Discussions

Triplethreat said "I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not going to let some scandal be the issue that decides my vote. Sure, I voted against the Liberals after the sponsorship scandal, but the scandal wasn't the only reason that I didn't vote Liberal again. Yes, I did used to vote for them. There were a whole lot of reasons that just kept piling up over the years, causing me to change my vote away from the Liberals. All of the parties have had and will, no doubt, have their fair share of scandals. I am going to be voting for the party and the leader who, in my opinion, has the best policies.     As for the MPs being able to go against the wishes of their own parties, if that is allowed, then why bother to even have political parties. We may as well just let three hundred and some odd people run for individual parliamentary seats and have four or five people run for the position of Prime Minister. When I look at American politics and see someone like Senator McCain, for example, who quite often votes with the opposition, I find myself wondering why his party doesn't just kick him out. I mean, if he were in Canada and voted against his own party, he would most likely find himself sitting as an independent. In Canada, any MP that doesn't agree with the policies of their own party has the option of leaving and sitting as an independent or even crossing the floor. I don't like it when they cross the floor, but they do have the right. Really though, by the time the candidates run in the election, they should already have a pretty good idea of what their own party stands for. If they don't agree then they shouldn't run for that party. I see nothing wrong with the way the parties are run now when it comes to this.     What I could be in favour of though, would be an elected senate. Especially if they would hold the senate elections three years after the parliamentary elections, which could be one way for the public to send a message of approval or displeasure to the governing party.             Edited by Triplethreat, 2015-10-02 15:05:40"

THAT is a great idea. All candidates run as independents, but can be affiliated with a political party. The Prime Minister is actually elected by the people instead of by partisan politics. MPs then vote based on what is best for their constituents - you know... the people who elected them - instead of what is best for the party. That way, Canadians would truly get a say in how our country is governed instead of having 40% of the 60% who actually vote electing a group that has 100% of the power and the say in how Canada will look.  
 
24% of eligible Canadians voted for the Conservatives last election, and that party has 100% of the power in government.  
 
36% of eligible Canadians did not vote Conservative, but DID cast votes and they have no true representation in Parliament because their "party" has no control.  
 
40% of eligible Canadians did not vote at all. Perhaps that's because of apathy or the feeling that government doesn't represent them.  
 
Your suggestion, TripleThreat, just might be the way to get that last 40% out to vote. The citizens need to be represented in government, NOT the political parties.  
 
Edited by JR, 2015-10-03 12:38:16

first of all did it have to be that long of a campaign? i guess it gives one party more time to bad mouth another party. i wish they would just say what each party has for a policy and plan to do when or if elected.

The commonly accepted reason for the long campaign has to do with party finances. The conservatives have a huge bankroll for this election - they reportedly have more that all of the other parties combined. Their strategy appears to be to spend conservatively (no pun intended) for the first 3/4 of the campaign in the hopes that the other parties will run out of funds. They can then take that huge war chest and bombast the Canadian public with conservative advertising and propaganda in the last week or two before the election. The hope is that Canadians have short memories and all they will remember at the polls is the conservative logo and, hopefully, the local candidate's name.  
 
If you ask me, and I did, it's dirty pool. The extended campaign gives a distinct financial advantage to the conservative party in this election. Since they were the ones that set the date and campaign length, it could even be called "cheating". Sort of like how bringing in a foreign national to work on the conservative campaign to help influence voters (which they did) is against the law and cheating, but who's going to prosecute? They gutted Election Canada's powers with their so-called "Fair Elections Act".  
 
Edited by JR, 2015-10-03 16:54:36

I can't believe I'm about to publically admit this, (please don't yell at me too badly!!!), but this will be my first year voting and I'm almost 30.  
 
Someone asked how to get younger people involved and from my own experience, I really don't know what would have me vote sooner!! I knew (and still know) nothing about politics so thought it would be a wasted, unwanted and uninformed vote. As the years go on, you just don't think about it. If you know nothing about politics, if doesn't feel important to vote and I don't know how you get people to change that way of thinking. It also starts to feel very overwhelming and feeling like you have LOTS to catch up on so some just continue to ignore it.  
 
This year, I feel almost guilted into voting lol. I mean, I'll be 30 and never voted...that's not good! From the bit that I know, I'll be voting Liberal

Sammy, don't feel guilty about this being your first time to vote as you're not the only one. Just taking the initiative to learn more and then to go and do it is good. That's what democracy is all about.

In today's Brandon Sun editorial, they discuss the debate from the other night at the Keystone. I didn't get a chance to watch the whole debate so if I can read details that suits me fine.  
 
Liberal candidate Jodi Wyman is against mandatory minimum sentences for criminal convictions. wth?  
 
IMHO, there MUST be a minimum sentence, people now a days are not too worried about committing crimes when the sentences are a joke!

So a person should get 2 years in the clink if they steal a chocolate bar? lol

Johnbisonbear said "In today's Brandon Sun editorial, they discuss the debate from the other night at the Keystone. I didn't get a chance to watch the whole debate so if I can read details that suits me fine.     Liberal candidate Jodi Wyman is against mandatory minimum sentences for criminal convictions. wth?     IMHO, there MUST be a minimum sentence, people now a days are not too worried about committing crimes when the sentences are a joke! "

last paragraph in your post.  
 
Minimum sentences are a great deterrent. Look at the US with their minimum sentences and three strike rule. The crime rate and murder rate there are mere fractions of what we have in Canada. Their sentencing guidelines have ensured that there are minimal gun or drug crimes and that citizens are much safer.  

westcoasterbc said "So a person should get 2 years in the clink if they steal a chocolate bar? lol "

there are worse crimes that happen every day that I am referring to!

Johnbisonbear said "    westcoasterbc said "So a person should get 2 years in the clink if they steal a chocolate bar? lol " there are worse crimes that happen every day that I am referring to! "

only apply to certain crimes, not petty theft!  

The cost of mandatory sentencing is breaking the prison system in the USA. Without mandatory sentences, the judge is free to put any sentence on a criminal as s/he sees fit.  
 
The cost now? Over crowded prisons, an economy of prison builders, private prisons (for profit and usually tied to someone in the government). They found one judge taking kick-backs to get people in the private prison system.  
 
I see the need for appropriate prison sentences but mandatory ones create a huge problem and lead to the prison culture that dominates, and make the USA the largest prison system per capita in the world.  
 
I believe in appropriate sentencing not mandatory.  

Just wondering if the trade deal has influenced anyone's vote?  
Really don't know enough about it to comment. Maybe Don can give us his always sensible point of view.  
 
Advance polls are this weekend (Oct. 9th - 12th), so let's all get out to vote.

CheapTrickz said "The cost of mandatory sentencing is breaking the prison system in the USA. Without mandatory sentences, the judge is free to put any sentence on a criminal as s/he sees fit.     The cost now? Over crowded prisons, an economy of prison builders, private prisons (for profit and usually tied to someone in the government). They found one judge taking kick-backs to get people in the private prison system.     I see the need for appropriate prison sentences but mandatory ones create a huge problem and lead to the prison culture that dominates, and make the USA the largest prison system per capita in the world.     I believe in appropriate sentencing not mandatory.   "

Mandatory minimum sentence. Sets a bottom level so some bleeding heart judge can not set someone free early. Leaves an upper and lower sentence.

standard standard said "Minimum sentences are a great deterrent. Look at the US with their minimum sentences and three strike rule. The crime rate and murder rate there are mere fractions of what we have in Canada. Their sentencing guidelines have ensured that there are minimal gun or drug crimes and that citizens are much safer." Murder rate in Canada in 2013 was 1.44 murders per 100,000 (Stats Canada). In the US it was 4.5 per 100,000 (FBI). Many states are getting away from minimum standards as it is way to costly and they can't afford it. An interesting article published in 2012 but still relevant I think - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/mandatory-reading-on-mandatory-minimum-sentences/article4183538/

WestWind said "standard standard said "Minimum sentences are a great deterrent. Look at the US with their minimum sentences and three strike rule. The crime rate and murder rate there are mere fractions of what we have in Canada. Their sentencing guidelines have ensured that there are minimal gun or drug crimes and that citizens are much safer." Murder rate in Canada in 2013 was 1.44 murders per 100,000 (Stats Canada). In the US it was 4.5 per 100,000 (FBI). Many states are getting away from minimum standards as it is way to costly and they can't afford it. An interesting article published in 2012 but still relevant I think - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/mandatory-reading-on-mandatory-minimum-sentences/article4183538/ "

The cost alone should make us think about alternatives to prison.  
 
From the articl:  
"This is bad on many counts, but the one that has captured the attention of leading U.S. conservatives is cost. In Canada, the federal prison population rose by 1,000 to 14,500, in just 18 months, partly as a result of new mandatory minimums, a federal report found in August. At an average cost of $110,000 a year per inmate, the benefits would be questionable at any time – all the more so when economies nearly everywhere are at risk.  
 
Judges, too, don’t like them. In a survey done by the U.S. sentencing commission last year, 62 per cent of federal trial-court judges said the mandatory minimums were too high: just 38 per cent found them appropriate (none found them too low). A federal judge in Utah, Paul Cassell, explained in 2007 that he’d had to give a longer sentence to a first offender who carried guns to several marijuana deals and illegally possessed guns at home (55 years in total) than to a man who beat a drinking buddy to death with a log – 21 years"  
 
THAT is only a few of the problems with mandatory sentencing. We need alternatives to incarceration. For one thing, someone shouldn't be going to jail for 6 months for mere possession of pot.  
 
We need to decriminalize pot and start sucking up the tax dollars. That will clear the prisons from being over full and from those who learn how to be real criminals while in jail.  

WestWind said "standard standard said "Minimum sentences are a great deterrent. Look at the US with their minimum sentences and three strike rule. The crime rate and murder rate there are mere fractions of what we have in Canada. Their sentencing guidelines have ensured that there are minimal gun or drug crimes and that citizens are much safer." Murder rate in Canada in 2013 was 1.44 murders per 100,000 (Stats Canada). In the US it was 4.5 per 100,000 (FBI). Many states are getting away from minimum standards as it is way to costly and they can't afford it. An interesting article published in 2012 but still relevant I think - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/mandatory-reading-on-mandatory-minimum-sentences/article4183538/ "

I guess my selection of the sarcasm font did not show up as I had hoped.  
 
You are correct. The US is the perfect example of how mandatory minimum sentences does little more than put a huge strain on resources. Mandatory minimums do not reduce crime and do not make us safer.  
 
Mandatory minimum sentences are the knee-jerk reaction of Old Stock Canadians who have bought into the "be afraid, be very afraid" mantra of the HarperCons.  
 
Playing the xenophobe card has been very effective for the Conservatives. Their mission is to convince people that they should be gripped with irrational fears, and that the Conservatives are the only solution. Sadly, far too many fall for this notion of monsters under the bed.

Standard standard, my first reaction was that it was sarcasm but then I wasn't sure. Should have went with my first gut reaction!

Do you not support mandatory minimums for sexual assault, sexual assault on children, child pornography, gun crimes as included in Bill C-10?  
 
I wouldn't want a judge to hear some sob story about how the perpetrator is a victim themselves, had a rough upbringing, and send them out through the revolving door.  
 
Criminals thrive on the understanding of society.  
 
There ARE monsters under the bed, its naive to say otherwise.  
 
The only thing about the minimum sentencing I don't like is to do with the marijuana, but I'm willing to look past that, for the overall good of the bill.  
 
Some taxpayers are willing to have their money go to more prisons if it means keeping pervs, rapists, child abusers and gun toting gangbangers off the streets.  

I'm a guest at the hospital right now and have only caught a few small details on the new trade deal, so not really willing to comment just yet. One point I would make from the agriculture side would have to do with having the federal department being a combination of agriculture and agribusiness, sometimes what is touted as good for agribusiness is not always good for agriculture. Will need to catch up on things in the next few days.  
 
I will say that opening up boarders for trade can have good points and bad points, but when it comes to things like our dairy sector and how we are being told that the price of milk would go down with it gone, one has to remember that with it gone milk becomes just another commodity and price swings become a part of supply and demand. Milk already trades as a commodity on commodity markets in the US and does have swings in price, sometimes lower and sometimes sharply higher, at times I do like a certain amount of stability to some things in our food supply, and milk is one of them.  
 
Ok enough said till I know more, pretty sure I'm supposed to be sleeping.

Enfyre said "Do you not support mandatory minimums for sexual assault, sexual assault on children, child pornography, gun crimes as included in Bill C-10?     I wouldn't want a judge to hear some sob story about how the perpetrator is a victim themselves, had a rough upbringing, and send them out through the revolving door.     Criminals thrive on the understanding of society.     There ARE monsters under the bed, its naive to say otherwise.     The only thing about the minimum sentencing I don't like is to do with the marijuana, but I'm willing to look past that, for the overall good of the bill.     Some taxpayers are willing to have their money go to more prisons if it means keeping pervs, rapists, child abusers and gun toting gangbangers off the streets.   "

I don't support mandatory minimums. Sexual assault can range from an inappropriate touch to violent rape and the perpetrator from a confused kid to a serial rapist. The circumstances of the incident can range from a crowded party to an isolated cabin. It would be impossible to account for all circumstances in creating the list of minimums.  
 
The same is true for the other crimes you listed.  
 
I trust our judges. I don't always agree with their decisions, but I don't have the same information they do.  
 
Criminals don't give a hoot about the understanding of society. They care about what they see as their own wants and needs.  
 
I am a grownup and don't believe that there are monsters under the bed, no matter how much the HarperCons try to convince me that I should be scared and run to them for safety.  
 
Interestingly, there are several HarperCons in jail, including Harper's ethics advisor, Del Mastro. Many more are being investigated and on trial. I don't think the Conservatives occupy the moral high ground on crime and punishment.

standard standard h8r said "    Enfyre said "Do you not support mandatory minimums for sexual assault, sexual assault on children, child pornography, gun crimes as included in Bill C-10?     I wouldn't want a judge to hear some sob story about how the perpetrator is a victim themselves, had a rough upbringing, and send them out through the revolving door.     Criminals thrive on the understanding of society.     There ARE monsters under the bed, its naive to say otherwise.     The only thing about the minimum sentencing I don't like is to do with the marijuana, but I'm willing to look past that, for the overall good of the bill.     Some taxpayers are willing to have their money go to more prisons if it means keeping pervs, rapists, child abusers and gun toting gangbangers off the streets.   " I don't support mandatory minimums. Sexual assault can range from an inappropriate touch to violent rape and the perpetrator from a confused kid to a serial rapist. The circumstances of the incident can range from a crowded party to an isolated cabin. It would be impossible to account for all circumstances in creating the list of minimums.     The same is true for the other crimes you listed.     I trust our judges. I don't always agree with their decisions, but I don't have the same information they do.     Criminals don't give a hoot about the understanding of society. They care about what they see as their own wants and needs.     I am a grownup and don't believe that there are monsters under the bed, no matter how much the HarperCons try to convince me that I should be scared and run to them for safety.     Interestingly, there are several HarperCons in jail, including Harper's ethics advisor, Del Mastro. Many more are being investigated and on trial. I don't think the Conservatives occupy the moral high ground on crime and punishment. "

The bill is very thorough and accounts for different levels of severity for each class of crime.  
 
With assults, there's a minimum for sexual touching, and a separate minimum for aggravated sexual assault, separate one for sexual assault with a weapon, and so on.  
 
In this happy little prairie town, of course you don't have to worry about "monsters under the bed" but there are sickos out there. According to this: http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6074994  
there are 460,000 sexual assaults annually in Canada.

The accounting firm KPMG has been linked to a scheme where some of Canada's richest families have been able to shelter their wealth offshore. They claim little or no income and pay little or no tax, yet are able to live in lavish homes and live extravagant lifestyles.  
 
It seems that Harper was involved in a group to lobby the CRA on behalf of KPMG while KPMG was resisting turning over records.  
 
I pay far more in federal income tax than many of these families. I am sure that you do too. Do you think that Harper would lobby the CRA on our behalf ?  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/harper-government-partnered-with-industry-group-fighting-cra-over-kpmg-case-1.3257994?cmp=rss

Thanks for the posts. You saved me a lot of typing!

I am curious to see if there is any ACC students in this discussion. What is ACC doing to make voting easy for their students?

Well they sold out our dairy industry (and our food safety) and will subsidize them for 15 years to make up for losses due to TPP, then what?  
 
Industrial factory farming is what will happen next along with the envirmental nightmare it brings... All to keep shareholders happy, and as for beef having more access elsewhere means we are going to pay more, as a rancher will gladly ship to where they pay more for the product leaving the poorest cuts for Canadians, just like our lumber, it's second rate...  
 
Thanks Harper, the rich get richer, the poorer get poorer.... And no middle class to fight for what's right.  
 
He's right I don't recognize the Canada we have today... Or should I say the soon to be largest state in the USA

from:  
We are going to be paying BILLION$$ according to the Harper Government to support industries adversely affected by the TPP he has negotiated. He has already "promised" 2.4 BILLION in aid to dairy farmers to offset the negative impacts of this "deal."  
 
Who pays for that? TAXPAYERS!! So, what's this whole deal of Harper's saying no new taxes when he is promising to fix what he breaks with the TPP trade deal??  
 
Time to toss the guy. Heave Steve. ABH and ABC.  
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-dairy-analysis-1.3257280  
 
"Monday's announcement ends that talking point, introducing a $2.4-billion, 15-year (initially) income support program to cover losses incurred after the TPP comes into force. (It also covers losses resulting from the new European imports.)  
 
Taxpayers subsidize dairy farmers in other competitor countries. Now Canadian taxpayers will subsidize their dairy farmers too."  

don brown said "I'm a guest at the hospital right now and have only caught a few small details on the new trade deal, so not really willing to comment just yet. One point I would make from the agriculture side would have to do with having the federal department being a combination of agriculture and agribusiness, sometimes what is touted as good for agribusiness is not always good for agriculture. Will need to catch up on things in the next few days.     I will say that opening up boarders for trade can have good points and bad points, but when it comes to things like our dairy sector and how we are being told that the price of milk would go down with it gone, one has to remember that with it gone milk becomes just another commodity and price swings become a part of supply and demand. Milk already trades as a commodity on commodity markets in the US and does have swings in price, sometimes lower and sometimes sharply higher, at times I do like a certain amount of stability to some things in our food supply, and milk is one of them.     Ok enough said till I know more, pretty sure I'm supposed to be sleeping. "

Guest as in patient?? If so, feel better soon!!

Canadian governments have been signing free trade agreements for more than 30 years. The first one with the US was in 1988 and was called CUSTA. When Mexico signed on in 1994 the agreement became known as NAFTA. These agreements were to improve the movement of products between the 3 countries. Yet, today we still have problems moving products like beef and lumber into the US, and oil is moved south at sever discounts.  
If we as an individual were involved with the process that surrounded the TPP agreement;we would shake our heads and say "Snake Oil Salesman". When someone knocks on our door and tells you they have a great deal for you that will make you lots of money, but they can't tell you what is involved or how it works, most of us would say "get lost"  
As an resident of a ag producing area I have to wonder how much extra canola,wheat, pork or beef will be moved into the countries that signed onto this agreement.

Billions of tax dollars promised by Harper to offset negative effects of the TPP tells me that there will be job losses and lost business for years to come. Yup... that sure benefits the average Canadian, all right. Nice job, Steve.

Glad to see the protectionist monopoly that supports this unethical industry unraveling.  
 
Seen my fair share of the inner workings of a dairy farm, the cows have to be kept perpetualy pregnant their whole working lives, and their calves are taken away within hours of being born, although like any mother they bond instantly with their calf, and yes they can cry for their babies for days on end, and vice versa.  
 
They are forced to stand in a cell for long periods being pumped, day after day, year after year, their only decent breaks being when they are cycled off to be treated for their inevitable mastitis, -and thats all saying it quite nicely.  
 
So unnatural and mentally abusive to these animals  
 
If that isnt enough to put you off, because of chronic mastitis, consider that milk has up to 500 million pus cells per litre. That's roughly like someone popping an infected boil into your glass, stirring it, and handing it to you.  
 
You don't need milk, its for baby cows.