Support NeoGAF

[Fuzzy]

I don't understand. There's no way that crap would pass here. It wouldn't even pass in the states.

They're probably just trying to stop third trimester abortions, not abortions all together.

 

[Vamphuntr]

Guess what's coming back even thought Harper said it would never come back? The abortion debate:

I think (well I hope) they will let him say what he wants on the topic and that it will end there. I really don't see Harper backing such projects even though he's quite the social conservative. It would be a costly political mistake to open this can of worms as even inside of the CPC there would be dissension.

They will let him run his parliementary committee to please him and his supporters then hopefully the whole thing will die out quickly.

EDIT : Apparently the Conservatives and Liberals will be free to vote as they please on the issue while the NDP will be against reopening the debate.

 

[firehawk12]

This is rather black and white. Are there only people who care and always will and people who don't care and never will? Obviously not.

I'm not saying a minority government in Alberta would make every albertan give a shit about the broken one party state we have going on here, but it'd sure shake things up and get *some* people thinking about their choices. And they'd be faced with opposition parties with actual power to wield, and maybe realize that they're not so terrifying after all.

Well, Ontario has a minority government and I don't think people here are more engaged with politics. And even if they are, if the turnout keeps dropping, then that engagement isn't actually transferring to the polls. I think the people who "care" are the ones who already care - like the people who are engaged enough to talk about this stuff on forums and whatnot. I'm sure if either Alberta team was in the playoffs, for example, the election would have had little traction amongst the public.

Guess what's coming back even thought Harper said it would never come back? The abortion debate:

Well, we already have a supreme court decision that says a fetus is not entitled to protection under the rights. I'm not clear on whether or not the government could potential pass "illegal" legislation and have the current supreme court look at it, as they do in the US though.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I think (well I hope) they will let him say what he wants on the topic and that it will end there. I really don't see Harper backing such projects even though he's quite the social conservative. It would be a costly political mistake to open this can of worms as even inside of the CPC there would be dissension.

They will let him run his parliementary committee to please him and his supporters then hopefully the whole thing will die out quickly.

Nah he's going to open this crap just to get it through since by the time the elections come back this will be behind us all anyway.

Edit: In other news

http://translate.google.com/transla...ederale/archives/2012/04/20120425-213902.html

A former engineer with the Canadian Air Force, also the federal Green Party candidate, says the fighter F-35 is not suitable for carrying out missions in the Arctic.

[...]

Having spent years working on Canadian fighter jets, Mr. Maillet is estimated that Canada would rather buy some F-18 E / F, a modernized version of the current F-18.

He also believes it would be best to fly the old F-18 as long as possible until they are replaced by drones, in defense and air surveillance.

"The future is in the field of UAVs, said Maillet.

 

[Vamphuntr]

Nah he's going to open this crap just to get it through since by the time the elections come back this will be behind us all anyway.

Well there is hope, his MP are free to vote on whether or not the government holds this committee. Let's just hope the liberals don't screw up.

 

[gabbo]

Well, we already have a supreme court decision that says a fetus is not entitled to protection under the rights. I'm not clear on whether or not the government could potential pass "illegal" legislation and have the current supreme court look at it, as they do in the US though.

Part of bill is to challenge that Supreme Court decision so that a fetus' becomes full persons under the law, guaranteed rights. That would pretty much curb abortion laws right there.

 

[firehawk12]

Part of bill is to challenge that Supreme Court decision so that a fetus' becomes full persons under the law, guaranteed rights. That would pretty much curb abortion laws right there.

So there is a measure to legally challenge a Supreme Court ruling through legislation in Canada?

 

[gabbo]

So there is a measure to legally challenge a Supreme Court ruling through legislation in Canada?

I'm unsure, but from how the MP talked about it on Power and Politics, it sure seemed like that was the case. Then again he said Canada's definition of a human being was based on 400 year old British law, so I don't really know what to believe from this guy. I'd gladly see him blindly walk into such a blunder if that isn't the case.
We don't need to look at changing the definition of human being or abortion laws as far as I'm concerned.

 

[maharg]

Well, Ontario has a minority government and I don't think people here are more engaged with politics. And even if they are, if the turnout keeps dropping, then that engagement isn't actually transferring to the polls. I think the people who "care" are the ones who already care - like the people who are engaged enough to talk about this stuff on forums and whatnot. I'm sure if either Alberta team was in the playoffs, for example, the election would have had little traction amongst the public.
.

The level of political disengagement in Alberta is on a whole different level from Ontario. It's not at all comparable. People are used to expecting the same government to hold absolute power here because that's the way it's been for this entire province's history. Every now and then a new party comes sweeping into power (last time 41 years ago, in 1971. And before that in 1935), and then the new boss is like the old boss.

There's never been a minority government in that entire time. The idea that such a massive change from the established order of power in this province wouldn't be noticed is, imo, just silly.

 

[firehawk12]

I'm unsure, but from how the MP talked about it on Power and Politics, it sure seemed like that was the case. Then again he said Canada's definition of a human being was based on 400 year old British law, so I don't really know what to believe from this guy. I'd gladly see him blindly walk into such a blunder if that isn't the case.
We don't need to look at changing the definition of human being or abortion laws as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I mean, we could use some actual laws that define abortion rather than leave it up to medical ethicists and crazy pharmacists. lol
I just feel embarrassed that this guy is from Kitchener. It's a bit too close to home.

The level of political disengagement in Alberta is on a whole different level from Ontario. It's not at all comparable. People are used to expecting the same government to hold absolute power here because that's the way it's been for this entire province's history. Every now and then a new party comes sweeping into power (last time 41 years ago, in 1971. And before that in 1935), and then the new boss is like the old boss.

There's never been a minority government in that entire time. The idea that such a massive change from the established order of power in this province wouldn't be noticed is, imo, just silly.

I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I just have no faith in voters in any province

 

[Vamphuntr]

So there is a measure to legally challenge a Supreme Court ruling through legislation in Canada?

I don't think you can challenge a Supreme Court decision. What you can can do is modify the your law so it complies to their ruling or amend the constitution so that the law you want to pass is entrenched in the constitution. If what you want to modify is part of charter of rights and freedom then you can simply invoke the "notwithstanding" clause to ignore their ruling.

Pretty sure abortion is part of the Chart of Rights and Freedom.

 

[gabbo]

Well, I mean, we could use some actual laws that define abortion rather than leave it up to medical ethicists and crazy pharmacists. lol
I just feel embarrassed that this guy is from Kitchener. It's a bit too close to home.


I'm willing to be proven wrong on this, but I just have no faith in voters in any province

In this case, when I say change, I mean repeal them and outlaw abortion based on some misguided moral and religious notion from 50 years ago. I'm all for creating progressive laws that legalize abortion. But that fight won't happen until after this guy gets shot down.

 

[BladeWorker]

So there is a measure to legally challenge a Supreme Court ruling through legislation in Canada?

Yes, it's called legislation.

Sorry, that was glib. But Parliament can make whatever law it wants. And if a case is heard by the Supreme Court, it can tell Parliament that part x or part y of that law does not follow the constitution and will thusly give Parliament the opportunity to change it, or the SCC will strike it down.

Now, this could theoretically end up in a stalemate of sorts, but usually laws are changed before this occurs.

Pretty sure abortion is part of the Chart of Rights and Freedom.

Not quite. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's laws restricting abortions in 1988 as unconstitutional, as they infringed upon womens' Charter right to security of the person. Now that the issue's come up again, CBC's done a short timeline here.

Abortions are not a constitutional right, in and of themselves. There are division of powers (abortions are provided by healthcare providers, a provincial jurisdiction) conscience issues (another Charter freedom) and other cans of worms in between.

 

[maharg]

Apparently the government whip got up and gave a rousing pro-choice speech and advised against voting in favour of further debate, though not so far as to whip the caucus directly. Still, should carry a lot of weight in caucus.

And parliament can no longer contradict or amend the constitution directly. The constitution dictates how that's done, and is the one aspect of our government where parliament is no longer technically supreme.

 

[BladeWorker]

Fair enough but we're not talking about constitutional change, we're talking about laws that Parliament has the authority to make.

One could make the argument that the Canada Health Act violates the constitution's division of powers. One could make the argument - and many had - that the Long-Gun Registry violated individual rights to security of the person and against unreasonable search and seizure. Once could make the argument that Harper's election timing law contravenes the provision set out in the constitution that our elections shall occur once every five years. I'm not going to come down on one or the other side of those arguments, but the point is that the laws where those arguments are concerned were passed by Parliament.

So while the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and Parliament shall make no law abridging or amending it without following the set formula contained therein, Parliament can make any other law it chooses - though it may be subject to a Charter challenge.

 

[Learn2read]

Nah he's going to open this crap just to get it through since by the time the elections come back this will be behind us all anyway.

Edit: In other news

http://translate.google.com/transla...ederale/archives/2012/04/20120425-213902.html

Yup, you don't want a single engine aircraft in the Arctic.

 

[gabbo]

Apparently the government whip got up and gave a rousing pro-choice speech and advised against voting in favour of further debate, though not so far as to whip the caucus directly. Still, should carry a lot of weight in caucus.

And parliament can no longer contradict or amend the constitution directly. The constitution dictates how that's done, and is the one aspect of our government where parliament is no longer technically supreme.

The House also looked pretty damn empty as well. Not sure this particular bill is going to gain any steam, thankfully.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Apparently the government whip got up and gave a rousing pro-choice speech and advised against voting in favour of further debate, though not so far as to whip the caucus directly. Still, should carry a lot of weight in caucus.

I'm actually a little amazed that the issue got quite as much traction as it did. Private Member's bills have an incredibly low success rate, and especially a fringe one like this. It reveals that even after so many elections and so many years in power, there remains a sneaking suspicion amongst some Canadians that "the other shoe is going to drop" with Harper.

In a sense it kind of frustrates me because the other shoe has dropped -- on Justice policy, on Cultural policy, on our institutions of government, on so many things that people haven't noticed. To me at least, it feels like a single-minded focus by progressives on these super hot button litmus test social cleavage issues has left progressive Canada vulnerable to death by a thousand cuts.

The House also looked pretty damn empty as well.

Have you ever been to the house? It's almost always empty. The last time I went (circa-2006 or so), I watched Garth Turner read his email while about 20 other members sat scattered around the place and talked to empty air. Private members bills are multitudinous and rarely significant.

 

[Ether_Snake]

The Wild Rose and his abortion-deputy's motion are both fabrications of a PR firm working for Harper trying to make him look moderate.

We're gonna see more of this bullshit again and again for the next few years.

 

[BladeWorker]

I'm actually a little amazed that the issue got quite as much traction as it did. Private Member's bills have an incredibly low success rate, and especially a fringe one like this. It reveals that even after so many elections and so many years in power, there remains a sneaking suspicion amongst some Canadians that "the other shoe is going to drop" with Harper.

In a sense it kind of frustrates me because the other shoe has dropped -- on Justice policy, on Cultural policy, on our institutions of government, on so many things that people haven't noticed. To me at least, it feels like a single-minded focus by progressives on these super hot button litmus test social cleavage issues has left progressive Canada vulnerable to death by a thousand cuts.

Abortion gets traction because it's abortion. It's polarizing, it concerns women, babies, sex, morality, stereotypes, religion...basically, it's a strategist's wet dream.

And Canada doesn't have a law governing abortion one way or another, except to say that the medical community isn't allowed to put the kaibosh on it based on SCC precedent. Our politicians are afraid to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole, and for good reason: leaders who even suggest we have a conversation are written off as having committed political suicide, and branded as being on the fringes of society, no matter what their actual stance on a woman's right to choose the outcome of her pregnancy.

Right now, Conservatives across the country are high-fiving each other. Regardless of their stance on abortion, they just successfully shifted focus from anything that might have done them any harm among fiscal moderates - F35s, Robocalls, Bev Oda's Champagne Tastes, interest rates, AG reports...and put it on something that inspires their base (raising them money), meanwhile giving them the opportunity to play comfort bear ("we're not re-opening the debate/I'm voting against this motion") to social moderates.

 

[gabbo]

Abortion gets traction because it's abortion. It's polarizing, it concerns women, babies, sex, morality, stereotypes, religion...basically, it's a strategist's wet dream.

And Canada doesn't have a law governing abortion one way or another, except to say that the medical community isn't allowed to put the kaibosh on it based on SCC precedent. Our politicians are afraid to touch the issue with a ten-foot pole, and for good reason: leaders who even suggest we have a conversation are written off as having committed political suicide, and branded as being on the fringes of society, no matter what their actual stance on a woman's right to choose the outcome of her pregnancy.

Right now, Conservatives across the country are high-fiving each other. Regardless of their stance on abortion, they just successfully shifted focus from anything that might have done them any harm among fiscal moderates - F35s, Robocalls, Bev Oda's Champagne Tastes, interest rates, AG reports...and put it on something that inspires their base (raising them money), meanwhile giving them the opportunity to play comfort bear ("we're not re-opening the debate/I'm voting against this motion") to social moderates.

This won't have the shelf life that any of those issues, even Oda. Since this is about studying 'when life begins' and not directly about abortion, once it dies out, it'll be buried by the F35/Robocalls/etc.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Interesting article on the Canadian housing bubble:

The under-the-radar changes that may soon deflate (or pop) the housing bubble

News has come from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Canada, Canada’s chief financial regulator, that major changes are on the way, and it’s hard to understate how significant they may prove to be.

Here’s what those changes look like, in a nutshell:

The issue here is that CMHC has a parliamentary-approved mortgage insurance cap of $600 billion and is rapidly approaching that cap. Admittedly, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has lifted that limit several times before–in 2007 its was $350 billion… meaning that taxpayers’ exposure to the housing market has risen by 70 per cent in just four years. With mounting scrutiny over the sizzling hot housing market and the risks it poses for our public coffers, though, it’s unlikely that Ottawa will step in to raise the cap again this time.

More in the article.

 

[Zombie James]

Oh boy, abortions and HITLER on the same day!

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair was asking Harper if he intended to extend the Afghanistan mission past 2014 after a Postmedia News report Wednesday said U.S officials had asked Canadian special forces to stay past the withdrawal date.

The prime minister responded the NDP has a pacifistic ideology “regardless of circumstances” and his government would make the right decision for Afghanistan’s security.

“In 1939, the NDP leader didn’t even want to support the fight against Hitler,” Harper said, before being drowned out by cat calls.

NDP MPs gently reminded Harper from across the aisle that the NDP didn’t come into existence until 1961, birthed by a union between the socialist Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and the Canadian Labour Congress.

“CCF, NDP, same difference,” Harper responded curtly.

“I guess we can start talking about Reform Party policies,” Mulcair replied, to the delight of the opposition benches.

 

[Dr.Acula]

The Wild Rose and his abortion-deputy's motion are both fabrications of a PR firm working for Harper trying to make him look moderate.

We're gonna see more of this bullshit again and again for the next few years.

This is how I'm feeling. There are a lot of people who like the Tory economic policies but fear the Tories will roll back a lot of social issues. Harper demonstrates he's firm on pro-choice, gay marriage etc. they get a bunch of fiscally-conservative social-moderates on their side. Who are the pro-lifers gonna support? Wild Rose nationals? Ha!

 

[firehawk12]

Yes, it's called legislation.

Sorry, that was glib. But Parliament can make whatever law it wants. And if a case is heard by the Supreme Court, it can tell Parliament that part x or part y of that law does not follow the constitution and will thusly give Parliament the opportunity to change it, or the SCC will strike it down.

Now, this could theoretically end up in a stalemate of sorts, but usually laws are changed before this occurs.

I don't think you can challenge a Supreme Court decision. What you can can do is modify the your law so it complies to their ruling or amend the constitution so that the law you want to pass is entrenched in the constitution. If what you want to modify is part of charter of rights and freedom then you can simply invoke the "notwithstanding" clause to ignore their ruling.

Pretty sure abortion is part of the Chart of Rights and Freedom.

Ah right, the notwithstanding clause. It's actually scary what a government can do with that.

In this case, when I say change, I mean repeal them and outlaw abortion based on some misguided moral and religious notion from 50 years ago. I'm all for creating progressive laws that legalize abortion. But that fight won't happen until after this guy gets shot down.

Somewhat related, but I find it somewhat crazy that Canadian women/families are willing to go to the US to pay for eggs/sperm because rather than regulate the industry, Canada has just criminalized it.
We seem to want to avoid talking about this stuff. lol

 

[maharg]

The notwithstanding clause actually has some fairly significant limitations to it, though unfortunately its limitations leave it applying exclusively to some of the freedoms we hold most dear. That said, laws passed with the notwithstanding clause are at least required to have a sunset provision, so at the very least even a relatively popular law using it can be left to lapse by a government that doesn't care for it without being accused of directly repealing it.

 

[SRG01]

Interesting article on the Canadian housing bubble:

The under-the-radar changes that may soon deflate (or pop) the housing bubble

More in the article.

I saw the GM article on this. It'll be quite interesting to see, considering that much of the growth in my city (Edmonton) is fueled by real estate.

 

[firehawk12]

The notwithstanding clause actually has some fairly significant limitations to it, though unfortunately its limitations leave it applying exclusively to some of the freedoms we hold most dear. That said, laws passed with the notwithstanding clause are at least required to have a sunset provision, so at the very least even a relatively popular law using it can be left to lapse by a government that doesn't care for it without being accused of directly repealing it.

Yeah, they expire every 5 years. I keep forgetting that we have that out though.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I saw the GM article on this. It'll be quite interesting to see, considering that much of the growth in my city (Edmonton) is fueled by real estate.

I'm guessing on one hand Harper is trying to get rid of the housing bubble's responsibility, on the other he might try to get some legislation through that would home buyers, that kind of stuff.

It would shield him from attacks if the bubble goes down, as the opposition could not attack him on the "help" given to home buyers because it would be bad press for them, and they did do a couple of things to slow down the bubble's growth. They would come out looking squeaky clean.

 

[maharg]

Incidentally, I love that this is the picture of Jean Chretien next to the wikipedia section on the Notwithstanding clause (which he was part of negotiating):

"All work and no play makes Jean a dull boy."

I saw the GM article on this. It'll be quite interesting to see, considering that much of the growth in my city (Edmonton) is fueled by real estate.

Edmonton's real estate growth over the last ten years has much more to do with what's going on in Fort McMurray than anything happening in Ottawa.

 

[Learn2read]

People interested in RE need to read www.greaterfool.ca

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Interesting article on the Canadian housing bubble:

The under-the-radar changes that may soon deflate (or pop) the housing bubble

More in the article.

CHMC mortgages aren't the problem here, those are the young professional couples trying to buy their first homes with pretty strong income, you can't qualify for a CHMC mortgage without having the income to back it up, and you can't pull shit like "stated income" or employment letters.

What they need to do is crack down on the whole rooming houses bullshit in Toronto, especially in Scarborough and Markham, where it's getting completely out of hand, where you have these weasels willing to pay $750k for a two garage detach house in order to rent it out to 8 families, and seriously crack down on the downpayment source to make sure it doesn't come from a fucking fujian investment club, all those $49000 wires from China from god knows where, all those "stated income" self-employed folks who aren't actually self-employed, all those employment letters showing restaurant cooks making $50000 a year.

Even if they just require the banks to strictly enforce the 40% debt ratio requirement based on T4 income only and require banks to clearly verify the source of downpayment, they would cut down on a lot of all that bullshit, you can push a lot of the iffy deals down to secondary lenders where it costs way more to borrow, it will at least clean up the mortgage books of the big banks.

 

[Mike Works]

Did Stephen Harper, the guy who wanted Canada to go to war in Iraq, really just rag on the CCF for not wanting to go to enter World War 2?

Which do you think is more relevant to today's politics?

 

[Firestorm]

On the bright side, this #HarperHistory hashtag is gold.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/27/pol-kady-harper-history-storify-ndp.html

https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/#HarperHistory

"The NDP refused to come to the aid of men when Mordor invaded Gondor." #HarperHistory
"The #NDP stole Helen from Sparta. #harperhistory"
"It was really the NDP that helped organize the stampede that killed Mufasa in The Lion King. (Don't tell Simba) #harperhistory"

 

[TheQueen'sOwn]

:lol what a joke - good for a Friday laugh at Conservative dumbassery. Back to the real stuff next week I hope.

 

[Ether_Snake]

People interested in RE need to read www.greaterfool.ca

Glad I didn't go ahead and buy a house yet. Not sure how the market will react in Montreal if the bubble pops, probably not as bad as elsewhere, but we'll see.

BTW

http://translate.google.com/transla...ederale/archives/2012/04/20120427-183516.html

That Bill C-38 that includes, among others, changes in environmental standards will be reviewed not by the committee on the environment, but by a subcommittee of the Finance committee.

[...]

"This is an attempt to hide the most devastating changes in environmental laws that we have seen for 40 years," she said.

It is outrageous that the Harper government abolish the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and replaces it by a new law "from beginning to end."

According to Bill C-38, the National Office of Energy and the Minister responsible will have greater powers to ensure that the evaluation process and "the tests are conducted in a timely manner." They will issue a certificate to give the green light to "every major project pipeline."

This bill also embodies the withdrawal of Canada's Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. He abolished the post of Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, a savings of about $ 1 million.

The salary of the Governor General will double, but will be subject to tax. It is also proposed legislative changes to increase the eligibility age for old age security from 65 to 67 years.

These changes to the OAS should have been included in a white paper and be subject to consultation and not be buried in a budget of more than 400 pages, lamented Montreal Liberal MP Stephane Dion.

 

[gabbo]

Did Stephen Harper, the guy who wanted Canada to go to war in Iraq, really just rag on the CCF for not wanting to go to enter World War 2?

Which do you think is more relevant to today's politics?

How far our Prime Minister's have fallen, as the Pm at the time, King had this to say about the CCF leader not entering into WW2:

"There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament."

 

[Onion_Relish]

In a sense it kind of frustrates me because the other shoe has dropped -- on Justice policy, on Cultural policy, on our institutions of government, on so many things that people haven't noticed. To me at least, it feels like a single-minded focus by progressives on these super hot button litmus test social cleavage issues has left progressive Canada vulnerable to death by a thousand cuts.
.

I think a lot of Canadians notice, it is just a mix between apathy and fear that lets Harper tramp around untouched. I've voted Liberal for as long as i've been able to vote, but now that I think about it, I feel a genuine disgust for all of the parties available to us in Canada. There is no doubt in mind that the NDP would run our country into the ground financially. There is no doubt in my mind that the liberal party will not be able to get back into the swing of things for years to come. There is no doubt in mind that the Conservative party is slowly bleeding Canada of its international respect and implimenting policies that genuinely contradict the values of the vast majority of canadians. Its like a choice of shit, shit and shit. Don't even mention the green party.

Let me put it this way, I almost voted Conservative in the last election. They are the only party that wont kill Canada immediately, just slowly. Russ Hiebert is our MP, yeah, the guy who spent the second most amount of money across all MP's a couple years ago (only behind a quadrapelegic mp). Oh yeah, and he is a bible thumper in a community filled with them. He basically can't be beaten. I might as well just vote Rhinocerous party.

 

[gabbo]

I think a lot of Canadians notice, it is just a mix between apathy and fear that lets Harper tramp around untouched. I've voted Liberal for as long as i've been able to vote, but now that I think about it, I feel a genuine disgust for all of the parties available to us in Canada. There is no doubt in mind that the NDP would run our country into the ground financially. There is no doubt in my mind that the liberal party will not be able to get back into the swing of things for years to come. There is no doubt in mind that the Conservative party is slowly bleeding Canada of its international respect and implimenting policies that genuinely contradict the values of the vast majority of canadians. Its like a choice of shit, shit and shit. Don't even mention the green party.

Let me put it this way, I almost voted Conservative in the last election. They are the only party that wont kill Canada immediately, just slowly. Russ Hiebert is our MP, yeah, the guy who spent the second most amount of money across all MP's a couple years ago (only behind a quadrapelegic mp). Oh yeah, and he is a bible thumper in a community filled with them. He basically can't be beaten. I might as well just vote Rhinocerous party.

Gut feelings |= reality on the ground.

 

[DreamMachine]

Highly recommend reading this article for those that want an overview of some of the things Harper has done in his first majority year.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/04/27/lawrence-martin-is-this-still-a-democracy-you-be-the-judge/

Not to be facetious, but isn’t it time to find a new name for our system of government? Aren’t we being rather generous in still calling the operation in Ottawa a democracy? Isn’t it a bit like calling the Maple Leafs a hockey team or Vladimir Putin Aristotelian?

This week we got the news that our freedom-loving Tories have been sending out “minders” or chaperons with Canadian scientists to monitor and record their every public utterance and report back to Ottawa. The Harper Conservatives have been called control freaks a thousand times, but this is wild, even for them. This is the type of thing I used to see when, back in the 1980s, I reported from the Soviet Union

For the election of 2008, the breach of faith came in the calling of the campaign. The PM had brought in a fixed-date election law, saying that no party should have the advantage of springing a surprise election call on an unprepared opposition. But he ignored his own law and chose to do just that.

For some people leaning on the

Spoiler

far

right you can read Jhon Ibbiston's Article


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...his-first-year-as-majority-pm/article2416555/

 

[Ether_Snake]

Another article from the Globe and Mail, on the housing bubble:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-at-odds-with-monetary-policy/article2417289/

It’s hard to imagine life could get any better for Mark Carney.

The Bank of Canada governor is everyone’s favourite central banker these days, his star as lofty as the loonie.

He already chairs the Financial Stability Board, tasked with reforming global financial institutions. He’s whispered as a candidate to head the Bank of England. Wherever he goes, people laud him for saving the country from the worst of the global financial crisis. On Tuesday, the Canadian Club honours him as “Canadian of the Year.”

Another central banker once enjoyed this kind of halo.

Remember Alan Greenspan? The Maestro. There was a time when he, too, could do no wrong.

When Mr. Greenspan retired from the U.S. Federal Reserve in 2006, he looked like a genius. He had steered the world’s largest economy through the dot-com bust, 9/11 and a recession. Life was good as the economy roared ahead.

Two years later, with the U.S. housing bubble bursting and the financial crisis raging, Mr. Greenspan’s reputation was substantially diminished. His failure to see the mortgage lending bubble – and do anything about it – is now etched in his legacy. A rattled Mr. Greenspan later admitted his faith in the financial system was shaken.

Events, and time, can alter perceptions.

[...]

Canadians have never been as indebted as they are now. The Bank of Canada expects debt levels to eventually reach near 160 per cent of disposable income – the same level reached by Americans just prior to the crash.

These debt warnings have been a constant in Mr. Carney’s public pronouncements over the past few years – just not in his actions.

And nothing speaks louder than easy money. Low mortgage rates make larger and pricier homes accessible to more people, pushing home prices higher in a vicious cycle that may not end well.

Of course, it’s not all about the intensely image-conscious Mr. Carney.

Mr. Flaherty and the Conservative government share responsibility for the borrowing binge. Last week, the government tabled a bill to put federal bank regulators in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. and its fast-growing mortgage insurance business. But the move comes after allowing a near-doubling of the agency’s insurance cap to its current level of $600-billion since 2007. CMHC is now on the hook for half of the $1.1-trillion worth of home mortgages in the country.

And there are the banks. Lending standards are arguably looser than they’ve ever been, allowing more people to reach further on borrowed money.

If the bubble bursts, Canadians will surely want to know why Mr. Carney and Mr. Flaherty didn’t do more, sooner.

Saying “I told you so” might not cut it.

I can only say: Boom boom boom boom

 

[Cheerilee]

Let me put it this way, I almost voted Conservative in the last election. They are the only party that wont kill Canada immediately, just slowly. Russ Hiebert is our MP, yeah, the guy who spent the second most amount of money across all MP's a couple years ago (only behind a quadrapelegic mp). Oh yeah, and he is a bible thumper in a community filled with them. He basically can't be beaten. I might as well just vote Rhinocerous party.

I actually knew Russ Hiebert through a mutual friend before he got into politics. He is/was a nice, normal guy, although as you could guess he's absolutely certain that his religious beliefs are right regarding moral issues. That's why he's popular in a religious community.

He was a political newbie and his party advisors told him to play up the "family man" angle by taking his wife and young kids with him on trips to Ottawa, which was specifically allowed and well within his spending budget. He didn't realize that he was spending more than other MPs were spending. He apparently got pretty pissed at his advisors for pushing him to spend an abnormal amount of money on an image boost he didn't even remotely need (although he liked the part where he got to spend more time with his family), when they were supposed the be the ones giving him the benefit of their years of experience.

 

[DreamMachine]

Fun stuff today in Canada

Banks got $114B from governments during recession

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/04/30/bank-bailout-ccpa.html#socialcomments

Parks Canada hit hard as Ottawa doles out nearly 4,000 job notices

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...s-out-nearly-4000-job-notices/article2418073/

 

[DreamMachine]

Welcome to 1984 Harper intends to cut half of stats can.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...half-of-statscan-jobs-at-risk/article2418557/

 

[Zips]

So if the housing bubble is supposed to/going to burst - is there an idea of specifically when? (e.g. next year) My girlfriend and I are looking to buy a place that's supposed to finish building in 2014, and so of course with our luck now there's all this bubble burst talk. If it's soon enough maybe we can get lucky and buy right after it happens, but we're looking to get a place no later than early 2015. We already have a building in mind that matches almost everything we're looking for, and were planning to do a downpayment of over 25% - which we have most of already.

I don't want to have the market blow up right after we buy a place . We were hoping to sell about 5 years after moving in.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't want to have the market blow up right after we buy a place . We were hoping to sell about 5 years after moving in.

How much equity were you hoping to accumulate in 5 years? How much profit in reselling? Remember closing costs on both sides. Even without a bubble burst, I'm not sure you're likely to be materially better off buying versus renting. If you have a 25% downpayment (I'm guessing somewhere between 50k and 100k), why not invest it in something moderately high yield? Your interest might pay your rent.

 

[gabbo]

I don't want to have the market blow up right after we buy a place . We were hoping to sell about 5 years after moving in.

While I wouldn't be able to give you a proper timeline of when this is suppose to go down, I wouldn't plan on flipping the place that quickly. Look a little more long term

 

[SRG01]

Edmonton's real estate growth over the last ten years has much more to do with what's going on in Fort McMurray than anything happening in Ottawa.

Ooops I just saw this!

I think Fort Mac's influence on Edmonton's real estate market is a little overstated. Edmonton has always been a real-estate market regardless of oil prices, and it's the reason why new developments always pop up regardless of recessions. That, and the city tends to "give away" more and more land. We have one of the biggest urban sprawls with respect to our population in Canada.

 

[Shambles]

Welcome to 1984 Harper intends to cut half of stats can.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...half-of-statscan-jobs-at-risk/article2418557/

This shit is scary. At every turn Harper keeps cutting out anyone or anything that can or could possibly keep an eye on him or the what his government does. Kill the census, slash CBC, slash stats can, cut off all information from the party, don't let the public know anything... Fucking useless Canadians who are too damned lazy to spend a moment to track the groups of people who run their damn lives are to blame for situations like this.

Not to mention a broken electoral system that isn't even democratic at its heart. Yarg!

 

[Zips]

5 years is the idea we have to sell the place and then move into something bigger that we can really start a family in. I don't know how much of a goal we have for the increased value, but obviously it would be as much as possible and definitely not at or below what we bought it for.

The place we want is large enough that we could use one of the rooms as a baby room for at least a year (to three-ish) if we needed to, but it's not really suited for a young child beyond that. So even if we had a kid around the 5 year mark and stayed for a while after that, that'd still top us out at around 8 years there. Starting from around mid-2014 (so to 2022-ish), would that likely be long enough to make a positive return on the place?

I wouldn't know much about investing, and haven't had the greatest of luck with it in my initial dabblings. I don't know what would possibly give a return of over $1,000-1,500+/month. A year, but not every month.