Canada, you're going to the polls.

Originally posted by websurfer
The reason I'm going with Harper, is that he's not afraid to hide from the issues.Harper openly admits to supporting NAFTA; Layton sees it as downsizing. Which is (c) on the part of Layton since the Nafta agreement would bring jobs into Canada.

Boy, what a Fruedian slip. Reread your first sentance here, "The reason I'm going with Harper, is that he's not afraid to hide from the issues." RIGHT! His only platform is "Don't vote Liberal." Next, Harper supports NAFTA, a program started by the last Cons. Gov't. Has it created jobs? Maybe in Ontario, but the rest of the country is feeling the heat. I'm living in Ont. now so I can provide for my family, can't do that on a Tim Hortons salary in Nova Scotia. Ask them out west what they think of free trade, especially those in the softwood industry.

Originally posted by sardion2000
websurfer
have you forgotten Mulronys Billions of wasted $$$?? When Kim Campbell finally took over after he bailed out she revealed a 40 B $ Budget Deficit. Have you also forgot Mike Harris/Earnie Eves? These were by far the worst polititions any Canadian has elected to office and guess what Haper is gonna be the same 'old BS.

Well if we are going judge Harper based on the actions of people who had the same political affilation, then I'd say that Pierre Trudeau messed us up as an international middle-power and screwed over our dollar, therefore can't vote for Martin. Then NDPer's Bob Rae and Glen Clark dropped the ball while they were premiers so I guess now we shouldn't vote for Layton. All I'm trying to say is that we can't make assumptions about a persons potential because of anothers actions.

By the way Harris finally stood up to unions who thought that they could keep bullying the government, which in my mind gives him my respect.

Here an idea lets all decide to vote no confidence! Yes I know that's not on the ballots but it should be. What would the boys on the hill do then, maybe it would stir up something new...Maybe a national opinion forum made mandatory reading for all MPs, and guide lines for all polictical parties would stir things up too. Also I heard an idea that parties should be force to follow thier promises..........YA RIGHT!!! Like that will ever happen! But maybe?

Originally posted by f16falcon
All I'm trying to say is that we can't make assumptions about a persons potential because of anothers actions.

I agree that you shouldn't make assumptions about their intentions or abilities based on the successes or failures of those that have the same political lable. But that's what seems to be happening a lot. For one, in Ontario, I know a lot of people are upset with the Liberals due to McGuinty breaking promises he made in the election, coupled with the whole sponsorship scandal, the liberals have lost a lot of voters here in Ontario.
No wonder Martin's seems to have been avoiding McGuinty these past 5 or 6 weeks, trying to disassociate, which is totally understandable, as they are different entities.

Originally posted by mikew21
Here an idea lets all decide to vote no confidence! Yes I know that's not on the ballots but it should be. What would the boys on the hill do then, maybe it would stir up something new...Maybe a national opinion forum made mandatory reading for all MPs, and guide lines for all polictical parties would stir things up too. Also I heard an idea that parties should be force to follow thier promises..........YA RIGHT!!! Like that will ever happen! But maybe?

I was talking to my boss yesterday and he tried to do this. He went to Elections Canada to propose a "none of the above" campaign, they told him that "they were in the business of electing people." Meaning that if only 1 person voted for someone and everyone else voted none of the above, the candidate with the 1 vote wins. It's their rules and we can't change them. It would be a good idea though.

As far as Harper is concerned... I still maintain that he's holding back and taking pains to make sure that his candidates hold back. Somewhat like Bush during the 2000 campaign, with his "compassionate conservatism" motto. But I shiver when I think about what those Conservatives would do if given a majority.

Those are not Brian Mulroney or Joe Clark's Conservatives. Other than their fiscal and economic ineptitude, Mulroney and Clark sought to have rather inclusive governments, while it's obvious that Harper's base remains in the West and his party is not at all interested in representing a bilingual, multicultural Canada.

By the way Harris finally stood up to unions who thought that they could keep bullying the government, which in my mind gives him my respect.

So I guess when Harris 'stood up' to the Teachers Union who was trying to 'bully' the Ontario Gov't for equitable funding(compared to Religious Public Schools which still get 20 % more money then regular Public Schools), that got your respect?

Well I was going to public school in the 90s while Harris was Premier of Ontario and it was frankly depressing. Why you ask? Well the teachers simply stopped teaching. They stopped caring.

Unions are here for a purpose, that purpose is to make sure that the powers that be don't take advantage of the working class. Now I could go on and on why Harris was the worst leader of ontario ever, but anyone who lived in Toronto during and after Amalgamation will say that the Tory hurt Ontario more than it helped.

Originally posted by sardion2000

By the way Harris finally stood up to unions who thought that they could keep bullying the government, which in my mind gives him my respect.

So I guess when Harris 'stood up' to the Teachers Union who was trying to 'bully' the Ontario Gov't for equitable funding(compared to Religious Public Schools which still get 20 % more money then regular Public Schools), that got your respect?

Well I was going to public school in the 90s while Harris was Premier of Ontario and it was frankly depressing. Why you ask? Well the teachers simply stopped teaching. They stopped caring.

Equitable funding?????
The teachers wanted more money in their salary. The biggest burden to the TDSB is the cost of the teachers who want more and more money.

Equitable funding?????
The teachers wanted more money in their salary. The biggest burden to the TDSB is the cost of the teachers who want more and more money.

You mean like, uhhh, money at all?

Most teachers barely make enough to scrape by, even in relgious schools. I was there, trsut me. I graduated not all that logn ago, and it was just a sorry state of affairs.

DE

The biggest burden to the TDSB is the cost of the teachers who want more and more money.

Pay is hardly equitable when you consider how much work Teachers have to do. Every student always bitches about homework when they get it. Well teachers ALWAYS have homework and just to stay on top of it all they gotta work like 14-16 hours for 7 days a week for a salarie that barely covers the cost of living. The fix?

More money for Teachers salaries = better job morale = teachers might just start caring about thier job again and might decide to stick around longer than the average 5.5 years it currently is

More money per student for essentials = students MIGHT start to get the fact that the people in power actually CARE about them. And it would reduce class size and would remove one of the chief complaints from teachers that they don't get paid for the amount of work they do because the reason they are so overworked is because the average class size is about 28-30. I've even heard of classes with 40+ ppl. BTW The recommended class size for every single teacher classroom is 20 at the max and the lower it is the better. Average class size for Private schools are 8-10 chew on that...

They should be getting ALOT more money then they get now because if things continue to go like this there ain't gonna be teachers left to educate those that can't afford Private School. It'll just be like the good 'ole USA where money is all that matters if you wanna get a decent education. That is not the Canada that the Majority do not want

People always praise a government for standing up against the "Big Bad Unions" for their destruction of Canada. I say to all those people that without Unions we wouldn't be making near the money we are at our various jobs. I use to be a Union Executive for a private sector industry. You would be amazed at what companies try to pull on their employees. I'm talking about gross abuses of WCB policies, Charter of RIghts,etc,etc.

I do have to say that some public sector Unions are destroying all that the Labour movement and Unions have done over the 50 years. Certainly the teachers Union in Ontario comes to mind. Their pension plan is worth approx. $50 Billion. Now any employer has the right to seek a reimbursement of a fund that is over funded. A certain surplus is mandatory and is figured out under Pension Plan regulations and then anything over that the Union and Company split. Now the employer is the government. We pay the teachers wages every year and yet their fund grows larger and larger to the point that it has more money than potential pensioners.

There has to be a stand in the HealthCare and Education sectors by our government. These two programs have become grossly inefective. The beaurocracy has become too much and driving up the costs. However, no government has the stones to do anything about it because it will blow their reelection chances.

NDP - they have such a great track record throughout the country, shiit let's give them another go.

Conservatives - Brian Mulroney(NAFTA) that worked so great that we have hardly any jobs left because of it and are at the mercy of the US. Look at Softwood. Harper just wants to become the 52nd state.

Libs - Well unfortunately Martin is the lesser of 3 evils and is smart with finances. Aside from the Sponsorship scandal which can happen to any government, the Libs are my choice because they are taking the necessary steps to get Canada into the black and trying to keep us there. Obviously some won't be too happy.

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
I do have to say that some public sector Unions are destroying all that the Labour movement and Unions have done over the 50 years. Certainly the teachers Union in Ontario comes to mind. Their pension plan is worth approx. $50 Billion. Now any employer has the right to seek a reimbursement of a fund that is over funded. A certain surplus is mandatory and is figured out under Pension Plan regulations and then anything over that the Union and Company split. Now the employer is the government. We pay the teachers wages every year and yet their fund grows larger and larger to the point that it has more money than potential pensioners.

This pension fund is well managed. They are a majority stockholder in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. That means the ACC, the Leafs and the Raptors. How smart is that? Should they be penilized for good management?

Originally posted by intrepid

This pension fund is well managed. They are a majority stockholder in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. That means the ACC, the Leafs and the Raptors. How smart is that? Should they be penilized for good management?

It's not penalization for good management, it's just that more never seems to be enough.

I'm not saying they should be penalized for it. For example, you're the owner of a large unionized company. The pension plan that has been set up for the employees and funded mostly by the employer is in a surplus state. The employer has the right to set up negotiations with the Union reps to request access to a certain portion of the fund. Which is totally legal under Pension Plan Act.

I'm just saying that if every teacher went on pension right now in Ontario that it would hardly put a dent in the fund. We the taxpayers are the employers. The teachers fund isn't about necessity, it's about power. That's who the governement should be after.

By the way, my older sister is a teacher in Ontario and thinks exactly the same way. She also sits on the executive for her local and is appalled by the mentallity of some people(people in power positions).

One thing that sucks is the greater majority of Canadians voting Conservative are the from the baby boomer crowd. Hum let me see here, a generation who had it really good. Money was thrown every where; the coffers seemed to be endless. You left school went to good and affordable collage or university. Got a well paying job, payed off your tuition fees, bought a house and worked until 55, than retired. It was indeed a golden time. It didn�t matter, just hand the bill down to the other generations.

Since the 80's Canadian collages and universities have become more and more expensive. Further the quality of teaching is now slowly degrading too. Also the quality of health care in this country is also following this trend.They want to maintain the good life and be well taken care of. They can afford a two tear system and wont have to face the changes that are happening to our society. We have to face the serious choises regarding the environment that suffered from the previous golden time. Yeh they had good health care, they had a pension plan and not to mention living in a society free of war. If this war on terrorism gets out of control, Canada will have to mobilize and perhaps even bring in the draft (Idoupt it though ).Now they get to shaft us again, selfish boomers. I know I sound bitter, but there is some truth to what I just said. Don�t get me wrong I don�t hate the older generation, but many of them don�t realize just how good they had it, or don�t care. We are living in times that do indeed require some hard decisions, but the Conservatives will make the ride hack of a lot more tougher.


[edit on C:Monocu06e6 by Opus]

[edit on C:Monocu06e6 by Opus]

[edit on C:Monocu06e6 by Opus]

I don't understand( well i do to certain extent), why people are so opposed to Harper possibly using the notwithstanding clause. We elect MP's to represent us in Parliament. So why should we leave the decisions up to appointed Judges???