Post Election: Future of Canada

[tnfifn]

How will Canada look in 2015?

 

1. More influence by corporations.

Harper will get rid of subsidies given to political parties. This will weaken the already decimated Liberals, if not slaughter them. NDP will lose a lot, as most of the money will come from corporations, and hence will be forced to change their policies.

 

2. More control of the media.

Harper has attempted this previously, where he asked the questions be given in advance. Shades of this were also visible on the campaign trail with limiting the number of questions.

 

3. A two-tier health care system.

In an attempt to cut spending, the health-care system will be targeted. Expect longer wait-times, greater invovlement by insurance companies, decrease quality of care for the public system...

 

4. A two-party state with the merger of NDP with liberal.

 

Agree to disagree. Post your predictions.

[Erk]

I will be surprised if the CBC survives as we know it.

 

The optimist in me thinks we might finally see a serious push towards electoral reform. However, it will be at great cost, as the Conservatives now control the house and the senate, and within a short while the supreme court as well. I fear greatly for our country: For better or worse, we are unquestionably at Stephen Harper's mercy.

 

I think we'll see a push back to more "traditional" means of dealing with crime and punishment. More prosecution, more prisons, more prosecutable offenses.

[surgeondude]

What is up will all the conservative bashing?

 

I definitely don't agree with all their policies, but they're not evil.

[aaronjw]

I think we'll see a push back to more "traditional" means of dealing with crime and punishment. More prosecution, more prisons, more prosecutable offenses.

 

And this is a bad thing?

 

I accept the fact that if I break the law there is a punishment to pay. Why can't everyone else?

 

And if more "traditional" punishment means drug dealers, child molesters and sexual offenders get harsher punishments then I am all for it.

[aaronjw]

What is up will all the conservative bashing?

 

I definitely don't agree with all their policies, but they're not evil.

 

I agree. I voted CPC whereas in the past elections when Harper was in the mix I voted Green Party. I am a conservative by nature but not even I could vote for Harper in the past.

 

What changed this time? The fact the other 3 stooges are worse than Harper. An NDP party which wants to cater to the minority (socialist agenda) whilst having the majority pay for it. And, tired of this election crap and doing my part to ensure a majority was possible. At least we now have 4 years free of election threats.

[big_med]

The Conservatives' real strength is the economy. It's mostly the reason why they won a majority. And to be fair, Canada's economy has done better under the tenure of Stephen Harpher than at any other period in my lifetime.

[aaronjw]

The Conservatives' real strength is the economy. It's mostly the reason why they won a majority. And to be fair, Canada's economy has done better under the tenure of Stephen Harpher than at any other period in my lifetime.

 

Not to diss on the CPC because I did vote for them and AM a conservative by nature but my question to you is: how old are you? Were you not around for the Liberal dominance and massive budget surpluses?

 

I'd say Canada has done better than most other economies during the past 2-4 years.

[Wayward son]

And this is a bad thing?

 

I accept the fact that if I break the law there is a punishment to pay. Why can't everyone else?

 

And if more "traditional" punishment means drug dealers, child molesters and sexual offenders get harsher punishments then I am all for it.

 

Yes it is a bad thing. Texas did a study about a decade ago where they found that the group of prisoners they put through a Canadian style justice system cost the taxpayers about 1/3rd as much, were better integrated into society, far more likely to gain employment, and when they were released and had a recidivism rate of 16% compared (about where Canada stands) to 42% after 3 years. Of course such a program went no where. Earlier this year even Newt Gingrich admitted that the tough on crime policies that he had championed for so long have been a complete disaster that has cost the US dearly. I never thought I would see the day when I would consider Newt more intelligent then 40% of the Canadian population.

 

Harper's plans will do nothing but turn petty criminals into a hardened ones at a great expense to taxpayers (an extra 5.5 billion a year according to the budget chief), and they could find no evidence or documents to support their plans. Personally, I wouldn't have a huge problem if it was only the people who are supporting this stupidity who paid for it. But instead the rest of us will also have to pay for this program to train future criminals.

[apache]

Stephen Harper may have a political mandate, but he certainly doesn't have a social one, especially with the socialist party as his direct opposition, and the majority of canadians opposed to his party. Steve will be held in line of the public opinion of canadians and NDP criticism, as well as varying provincial governments and the courts, otherwise he may make history as the prime minister that preceded electoral reform, not the legacy I'm sure he desires; he also has to act prudently and cautiously as he has no one to blame his failures on, he'll govern moderately hence he become the next Brian Mulroney, and his reform will be quickly undone and forgotten by the swift action of voters who decide that an NDP-led coalition/amalgamation in the following election. If not, I have dual citizenship, I'm moving to Europe, lol.

 

I will be surprised if the CBC survives as we know it.

 

The optimist in me thinks we might finally see a serious push towards electoral reform. However, it will be at great cost, as the Conservatives now control the house and the senate, and within a short while the supreme court as well. I fear greatly for our country: For better or worse, we are unquestionably at Stephen Harper's mercy.

 

I think we'll see a push back to more "traditional" means of dealing with crime and punishment. More prosecution, more prisons, more prosecutable offenses.

[apache]

It would be nice if Stephen Harper acknowledged that the reason we have done better than other countries is because we previously had regulations in place that prevented private interests from bankrupting the nation while the conservatives happened to be in power, rather than take credit for a recovery from a disaster that didn't happen because of prudent planning by previous governments.

 

Not to diss on the CPC because I did vote for them and AM a conservative by nature but my question to you is: how old are you? Were you not around for the Liberal dominance and massive budget surpluses?

 

I'd say Canada has done better than most other economies during the past 2-4 years.

[Wayward son]

The Conservatives' real strength is the economy. It's mostly the reason why they won a majority. And to be fair, Canada's economy has done better under the tenure of Stephen Harpher than at any other period in my lifetime.

 

The economy was only strong because Chretian didn't go into Iraq which would have cost tens of billions (had Harper been PM we would have) and the regulations Paul Martin put on/kept on the financial sector (had Harper been PM the deregulations he aggressively supported would have tanked our economy like the US, Iceland and others).

 

5 - 10 years down the we will see the real "strength" of Harper's policies.

[breeze]

Yes it is a bad thing. Texas did a study about a decade ago where they found that the group of prisoners they put through a Canadian style justice system cost the taxpayers about 1/3rd as much, were better integrated into society, far more likely to gain employment, and when they were released and had a recidivism rate of 16% compared (about where Canada stands) to 42% after 3 years. Of course such a program went no where. Earlier this year even Newt Gingrich admitted that the tough on crime policies that he had championed for so long have been a complete disaster that has cost the US dearly. I never thought I would see the day when I would consider Newt more intelligent then 40% of the Canadian population.

 

Harper's plans will do nothing but turn petty criminals into a hardened ones at a great expense to taxpayers (an extra 5.5 billion a year according to the budget chief), and they could find no evidence or documents to support their plans. Personally, I wouldn't have a huge problem if it was only the people who are supporting this stupidity who paid for it. But instead the rest of us will also have to pay for this program to train future criminals.

 

 

I don't know the specific Texas study you are talking about, but when it comes to complex social issues like this, you can find as many studies and research pointing one way as the other.

 

I still remember a time when study were conducted showing no link between smoking and lung cancer.

 

The reality is when it come to things like the penale system, it is almost as much a question of effectiveness as one of public opinion. Honestly, I would feel a lot more comfortable if my tax dollars went to punishing criminals rather than coddling them.

[Wayward son]

I don't know the specific Texas study you are talking about, but when it comes to complex social issues like this, you can find as many studies and research pointing one way as the other.

 

Well then you should contact the justice department immediately because neither they nor even any of the right wing think tanks could come up with any studies to support the Harper tough on crime agenda.

[big_med]

It would be nice if Stephen Harper acknowledged that the reason we have done better than other countries is because we previously had regulations in place that prevented private interests from bankrupting the nation while the conservatives happened to be in power, rather than take credit for a recovery from a disaster that didn't happen because of prudent planning by previous governments.

 

 

I don't know if that is actually true. Most European countries had heavy financial regualtions, and all their economies tanked.

[apache]

Why don't we look into the socio-economic, educational, and psychological factors of people who enter the drug trade, and question why countries that invest in their citizens have much lower rates of incarceration for drug trafficking. Excuse my arrogance, but the intricacies, idiosyncrasies, and social factors that lead people to the drug trade are beyond the scope of a post, and judging by the simplistic nature of your posts, your intellectual ability to interpret and integrate complex inter-relational factors; correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Drug enforcement is big business for the government, enforcement contributes jobs in investigations, administration, the judicial system, and in incarceration, anti-drug propaganda advertising and education. Enforcement also adds valuable resources in seizures, which are artificially created by the inflation of drug prices due to an unnatural restriction on supply and cost of importation. It's also highly unethical that the anti-drug lobby is funded by big tobacco, alcohol, and pharma: old school mafia tactics to eliminate the competition.

 

It appears that the canadian educational system has induced a sense of complacency in it's citizenry; I've always been suspect of nationalism, personal responsibility, and objective morality taught as truth in our schools, it eliminates the students ability to critically analyze and deconstruct situations based on their various nuances. I guess our education has been a success.

 

I'm not going to go into child molesters and sexual offenders as their recidivism rate tends to be resistant to rehabilitation and with sexual offenders I don't know enough to comment, but I will say that your comments greatly leave me with concern for the future of Canada, I guess we're not all meant to be leaders.

 

And this is a bad thing?

 

I accept the fact that if I break the law there is a punishment to pay. Why can't everyone else?

 

And if more "traditional" punishment means drug dealers, child molesters and sexual offenders get harsher punishments then I am all for it.

[apache]

it would be more informative to look at the specific regulations in place, and where lack of regulation contributed to economic collapse. it's also notable that many of the most economically labile european nations have a substantial degree of corruption.

 

I don't know if that is actually true. Most European countries had heavy financial regualtions, and all their economies tanked.

[apache]

actually, with regard to the penal system, with regards to specific offences such as drug possession and trafficking there is a substantial amount of evidence which supports his proposition, which has been replicated numerously. the evidence spans cultural and socio-economic barriers.

 

you also run into the "moral" question, of defining what criminal behaviour is, and further have to investigate the causes of such behaviour, the ability for rehabilitation, the cost of various models to the tax payer, and a multitude of other factors. when personal values become crime, i.e. the classic example of the lack of protection for minorities in hypothetical direct democracies (ancient athens, etc.)

 

in many circumstances, i feel many people are turned towards what is deemed as petty criminal behaviour because society as a whole has let them down, systemically prejudiced them, and psychologically isolated them, with no hope for the future, this is particularly prevalent in native populations, for these offenders would you say that they are necessary the criminals or that we are for inflicting substantial financial, social, psychological, and physical hardship on these people?

 

don't get me wrong, i'm talking about people who commit crimes of a minor scale, some people are beyond rehabilitation and the best option is to lock them up and throw away the key, but to generalize has the ability to lead to tremendous human rights violations.

 

I don't know the specific Texas study you are talking about, but when it comes to complex social issues like this, you can find as many studies and research pointing one way as the other.

 

I still remember a time when study were conducted showing no link between smoking and lung cancer.

 

The reality is when it come to things like the penale system, it is almost as much a question of effectiveness as one of public opinion. Honestly, I would feel a lot more comfortable if my tax dollars went to punishing criminals rather than coddling them.

[surgeondude]

Not to diss on the CPC because I did vote for them and AM a conservative by nature but my question to you is: how old are you? Were you not around for the Liberal dominance and massive budget surpluses?

 

I'd say Canada has done better than most other economies during the past 2-4 years.

 

I remember those days.

 

Wasn't that around the same time the Liberals raised taxes while making huge cuts to the military and social programs like healthcare. Muchh of the mess we are in right now with the health system can be explained by those cuts.

 

Also, the government may have been racking up surpluses, but at a time when the other countries were seeing unprecedent growth in the economies, Canada was stagnant at best.

 

And wasn't the canadian dollar worth 65 cents to the dollar (american).

 

Just saying. Surpluses, don't mean much if average canadians aren't seeing the dividends.

[K-Doc]

I don't know the specific Texas study you are talking about, but when it comes to complex social issues like this, you can find as many studies and research pointing one way as the other.

 

I still remember a time when study were conducted showing no link between smoking and lung cancer.

 

The reality is when it come to things like the penale system, it is almost as much a question of effectiveness as one of public opinion. Honestly, I would feel a lot more comfortable if my tax dollars went to punishing criminals rather than coddling them.

 

+1

 

And, I think everyone should stop bashing the conservatives... At least give them a chance with a majority and see what happens instead of being so pessimistic before anything has happened.

[sgt.pepper]

actually, with regard to the penal system, with regards to specific offences such as drug possession and trafficking there is a substantial amount of evidence which supports his proposition, which has been replicated numerously. the evidence spans cultural and socio-economic barriers.

 

you also run into the "moral" question, of defining what criminal behaviour is, and further have to investigate the causes of such behaviour, the ability for rehabilitation, the cost of various models to the tax payer, and a multitude of other factors. when personal values become crime, i.e. the classic example of the lack of protection for minorities in hypothetical direct democracies (ancient athens, etc.)

 

in many circumstances, i feel many people are turned towards what is deemed as petty criminal behaviour because society as a whole has let them down, systemically prejudiced them, and psychologically isolated them, with no hope for the future, this is particularly prevalent in native populations, for these offenders would you say that they are necessary the criminals or that we are for inflicting substantial financial, social, psychological, and physical hardship on these people?

 

don't get me wrong, i'm talking about people who commit crimes of a minor scale, some people are beyond rehabilitation and the best option is to lock them up and throw away the key, but to generalize has the ability to lead to tremendous human rights violations.

 

Muse you always bring up great points. But what would you think about legislation to require petty criminals (not child molesters, and serial killer type of people) from getting a job in the prison. There are some people in this world that just dont want to work. Instead of working for 10$ an hr or for more doing physical labour it is far easeir to stand on the corner and sell crack. I think we make far too many excuses for people that get into a life of crime. There are tonnes of opportunities in this country to get skilled and work. Would it be against our human rights to set up a system where you must work off your prison time. Ie. a drug offense is 5years with a certain amount of hrs of work vs a 10 year sentence if the prisoner does not want to work.

[aaronjw]

Why don't we look into the socio-economic, educational, and psychological factors of people who enter the drug trade, and question why countries that invest in their citizens have much lower rates of incarceration for drug trafficking. Excuse my arrogance, but the intricacies, idiosyncrasies, and social factors that lead people to the drug trade are beyond the scope of a post, and judging by the simplistic nature of your posts, your intellectual ability to interpret and integrate complex inter-relational factors; correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Drug enforcement is big business for the government, enforcement contributes jobs in investigations, administration, the judicial system, and in incarceration, anti-drug propaganda advertising and education. Enforcement also adds valuable resources in seizures, which are artificially created by the inflation of drug prices due to an unnatural restriction on supply and cost of importation. It's also highly unethical that the anti-drug lobby is funded by big tobacco, alcohol, and pharma: old school mafia tactics to eliminate the competition.

 

It appears that the canadian educational system has induced a sense of complacency in it's citizenry; I've always been suspect of nationalism, personal responsibility, and objective morality taught as truth in our schools, it eliminates the students ability to critically analyze and deconstruct situations based on their various nuances. I guess our education has been a success.

 

I'm not going to go into child molesters and sexual offenders as their recidivism rate tends to be resistant to rehabilitation and with sexual offenders I don't know enough to comment, but I will say that your comments greatly leave me with concern for the future of Canada, I guess we're not all meant to be leaders.

 

 

I'm sorry but users and dealers are two VERY different things. I have a bigger distaste towards dealers than I do users (although that's somewhat on the high side as well but I can appreciate circumstances to those issues) which is why I specifically said dealers.

 

Next up, how about we not look at the socio-economic, educational, and psychological factors of people who enter the drug trade? I grew up dirt poor. Any education I have is because I paid for it and found ways to pursue it despite not really having been exposed to higher educated people while growing up. I was abused mentally all my life by my mother to the point where it still affects me to this day even with years of counseling. Add to this, I was associated with people involved in gangs and saw more bad stuff than most people will ever see in their life.

 

I never resorted to drugs and a lot of the people I grew up with in similar situations didn't either. I am not saying I am special or anything of the sort but I am sick and tired of people pulling out the blame card for the issues surrounding people who do/did or are doing bad things in their lives.

 

I can understand HOW people do the things they do in life but that does not mean I have to accept it nor want my tax money to go towards it either. Do the crime, do the time. I have to accept that if I crash my car and kill sometime because I wasn't paying attention due to my fiance breaking up with me. Why shouldn't others?

 

Next up, who are you to pass judgment on me with your comments about "the simplistic nature or my posts and my intellectual ability (or rather inability as you seem to have suggested)"?

[blastocyst]

canada is going to become a stinky ****hole now that they re-elected their nemesis harper

[obi]

Lol pwned. +1 to Aaron.

 

Anyways as for the Healthcare system "being destroyed" Personally i don't see much wrong with a 2 tier healthcare system. Sure it has some faults but i think the biggest thing people don't think about is its not completely privatized.. People who can't afford healthcare will still get healthcare. People who CAN afford healthcare (a fairly large chunk of people) will no longer have to wait a year to get that hip replacement.

 

Sure doctors will flock towards the privatized system, why wouldn't they? Is the person who can afford to pay for their healthcare any less deserving than the person who can't? I don't think so. But there will still be doctors willing to stay in the public system and once the private sector finds the job market dwindling, graduates will move towards the public system until things equilibriate. Everyone wins.

 

canada is going to become a stinky ****hole now that they re-elected their nemesis harper

 

Great contribution Only a few days of mitotic experience will do that to a person i guess....

[Wayward son]

I remember those days.

 

Not very well apparently. The Liberals didn't raise taxes, but cut taxes by over $100 billion dollars.

[sgt.pepper]

I remember those days.

 

Wasn't that around the same time the Liberals raised taxes while making huge cuts to the military and social programs like healthcare. Muchh of the mess we are in right now with the health system can be explained by those cuts.

 

Also, the government may have been racking up surpluses, but at a time when the other countries were seeing unprecedent growth in the economies, Canada was stagnant at best.

 

And wasn't the canadian dollar worth 65 cents to the dollar (american).

 

Just saying. Surpluses, don't mean much if average canadians aren't seeing the dividends.

 

+1 . A canadian deficit during a recession was inevitable. How about when Chrétien wasted 700mil cancelling the EH-101 helicopters, which is the reason why they still use Sea kings from 1963. Its deja vu all over again with these F-35s. I just hope Harper does f*ck up and mess with people's rights, privacy, etc. I have faith in him other that.