Support NeoGAF

[Boogie]

This is absurd. I've never heard about this until today and the police very clearly didn't put much resources into this one..

And how would you know that, exactly?

 

[maharg]

Pursuant to Order made Thursday, February 18, 2016, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Clement (Parry Sound—Muskoka), seconded by Ms. Rempel (Calgary Nose Hill), — That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.

So the House passed this (imo chilling in its free speech implications, even if not an outright violation of free speech) motion today, with all but two Liberal MPs and all CPC MPs voting in favour. In case anyone was wondering if the end of the CPC government would also mean an end Canada's American-style unconditional support of any and all actions Israel takes in the occupied territories.

 

[Walpurgis]

So the House passed this (imo chilling in its free speech implications, even if not an outright violation of free speech) motion today, with all but two Liberal MPs and all CPC MPs voting in favour. In case anyone was wondering if the end of the CPC government would also mean an end Canada's American-style unconditional support of any and all actions Israel takes in the occupied territories.

Wow. How did the NDP vote? I recall Mulcair also declaring his unwavering support for Israel.

 

[SRG01]

The whole anti-BDS movement is very odd, considering that BDS primarily targets products/goods that are made in the disputed territories -- a very legitimate foreign policy concern.

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

Not really politics, but my partner's Mom got laid off from her job in Calgary. Now we're looking at potentially having to support her mortgage in a few months. Her job was pretty highly specialized to the oil industry, too.

Feeling the shaky Canadian economy even though we're both currently working in the US. We only just stopped living paycheck to paycheck 5 months ago and now our ability to put away savings is going to be gone. Arguably we'll have a house for it in a couple decades, but...

So many of my friends from school are leaving Canada... MBAs and such, can't find work. Maybe quarter of the class that tried to find decent work here for at least 3 months (most prob 6 months), most of whom wanted to try get a manager position to try immigrate. End up going back to China (and getting interviews basically week 1). My girl tried for 7 months in Van, couldn't get anything but part-time restaurant and a shitty commission-only sales job. Had bank interviews after barely a few days in Beijing, now a pretty decent position at an international bank.

And most of this was mid 2014 up until last summer.. not even sure how it is with the continued influx from AB. And these were MBAs... must be pretty scary for new BBA undergrads.

That said, Telus seems to be hiring like crazy. I still get a lot of alerts and maybe cuz the new office, they've got like 3-4 analyst-paper work-whatever positions open almost every day it seems. And hopefully the cheap Loonie brings in more tech to Van.

 

[maharg]

Wow. How did the NDP vote? I recall Mulcair also declaring his unwavering support for Israel.

AFAIK all NDP members voted against, including Mulcair.

List of votes is here, at the bottom: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8110021

 

[Walpurgis]

AFAIK all NDP members voted against, including Mulcair.

List of votes is here, at the bottom: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8110021

It looks like there is still hope in this country. Liberals acting all stupid this early is concerning though.

I wonder why there's nothing about this on CBC. That's kind of weird.

 

[Boogie]

So the House passed this (imo chilling in its free speech implications, even if not an outright violation of free speech) motion today, with all but two Liberal MPs and all CPC MPs voting in favour. In case anyone was wondering if the end of the CPC government would also mean an end Canada's American-style unconditional support of any and all actions Israel takes in the occupied territories.

Chilling to free speech? Really?

 

[Azih]

BDS is peaceful protest though isn't it? Why target it?

 

[Tiktaalik]

Yeah this is the first of what is likely many times that the Liberals will vote in lockstep with the Conservatives. I hope people weren't expecting much different...?

 

[diaspora]

So the House passed this (imo chilling in its free speech implications, even if not an outright violation of free speech) motion today, with all but two Liberal MPs and all CPC MPs voting in favour. In case anyone was wondering if the end of the CPC government would also mean an end Canada's American-style unconditional support of any and all actions Israel takes in the occupied territories.

AFAIK they're not banning BDS. It's also not unusual for Canada to display support for a good trading partner.

edit: Reading the motion it seems as though the government has voted to wag their finger/ say "we're not with them" to BDS. So... nothing really changes as far as I can tell reading it?

 

[maharg]

Chilling to free speech? Really?

It calls on the government to condemn BDS organizations. Going further down this path could eventually mean charitable status of organizations coming into question if they support Palestinians or the BDS movement. It is a threat of potential legal action, even if it isn't legal action in itself.

AFAIK they're not banning BDS. It's also not unusual for Canada to display support for a good trading partner.

See the above, and also the fact that I did not say they were banning it (and even explicitly said so in the post you're quoting).

I don't consider endorsing a trading partner's negative actions as being 'support,' personally.

 

[Boogie]

AFAIK they're not banning BDS. It's also not unusual for Canada to display support for a good trading partner.

edit: Reading the motion it seems as though the government has voted to wag their finger/ say "we're not with them" to BDS. So... nothing really changes as far as I can tell reading it?

Exactly. Sooo, *Insert Harrison Ford .gif here*

 

[diaspora]

It calls on the government to condemn BDS organizations. Going further down this path could eventually mean charitable status of organizations coming into question if they support Palestinians or the BDS movement. It is a threat of potential legal action, even if it isn't legal action in itself.



See the above, and also the fact that I did not say they were banning it (and even explicitly said so in the post you're quoting).

I don't consider endorsing a trading partner's negative actions as being 'support,' personally.

But fundamentally nothing has changed. They're literally just telling BDS they disapprove so calling it chilling to free speech considering that free speech hasn't actually been affected by this is a little hysterical. They haven't as far as I can tell reading it, threatened legal action either, so far it just seems like they've made it official to call it rude whenever it comes up. Incidentally, endorsing the actions of a trading partner is quite literally supporting them- whether you or anyone else thinks they're negative actions is pretty irrelevant to whether or not it's support.

edit:

...the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement ... and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.

Without the superfluous bullshit about how Canada and Israel are ass-to-ass buddies, what I'm reading is a literal statement of disapproval and a call on the government to express that disapproval; I however do not see any implicit or explicit threat of legal action against organizations that support BDS.

 

[maharg]

But fundamentally nothing has changed. They're literally just telling BDS they disapprove so calling it chilling to free speech considering that free speech hasn't actually been affected by this is a little hysterical. They haven't as far as I can tell reading it, threatened legal action either, so far it just seems like they've made it official to call it rude whenever it comes up. Incidentally, endorsing the actions of a trading partner is quite literally supporting them- whether you or anyone else thinks they're negative actions is pretty irrelevant to whether or not it's support.

edit:
Without the superfluous bullshit about how Canada and Israel are ass-to-ass buddies, what I'm reading is a literal statement of disapproval and a call on the government to express that disapproval; I however do not see any implicit or explicit threat of legal action against organizations that support BDS.

Again, calling on the government to condemn organizations, and the government voting for it, is a *threat* of legal action. It is not in itself legal action. I never said it was, and you seem to be deliberately reading things into my statements that aren't there in order to make me sound 'hysterical'. I said it's chilling in its implications, not that suddenly people are going to be rounded up in the streets and shot.

If we disagree on whether that's chilling or not, well whatever. That's an impasse we'll just have to live with.

[edit] Here, let me put it this much more concrete way:

You're an NGO that does aid work in Palestine and depend on donations from the public (supported by charitable donation status). Does this motion change the equation on what you or your employees are willing to say about the political situation in Palestine? I'd be surprised if it doesn't, even if you were already unwilling to do so.

 

[diaspora]

Again, calling on the government to condemn organizations, and the government voting for it, is a *threat* of legal action.

Like I said, there is no thread of legal action in the paragraph, only a motion to express disapproval whenever possible which is perfectly okay.

It is not in itself legal action. I never said it was, and you seem to be deliberately reading things into my statements that aren't there in order to make me sound 'hysterical'. I said it's chilling in its implications, not that suddenly people are going to be rounded up in the streets and shot.

Without the superfluous bullshit about how Canada and Israel are ass-to-ass buddies, what I'm reading is a literal statement of disapproval and a call on the government to express that disapproval; I however do not see any implicit or explicit threat of legal action against organizations that support BDS.

Did you bother to read what I said, there is no implicit or explicit threat of legal action.

[edit] Here, let me put it this much more concrete way:

You're an NGO that does aid work in Palestine and depend on donations from the public (supported by charitable donation status). Does this motion change the equation on what you or your employees are willing to say about the political situation in Palestine? I'd be surprised if it doesn't, even if you were already unwilling to do so.

No, of course it wouldn't because whether or not the government comes out and expresses their disapproval of one's support for BDS wouldn't affect whether or not individuals are open to talking about it. People supporting or disapproving of things the government disapproves or approves of respectively is nothing new. This literally or otherwise has no implications on speech.

 

[maharg]

Uh huh. This is a very generous interpretation of what it means for the government to condemn an organization.

 

[gutter_trash]

AFAIK all NDP members voted against, including Mulcair.

List of votes is here, at the bottom: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=42&Ses=1&DocId=8110021

bye bye Outremont

 

[diaspora]

Uh huh. This is a very generous interpretation of what it means for the government to condemn an organization.

I'm interpreting the motion as it is.

Ok folks, we can now go back to calling Erza Levant a piece of shit again:

Coren wrote his support for the sex-ed curriculum literally a year ago.

 

[Azih]

Buy why even condemn BDS? Why should the government explicitly tell people that they are doing a bad thing by engaging in a boycott?

 

[diaspora]

Buy why even condemn BDS? Why should the government explicitly tell people that they are doing a bad thing by engaging in a boycott?

Because they feel it unfairly attacks a nation that the government has a good economic and political relationship with. To be honest, I feel that people are giving this thing way more relevance and importance than it really deserves considering how inconsequential both the condemnation and the "movement" itself is. Though considering that it's related to Israel and Palestine I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[gutter_trash]

So when Mulcair loses his leadership in April, then resigns, Outremont goes into a bi-election.
Liberals take it back

 

[cameron]

Uh huh. This is a very generous interpretation of what it means for the government to condemn an organization.

It's Canada. You're putting too much value in it. The motion is more self inflicted national embarrassment than anything else.

But government condemnation of BDS is still dumb. There should be no formal opinion either way. And it shouldn't be Canada's duty to prevent a fragile flower like Israel from being butthurt over BDS. Saudi Arabia is valued trade partner; the largest in the Arabian Peninsula. Yet it would be ridiculous to pass a formal motion to condemn any forms of Canadian protest against SA.

 

[diaspora]

It's Canada. You're putting too much value in it. The motion is more self inflicted national embarrassment than anything else.

But government condemnation of BDS is still dumb. There should be no formal opinion either way. And it shouldn't be Canada's duty to prevent a fragile flower like Israel from being butthurt over BDS. Saudi Arabia is valued trade partner; the largest in the Arabian Peninsula. Yet it would be ridiculous to pass a formal motion to condemn any forms of Canadian protest against SA.

I personally don't approve of the condemnation, not because of any implications it may have which I've made clear I don't think would materialize but rather I think it's silly to condemn an irrelevant movement for the sake of a nation I care little for.

 

[maharg]

So when Mulcair loses his leadership in April, then resigns, Outremont goes into a bi-election.
Liberals take it back

Today in Weird Fantasies gutter_trash Masturbates To.

 

[Walpurgis]

Because they feel it unfairly attacks a nation that the government has a good economic and political relationship with. To be honest, I feel that people are giving this thing way more relevance and importance than it really deserves considering how inconsequential both the condemnation and the "movement" itself is. Though considering that it's related to Israel and Palestine I shouldn't be surprised.

Maybe it has been more effective than we thought.

Today in Weird Fantasies gutter_trash Masturbates To.

LMAO

 

[Divvy]

Speaking of Michael Coren, he wrote a pretty touching editorial on the Torontoist about attending Pride

http://torontoist.com/2016/02/371759/

 

[Walpurgis]

Indigenous groups disappointed by lack of invite to first ministers' meeting

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women's Association of Canada have written to the premiers to complain about being left out of discussions prior to next week's first ministers meeting.

The letter, obtained by The Canadian Press, expresses surprise and "great disappointment" at the lack of an invitation from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

It also calls on the premiers to hold Trudeau accountable to his promise of inclusion.

"At a meeting held on Dec. 16, 2015, the prime minister reiterated the federal government's commitment to include all five [national aboriginal organizations] in high-level discussions pertaining to indigenous issues," it reads.

"It is extremely important that all indigenous voices are heard and not just a select few."

"In talking to some of the premiers, they're ... shocked at it," Dorey said in an interview. "It is clearly discrimination. It goes totally against the commitment that the prime minister made."

Dorey said he's seeking the support of the premiers in the hope it will convince Trudeau to invite both the congress and NWAC.

In a statement, the Prime Minister's Office said Trudeau would meet the premiers, the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council ahead of the first ministers meeting "in the context of a renewed nation-to-nation relationship."

The meetings do not in any way preclude ongoing discussions with all five national aboriginal organizations, as committed to by the prime minister late last year, the statement said.

"The government of Canada has committed to working and meeting regularly with the national aboriginal organizations, and will continue to engage in robust bilateral discussions with all five ... on issues of importance to their members," said spokesperson Andree-Lyne Halle.

Halle did not provide a specific explanation on why The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women's Association were not invited.

NDP indigenous affairs critic Charlie Angus said he is still trying to figure out what the government is trying to accomplish by leaving out the two groups.

"Mr. Trudeau said he was going to end Stephen Harper's standard operating practice of picking winners and losers and creating confrontation by excluding people he didn't want to hear from," Angus said.

"The message they're sending is, 'There are going to be winners and losers with this new government."'

This is truly bizarre to me. I cannot think of any reason why the Liberals would do this. I'm really quite shocked here. The response was very arrogant as well. It sounds like Liberals are deciding which issues are important to Aboriginal people. Very disappointing.




Locally, the Manitoba election is scheduled for April 19 and I have to say, I am kind of enjoying watching the NDP crumble under Greg Selinger. I have a feeling that he will retire politics after this and which will be poetic justice (he's forced at least 4 NDP MLA's into retirement).

Here's the current situation for the province.

And here's the recent news.
Manitoba MLA wants bosses to back off on sick notes

NDP's 1st campaign promise in Winnipeg: to turn downtown parking lots into retail, housing
The desperation is real. He's so out of touch, he can't even promise things that people give a shit about.

This next one hits close to home (literally).
Transcona MLA Daryl Reid latest NDPer not seeking re-election

NDP MLA Daryl Reid is the latest in a string of veteran New Democrats to announce he will not seek re-election in the 2016 provincial election.

Reid made his departure official at his constituency office at 10 a.m. Monday. He was first elected to the legislature in 1990.

His exit is the latest in a long list of veteran New Democrats who have announced they will not seek re-election, including Theresa Oswald.

Oswald was the NDP MLA who challenged Greg Selinger for the NDP Leadership in March 2015.

Since Selinger clung to power, Oswald and some of her supporters, including Southdale MLA Erin Selby and Dauphin MLA Stan Struthers have quit politics.

Justice Minister Gord Mackintosh and former finance minister Jennifer Howard were both confirmed candidates for the 2016 provincial election, but shocked the party and bowed out of the race.

Premier Greg Selinger has been at many of the farewell events for the MLA's leaving the race, but was not at Reid's.

Ooooh, so petty.

"The NDP has a problem in terms of its nomination. There's an expectation that the party is not going to win, given where it is in the polls, and so they're having trouble finding candidates that are actually willing to run if there's a chance that they won't be able to win in their own seats," he said.

"Not many people want to run as sacrificial lambs, so you can really only get strong party people that want to do that."

To date, 12 New Democrats who were elected or re-elected in 2011 are not running again this year.

As of Monday, the NDP has 35 candidates nominated. The provincial Liberals have 37 candidates and the Progressive Conservatives have a full slate of 57 candidates finalized.

Voting is during final exams so I might vote if I'm still at school, otherwise, I won't waste my time. I hope Lord Pallister will be kind to us.

 

[Kinitari]

Indigenous groups disappointed by lack of invite to first ministers' meeting


This is truly bizarre to me. I cannot think of any reason why the Liberals would do this. I'm really quite shocked here. The response was very arrogant as well. It sounds like Liberals are deciding which issues are important to Aboriginal people. Very disappointing.




Locally, the Manitoba election is scheduled for April 19 and I have to say, I am kind of enjoying watching the NDP crumble under Greg Selinger. I have a feeling that he will retire politics after this and which will be poetic justice (he's forced at least 4 NDP MLA's into retirement).

Here's the current situation for the province.

And here's the recent news.
Manitoba MLA wants bosses to back off on sick notes

NDP's 1st campaign promise in Winnipeg: to turn downtown parking lots into retail, housing
The desperation is real. He's so out of touch, he can't even promise things that people give a shit about.

This next one hits close to home (literally).
Transcona MLA Daryl Reid latest NDPer not seeking re-election


Ooooh, so petty.

Voting is during final exams so I might vote if I'm still at school, otherwise, I won't waste my time. I hope Lord Pallister will be kind to us.

From what I gather regarding the aboriginal thing, it sounds like the government invited the five groups they said they would invite, but didn't invite these two groups? I need more context here, but are there a lot of aboriginal groups? Did they invite everyone but these two, or are there like dozens of groups?

 

[Walpurgis]

From what I gather regarding the aboriginal thing, it sounds like the government invited the five groups they said they would invite, but didn't invite these two groups? I need more context here, but are there a lot of aboriginal groups? Did they invite everyone but these two, or are there like dozens of groups?

This is news to me as well so I only know what the article says.

In a statement, the Prime Minister's Office said Trudeau would meet the premiers, the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council ahead of the first ministers meeting "in the context of a renewed nation-to-nation relationship."

It sounds like they have only invited 3 out of the 5.

I believe these are the other 2.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Native Women's Association of Canada have written to the premiers to complain about being left out of discussions prior to next week's first ministers meeting.

 

[The Wall]

It's Canada. You're putting too much value in it. The motion is more self inflicted national embarrassment than anything else.

Sounds accurate. Some stuff blew up in their face, and lights are being turned on in places they've possibly intentionally kept dark for too long maybe. And they're probably starting to understand where they need to do better and why.

When they can't get away with blaming the people they've forced to stay/live in those dark places, they start to be humbled, learn and get an attitude adjustment on issues that have been silent, invisible problems for the long time.

 

[Tiktaalik]

NDP's 1st campaign promise in Winnipeg: to turn downtown parking lots into retail, housing
The desperation is real. He's so out of touch, he can't even promise things that people give a shit about.

That's a good policy and something the government should do, but it's kind of a weirdly small and irrelevant issue to spend any time on in a provincial campaign. I mean aren't the other parties going to basically be like, "yeah we'd pretty much do the same obviously?"

 

[Tapejara]

CBC: Bill Morneau warns balanced budget could lead to recession

"To members of the opposition who have been less than fully supportive of our plan, I invite you to consider the alternative," Morneau told MPs while testifying before the committee in Ottawa.

"The other parties who committed during the last election campaign to a balanced budget at any cost approach would be making cuts of tens of billions of dollars at precisely the wrong time. This would have led to massive job losses in a time of already high unemployment. This would have led to program cuts at a time when regions and population segments needs those programs most.

"To be frank, this likely would have led us into another recession."

Earlier this week the Liberals announced that they wouldn't be able to keep their promise of a 10 billion deficit:

Instead, finance officials said Monday that the deficit is expected to be at least $2.3 billion in the current fiscal year, $18.4 billion in 2016-17 and $15.5 billion in 2017-18.

I'll admit to not being familiar with economics or how valid Morneau's claims are, but it's quite disappointing to see the deficit balloon so much. If someone has a better analysis please share it!

In addition, it appears CSIS and CSE are expecting a budget boost, according to the Toronto Star.

The figures were released in the government’s main estimates document, a best-guess scenario for departments and agencies released a month before the Liberals table their first budget.

CSIS expects an additional $35.5 million “in support of Canada’s national security and the safety of Canadians.” A breakdown of CSIS budget — grouped vaguely into “intelligence” and “security screening” — shows most of the increase will go to intelligence operations.

CSE spokesperson Lauri Sullivan said in a statementthat the funding will go to addressing several “key vulnerabilities” in government networks, as well as moving forward with the national Cyber Security Strategy.

Going on a bit of a tangent, CSIS has admitted to using their newfound powers from Bill C-51 Unfortunately, they're not being too transparent, only referring to their actions as "disruptions."

Michel Coulombe, director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, told a Commons committee today that Canada's spy agency has used new disruption powers it was granted when Bill C-51 became law this past summer.

This marks the first time CSIS has publicly acknowledged the use of its new powers under the Anti-terrorism Act to disrupt suspected plots rather than just relay information about those plots to the federal government and the RCMP

 

[KyanMehwulfe]

well, on one hand, there could be truth to what he says... deficit spending could help gdp.

that said, it's technically just the investments that become umm gdp multipliers (so $1 spent maybe adds $1.5 to gdp)... whether or not you go into deficit do it it is a different topic. if you could do enough spending without going into deficit, that's good, too. if you go into deficit to do it, that's also not just suddenly bad... there's a lot of gray there, and i think a decent deficit is pretty established as part of their mandate.

i suspect a lot of the opposition from actual voters would be just how much of a deficit it is, and more importantly, how much non-economic spending is also being done. some of the spending they've outlined aren't gdp multipliers, basically.

i mean, both the cons and libs did/propose investment spending to boost gdp. so, the opposition probably wouldn't disagree (behind closed doors) that a balance budget could result in a recession. i mean, harper went to almost -50 right after the great recession for the same reason. harper would have been running a slight deficit this year and next to try boost the economy too i would wager. amber rose statements also even usually seem more focused on the specifics of spending, the need for better [economic] spending, etc rather than specifically about a balanced budget.

it'll be interesting to see what economic promises end up in the budget... especially things like the student debt promises that seem like easy targets to break and could be the different between -29 and -30. hope they take advantage of the low loonie, too, maybe do something to attract more tech/film to van/to/mtl... possibly a start of that already, i think i've seen 2 small bc film companies get snapped up thanks to the cheap loonie, maybe could further attract more tech too

 

[Silexx]

Here's a good video with analysis on the government's budget news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bLINaxjDjE

 

[The Wall]

Here's a good video with analysis on the government's budget news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bLINaxjDjE

Merci. Mulclair's "ideas" and means to balance the budget would never have slid.

 

[Prax]

I'm going to hope it all works out in the end (somehow economy bounces back up? lol), because I think we really needed the spending for infrastructure for a long time now.

 

[Zombie James]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalize-liberal-pot-plan-1.3461745?cmp=rss

Grr.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalize-liberal-pot-plan-1.3461745?cmp=rss

Grr.

Cant even commit to it being done before the next election...

 

[Prax]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalize-liberal-pot-plan-1.3461745?cmp=rss

Grr.

Maybe they will try to do it sooner rather than later to balance out a bit of the budget deficits. >_>

 

[diaspora]

Now is one of the greatest times for the government to invest in infrastructure overhauls and improvements. It's incredibly of not historically cheap to borrow right now for the federal government with interest rates so low. Morneau is 100% correct on this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalize-liberal-pot-plan-1.3461745?cmp=rss

Grr.

He's full of shit. They've got 6 months and he knows it.

 

[Zombie James]

What I don't understand is why they don't decriminalize in the meantime until their legalization plan in ready. Blair mentions in the video the negative effects small non-violent possession charges have on communities and the legal system, so why keep enforcing it? It makes no sense to me.

 

[firehawk12]

Is the government still planning deficit spending even with the "bad" Conservative numbers that they inherited?

 

[Walpurgis]

Does anyone know what kind of guy Brian Pallister is? I read his wiki and it doesn't say. He was a federal PC but joined Harper's reform or alliance at the end because he didn't like Joe Clark (red Tory). He seems highly respected among conservatives. I don't know his ideology and competence though.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalize-liberal-pot-plan-1.3461745?cmp=rss

Grr.

I wonder what marijuana legalization means for other, similar drugs (e.g. khat).

 

[SRG01]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalize-liberal-pot-plan-1.3461745?cmp=rss

Grr.

No timetable doesn't mean they're scrapping it. As evidenced by Blair's statements (I read them on iPolitics), there's considerable political will to get it legalized. The main problem has to do with the regulatory and distribution framework once legalization is implemented.

In other news, a federal court just struck down existing CPC-era laws restricting MM access: http://ipolitics.ca/2016/02/24/phil...uana-ruling-dont-mix-it-up-with-legalization/

 

[Pedrito]

What I don't understand is why they don't decriminalize in the meantime until their legalization plan in ready. Blair mentions in the video the negative effects small non-violent possession charges have on communities and the legal system, so why keep enforcing it? It makes no sense to me.

They could do that, but it's extremely rare someone is charged with simple possession of cannabis. If there are other charges, they can add it to the mix, but otherwise they don't bother*. So it wouldn't really change anything in terms of convictions.

*In Québec at least.

 

[Boogie]

They could do that, but it's extremely rare someone is charged with simple possession of cannabis. If there are other charges, they can add it to the mix, but otherwise they don't bother*. So it wouldn't really change anything in terms of convictions.

*In Québec at least.

Yeah, I don't know where you guys think police are laying small-amount marijuana possession charges as it is.

 

[Tapejara]

well, on one hand, there could be truth to what he says... deficit spending could help gdp.

that said, it's technically just the investments that become umm gdp multipliers (so $1 spent maybe adds $1.5 to gdp)... whether or not you go into deficit do it it is a different topic. if you could do enough spending without going into deficit, that's good, too. if you go into deficit to do it, that's also not just suddenly bad... there's a lot of gray there, and i think a decent deficit is pretty established as part of their mandate.

i suspect a lot of the opposition from actual voters would be just how much of a deficit it is, and more importantly, how much non-economic spending is also being done. some of the spending they've outlined aren't gdp multipliers, basically.

i mean, both the cons and libs did/propose investment spending to boost gdp. so, the opposition probably wouldn't disagree (behind closed doors) that a balance budget could result in a recession. i mean, harper went to almost -50 right after the great recession for the same reason. harper would have been running a slight deficit this year and next to try boost the economy too i would wager. amber rose statements also even usually seem more focused on the specifics of spending, the need for better [economic] spending, etc rather than specifically about a balanced budget.

it'll be interesting to see what economic promises end up in the budget... especially things like the student debt promises that seem like easy targets to break and could be the different between -29 and -30. hope they take advantage of the low loonie, too, maybe do something to attract more tech/film to van/to/mtl... possibly a start of that already, i think i've seen 2 small bc film companies get snapped up thanks to the cheap loonie, maybe could further attract more tech too

Here's a good video with analysis on the government's budget news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bLINaxjDjE

Cool. Will give the vid a watch!

 

[Mr.Mike]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/libe...acement-plan-opt-for-foreign-design-1.2790597

This is good. Certainly if we can save money on this we ought to.

 

[gutter_trash]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marijuana-legalize-liberal-pot-plan-1.3461745?cmp=rss

Grr.

I blame Provinces for this.

Provinces (like always) are being the dicks making it complicated

IMO, we should give more Central Powers to Ottawa.

Fuck Provinces