Federal Elections 2015

[Gucci Mane]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but this might help some people

Canada?s most popular voting guide for elections, political issues, candidates, and poll data

i side with the Liberal party, no surprise there.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by Pidish

i side with the Liberal party, no surprise there.

I got libertarian (had no idea what was even a thing in Canada) with Liberal and Green

I can't believe I used to side with the Conservatives.... Either I changed a lot since then, or they did. Haven't paid any attention to Canadian politics in 10 years

[jasonturbo]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

hm, it hasn't really happened in the last year (at least with major firms) thanks to the US' moves to prevent 'tax inversions' from happening

but another major publicly traded company that i can recall is Valeant Pharmaceuticals from the US, and Allergan iirc

if you read the business section of 'globe and mail' they were constantly printing stories regarding US firms small and large leaving the US and coming to Canada and elsewhere

Valeant was one of the only examples I could find actually. Their move to Canada had a lot to do with the acquisition of BioVail and being incentivized by the Quebec Gov in addition to being able to capitalize on the pharma labor market which had just endured a downturn and available office space they had in Laval which allowed them to relocate employees form other areas that cost more money.

Originally Posted by StylinRed

so what you're saying is the conservatives tried and failed with their easing up on corporations...they also neglected our manufacturing sector (it's gone...) why not raise the taxes up a bit? we are still incredibly competitive worldwide and among OECD member states (KPMG argues Canada has the best corporate tax system with all things considered)

the NDP on the other hand wants to support the manufacturing industry and create jobs in canada...with our low dollar now, and likely for some time, i could see a manufacture sector thriving, if properly supported but the cons want to pretend that there isn't a problem, while selling away everything to foreign corporations/nations

Everyone is so uppity about MFG, Ontario's economy is primarily service based @ 77%, manufacturing is only 12% of GDP. (Worth noting is that it was 24% back in 2000, so it's never been at the forefront of their economy, though a 50% reduction in the sector over 15 years is significant and can certainly be attributed to some degree to the CAD trading higher.)

In terms of exports from the province automobiles lead @ 34% to next in line precious metals @ 12%.

Manufacturing in Ontario is interesting, anything outside of the Auto Workers Union is actually competitive in terms of labor market cost.

Late last week, Ontario and Ottawa agreed to extend a lifeline to the country’s struggling auto industry. The provincial and federal governments pegged their bailout package at “about 20 per cent” of the amount the U.S. will commit to the beleaguered trio of Chrysler, GM, and Ford. The Bush administration announced on Friday that it would sign over US$17.4-billion to the Detroit Three, meaning Canada’s contribution figures to be in the $4.3-billion range. But rescuing car makers with taxpayer money hasn’t proven to be a universally popular idea on either side of the border, with auto workers’ wages attracting much of the scorn. On average, Canadian auto-sector workers make about $35 an hour—$72,000 a year—plus benefits. The average wage of a Canadian manufacturing-sector employee, by comparison, is $20.75 an hour, or $41,500 a year. Could the auto workers comparatively high wages be to blame for the Detroit Three’s collapse?

Do auto workers make too much? - Macleans.ca

Faria noted that UAW president Ron Gettelfinger agreed to have the UAW's "all-in" wage, benefit and pension costs drop from a high of $75.86 per hour in 2007 to an average of about $51 per hour starting in 2010. By comparison, the CAW's cost per hour was $77 in 2007 and will rise to over $80 per hour by the end of the new contract. Faria said that Gettelfinger went into negotiations "with the right intention...Save jobs. The CAW strategy was to squeeze every dime out of them."[7] Hargrove was said to have "instilled backbone and an attitude that the union could always make the auto makers buckle at the bargaining table"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Auto_Workers

When you actually take the wage of a CAW worker and factor in the benefits it's insane what those people made for assembly line work. The unions ruined manufacturing in the province just as much as the high CAD did. They still make way too much today IMO.

I've worked with a lot of people who came from the CAW and they all tell crazy stories about how much money the auto manufacturers hemorrhaged. GM was referred to as generous motors and it was literally impossible to fire anyone. One of my friends was a machinist at Magna that was under contract to GM, back in 2005 he was netting almost 10K/month to stand and watch a CNC machine + collecting benefits.

So while I'm going off on a bit of a tangent, here's the problem with MFG. The Fed can try to prop it up all they want, but globalization is a MUCH stronger force than the Fed Gov., sooner or later the only way MFG. will exist is if it's competitive with the global market.

BTW Mr. Harper launched his campaign at a manufacturing facility in QC, so I don't think he's denying there is an issue with the sector.

Again though, MFG would be more competitive here to a point if labor market costs weren't so insanely high.

Getting passed all that, I don't personally believe mfg. will be our salvation, tech and innovation will be, those industries will bolster the economy and provide the mfg. jobs. But that change will be generational, it will take many years for Canada to become a tech/innovation leader.

[Tegra_Devil]

i got liberal

[underscore]

Liberal here as well, doesn't surprise me except there's a few significant things I really disagree with the man with the pretty hair on.

[falcon]

Got more or less what I expected. %77 Lib, %65 NDP/Green. Hell... I'm more Libertarian and Communist than I am Conservative with %55 Com and only %32 Cons.

[jasonturbo]

73% Conservative, 56% Libertarion, 41% Liberal, 41% Christian Heritage (WTF), 39% NDP.

I do find that there are a lot of silly issues, insane allowing or not allowing women to wear the Hijab such an issue, insane the marijuana isn't legal at some capacity, insane to subsidize "seasonal workers", insane to pay more into CPP considering it's already destined to implode, insane to cut tuition costs (IMO they are very affordable, compare them to the states and see lol).

Meh, I was almost expecting to get Liberal actually.

The ballot system should be more complex, it should allow you to select your stance on a number of issues and the majority response should be something the new leaders are forced to align their party with.

[tonyzoomzoom]

83% Liberal for me

[CorneringArtist]

Of course Liberal, but I want to hear how each party is going to deal with the F-35 jet development costs. It's already going well-over projected costs, and is not only late in roll out, some of its systems are still teething. There's quite a few, much cheaper options on the table, but without the stealth capability of the F-35.

Niche issue yes, but the Conservatives have been throwing money at the procurement project.

[MindBomber]

93% Liberal, 92% NDP, 87% Green, 82% Communist, and 7% Cons, lol.

[jasonturbo]

I love the way increasing health care, increasing CPP, decreasing tuition, and increasing general stimulus sounds (especially in transportation and green energy)... but does everyone realize that money has to come from somewhere?

IMO voting in the NDP or Libs will 100% result in far more debt and taxes than we can expect under the cons - that's what scares me.

While the cons have certainly sucked financially, they were sort of shafted by the melt down in 2007... I don't think they are any better at managing money, but they are certainly pushing less social spending programs than the other parties.

With the F-35 running way over budget, no different than what the US constantly deals with when it comes to advanced military equipment, shit always ends up over budget. I'm pretty sure everyone under estimates all of those projects on purpose knowing that at the true cost it would never be approved.

Edit: BTW, why do people feel like Canada is lacking environmental regulation? I deal with this at work constantly and I could swear it would be nearly impossible to regulate it any further than it already is.

Years ago companies got away with doing shitty things (IE: Royal Oak Mine in YK with tonnes of Arsenic sitting in the ground leeching into the ground water), but that was ever so long ago.

Imagine the Federal Gov. and Provincial Gov. gives us permission to reverse a pump station, during that work, we have to dig holes in the ground to install new valves etc - WE ARE LIMITED IN HOW MUCH WATER WE CAN REMOVE. That is to say that if we have excavations which gradually fill up with ground/rain water, we can only pump so many litres out of the hole per day. Imagine that, you have a construction site that has to cease work just because there is too much ground/rain water and you are not allowed to pump it out.

Where does the water go that we pump out? To a third party water treatment company who tests it, treats it, filters it, and then releases it.. we don't even bat an eyelash at the cost of any of this, it's the cost of doing business.

How is any environmental regulation lacking in that example :s

I just get a little confused I guess... the NDP and Green party especially push the issue but I'm not sure I understand what the policies will actually look like for increased regulation.

[AstulzerRZD]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

I love the way increasing health care, increasing CPP, decreasing tuition, and increasing general stimulus sounds (especially in transportation and green energy)... but does everyone realize that money has to come from somewhere?

IMO voting in the NDP or Libs will 100% result in far more debt and taxes than we can expect under the cons - that's what scares me.

While the cons have certainly sucked financially, they were sort of shafted by the melt down in 2007... I don't think they are any better at managing money, but they are certainly pushing less social spending programs than the other parties.

With the F-35 running way over budget, no different than what the US constantly deals with when it comes to advanced military equipment, shit always ends up over budget. I'm pretty sure everyone under estimates all of those projects on purpose knowing that at the true cost it would never be approved.

Edit: BTW, why do people feel like Canada is lacking environmental regulation? I deal with this at work constantly and I could swear it would be nearly impossible to regulate it any further than it already is.

Years ago companies got away with doing shitty things (IE: Royal Oak Mine in YK with tonnes of Arsenic sitting in the ground leeching into the ground water), but that was ever so long ago.

Imagine the Federal Gov. and Provincial Gov. gives us permission to reverse a pump station, during that work, we have to dig holes in the ground to install new valves etc - WE ARE LIMITED IN HOW MUCH WATER WE CAN REMOVE. That is to say that if we have excavations which gradually fill up with ground/rain water, we can only pump so many litres out of the hole per day. Imagine that, you have a construction site that has to cease work just because there is too much ground/rain water and you are not allowed to pump it out.

Where does the water go that we pump out? To a third party water treatment company who tests it, treats it, filters it, and then releases it.. we don't even bat an eyelash at the cost of any of this, it's the cost of doing business.

How is any environmental regulation lacking in that example :s

I just get a little confused I guess... the NDP and Green party especially push the issue but I'm not sure I understand what the policies will actually look like for increased regulation.

From what I understand, the Liberals kept/enforced the more stringent banking regulations in the 90s, which was a part of what kept us sheltered in 07.

Here's an article that I was able to find: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/...-to-banks.html

[StylinRed]

^^^yes, the only reasons the cons were able to mislead the public, initially, was due to the high commodity prices but that ships sailed

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

I love the way increasing health care, increasing CPP, decreasing tuition, and increasing general stimulus sounds (especially in transportation and green energy)... but does everyone realize that money has to come from somewhere?

IMO voting in the NDP or Libs will 100% result in far more debt and taxes than we can expect under the cons - that's what scares me.

im all for paying more taxes, if they went into suitable projects, weren't hampered by bureaucracy, and didnt have the profits going into corporations (our new toll bridges for example) and if the government sought other means to raise funds before going to, or in conjunction with, raising taxes (bonds, etc)

other countries in europe, the middle east, south america, even with similar population sizes/spreads, are able to offer more social services than we do with similar or less taxes*


*middle eastern/south american countries for example, where their only resource industry (oil) is nationalized and pays for everything (even all the corrupt politcians greed)

[jasonturbo]

Originally Posted by AstulzerRZD

From what I understand, the Liberals kept/enforced the more stringent banking regulations in the 90s, which was a part of what kept us sheltered in 07.

Here's an article that I was able to find: Paul Martin, A Regulator Who Said No to Banks | naked capitalism

http://www.cifo.uqam.ca/publications/pdf/2013-03.pdf

I would copy and quote but I can't from the PDF, skip to the conclusion if you value your weekends lol

Long ago I posted a major explanation on why the Canadian banking sector was leveraged just as much as the USA. If I wasn't so lazy I would dig that up along with better links and sources for everything lol.

The most basic way of looking at exposure would be to simply compare the leverage ratio:

Everything you ever wanted to know about bank leverage rules 3-6% in USA

Canadian banks sink under new ratios - BNN News 5% in Canada.

Also wort mentioning, more and more analysts are growing concerned with Canadians banks exposure to real estate.

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/blogs/b...162811862.html

The major reason for the financial crisis in 2007+ was because ratings agencies were being a bunch of idiots and rating everything higher than it should have been. Once people realized they had bought garbage debts the shit hit the fan and it all fell apart. Banks under estimated their exposure to toxic debt and liquidity vanished instantly. Specifcially poorly assessed credit default swaps are to blame, and Canadian banks had very little exposure to these assets compared to American banks. So really, the only aspect of the financial crisis that hurt Canada was tumbling US equity values, US defaults impacting long term debt repayments (IE: Corporate bonds from Fannie and Freddy that were owned by Canadian institutions), and commodity prices as development came to a halt in North America. Not a single Canadian bank required a bail out, that's very telling in itself. (Though it's worth mentioning some US banks didn't want TARP funds but were forced to take them lol JPM)

So really, Canada was in no comparable way impacted like the US was, though we were still hurt by having to bail out automakers and the lower commodity prices.

[jasonturbo]

Originally Posted by StylinRed

im all for paying more taxes, if they went into suitable projects, weren't hampered by bureaucracy, and didnt have the profits going into corporations (our new toll bridges for example) and if the government sought other means to raise funds before going to, or in conjunction with, raising taxes (bonds, etc)

I couldn't agree more, but then when the gov. is subsidizing manufacturing to make it more competitive, are you not simply paying profits to corporations?

(Not that the cons aren't also proposing this)

CPP is what gets me the most, it's going to be 30-40 years before most of us can collect on this program and there is virtually no change we will get the same ROI on CPP that the last 3 generations before us got. (Realistically it will fail and new program will result that probably just grandfathers everyone in regardless of whether or not they paid in)

[GLOW]

75,62,62,28
conservative
some interesting questions that i never really thought of before

[Jmac]

Apparently I'm a card-carrying Commie ... Followed by Green, NDP, and Liberal.

Didn't see that one coming ...

[CorneringArtist]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

With the F-35 running way over budget, no different than what the US constantly deals with when it comes to advanced military equipment, shit always ends up over budget. I'm pretty sure everyone under estimates all of those projects on purpose knowing that at the true cost it would never be approved.

But in addition they delayed full deployment to 2018 at this time, meaning they could push to the projected CF-18 retirement date of 2020. The F-35 is going into Compass card levels of overpayment, while cheaper options are readily available and proven.

Dassault has offered its Rafale at a cost that's nearly half of what an F-35 is worth (literally 2:1 buying power), with options to have the plane fully produced in Canada, meaning it can open up a job pool and millions in economic growth. In addition, a new procurement plan is being tabled because of the ballooning costs, after opposition found out about it.

Canada's flying antiques, do we really need stealth and a plane that was simulated to lose to F-16s for patrolling the Arctic?

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

I couldn't agree more, but then when the gov. is subsidizing manufacturing to make it more competitive, are you not simply paying profits to corporations?

(Not that the cons aren't also proposing this)

CPP is what gets me the most, it's going to be 30-40 years before most of us can collect on this program and there is virtually no change we will get the same ROI on CPP that the last 3 generations before us got. (Realistically it will fail and new program will result that probably just grandfathers everyone in regardless of whether or not they paid in)

Sorry I already paid enough tax. If the gov is short on cash they can tax the top 1% or companies. Better yet run a more efficient gov. So my vote goes to which party can actually put more money back in my pocket gets my vote. So far none is doing that. Most of us are in the middle class, I myself have no family and no kids and don't ever plan on having one. So these so call child benefits don't apply to me at all. Talk about CPP I bet you that by the time we retire we won't even be able to get a dime from it. Yet we are still paying for it. I want a gov who will actually lower our tax rates and put the money right back at our pockets. Let people decide what they want to do with the extra money (Take their kids on vacation, day care, spend the money on investments etc etc....) That way everyone benefits.

[SkinnyPupp]

Originally Posted by Jmac

Apparently I'm a card-carrying Commie ... Followed by Green, NDP, and Liberal.

Didn't see that one coming ...

NDP are practically commies anyway so that makes sense

[Lomac]

97% Liberal



That's a little surprising...

Also:
90% Green
89% NDP
82% Communist
41% Libertarian

...and 72% Bloc Quebecois

[CharlesInCharge]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

........

The major reason for the financial crisis in 2007+ was because ratings agencies were being a bunch of idiots and rating everything higher than it should have been. Once people realized they had bought garbage debts the shit hit the fan and it all fell apart. Banks under estimated their exposure to toxic debt and liquidity vanished instantly. Specifcially poorly assessed credit default swaps are to blame, and Canadian banks had very little exposure to these assets compared to American banks. So really, the only aspect of the financial crisis that hurt Canada was tumbling US equity values, US defaults impacting long term debt repayments (IE: Corporate bonds from Fannie and Freddy that were owned by Canadian institutions), and commodity prices as development came to a halt in North America. Not a single Canadian bank required a bail out, that's very telling in itself. (Though it's worth mentioning some US banks didn't want TARP funds but were forced to take them lol JPM)

So really, Canada was in no comparable way impacted like the US was, though we were still hurt by having to bail out automakers and the lower commodity prices.

Its said that a trillion dollars of wealth was usurped from the U.S. people alone.


Banks got $114B from governments during recession
Support for banks 'more substantial than Canadians were led to believe': CCPA report
Banks got $114B from governments during recession - Business - CBC News

It says support for Canadian banks from various agencies reached $114 billion at its peak.

Europeans are in all time highs of economic austerity... with headlines like "'Silent epidemic of hunger' among young people in UK". People from Greece, a first world country, have committed 10,000 suicides in a span of 5 years.

Where has this global transfer of wealth gone? Did it just get erased in banking cyberspace?

[underscore]

One question I didn't see on that questionaire is stances on GMO's and GMO labeling, I know the NDP have gone full looney toon with that stuff but I can't find out what all the other parties any thinking.

[jasonturbo]

One thing I could see costing the Cons the election - their focus on security and terrorism.

Someone needs to tell Harper to stop pushing something that just ins't at the forefront of concern for most voters, I would say his latest speech is a step in the wrong direction.

Saving CIC the trouble, see below

Spoiler!

Harper is pushing the security agenda now in advance of his planned domestic terrorist attacks which will bolster him as the leader that can keep us safe and maintain the zio-american regime... 911... Illuminati.. Bilderberg...

[westopher]

1. Green
2. Liberal
3. (near tie with liberal)NDP
4. Communist
5. Cons

P.S. Nice work on the Christian Heritage JT