't so high.

Then we learn from others mistakes - did you read the complete article?

 

[CDNBear]

Then we learn from others mistakes - did you read the complete article?

Yep. Now I'm reading some of the other links for further reading at the bottom. For interests sake.

My original and only point, was to just simply prove Cabbagehead wrong, again.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Besides being successfully downloaded on the rate payer...

Looking back at the French and European carbon tax systems' failure | Nouvelle-Europe.eu

Would it hurt your head to read the whole report from your source. You will find that he discusses the benefits of carbon taxes and the way they should be implemented. Similarly to the proposal of Dion.

Carbon taxes have been effective throughout Europe.

 

[Goober]

Would it hurt your head to read the whole report from your source. You will find that he discusses the benefits of carbon taxes and the way they should be implemented. Similarly to the proposal of Dion.

Carbon taxes have been effective throughout Europe.

Is that why they are chucking them - Is that why they were full of illegal scams - Best do some research bucky

Still waiting for a coherent reply.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/106221-ndp-sets-up-roadblocks-budget.html