I thought this was an interesting tidbit. I also liked the Unions defending the payouts - I can’t think of any other sector where you get paid money to quit a job and go find yourself a better one.
I believe the government brought in the clause as a way of encouraging employees NOT to leave when they were having problems with high turnover. The longer you work for the government the better your payout when you leave, and the payout on retirement is much better than the payout if you quit (1 week’s pay per year of service up to 30 vs 1/2 week’s pay per year with a max of 13). This sort of deal is often seen in organizations which want to encourage long-service employees.
The present push to get rid of this by the Harper government is mostly to remove the entry for anticipated future payouts from the books as a liability and make the government’s financial statements look better.
Fuddle duddle! 
I am much less bothered by Justin Trudeau calling someone a piece of shit than I am about the tactics the Conservative-hired pollsters used in Irwin Cotler’s riding, alleging that Cotler “might quit” or “had resigned” when people asked why they were being polled. It’s a disgusting, petty, pathetic tactic, and I think the Speaker should have sanctioned the Conservatives for it.
But oh, wait, the firm involved worked for the Speaker during the last election. :rolleyes:
Is it really too much to ask for the slightest bit of respect and decency? I really, really hate where our government is going; the constant campaigning, the bickering and lies, the abuses of power, the mocking of the Opposition by the government (not ONE suggestion or amendment suggested by the Opposition has been included into a single law/bill that the Conservatives have passed)… the whole thing is just shameful.
This is not the government I want.
Well, the good news is if the Conservatives fuck things up badly enough with their idiotic, self-serving behaviour, the masses will vote them out in the next election and we’ll have the Liberals back in power for a few terms. Until they become so corrupt and reprehensible that the masses see fit to vote them out in favour of the Conservatives. And so goes the political circle of life. 
Isn’t it sad? Could we really not do better than this?
I’m sure I’ve said this before… I think that anyone that WANTS to be a politician shouldn’t be allowed to be.
Seriously, make it like jury duty, only choose actually intelligent people rather than the general population (I know…that’s the hard part, isn’t it?)
Your job is guaranteed during your term, you get a decent salary for 4 years…go, then, and do your best. My dad would probably be better at managing something like Tourism than anyone any government has ever put forward. My mom could fix Education once and for all. My MIL was the director of a hospital…I do, in fact, think that she’s better suited to take care of Health than whatever politician-for-life loser any government has put forth so far.
And that’s just in my immediate family!
Ok, ok, there are a bazillion problems with this, but…well, it comes back to if you want to be a politician, you shouldn’t be allowed to be. Bunch of lying, corrupted jerks.
:smack:
The left had better unite if they want to turf the Conservatives.
Well, unfortunately for you, they have the majority consensus from Canadians. (In the “first past the post system.”}
The problem with Canada is the left-leaning media. And don’t try to tell me they’re not, especially in Quebec and in the GTA.
Funny how those regions voted differently than the rest of the country.
ETA: What I mean by this is that the Conservatives are no where near the nuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, anti-environment, religious zealots that the media portrays them as. Personally I thing Steven Harper is the best Prime Minister we’ve had in my lifetime.
The Canadian government is supposed to govern for all Canadians, not just the ones that voted for them. It is supposed to do what is best for Canada, what Canadians want… and as it stands 60% of Canadians don’t like Harper and his government enough to have voted for them.
You and the Conservatives take the attitude to just suck it up and deal, and use that to justify some sort of blind hate for anything you vaguely perceive as being “leftist”. You blame the media because boo-hoo, they dared say something unpleasant about your favourite politician, even if he or she just did something blatantly wrong. You aren’t thinking about the issues. You aren’t thinking about Canada. You are thinking about “winning” something… the election is over. Enough with trying to win. Now is the time to GOVERN.
The media isn’t some sort of leftist behemoth out to get you and yours. Sometimes, your party just might actually be wrong and I’d respect the government a hell of a lot more if they had the balls to occasionally admit it.
Stop trying to get “liberals” to shut up. Stop trying to get them to stop asking questions, to stop trying to verify that abuses of power aren’t happening, to stop caring about the things they care about. That isn’t how democracy works.
Liberals have a voice, are allowed to speak as much as the Conservatives are. Stop bitching just because you don’t like what you hear.
I don’t know what you’re trying to imply here, other than some vague “look at the evil liberals in Quebec and the GTA”. What are you going on about?
I think he’s as bad, possibly worse as any Prime Minister we’ve ever had. The truth is somewhat probably somewhere in the middle, no? But I’m a “liberal” so in your mind, you can just ignore what I have to say.
I’m not a great fan of any party really (and my estimation of Conservatives, especially Conservative supporters, has gone downhill ever since they voted in our local Tory member, who hasn’t got the intelligence that God gave a bag of hammers), but I’ve heard this argument more and more often lately, usually from those who are vehemently anti-Harper and/or anti-Tory. If the last election was an “unpopularity” contest, then let’s put things in context:
– 60% of Canadians did not want a Conservative government enough to have voted for them.
– 70% of Canadians did not want an NDP government enough to have voted for them.
– 81% of Canadians did not want a Liberal government enough to have voted for them.
– 96% of Canadians did not want a Green government enough to have voted for them.
(Figures rounded, from this cite.)
Ok… but the NDP, Liberal and Green parties have more in common with each other on a lot of issues than the Conservatives do, no?
So 60% of voters were more leftist.
What gives the Conservatives the right to completely ignore those voices? What gives them the right to tell “liberals” to shut up and take what they are serving? What gives them the right to make major decisions without even considering input from the Opposition? What gives them the right to go around implying that Opposition members are quitting on their constituents (Cotler’s riding)?
And don’t answer “majority” and “others did it too”. That might be factual, but it doesn’t address the issue that the way the current government is functioning isn’t, in fact, in the best interest of the majority of Canadians; they are not governing for everyone, which is what I want to see. I would have the same expectations of any political party.
They are governing for the people who voted for them and gave them a mandate. Is there something wrong with that? The Liberals used to govern for the people who voted for them and gave them a mandate too, until they were reduced to third party status.
Huh? What is this rant all about anyway? Listen to the CBC and tell me they’re not pro-Liberal, anti-Conservative. If I were the CBC I’d be very afraid of biting the hand that feeds me.
I’d say, by looking at the latest election results that the media is wrong, and doesn’t accurately reflect the policy of MOST Canadians. The election results prove that.
When did I say I wanted an end to democracy and an end to the opposition speaking?
What? My point is that the majority of Canadians (in our first past the post system) democratically elected this government on some very specific mandates. They are now fulfilling those mandates, that we elected them to do, so therefore democracy is alive and well in Canada.
Jesus, mnemosyne do you have to take this personally? Canadians elected this government on some specific mandates, and they are fulfilling them. If, in 4 years or so, you don’t agree with the electorate then vote in someone else.
The “unpopularity contest” approach is actually an interesting way of looking at things. If we examine past elections where parties got a majority, we see the following:
1980 (When Trudeau’s Liberals got a majority government after the fall of Clark’s PC government):
– 56% did not want a Liberal government enough to have voted for them.
– 68% did not want a PC government enough to have voted for them.
– 80% did not want an NDP government enough to have voted for them.
1984 (Shortly after Trudeau retired and Mulroney’s PCs got a majority government):
– 50% did not want a PC government enough to have voted for them.
– 72% did not want a Liberal government enough to have voted for them.
– 81% did not want an NDP government enough to have voted for them.
1988 (PC majority government; the “free trade with the USA” election):
– 57% did not want a PC government enough to have voted for them.
– 68% did not want a Liberal government enough to have voted for them.
– 80% did not want an NDP government enough to have voted for them.
1993 (Chretien gets a Liberal majority; PCs under Campbell decimated):
– 59% did not want a Liberal government enough to have voted for them.
– 81% did not want a Reform government enough to have voted for them.
– 84% did not want a PC government enough to have voted for them.
– 93% did not want an NDP government enough to have voted for them.
Especially the 1993 election–I thought I recalled that Chretien had more than a 41% approval, but I guess not.
So the system was always broken.
That doesn’t justify the behaviour now, does it?
As for taking things personally… you’re right, I’m sorry. I’m dumping my frustrations against Chris Lee’s inept refereeing on you, and that’s not fair. I really shouldn’t post in this thread while watching a hockey game! 
I don’t have a comment on that, but I have noticed in update stories on the news about Attawapiskat that they don’t give all the details that we have discussed on these boards. There’s a world of difference between, “This reservation has been given millions of dollars and we don’t know why there is such a housing crisis,” and, “No one has a decent house to live in, and the government is sitting on their hands to respond to the crisis.” The latter is what I’m hearing on the news (paraphrased, of course).
Well, it is very Canadian of you.
So then…where to “righties” get their news from? What newspapers are acceptable to you?
The National Post?
The Globe and Mail?
The Toronto Sun?
The Toronto Star?
The CBC?
The Montreal Gazette?
The Vancouver Sun?
the Calgary Herald?
The Winnipeg Free Press?
The London Free Press?
The BBC?
The LA Times?
The New York Times?
Because in the past couple of days or so (based upon purple vs blue links when I look at Google News) I’ve read national, international and sports news in all of those newspapers online, as well as a few French sites.
I believe I am getting a larger set of facts than people who only read news from a single source. I can tell you with certainty that when it comes to news under the “Canada” section, I read at least two if not three sources.
Is the opinion that I form, then, still biased by the media? Am I still “not getting all the facts”?
The CBC has been pissing off governments since forever. The only change is that for some reason the conservative party and some of its allies/backers have taken to calling it a State Broadcaster instead of the Public Broadcaster. I find the resulting confusion unsettling.
A State Broadcaster is the in the mold of Pravda, a broadcaster given over to justifying or parroting the government’s official line. Given the tempestuous relationship between Canadian governments and the CBC that description comes across as an intentional distortion, or an attempt to frame discussion around the CBC as the removal of an antidemocratic instrument of authoritarian control.
Then we have the disgusting behavior in the Irwin Cotler riding, where we still have no apologies from the Conservative party. Allowing that kind of behavior speaks to the underlying culture of at least the Conservative riding association and at worst what is considered acceptable within the federal party. Neither is reassuring.
As for parliament being a winner take all situation and losers must simply stand aside Edmund Burke made what I consider the most important description of an elected representative in the parliamentary setting
He also said “ Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”
It means for better or worse the current crop of MPs must use their judgment and world views and those may not align with everyone in their riding. However it is critical that they not blindly follow only those that elected them and remember to take into account other views. I did not lose an MP simply because I didn’t vote for them.
Given that the current government is seen as a western-Canada-oriented government, perhaps I can shed some light on the issue, based on my discussions with many westerners over the past number of years. Personal experience only, I’m afraid, but for what it’s worth, here goes.
Here on the prairies, there seems a feeling among many that the CBC is a state broadcaster, no different from those that existed in the former USSR and East Germany and similar states. If I had to sum things up briefly, I’d have to say that the local feeling is that the CBC exists for two purposes: (a), to serve the elites in Toronto and Montreal (and occasionally, Vancouver) with programming and commentary that appeals to those people; and (b), to act as a propagandist, telling the rest of us how we should behave. There is very little on CBC that appeals to the prairie public; hence, “public broadcaster” doesn’t describe the situation very well. The arts scene in central Canada is quite different from that locally; and the CBC’s news and commentary is told from a central-Canada point of view, which doesn’t always mesh with the prairies’ POV.
This leads into the propaganda purpose. Overall, the feeling I’ve got from my discussions is that the easterners in the CBC see us as a bunch of hicks who need to be told how civilized people behave. It is true, for example, that “Little Mosque on the Prairie” is popular (out here, it is not as popular as elsewhere), but among those who do like it out here, that popularity is guarded: the question many out here have is “Why does the CBC feel the need to tell us we shouldn’t be afraid of Muslims; that they are people just like us?” The CBC is seen as condescending and paternalistic, in other words, and an attempt by Toronto and Montreal to teach those of us who have to stay here (because doesn’t everybody want to move to Toronto?) how to behave in polite company.
As an ex-Torontonian, I can see that the CBC is doing its best to be a public broadcaster–it has to serve a very diverse population, and it does try. “Little Mosque” is a comedy show in a particular setting, no different from “King of Kensington,” and Torontonians in the mid-70s laughed with the rest of Canada at the latter. Similarly, “The Plouffe Family,” set in Quebec, was popular in all of Canada. But to a degree, I can see the point of my local friends: there is little to appeal to them. Rodeos, which are very popular out here, get no coverage on CBC sports (summertime sports coverage consists mainly of baseball, mostly the Toronto Blue Jays; and CFL), regionally-popular musicians rarely-to-never get exposure on CBC (unlike Maritime or Quebec musicians), and nobody on CBC is saying that the current Tory government might not be such a bad thing–rather, the reverse (so since Alberta voted Tory, we’re stupid and don’t deserve a voice on our national broadcaster?).
In short, many feel that it would be nice if the CBC actually tried to include, if not appeal, to the west in something other than a condescending way. Put a Calgary Herald columnist up against a Toronto Star columnist to discuss issues on a current affairs show. Produce a comedy about the mishaps of a rural pickup-truck-driving, country-music loving Alberta farm boy in the big city. Heck, drop a Toronto Bay Street businessman in Moose Jaw, Lethbridge, or Medicine Hat, and see what comedy results. Give country music artist Paul Brandt, from Airdrie, Alberta, his own show, like Nova Scotia’s Rita MacNeil had for a while. Instead, it’s Montreal and Toronto arts and commentary–no different to those out here than Leningrad and Moscow arts and commentary were to someone from Minsk.
Again, just reporting my observations–don’t shoot the messenger.
Well, the CBC doesn’t have the CFL any more and hasn’t for several years - TSN got the rights. As far as the rodeo, they show the Calgary Stampede every year, but rodeo is simply not that popular a sport, so there’s no justification for showing it anywhere.
As far as their original programming, their most popular show is Heartland, which is about as explicitly Western as it’s possible to get. Your ‘culture clash’ drama was tried and heavily promoted, although I’m completely blanking on the name of the series right now. There was also a soap opera/Dallas clone set in Foothills country called Wild Roses, but no one watched. I think this is a case of people only seeing in the CBC what they want to see.