Aller au contenu

Messages recommendés

  • Réponses 39
  • Créé il y a
  • Dernière réponse

Membres prolifiques

First things first :

 

Tes lignes de défense ressemble étrangement à celle du Parti. Partisanerie, ça vient de "Parti", non? C'est ça que je trouve "funny", moi. [/Quote]

 

I never said I wasn’t partisan; that’s exactly why I made it clear in the first sentence. My point was that you mentioned propaganda meanwhile your text was much less an objective critique than it was an ideological-based one-sided bashing. Your claim that you are a progressive (whatever that entails) means that because you disagree with Stephen Harper’s personal beliefs (and there needs to be a big differentiation made between personal beliefs and established party & government policy) you have every motive to defame his government and claim he is radically turning the country to the right, in an effort to oust someone who’s opinions you disagree with. You made definitive points without backing them up, acting as though the party’s goal is to simply cut programs and deregulate everything.

 

And out of curiosity what is the definition of a ‘progressive’? If someone’s not considered a progressive would that make them a ‘regressive’? I believe it would be safe to say all four elected parties in the house want to see progress and peoples’ lives bettered. How to do that differs from party to party, but I hardly see any of these methods as trying to dissuade progress.

 

Plusieurs ex-Prog-Cons ne se reconnaissent d'ailleurs plus dans le nouveau PC.[/Quote]

 

While that may be true to some extent, how much I’m really not so sure of. The combined popular vote of the Alliance and the PC in 2000 was 38.19%. The Conservative popular vote in 2008 was 37.65%; that’s not exactly a staggering difference; especially when you consider the amount of people who would consider voting for the party if they weren’t fearful of the long propagated secret agenda. How much of these ex-Prog-Cons left the party out of fears as opposed to actual realities?

 

I too had many fears of Stephen Harper five years ago. Then I got involved with the party and realized a republican Canada is not at all what he’s preaching, if not for anything more than because Canadians wouldn’t stand for it. Politicians like to get re-elected and you can’t do that with an agenda that is totally divergent from what the population wants. While many may like to claim the Conservative party is just a new name for the Alliance, I disagree. The party is a big tent party and I have met many party members who have views that are significantly different from that of the Alliance party. I think the makeup of cabinet is more than enough to prove that. Furthermore, on the topic of the party itself, the more red Tories that leave the party the bluer it becomes. That being said, the turn to the right of the party would be a direct result of these red Tories choosing to abandon ship. Prior to the Reform Party, the PC party was a union of West and East, Red Tory and Blue Tory, so there is no reason why it can’t be again. Just because the party name has changed does not mean anything else has to.

 

Oui, c'est vrai, et c'est justement la philosophie de la "déréglementation" à outrance qui caractérise la droite américaine.[/Quote]

Deregulation is a case by case thing. In some cases it is an awful idea, in other it is great. Conditions on I cannot find any proof to indicate the current government’s philosophy is to deregulate everything it can. Do you know of something I don’t?

 

Décision qui a d'ailleurs été fustigée par une partie de l'establishment et de la mouvance conservatrice. Ça allait à l'encontre de leur philosophie "naturelle". C'était une bonne décision

 

Granted there are ultra Conservative elements in the party as there are factions in every party. But I don’t agree it goes against the natural philosophy of the party. The party’s platform in no way shows it be a party of the ultra-right. If you want to infer that it is regardless, you are at liberty to do so.

 

Avec une quasi-fraction de ce qui a été consenti aux constructeurs automobile, on peut appuyer des programmes et des initiatives de diversification de cette industrie, et favoriser la création d'une nouvelle industrie de la transformation à valeur-ajoutée. Investir dans ce secteur c'est investir dans l'avenir. C'est une bonne politique.

 

I’m all for funds that lead to investment (which the forestry industry received considerably both from the EDC and the government) so long as those funds are for innovation, diversification & new technologies and not simply throwing money to keep an uncompetitive industry alive. As far as I see it that goes for any industry or province, Ontario and the auto industry included. Do we know exactly how the money given to the forestry industry has been spent so far? If you have any further info, I’d love to read up.

 

Il y introduit les notions de qualité de vie, qualité de l'environnement, accès à des services sociaux et à une éducation de qualité pour tous, etc. Dans ces circonstances, le niveau de taxation des achats prend une importance beaucoup plus relative. [/Quote]

 

So long as the country and especially the middle class are able to afford it. I know several Quebec doctors and things do not look good for healthcare, especially with the ageing population. A good example is emergency psych consults. A doctor will receive $10.00 for an emergency psych consult no matter how long the doctor is with the patient (it could be upwards of an hour). For the doctor be paid again for seeing the same patient, the patient would have to wait two weeks. That means that is you have a patient who is thinking of suicide, while you have the moral obligation to help them, the government does not think you should get paid for it. Hospital doctors are some of the hardest working and most important workers in society and this is how we treat them? That being said, the infusion of cash needed to fix the system in time for when the baby boomers start needing more and more medical services is estimated to be extremely large and many believe it is way too high for tax payers to be able to absorb. Now the Conservative government, for example, seems to be the only party (and even with them there has been little sign of progress) willing to create a fair two-tier healthcare system that can actually improve public healthcare. A similar system is working very well in Australia. And remember from the leaders debate in 2008, Stephen Harper was the only leader out of the four leaders in this house to have never used private healthcare services. It is a myth that the Conservative party does not believe in our public system, or the Alliance party for that matter (this was a big issue in the 2000 election that the Liberals slung at Stockwell Day). Conservatives for the most part believe in a public system backed by a private system that helps to keep the public system fiscally sound and efficient for all its users.

 

Back to consumption, if taxes are lower elsewhere, with the age of the internet especially, what’s stopping people from shopping elsewhere? Also if you take a look at the Laffer curve in economics, you’ll see that there is a theory that when taxation is higher than optimal, government tax revenues will actually go down due to lower consumption (there is also an increased chance of black market transactions and people who pay ‘in cash’).

 

Mais il y a une sacrée différence entre des exceptions et une philosophie de Parti! [/Quote]

 

You make statements, but show me where you can prove the supposed philosophy you claim is the party policy exists? Have you read the patry’s founding principles? (http://www.conservative.ca/party/founding_principles/ ) Have you been to the events I have attended? Have you heard the people speak that I’ve heard speak? From what I’ve seen the party’s main focus is to try and make life better and fairer for Canadians. It’s not about creating Jesusland or a completely unregulated capitalist disaster.

 

 

Aucun député libéral n'a tenté récemment d'introduire un projet de Loi visant, directement ou de façon détournée, à affaiblir le consensus pro-choix de la société canadienne, établi depuis longtemps. Des députés Conservateurs l'ont fait, et essaient encore aujourd'hui.

 

Si nous n'avons pas de restrictions à l'avortement ici au Canada,, pourquoi en imposer aux ONG qui oeuvrent à l'étranger? Si nous offrons le libre-choix aux femmes canadiennes, pourquoi le refuser aux femmes démunies des pays en voie de développement le même choix? Ça ne fait pas de sens. Ce n'est pas la première tentative de ce gouvernement pour miner le principe de la liberté de choix des femmes en matière d'avortement. Le projet de Loi sur le soi-disant "double-meurtre" que constitue l'assassinat d'une femme enceinte est à cet effet plus qu'indicatif de l'hypocrisie des Conservateurs. On ne peut pas couper l'arbre? ok, on va envoyer des petits rongeurs gruger l'écorce dans le bas du tronc. L'arbre finira par être malade, et on n'aura pas le choix de l'abattre!

 

ABORTION. It’s a tough subject to discuss because both sides strongly believe they are trying to protect human rights, but I’ll try to do my best.

Again, disclaimer, I am agnostic and my beliefs related to abortion have nothing to do with any sort of religious belief. That being said, I am personally against abortion ( in my opinion a pregnancy should not be terminated after the 7th day [once the egg attaches itself to the placenta] with obvious exceptions), but I don’t believe it should be made illegal because it is clear the majority of Canadians agree with it. A notion that appears to be common with a lot of Conservatives; after all, what is the point of creating laws that will only cause the electorate to reject you and for those laws to be reverted?

 

So now how does a party stand by its principles and one of its major voting blocs without creating legislation that will be ultimately thrown out by the electorate? By creating policies that dictate that opinion without touching sacred cows like abortion. The main tenet of those who believe that abortion should be legal is a woman’s right to choose. Murdering a pregnant woman and thus terminating her pregnancy is beyond her right to choose. Had she lived that baby would have been born; hence the murderer has effectively ended two lives. A murderer goes to jail and the rights of the unborn are protected (for those who believe in them). It’s a win-win as far as I see it.

 

As for Canadian women’s right to choose without any restrictions, John Kay some this up quite well in the National Post: ““What Canada has is not a "consensus" (which my computer tells me is an "agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole") but rather a legal vacuum left behind by 20 years of Canadian political inaction. Some Canadians oppose abortion except in cases of rape, incest and medical necessity. Some oppose it in the third trimester. Or in the second and third trimesters. Or don't oppose it in any cases -- a position that, by the sheer accident of two decades of cowardice, defines the current state of Canadian law by default. But please don't pretend that this is a position we arrived at through debate. Canadians are no more or less liberal than the nations of northern Europe on most social matters -- and all of those Euro-nations have laws prohibiting most abortions after the first dozen or so weeks of pregnancy (give or take, depending on the country). That is what a future "consensus" will look like in this country when some future Canadian government gets around to tackling this issue.”

 

And consensus will be hard to establish so long as those in Canada who believe in some sort of restrictions on abortion are continually robbed of their right to free speech and discussion is quashed. John Carpay, National Post: “At the University of Calgary, setting up a pro-life display on campus can end your academic career. Last week, vice-provost Meghan Houghton found eight students guilty of a "major violation" of rules governing "non-academic misconduct" -- a category that also includes theft, vandalism, arson, violence and sexual assault...It wasn't always so. When the anti-abortionists' controversial "Genocide Awareness Project" (GAP) was first displayed on campus in 2006, the U of C posted its own signs nearby, warning people of a shocking and disturbing display ahead and stating that this expression was protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

 

Now on to the maternal health issue. Another quote from John Kay “In 2001, maternal health conditions claimed about 27 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs -- the standard unit of measurement in this area). For perinatal conditions, the figure was 90.5 million--for a total of 117.5 million wasted human years of life. For the subcategory labeled as "unsafe abortion," the figure was 3.5-million DALYs. This means that, tragic as every individual case no doubt was, unsafe abortion was responsible for just 3% of the total loss of human life (as much as this can be measured through such utilitarian tallies) in the maternal and perinatal area.” Of that 3% many of those unsafe abortions take place in countries like Tanzania where abortion is strictly illegal (see Globe and Mail map below). Do you suppose we ignore the national laws of these countries and subject them to our own laws instead? If we’re going to go there, I highly suggest forcing Saudi Arabia to issued drivers licenses to women.

 

africa_maternal__637261artw.jpg

 

Back to Jon Kay: “Put another way, Harper's plan would concentrate Canada's foreign-aid resources at the service of health conditions that account for 97% of the risks befalling women and their newborn children. Only 3%would be left to other donor nations, or indigenous health services--a small price to pay, some would argue, for ensuring that the millions of pro-life Canadians in this country do not feel alienated by an aid plan that, no matter how you slice it, would save thousands of lives all across the developing world.” And like I said, that 3% shrinks considerably when you consider how many women die in countries where they don’t have the legal right to an abortion.

 

Le fait est que le Canada n'a aucun plan d'investissements digne de ce nom en faveur des nouvelles technologies vertes, contrairement à plusieurs pays européens. Il faut décupler nos efforts pour se doter d'une avant-garde de la recherche "verte". Les prochaines innovations payantes seront celles qui seront environnementalement durables. On est en train de manquer le bateau.[/Quote]

 

Are the Conservatives where they should be on the environment, perhaps not. But what proof do we have that an alternative government would be any different than the non-Conservative government that preceded this one, especially now that the country is running deficits. As for the Conservative record we can’t act as though the party has done absolutely nothing. Look at these bullet points for example: http://www.conservative.ca/EN/key_issues/environment/ and while the latest budget has many of us wishing there was more, it is not void of environmental initiatives: http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/plan/topics-sujets-eng.html#E.

 

As well, could you share some of the initiatives of these European countries? I would really like to know what’s being done and for which environmental domains. (No sarcasm either, like other Conservatives I’ve met, I’m an environmentalist myself)

 

Mettons fin immédiatement à ce mythe du pétrole albertain qui paie nos programmes sociaux.

It’s a very simple concept and it’s not a myth. Alberta pays into equalization. Alberta’s economy was spearheaded by the oil industry. Quebec receives money from equalization which then goes into its coffers. Quebec spends money from its coffers (where it get’s money from various sources such as taxes) to pay its budget expenditures. Its budget expenditures include the provinces social programs. Hence, regardless of what any ministry or professor might say, monies generated by the creation of the oil industry in Alberta help Quebec pay its various bills, which would thus include its social programs.

 

Je vous rappellerai que l'Ontario béficie maintenant de ces même paiements de péréquations....

And…I never said they didn’t. Nor did I say I was against equalization in the first place, although I do think it should be regulated.

 

Je suis bien content que le gouvernement Harper travaille fort pour arriver à un accord de libre-échange avec l'Europe. [/Quote]

You see a positive point! That’s what objectivity is all about. Criticize all you want, but give credit where credit’s due. It was rather hypocritical to complain the government was slowing down the process when they were the ones who tried to push it forward in the first place.

 

Mais dans un système compétitif de marché, n'est-il pas raisonable de croire que, pour attirer ou conserver leurs clients, les banques devront rivaliser et offrir des promotions et des avantages qui annuleront une partie de ces "refilades"? N'est-ce pas là une composante importante de la philosophie du marché? N'y crois-tu pas toi-même? [/Quote]

In an oligopoly, you don’t have to give nothing to no one, which is why we consistently get dinged by oil companies for example. Same principle holds for banks here.

 

Poser des questions, c'est essentiel en démocratie. Et si les troupes canadiennes ont participé, ou fermé les yeux, à des actes de torture, nous ne servirons personne en laissant ce problème caché. [/Quote]

 

And if only the opposition was interested in asking those questions as a means to promote human rights, especially considering the official opposition was apparently privy to the same type of information. They know very well what the Taliban fighters stand for, including the subjugation of women’s right, and their only real concern is not for Taliban fighters but to make the government look as foolish as possible. If closing your eyes to the purported torture of people by their own government who have no concern for human rights in the first place and do everything they can to kill Canadian soldiers is a criminal offense, then each one of us should all certainly be put in jail for closing our eyes to the torture of innocent people that occurs every day by countless governments that are openly accepted in geopolitical relations. Let’s discuss arts cuts while we sit on our behinds as women are abused in countries where their worth is that of a single sandal (not even a pair).

 

C'est vrai qu'ils l'ont fait. C'est d'ailleurs une tendance lourde (et malheureuse) depuis quelques décennies. On aurait par contre cru que les Conservateurs, grand défenseurs du "grass-roots mouvement", se seraient montrés plus sensibles que les libéraux centralisateurs aux prérogatives des élus du peuple, ces représentants du "grass-roots". [/Quote]

 

Prorogation is a perfectly legal and useful tool. In the most recent case, it allowed the government to change the senate committees to reflect the composition of the Senate without holding an election (the only other way to do so).

 

 

La plupart de cet argent n'est pas neuf. Il s'agit de recyclage.

How do we explain a 20% increase? Inflation?

 

Ce qui est certain, c'est que les "refontes" d'organismes tel que le Fond canadien de la musique et celui des Médias trahissent une vision mercantile de la culture. Ces réformes des mandats de ces organismes annoncent que les manifestations culturelles (ou médiatiques) qui rapportent le plus seront privilégiées...C'est notre capacité à être originaux, à penser "outside of the box" qui est menacée par ces initiatives. C'est regrettable, et c'est directement imputable à la philosophie de ce Parti Allianciste qui cache son nom. [/Quote]

 

No one is being dissuaded from thinking outside the box. But who says there niche ideas need to be heavily funded by taxpayers? As long as people are dying in hospitals due to a lack of resources and children go hungry in schools because they don’t have enough money for a proper meal, I don’t consider paying artists a priority. Do I like the arts? Yes. Does Stephen Harper? Yes. He plays a mean piano but it doesn’t mean he’s asking you to pay for him so he can become a career pianist. Is anyone paying me to write my thoughts to you? No, I’ve decided to take the time and that’s my prerogative. Same way it’s an artist’s prerogative to choose the arts as a profession. If they have an entitlement to funds, I want some for spending time writing on message boards.

 

If you would like to donate a portion of your earnings to the art scene, by all means, go ahead. I’d much prefer to see my hard-earned money go to organizations like Kiva, a provider of microloans to low-income entrepreneurs in the developing world. My money has gone to help a man in Nigeria run a community restaurant. And better yet, as it is a loan and not a donation, once I am repaid I can reloan that same money to another person in need trying to better their lives and that of their community.

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

You articulate your points in a very clear manner, however, you don't point at all, in the quotes you take from me, to the sources I have used to prove my points. For example, I used clear numbers and quotes (with appropriate web links) to prove how much the profits from oil in Alberta do not result in more money to Quebec, AND that our social programs are essentially paid by US. Oil money paying our lifestyle in Qc IS A MYTH.

 

For abortion, this is a delicate issue, but IT IS UNFAIR and HYPOCRITICAL to bring forth a new law like that proposed by a conservative mp (the "double-murder" one). It is not at all clear that the woman in question would have had her baby. She could have lost it naturally. So THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL that her future baby has been lost BECAUSE of the murder. Anyway, legally speaking, the foetus is not considered a living person. Why do the Conservatives try to undermine this fact by attempting such a "backdoor" gesture? They should have the guts to really tell it like it is: they want to qualify the feotus as a legal individual, SO abortion would become the equivalent of murder.

 

In politics, the philosophy of a Party isn't always written black on white in an official program. As an observer, you have to evaluate where it's core group comes from. In that case it comes from the Right-Right wing of the canadian political spectrum. Once you understand this, you can tell when a position is for real, or just to make it look like it's moderate (so it's less frightening, and may bring votes, in Ontario for example).

 

I remain absolutely convinced that it's minority status is forcing the actual Conservatives to remain "moderate", or to make it look like this. In majority (and this is not scientific, just a gut feeling), I fear the ultra-Right wing branch would be brought loose.

 

A Progresive is the contrary to a Conservative. Some Conservatives could be qualified as regressives, yes, as some Progressives could be qualified as dangerous radicals! IT DOESN'T MEAN a progressive is progressive ON EVERY ISSUE, and vice-versa! But for a "definition": On social issues, accepting gay marriages, for example, is progressive because it brings a new way to consider marriage and tradition. It goes against tradition. The Conservative thought is to be, at best, tolerant about it, but usually to be against it. It was the same thing 40 years ago in the abortion debate. Progressives were for the right to choose, Conservatives against. It was tradition vs change. If you go back in time, Progressives were fighting for women's right to vote, Conservatives, in those times, were against it (Conservatives: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PARTY AFFILIATION HERE. Just overall political thought!). FURTHER BACK IN TIME, "Progressives" (in the context of that time period) were for the Abolition of Slavery. The Conservatives of that period were against it. Again, Progressives = change of mentality / Conservatives = suspicious of change (sometimes fearful of it). I believe this explains, in my opinion, what being a progressive means, and what being a conservative mean.

 

Deregulation is closely associated with conservative ideology. Any history book will tell you this. It is a frequent theme coming back in so many conservative platforms (the fight against "Big Government", too many rules and regulations keep getting in the way of companies, and so on). Since it is fundamentally part of their political spectrum, we have, as a society, to constantly keep the Conservatives in check about this, and be careful not to let them give too much slack, like what happened in the US (the financial crisis). At the same time, WE WOULD HAVE TO BE AS VIGILENT with a, say, NDP government. But in that case, it would be about TOO much regulation.

 

And for the Arts funding, you have answered in a typical conservative fashion: between the Arts and hospitals I take hospitals. Of course! But there is no need to choose between the two! A infinitesimal part of tax incentives given to many big companies would suffice to pay for so many arts projects. Yes it sounds Left-wing cliché! Still, it is basically true. And it is especially the niche arts that are so fundamental to our society. Big blockbuster culture is usually americanised. What sets us apart are our creative minds in Dance, Opera, Jazz, Visual Arts, Litterature etc. And they are the ones who need help, because too many people still only consume commercial "americanised" art, and because of that, don't even have any idea of what they are doing, and don't appreciate it. Most great artists that make their compatriots proud now were, at some point in time, in a "niche", be it Beethoven, Picasso, Van Gogh or Atom Egoyan. They received help, one way or another, and they magnificently outclassed all those who asked them: "Why do you do this? You should get a job that brings MONEY!"

 

Furthermore, as a society, funding the arts, especially the "niche" ones, is like saying "we invest in our creativity and originality, we believe that our human condition is not only about day-to-day surviving and economic rationality. It is about more than that, it is about, in fact, the essence of what we are: Human Beings, that intangible portion of ourselves. No economic theory or rationale can come close to evaluating the importance of this. Too many artists have been ostracised (and probably many lost) in history because people have used that kind of language. I doubt that you really love Arts. If you did, I don't believe you would use these comparatives. You would KNOW that it is as important as Health and Education, but much more important than so many other things that ask for our attention and time. The way our government uses taxpayers money says a lot about what we are and what we believe in. I believe that the Arts are enriching everybody's lives. SO I believe that our government should reflect this, and not only act as an accountant. Your argument is a sad one. Logical only on a superficial level. That kind of argument explains so many ugly or ordinary looking buildings : why pay more for a beautiful or original architecture? Make it square and grey, that'll do!

 

I have answered in very rapid stretch, not being at liberty to take too much time with this. I will have to come back later with more incisive quotes and numbers.

 

We'll never agree on many things, that's obvious, but it's been nice arguing with you anyhow.

 

Respectfully,

 

MtlMan

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

Bank tax 'unfair,' Harper says

 

PM Wants it off G20 agenda: Cabinet ministers are to lay out Ottawa's arguments around globe today

 

BY ANDREW MAYEDA, CANWEST NEWS SERVICE MAY 18, 2010

 

 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper stepped up his government's campaign against a global bank tax yesterday, warning the leaders of other developed countries that "you can't tax a financial sector into stability." With roughly six weeks to go before the Toronto area hosts the G8 and G20 summits, the Conservatives are pulling out all the stops to wipe the bank-tax proposal off the agenda. Today, three senior cabinet ministers will lay out Canada's arguments against the levy with speeches in Washington, D.C., Shanghai, China, and Mumbai, India.

 

Several of Canada's G8 allies, including Britain, France and Germany, have supported the notion of an international tax on banks as a means to prevent another global financial crisis. The International Monetary Fund has also backed the idea of some kind of levy on financial institutions.

 

But Canada has consistently argued that it would be unfair to impose such a tax on Canadian banks, given that they didn't receive any direct bailouts during the crash - a case Harper made again yesterday.

 

"In many countries, because of the financial crisis, governments had to move in with literally hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out - in some cases to actually nationalize - parts of their financial sector. Canada is one of the few developed countries that didn't have to do any of that," Harper said.

 

He argued that Canadian banks took a more conservative approach in the lead-up to the crisis because of "prudent and active" regulations that require banks to maintain healthy capital reserves, among other things.

 

"They were not able to exploit some of the opportunities that got so many of these other Western banks into trouble," Harper said. "That's why we think it would obviously be unfair to come in and now say: 'We think Canadian banks and other banks, who weren't part of the problem, now have to further limit their opportunities by paying a tax.' " Rather than a bank levy, Canada is lobbying the G20 to improve the quantity and quality of capital reserves, strengthen liquidity standards and put a cap on the amount of debt banks can use as leverage when making investments.

 

"I happen to believe strongly that you can't tax an economy into prosperity," Harper said.

 

"Likewise, you can't tax a financial sector into stability. The way to deal with a financial crisis is through a sensible system of regulation, not through allowing reckless behaviour and then trying to tax it later." John Kirton, of the University of Toronto, an expert in G8 and G20 issues, said the bank-tax proposal has lost momentum since it was left off the final communique at a meeting of G7 finance ministers and central bankers in Washington this month.

 

With the recent departure of Gordon Brown as British prime minister, the levy has also lost one of its staunchest proponents.

 

But Kirton said there's still a risk that a G8 leader will try to make points at the Toronto summits by speaking out in favour of the tax.

 

"It's not completely dead," he said. "You just never know if someone will try to grandstand ... at the expense of doing new, serious things." Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is to address the Confederation of Indian Industry in Mumbai. Treasury Board President Stockwell Day will deliver a speech to the Canada-China Business Council in Shanghai. Trade Minister Peter Van Loan will address the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. Industry Minister Tony Clement and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon are to hold a news conference in Ottawa on the bank tax.

 

© Copyright © The Montreal Gazette

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

Well Malek, several people on this board believe the Conservatives will do anything for a vote or a buck. Using that point of view and knowing a yearly membership costs $10, that's 10 yes's plus an 11th if you actually choose to vote for them.

 

In all seriousness, I just heard the CBC interview ex Liberal PM and Finance Minister Paul Martin and he agrees with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives on the issue of the bank tax. Guess it wasn't so progressive after all ;).

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

Does the CPC takes membership from evil separatists like myself?

 

I don't see a problem with that. The way I see it, if you're a separatist, there's no better federal party to vote for than the conservatives. Let me explain. Since Québec wants to rule and decide on their own stuff, it would be good to have a federal government that lets you do that. Conservatives are usually decentralizing/small government minded whereas the other federal parties are centralizing and power grabbing. It is in the interest of all Québec separatist to have the conservatives in power at the federal level. The Bloc unfortunately is useless and constitutes a waste of a vote in my opinion.

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

Je suis un peu confus avec le 142%. Est-ce que quelqu'un sait ce que ça représente? Par exemple, sur un revenu disponible de 100,000$ (pour utiliser un chiffre rond) est-ce qu'une famille canadienne moyenne est endetté pour 142,000$ ou 242,000$?

 

142 000.

 

 

Aujourd'hui c'est rendu à 144%, c'est à dire 42 000 $ par personne.

 

source : Yvan Loubier dans La Presse d'hier

Lien vers le commentaire
Partager sur d’autres sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Invité
Répondre à ce sujet…

×   Vous avez collé du contenu avec mise en forme.   Supprimer la mise en forme

  Seulement 75 émoticônes maximum sont autorisées.

×   Votre lien a été automatiquement intégré.   Afficher plutôt comme un lien

×   Votre contenu précédent a été rétabli.   Vider l’éditeur

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Créer...