Canada Election 2015

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I'm black and I thought about that question after reading the article.

I think that I wouldn't make too much of a scene. If I had my wits about me, I would explain to the person why I'm offended, but an airplane isn't the place for an in-depth discussion about bigotry and I wouldn't want to inconvenience everyone for the sake of one racist. This isn't midcentury Alabama and I'm not Rosa Parks standing up to a larger social issue. That said, I wouldn't want to validate this person's prejudice, so I would ask the attendant to place the person somewhere else.
However, it's important to note that this is an offensive exception, but an exception nonetheless which I wouldn't want to cause too much of a scene about or inconvenience everyone else for. It wouldn't be the place and it's not the kind of larger social issue (in Canada at least) against which I would feel compelled to take a forceful stand. It's hurtful and offensive, but, as I said, it isn't Rosa Parks going up against an entire social and administrative system of discrimination.

I would submit a comment to the airline so that they'd know that it happened and I would probably contact the CBC so that the public would know it happened.

At the end of the day, there will always be racist people. For the good of everyone on board, it would probably be best if a racist individual was not sitting next to you for the flight. You would probably be uncomfortable. The person next to you would be uncomfortable. The individual in question went about his business in a fairly respectful manner. He was simply asking around to sit somewhere else, when the women in question got angry. If someone is going to be bigoted, racist, or discriminatory, it is best they conduct themselves in a manner that is respectful.

I can see why it would be cathartic to call them out, publicly shame them, go to the media and expose them, and marginalize their attitudes as much as possible. But at the same time, it wasn't like he was calling her names, being obvious that he thinks less of women, or being disrespectful to her in any way beyond not engaging her in a conversation.

The anger and media outrage seems quite lopsided towards vilifying a guy who was, at the end of the day, politely trying to work around his own beliefs.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by CCF

I agree with you - except a lot of people ARE simply blaming Alberta's current situation on the change in government. In my experience people are making the issue that simple.

On the contrary however, the Conservatives seem to be getting a free pass and many conversations chalk it up to a 'global recession.'

I'm not necessarily taking a stand here - just pointing out the hypocrisy!

People can be quite irrational creatures. The economy is as impacted by expectations as much as it is by reality. The thought that an NDP government might sink the economy can be enough in itself to spook investors and actually sink the economy.
Whether that really is the fault of the new government or not is a different question.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by lio45

Maybe he's going to announce a formal committment to give you control over the fishery in "your" waters if he's reelected?

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

If he does I'll paint my house blue. I don't actually trust him, so I'm not convinced it would happen... but I would, and I imagine the province would, swing hugely blue just to make it clear that matters.

I don't think anyone would fall for it. Stephen Harper made the election promise to exclude non-renewable energy from the equilization formula, and followed up on that promise with a sound "lol no". Everything worked out in the end, probably because Danny Williams went to every effort up to giving Stephen Harper a Stone Cold Stunner to make good of the promise.

People won't be fooled again. Unless they vote in Peter Penanshue again in Labrador. Then 🞵🞵🞵🞵, what do I know?

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It seemed called-for given Mulcair's attacking of Pierre over the War Measures Act but Trudeau's reaction was clearly something he had been saving up for a while...

My issue was that he could have answered quite adequately stating is was called for at the time, the gov't did so with much apprehesion and it represented "desperate actions for desperate measures" but that it also resulted in the gov't ensuring that there were adequate checks and balances to ensure that when extreme measures were taken, there was still oversight by the SSC and Parliament - aspects not in C-51. Instead what he said sounded like "I like my daddy and am proud of what he did (regardless of whether it was an aboration of civil rights)".

But you're correct, it likely will not change anyone's mind about voting for or against - just kinda scary about his line of thinking.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by kiwi

I'm ok with it so was the audience.

You mean the same audience that laughed their 🞵🞵🞵 off at him about the Putin comment??

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Possibly - here is a link to a very detailed explanation of the employment trends in manufacturing done by StatsCan.

It details firstly how this trend is wide spread amongst other western/developed economies, how Harpo really had no skin in it, and that it really is not a bad thing since most of the jobs lots were low skilled, low paying jobs. Note, I fully expect political zealots of both stripes to skew the report to their advantage - either pro-Harpo or anti-Harpo.

Regarding your first comment I am unclear of what Harpo did to "exclusively support oil by undercutting other industries"? Firstly all the trade agreements the Conbots negotiated provide support to our non-energy exporters, namely manufacturers (hint, they didn’t increase oil exports) and they provided Billions in support to manufacturers (mainly auto) during the downturn. Other non-energy things they have done include increased tax relaxation to most industries (except the oil patch), they removed the ACCA much to the detriment of the oil patch, they’ve expanded the role of EDC, they’ve protected key Canadian industrial players from foreign acquisition (MDA) and they tried to institute a national security agency (thank you AB and QC!) which would have helped the finance industry – plus many more examples.

Are they friendly to the patch? Of course – like they should be to all Canadian industrial sectors. But the biggest driver for the Oil Sands and energy companies in AB was the ACCA implemented by the Libbies (under Chretien) and cancelled by Harpo.

Again, what did they do for oil at the expense of everything else? And don’t say the exchange rate since they had nothing to do with that.

I make no apologies for Chrétien or the mistakes of previous Liberal governments. I am curious though, could you elaborate on the ACCA (Association of Chartered Canadian Accountants?) and what you are referring to with the liberals connecting that to the oil sands? I genuinely want to know as you have some very in depth knowledge most do not.

Going back to your last question, I found in the debate on foreign affairs Trudeau and to a lesser degree Mulcair really did a good job of calling Harper on his BS about being the best PM for the oilpatch. Whether or not he succeeded in increasing our exports of oil is irrelevant. You can't deny the single-mindedness of the CPC in trying to get pipeline approval. Trudeau pointing out Harper's ridiculous approach of threatening Obama and generally being an antagonistic 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 was on point. Why would Obama listen? He told Harper flat out Canada needed to improve our environmental record and rather than do that Harper sat on his hands and spent millions on green washing fluff that everyone could see through. There's a reason the audience at the debate laughed at Harper's assertion that under his watch we've protected the environment. You can't deny the damage he did with the omnibus bills gutting environmental protections and oversight to benefit the energy industry above all others. That's why Trudeau is correct to point out that under Harper's watch Canada has become a global pariah on the environmental front. The sheer obstructionism of the CPC at climate conferences has been noted around the world. Yes I know Harper hasn't single handedly built the industry and that much of its development occurred on the liberal's watch, but the fact remains that Harper has been their biggest cheerleader to the detriment of everything else (libraries, science, non profits, the people of Fort Chip).

In the end I know you probably plan on voting green out of pure principle, but do you not see the benefit of strategic voting even if it means that *gasp* the liberals get a minority government? Like Thomas Mulcair said, who would you rather be the face of our country at the Climate talks in Paris?

[geotag277]

A big part of the reason why I think Mulcair deserves a shot over Trudeau - it is a bit disingenuous for Trudeau to blame Harper's government for inequality issues when his party is the one that presided over the biggest most lopsided tax policy in our country's history. (Red = Liberal administrations, blue = CPC)

[SignalHillHiker]

Via CBC on Twitter. Communist Party candidates in NL finally have some marketing signs up.

If they win (lol), it'll be the first time since the 1910s when the People's Party won three elections under Prime Ministers Morris, Crosbie, and Cashin.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

A big part of the reason why I think Mulcair deserves a shot over Trudeau - it is a bit disingenuous for Trudeau to blame Harper's government for inequality issues when his party is the one that presided over the biggest most lopsided tax policy in our country's history. (Red = Liberal administrations, blue = CPC)

Not long ago you claimed you had no idea where the annual income threshold for entering "The 1%" was (while I recalled seeing numbers, and that it was surprisingly low) ... and now you pull up a link that shows it's $154,700 after taxes?!?

(For the record: the discussion took place in the Real Estate thread.)

Well, I feel vindicated: $150k after tax per year doesn't put one in a position to pay $3M cash for a "Lot Value" teardown house in Vancouver's West Side.

You'd have to have lived a spartan lifestyle for 25 years and then you likely still wouldn't have enough funds to demolish + clear the lot, let alone finance any construction on it.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by lio45

Not long ago you claimed you had no idea where the annual income threshold for entering "The 1%" was (while I recalled seeing numbers, and that it was surprisingly low) ... and now you pull up a link that shows it's $154,700 after taxes?!?

(For the record: the discussion took place in the Real Estate thread.)

Well, I feel vindicated: $150k after tax per year doesn't put one in a position to pay $3M cash for a "Lot Value" teardown house in Vancouver's West Side.

You'd have to have lived a spartan lifestyle for 25 years and then you likely still wouldn't have enough funds to demolish + clear the lot, let alone finance any construction on it.

If you can't remember details of a conversation it's best not to default to being accusatory.

In our previous discussion, we were specifically talking about average savings (net worth), and for the top 20% of income earners their average net worth was above one million dollars. These statistics have to do with income, not net worth, and indeed, it isn't such a stretch to assume that average net worth for top 1% individuals is quite a bit more than 3 million.

If you actually have data that says otherwise, please show it.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by CCF

Out of curiosity - why is it that the discussion of Canada's sub-par economy is often attributed to the push and pulls of the global economy and not the current party in power at the federal level....

....but when discussion deviates to the provincial scale, the NDP (who have been in power only for a short period) is blamed for the woes of Alberta and the same argument of a global recession is not applied...?

Good question...

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

In our previous discussion, we were specifically talking about average savings (net worth), and for the top 20% of income earners their average net worth was above one million dollars.

And as I pointed out to you in the other thread, that net worth, for most, is likely nearly entirely in the form of equity in their principal residence. Not all of it can be accessed and spent.

Also, the very top skews greatly the average. A handful of individuals with net worths in the billions will raise the average for everyone. The conversation was about how likely it is, or not, that "ordinary one percenter" Canadians are the ones buying these properties for several millions in cash apiece, so if you let the very top skew the average, you'll have a distorted picture.

To illustrate this: the average net worth of Canadians is $207,300 per person (StatsCan, 2013).

But if you ask typical Canadians randomly selected on the streets, most of these ordinary Canadians will likely not be in a position, individually (it's per person, not per household, which is more like $500k), to make a $200k all cash purchase on the spot.

To sum up the argument (which is exactly the same position I had in the other thread) : I really really doubt that most people making $150k net per year can ever afford to pay $3M + demolition costs, all in cash, to acquire an empty lot in Vancouver.

We can just agree to disagree and/or keep that for a thread where it won't be so off-topic

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

...I am curious though, could you elaborate on the ACCA (Association of Chartered Canadian Accountants?) and what you are referring to with the liberals connecting that to the oil sands?

Accelerate Capital Cost Allowance - ACCA

A tax reduction/subsidy introduced by the Libbies in 1996 in response to lobbying by CAPP and Alberta. It allows companies to write off all capital investments against profit until the entire project cost is recouped. That is it allows individual Oil Sands projects to write off all of their capital costs before they start to pay income tax.

It effectively kick started the explosion in the Sands starting in the late 90's to today. When you hear people complain about the subsidies that the Oil Sands get - up to $2 Billion a year - ACCA is the primary reason as it allows companies to avoid paying income tax.

In 2007 Harpo said that the Oil Sands were now in good enough shape that they no longer needed this subsidy and started to phase it out by 2015 - which he did. Much to the annoyance of CAPP.

The ACCA is stated by most anti-Sands entities as the single biggest catalyst to the growth in the Sands and basically ever dollar spent on building new facilities since 1997 was enabled by the ACCA. Without the ACCA it is likely that production from the Sands would be much, much smaller today.

Some background info from Pembina.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

You can't deny the damage he did with the omnibus bills gutting environmental protections and oversight to benefit the energy industry above all others.

I have asked this many times before, can you provide me one example of an industrial activity that can be done because of these so-called "gutted policies" that couldn't have happened before? Can companies now pump toxins into rivers? Can they now destroy animal habitats without any regard to Provincial or Federal law?? (Remember, it's the Provinces that enact and enforce most environment laws in Canada - that's why AB has the best sewage treatment in Canada due to AB pollution laws, not Federal)

Originally Posted by O-tacular

In the end I know you probably plan on voting green out of pure principle, but do you not see the benefit of strategic voting

This is my opinion only. Again my opinion only, however I think Strategic Voting is the most disrespectful and ignorant thing someone can do in a democracy. It's akin to a corporate YES MAN who can't make a decision for themselves and let's others do the thinking for them. Again it is my opinion, but I would rather people without conviction or enough understanding of what the parties stand for just not vote. What this so-called strategy is really saying is that I don't care for the status quo, however I also don't care about the future outcome. If that's the case, stay home and don't vote. Again MY OPINION ONLY - and I won't change it so don't bother trying!

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Like Thomas Mulcair said, who would you rather be the face of our country at the Climate talks in Paris?

I guess if someone is going to go to an Environmental conference and lie about our commitments, the Libbies would be the best choice since they are the most experienced in doing so (cough, cough, Kyoto).

[CanSpice]

How many ridings are having troubles getting Conservative candidates to either answer questions or show up to all-candidates meetings? In New Westminster-Burnaby, our Conservative candidate (Chloe Ellis) has been a no-show for two all-candidates meetings and has confirmed to not be showing up for the next two. Mind you, New West-Burnaby is going to go to the NDP (Peter Julian), but still, the Liberal and Green candidates are showing up...

Is this the new norm from Conservatives? They're running to represent the people who vote for them, yet they can't even be bothered to show up to answer questions from people who might vote for them? It's indefensible and anti-democratic.

[SignalHillHiker]

One of ours in St. John's has apparently never even been here. Ever. He's a reality TV "star" in Ontario.

Avalon is the only riding in NL for which a Conservative has participated in the CBC riding debates.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Accelerate Capital Cost Allowance - ACCA

A tax reduction/subsidy introduced by the Libbies in 1996 in response to lobbying by CAPP and Alberta. It allows companies to write off all capital investments against profit until the entire project cost is recouped. That is it allows individual Oil Sands projects to write off all of their capital costs before they start to pay income tax.

It effectively kick started the explosion in the Sands starting in the late 90's to today. When you hear people complain about the subsidies that the Oil Sands get - up to $2 Billion a year - ACCA is the primary reason as it allows companies to avoid paying income tax.

In 2007 Harpo said that the Oil Sands were now in good enough shape that they no longer needed this subsidy and started to phase it out by 2015 - which he did. Much to the annoyance of CAPP.

The ACCA is stated by most anti-Sands entities as the single biggest catalyst to the growth in the Sands and basically ever dollar spent on building new facilities since 1997 was enabled by the ACCA. Without the ACCA it is likely that production from the Sands would be much, much smaller today.

Some background info from Pembina.

I have asked this many times before, can you provide me one example of an industrial activity that can be done because of these so-called "gutted policies" that couldn't have happened before? Can companies now pump toxins into rivers? Can they now destroy animal habitats without any regard to Provincial or Federal law?? (Remember, it's the Provinces that enact and enforce most environment laws in Canada - that's why AB has the best sewage treatment in Canada due to AB pollution laws, not Federal)

This is my opinion only. Again my opinion only, however I think Strategic Voting is the most disrespectful and ignorant thing someone can do in a democracy. It's akin to a corporate YES MAN who can't make a decision for themselves and let's others do the thinking for them. Again it is my opinion, but I would rather people without conviction or enough understanding of what the parties stand for just not vote. What this so-called strategy is really saying is that I don't care for the status quo, however I also don't care about the future outcome. If that's the case, stay home and don't vote. Again MY OPINION ONLY - and I won't change it so don't bother trying!

I guess if someone is going to go to an Environmental conference and lie about our commitments, the Libbies would be the best choice since they are the most experienced in doing so (cough, cough, Kyoto).

Thanks for the info on ACCA. Always happy to learn new things. As for your question about the omnibus bill changes, I would counter that just because something catastrophic hasn't happened yet doesn't mean this doesn't facilitate future disasters. You cannot deny there was a strategy to smooth the path for the Northern Gateway pipeline, from the navigable waters act being all but destroyed to the de-listing of humpback whales from threatened status to the limiting of stake holders at NEB hearings. Let's also not forget the targeting through Revenue Canada of any and all Environmental NGO's. You get the same e-mails from CPAWS and Pembina that I do I'm sure. There was a concerted effort to silence people's concerns.

So to answer your question, the changes were engineered to make it easier to ram unpopular infrastructure and dangerous industrial projects through in spite of public protest.

Lastly I won't try and debate you about your feelings about Strategic voting but I will say that such inflexible, black and white stances divide more than bring people together and ultimately they allow 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 like Harper to divide and conquer. No government is perfect and certainly many 'progressive' ones have made awful mistakes. But as someone who seems to care about the greater environment I just can't understand how you can turn a blind eye to Harper's fiercely partisan attacks against any and all forms of emissions regulations and international Climate Agreements, to say nothing of the comments by members of his cabinet like Joe Oliver equating anyone with concerns as extremists. They have blackballed any and everyone who opposes their plans to ramp up production at any and all costs.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

How would you feel if you were a black person sitting there minding your own business and someone asked to be moved just because you're black? It's the same thing. I mean, it's not technically illegal to be racist (or sexist) but it's another thing for an airline to accommodate someone who is being racist or sexist. Even if it's for religious or "belief" reasons.

This to me smacks of "have your cake and eat it too" religious accommodation. Yes, this particular person can have these beliefs that he can't sit next to another woman other than his wife (and even less - touch one!) but perhaps if that's so important he should not use public means of transport like airplanes, trains, etc.

It all sounds like bending over backwards so that certain people don't have any inconveniences related to their beliefs that are often inconsistent with modern society.

In most cases, it's without consequence. But making a woman (or a black person or a gay person) feel like they are undesirable or an untouchable when they didn't do anything, IMHO is not "victimless".

The question of course isn't what the person making the request did or has done as a private citizen, but rather how the airline handles it. I am a Black person, and how I would want them to handle it is to advise the person that it's concerned with the comfort of all of its passengers and is committed to ensuring a harmonious and respectful environment, so to please be conscious of how such statements may be perceived. Then advise them that if they aren't comfortable with a particular seat in the future to please ask to be relocated without making other passengers uncomfortable. Then, if it was possible for them to be relocated to do so, and if not (such as if it was too crowded) then advise that they don't offer seating arrangements based on race and it isn't always possible to move when requested. Then afterward it would be nice if the airline offered me an apology even though obviously it wouldn't be their fault.

But I agree, it isn't something we should make an effort to alter the booking and seating process to accommodate.

What you guys are missing with all these scenarios you're bringing up, is that the type of exceptions I'm referring to fall within a very narrow and specific range and are not applicable to widespread application. I'm not talking about allowing religious exception for everything; I'd only offer them when it's in the public interest to do so. In other words, I don't see a valid reason not to. So it's only cases where refusing the request would on the basis of taking some principled stance rather than refusing it for some important functional purpose. One could argue that a Sikh being allowed to wear a turban when other people must be bare headed or a woman allowed to wear a niqab during the oath does some vague, abstract type of cultural "harm" but that's not enough. Not only because it isn't harming a specific person, but because it would be next to impossible to quantify, or even prove the harm exists and that it isn't just overblown fears and paranoia. In these cases, the bending over backwards comes from trying to prevent them from having a simple, harmless, low cost accommodation. With all the court challenges, press conferences, public debate, and what not, these sort of principled stances are much costlier than pragmatism.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

At the end of the day, there will always be racist people. For the good of everyone on board, it would probably be best if a racist individual was not sitting next to you for the flight. You would probably be uncomfortable. The person next to you would be uncomfortable. The individual in question went about his business in a fairly respectful manner. He was simply asking around to sit somewhere else, when the women in question got angry. If someone is going to be bigoted, racist, or discriminatory, it is best they conduct themselves in a manner that is respectful.

I can see why it would be cathartic to call them out, publicly shame them, go to the media and expose them, and marginalize their attitudes as much as possible. But at the same time, it wasn't like he was calling her names, being obvious that he thinks less of women, or being disrespectful to her in any way beyond not engaging her in a conversation.
.

Aylmer's attitude is admirable, but I do think efforts should be made to curtail this kind of stuff as opposed to bowing to it simply in order to keep the peace.

This reminds of an old story from my mother-in-law. She was a frequent flyer during her career and one day she was on a plane where a passenger was making a fuss precisely because he was seated next to a black passenger. (Yeah, this stuff happens.) So anyway the jerk wanted to be moved next to a white person, was spouting loudly how it was all unacceptable and intolerable.

So after a bit of brouhaha and discussion, the head flight attendant returned to where the jerk was still sitting next to the black guy, and said "Sir, we're deeply sorry for all of this. We sincerely apologize on behalf of Air Canada and we'd like to offer you a complimentary upgrade to our first class section."

And then they immediately proceeded to take the black man up to first class!

Priceless!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The anger and media outrage seems quite lopsided towards vilifying a guy who was, at the end of the day, politely trying to work around his own beliefs.

Judging from the lady's account, it doesn't sound like he was that polite nor that he was trying to ''work around'' his beliefs.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Aylmer's attitude is admirable, but I do think efforts should be made to curtail this kind of stuff as opposed to bowing to it simply in order to keep the peace.

This reminds of an old story from my mother-in-law. She was a frequent flyer during her career and one day she was on a plane where a passenger was making a fuss precisely because he was seated next to a black passenger. (Yeah, this stuff happens.) So anyway the jerk wanted to be moved next to a white person, was spouting loudly how it was all unacceptable and intolerable.

So after a bit of brouhaha and discussion, the head flight attendant returned to where the jerk was still sitting next to the black guy, and said "Sir, we're deeply sorry for all of this. We sincerely apologize on behalf of Air Canada and we'd like to offer you a complimentary upgrade to our first class section."

And then they immediately proceeded to take the black man up to first class!

Priceless!

If someone is clearly being obnoxious I would have no problems kicking them right off the plane. There is behaviour that warrants that kind of reaction certainly, and someone going out of their way to be vulgar and insulting towards a fellow passenger seems to on it's face violate rights not to suffer from discrimination.

Someone is being obnoxious? Sure, kick them off the plane.

Someone is asking other passengers to switch seats, regardless of motive, and they are on the whole being respectful? Let them. That's their business.

Judging from the lady's account, it doesn't sound like he was that polite nor that he was trying to ''work around'' his beliefs.

On the other hand, if someone has the self awareness to understand they have bigoted beliefs and want to quietly work around those beliefs in the most respectful way possible by not attacking or lashing out at anyone, they should be allowed to conduct themselves in this way without lopsided reactions from overly sensitive observers.

Nothing about that lady's account of what happened reeks of disrespect except ironically her own temper tantrum that someone dared to not want to sit next to a women. The only way she figured it out was by putting 2 and 2 together by spying on the guy who spoke in broken English to other passengers about switching seats. Then she went out of her way to confront him and make a fuss about it.

There is social justice warrior extremism on both sides of the coin here.