2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Byrns]

I always thought the comparable nation to Canada was Australia.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Re: military spending

Perhaps this topic should be its own thread, but how much do people think Canada should be spending on our Forces? In terms of global rank, Canada is the #13 country for defense spending, which feels about right for a country that's ranked #9 in GDP and #36 in population.

As a percentage of our GDP, we spend roughly the same amount on our military as Germany, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark -- those seem like appropriate countries to compare ourselves to, IMO, since we don't have the population nor the GDP to spend at similar levels as the US, China, UK, France, Russia, etc. without becoming a North Korea-esque military state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

The trouble is that Germany and the other countries have kept their military up to date. They aren't facing a rusting out due to neglect.

If Canada brings their systems up to date then you can spend at their levels and effectively maintain your forces in a modern way.

But because of neglect and not having a strong CDS who could push the issue we sat on our equiptment for too long and just tried to make due while continually deploying on every mission that made the government feel good about itself.

If you want to fix the problem you have to at least temporarily boost spending and put the increase to capital expenditures. Once you've rebuilt you can actually shrink the budget and start maintaining and improving instead of replacing everything at once.

Canada has also punched above its weight in terms of peacekeeping, NATO and other deployments compared to those other countries.

We also have a greater defense responsibility because of our size and our defense obligations that are required due to our relationship with the states.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its absolutely dishonest. Harper knows that the BQ was not part of the coalition (it was NDP and Liberal with the Bloc to consider on a case by case basis). If he knows that full well then its dishonest....what else would you call it? Misrepresentation? Flat-out lying?

What do you think Duceppe was promised in order to agree to not vote down the coalition for 18 months? A bag of cookies?

Clearly the Bloc was being paid off, and it was extremely dishonest of the Liberal Party of Canada to not tell Canadians exactly what their agreement was.

The rumours at the time were that Bloc were to recieve 8 Senate seats as part of their agreement. Seperatists in the Senate, isn't that a bad Van Damme movie or something?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Byrns

I always thought the comparable nation to Canada was Australia.

In military terms, Australia is in a different situation because they're not adjacent to anyone like USA.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Byrns

I always thought the comparable nation to Canada was Australia.

That would work too. Canada and Australia spend roughly the same total amount on their forces, but Aus spends more per capita and as a percentage of their GDP. In terms of mission capabilities, is there anything the Canadian Forces can't do that the Australians can?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

A fair point -- would Brazil be a valid benchmark then? The countries are roughly similar in size, and both have extensive coasts. From the link I posted above, Brazil spends only slightly more on its military than Canada does annually ($27.1B vs. $20.5B) despite having more than five times our population and 1.3 times our GDP.

Man would I hate to be a private in Brazils marine. They have something like 14,000 members and only 2000 are conscripts.

On top of that, Brazil isn't really getting good bang for their buck, as they're airforce and navy are fairly obsolite. But they're in a region where their enemies are in worse shape then them.

If I was going to quantify bang for the buck, Brazil is an example of not getting good value for the dollar.

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Slava

(it was NDP and Liberal with the Bloc to consider on a case by case basis)

The Bloc signed a statement of support, is there really any difference?

Assuming the Conservatives > Liberals+NDP in terms of numbers the Bloc would be in the driver's seat.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That would work too. Canada and Australia spend roughly the same total amount on their forces, but Aus spends more per capita and as a percentage of their GDP. In terms of mission capabilities, is there anything the Canadian Forces can't do that the Australians can?

I would argue that Australia's Navy would kick our a%%, but thats because they emphasize their Navy and spend lavishly on it.

Canada has a more well rounded army especially in terms of armoured tactics and more mobility because we have to in theory move quicker.

The air forces are similar but Canada's is about double the size.

Austrialia is obsessed with special forces and especially their version of the SAS, but we don't know the true capabilities of Canada's JTF-2.

[Cowboy89]

The Globe's Liberal policy roundup:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1968843/


On corporate taxes -

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1969528/

On Civic Spending -

“It’s a bit of a shell game,” Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi said in an interview with The Globe and Mail. “I was surprised to see it in their platform. Their platform certainly says some good things about affordable housing, but it says basically nothing about infrastructure or transit or any of the other issues that are important to cities, which I found a bit surprising.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1970238/

On the Red Book
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1969240/

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

The Bloc signed a statement of support, is there really any difference?

Assuming the Conservatives > Liberals+NDP in terms of numbers the Bloc would be in the driver's seat.

I see where this confusion comes from, but it's more complex than just adding the numbers. With their agreement to support the coalition on matters of confidence for a certain period, the Bloc are basically agreeing to hand over all their power in the house for the duration of the agreement. They have no impact in developing legislation.

They cannot say 'we will not vote for X confidence motion unless you add these measures that benefit Quebec.' The moment they do, they are violating their part of the agreement, at which point they are no longer in support of the coalition and become just another party. Once this occurs, the balance of power is essentially equal between the three voting blocks, since an alliance between any two forms a majority capable of defeating or passing any motion. The conservatives can basically negate any deal-making power that the Bloc has by being a more willing partner, and if the conservatives and bloc both want to take down the government, they can vote together to do so.

So what was the benefit for the Bloc? Avoid another extremely unpopular election and avoid losing the extremely lucrative election subsidies (80% of their total party funding). Conspiracy theories about the Bloc being promised senators are amusing, but really, really silly.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The Globe's Liberal policy roundup:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1968843/


On corporate taxes -

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1969528/

On Civic Spending -



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1970238/

On the Red Book
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1969240/

Didn't see much mention in any of those links to the mystery "cap and trade" program that the Libs are trying to sneak through in the back of their new and improved Red Book.

[CaptainCrunch]

Nor the removal of subsidise to Oil Sands companies.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by octothorp

So what was the benefit for the Bloc? Avoid another extremely unpopular election and avoid losing the extremely lucrative election subsidies (80% of their total party funding). Conspiracy theories about the Bloc being promised senators are amusing, but really, really silly.

You think the Bloc would give up all their power in the house for 18 months simply to avoid an election when they were polling as high as ever in Quebec?

Methinks that's the silliest proposition yet. Duceppe certainly wanted (and got) more than a bag of cookies.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The Globe's Liberal policy roundup:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1968843/


On corporate taxes -

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1969528/

On Civic Spending -


Quote:
“It’s a bit of a shell game,” Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi said in an interview with The Globe and Mail. “I was surprised to see it in their platform. Their platform certainly says some good things about affordable housing, but it says basically nothing about infrastructure or transit or any of the other issues that are important to cities, which I found a bit surprising.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1970238/

On the Red Book
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1969240/

Nenshi said the S word. That damn Neocon.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its absolutely dishonest. Harper knows that the BQ was not part of the coalition (it was NDP and Liberal with the Bloc to consider on a case by case basis). If he knows that full well then its dishonest....what else would you call it? Misrepresentation? Flat-out lying?

So let me ask you this then: If I decide to only participate on a case by case basis with the theft of automobiles, am I any less guilty by association with the people who are doing all of the stealing? I'm pretty sure I still go to jail as an accessory.

It is either all or nothing with regard to the coalition. The coalition doesn't exist with out the complicity of the Bloq, so for you to sit there and defend them is completely false.

The Bloq exists for the sole purpose of destabilizing Canada. That is why they are a political party. Do you not think that they would stand to gain by being complicit in something that destabilizes Canadian politics and definitely gives them a legitimate path to some form of actual influence in the government?

So I guess you are right, the election is being dishonest, but not for the reasons that you are stating, more to the fact that the Liberals and NDP can even be defended whatsoever for getting into bed with a separatist party.

[CaptainCrunch]

I can just see it, a confidence vote comes up and the Libs and NDP go to Duceppe and say

"Hey Gilles we need you to vote with us to keep the Conservatives from toppling our coalition"

And Gilles with a single tear running down his face asks

"Is it for the good of Canada"

Dion and Layton gentle wrap their arms around the Bloc leader and whisper "Yes Gilles its for the good of Canada"

And Gilles with a angelic smile on his face says

"Well of course if its for the good of Canada I'll vote with you, no strings attached"

The Celine Dion music begins to play gently in the background.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by SebC

There are problems with aiming for a balanced budget though. First, it's easy to miss the mark, so that if you're not running a surplus you end up running a deficit instead. Second, running a balanced budget in good economic times means you're almost certain to run a deficit in bad times, even without economic stimulus (you'd actually have to hike tax rates / cut services to offset the losses in revenue). Third, if you have debt, and Canada does, you're not doing anything to reduce the servicing costs of those debts.

I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion. Debt repayment would be part of the federal budget. Planning to have a surplus simply means that you've got this extra money sitting around, doing nothing. It's not like you budget for a surplus and then pay off some debt. You put the debt repayment in the budget, reducing what would otherwise be a surplus.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Slava

Its absolutely dishonest. Harper knows that the BQ was not part of the coalition (it was NDP and Liberal with the Bloc to consider on a case by case basis). If he knows that full well then its dishonest....what else would you call it? Misrepresentation? Flat-out lying?

The BQ said that they would support the coalition, but for obvious political reasons, they weren't a part of the signed agreement. Either way you look at it, the whole thing stunk. Either the Bloc weren't a part of the coalition and the NDP/Liberals attempted to undemocratically unseat the Conservative party (this would be undemocratic because the Liberals and NDP combined still had fewer seats than the Conservatives) or they got into bed with a separatist party, which is something that Dion had said should never be done.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion. Debt repayment would be part of the federal budget. Planning to have a surplus simply means that you've got this extra money sitting around, doing nothing. It's not like you budget for a surplus and then pay off some debt. You put the debt repayment in the budget, reducing what would otherwise be a surplus.

Nope, debt repayment is not a budget expenditure, but rather it comes from surpluses. I believe interest on debt, however, is a budget expenditure. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that not only is debt repayed from surplus, but all surplus goes towards debt repayment by law.

The surpluses allow the federal government to pay down the national debt, which in turn reduces what Ottawa must pay in interest fees.

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/261209
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Canada_p...budget_surplus

[Slava]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

So let me ask you this then: If I decide to only participate on a case by case basis with the theft of automobiles, am I any less guilty by association with the people who are doing all of the stealing? I'm pretty sure I still go to jail as an accessory.

It is either all or nothing with regard to the coalition. The coalition doesn't exist with out the complicity of the Bloq, so for you to sit there and defend them is completely false.

The Bloq exists for the sole purpose of destabilizing Canada. That is why they are a political party. Do you not think that they would stand to gain by being complicit in something that destabilizes Canadian politics and definitely gives them a legitimate path to some form of actual influence in the government?

So I guess you are right, the election is being dishonest, but not for the reasons that you are stating, more to the fact that the Liberals and NDP can even be defended whatsoever for getting into bed with a separatist party.

Thats just the way things work with a minority parliament. The Liberals and NDP could attempt to form a government while holding less seats than the other two parties. Clearly they need another party (or at least members of other parties) to vote along with them to pass legislation but that doesn't mean that they have to have a formal arrangement. How do you think that anything has happened over the past 5-6 years? There hasn't been a formal arrangement and some of the parties have at various times worked with each other and voted together.

The part that is intellectually dishonest here is that Harper knows that the BQ was not part of the formal coalition and yet continues to act as if it were true. He knows that a letter signed by the three leaders had to do entirely with the economic plan and nothing more, yet continues to try to include the BQ in the mix.

For me the really frustrating part though is that I have no reason to vote for the CPC. They have no vision of Canada at all, and have provided nothing in terms of a big picture that makes me want to vote "for" them as opposed to just voting "against" anyone else. They basically plan to do nothing...no real initiatives of any imagination or innovation. no real game plan for the long-term good of the country or anything like that. I don't mean petty little tax cuts that might save me $85 a year like the gym tax either...I don't mean more handouts at all actually. I'm talking about big picture innovation and imagination. For example if the CPC actually came out with the TFSAs and campaigned on an idea like that I would be far more in favour than their current campaign of "The Liberals are bad".