All the Liberals have to do for the next 10-15 years is say Conservative = Republican and no one will vote conservative.

31 minutes ago, Atomic said:

All the Liberals have to do for the next 10-15 years is say Conservative = Republican and no one will vote conservative.

Which is a sad commentary on the gullibility of too many voters 

39 minutes ago, Atomic said:

All the Liberals have to do for the next 10-15 years is say Conservative = Republican and no one will vote conservative.

They've been doing that since Bush Jr got in the first time. 

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yes.  You dont think Bernier is a strong candidate for Conservative leadership?

No I think he's dangerous because he is too free market and government out of everything. Government does need to maintain some over sight otherwise the corporations just have free reign to fuck everyone over. Same reason Kevin O'Leary is dangerous, except I can understand why O'Leary is the way he is, he wants to be the guy fucking everyone over and making money doing it. 

30 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

They've been doing that since Bush Jr got in the first time. 

Yeah but now it's Trump and as bad as Bush Jr was, Trump is way worse, and way more people are "aware" now.

6 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Not without a referendum he shouldn't. Honestly I don't know why people even believed him when he promised that, it was clearly something they promised only to motivate a certain segment to vote for them. 

Unless the electoral reform were extensive enough to become a constitutional matter, they can not call a referendum on it. 

50 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Unless the electoral reform were extensive enough to become a constitutional matter, they can not call a referendum on it. 

you can call a referendum on what ever you want and personally I think that if the way we are changing how our government is elected then it should be put before the people and let them directly voice their opinion. 

49 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

you can call a referendum on what ever you want and personally I think that if the way we are changing how our government is elected then it should be put before the people and let them directly voice their opinion. 

Incorrect. A referendum can only be called on a constitutional matter.

3 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Incorrect. A referendum can only be called on a constitutional matter.

That's one definition, however the other definition is simply any vote put before the electorate. Federally Canada has had 3 referendums, one on the Charlottetown accords, one on conscription and one on prohibition so clearly in Canada the usage is not solely for constitutional matters. 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

That's one definition, however the other definition is simply any vote put before the electorate. Federally Canada has had 3 referendums, one on the Charlottetown accords, one on conscription and one on prohibition so clearly in Canada the usage is not solely for constitutional matters. 

All of those were fundamental changes to Canadian Law - as the Quebec referendum would have been - had the result been 'yes.'  If eliminating our 'first past the post' election system (a Westminster system) will fundamentally change the laws of the land, then yes, a referendum would be warranted.

I honestly don't know why this feels like an argument - there's nothing to argue about - it's a fact.

3 (1) Where the Governor in Council considers that it is in the public interest to obtain by means of a referendum the opinion of electors on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, direct that the opinion of electors be obtained by putting the question to the electors of Canada or of one or more provinces specified in the proclamation at a referendum called for that purpose.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.7/page-1.html#h-2

 

4 hours ago, Atomic said:

All the Liberals have to do for the next 10-15 years is say Conservative = Republican and no one will vote conservative.

They've been saying that for the 40+ years that I have been following Canadian politics.  Seems to work on only the people who weren't going to vote Conservative anyway.

4 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

They've been saying that for the 40+ years that I have been following Canadian politics.  Seems to work on only the people who weren't going to vote Conservative anyway.

The world is changing old boy!

17 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

All of those were fundamental changes to Canadian Law - as the Quebec referendum would have been - had the result been 'yes.'  If eliminating our 'first past the post' election system (a Westminster system) will fundamentally change the laws of the land, then yes, a referendum would be warranted.

I honestly don't know why this feels like an argument - there's nothing to argue about - it's a fact.

3 (1) Where the Governor in Council considers that it is in the public interest to obtain by means of a referendum the opinion of electors on any question relating to the Constitution of Canada, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, direct that the opinion of electors be obtained by putting the question to the electors of Canada or of one or more provinces specified in the proclamation at a referendum called for that purpose.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/R-4.7/page-1.html#h-2

 

And changing how we vote doesn't alter the law? This is an argument of semantics and the word referendum has multiple meanings but if you ask the people to directly vote on something it's a referendum. 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

And changing how we vote doesn't alter the law? This is an argument of semantics and the word referendum has multiple meanings but if you ask the people to directly vote on something it's a referendum. 

It may not - depends how many changes they make. Perhaps considering that something as long standing as rep by pop would be altered, a referendum may be warranted. You may think its semantics, but in Canada you can only ask people to directly vote on constitutional matters.

 

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

The world is changing old boy!

The more it changes the more it stays the same.

On 2017-02-03 at 1:23 PM, Atomic said:

Yeah but now it's Trump and as bad as Bush Jr was, Trump is way worse, and way more people are "aware" now.

Never thought I would say this but Trump makes Georgie boy look like a charmer, at least he was likeable in a homespun kind of way.  Trump is straight up uncouth and unlikable.

On 2017-02-03 at 2:54 PM, 17to85 said:

No I think he's dangerous because he is too free market and government out of everything. Government does need to maintain some over sight otherwise the corporations just have free reign to fuck everyone over. Same reason Kevin O'Leary is dangerous, except I can understand why O'Leary is the way he is, he wants to be the guy fucking everyone over and making money doing it. 

But that wasn't the question. It wasn't about whether you agreed with Bernier's policy. It was about whether he was a strong candidate. Which he clearly is 

 

20 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

But that wasn't the question. It wasn't about whether you agreed with Bernier's policy. It was about whether he was a strong candidate. Which he clearly is 

 

yeah but having such an extreme policy like that is what makes him a weak candidate. You don't appeal to the masses by sitting so far on the edge. Middle ground wins in Canada and I don't believe Bernier has the appeal to win across the country either. 

On 03/02/2017 at 7:49 PM, Mark H. said:

It may not - depends how many changes they make. Perhaps considering that something as long standing as rep by pop would be altered, a referendum may be warranted. You may think its semantics, but in Canada you can only ask people to directly vote on constitutional matters.

That's just not true, you can literally ask them to vote on anything. Some places call referendums purely constituational matters and call everything else a plebiscite if you prefer that term but you can put a vote to the electorate over what ever you like. 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

That's just not true, you can literally ask them to vote on anything. Some places call referendums purely constituational matters and call everything else a plebiscite if you prefer that term but you can put a vote to the electorate over what ever you like. 

yes, like here in BC, where they stupidly put the HST to a referendum (and made it 50.1% needed instead of 66.6%) and we had to go back to the PST after spending billions converting to the HST.  What a cluster-freak that was.

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

That's just not true, you can literally ask them to vote on anything. Some places call referendums purely constituational matters and call everything else a plebiscite if you prefer that term but you can put a vote to the electorate over what ever you like. 

Good god man, are we still at this? Plebiscites are not binding, the government does not have to act on a plebiscite result. 

Aaaand the first stepping stone to Privatisation of MB Hydo:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-hydro-sandy-riley-rate-increases-1.3970470

 

 

14 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Aaaand the first stepping stone to Privatisation of MB Hydo:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-hydro-sandy-riley-rate-increases-1.3970470

 

 

What the NDP did to this province is criminal.  If Riley really doesnt want to mince words, I wish he'd name those names.  And the opposition NDP will have the gall to blame this disaster on the current government, you watch. 

I find it hard to believe the Utilities Board would allow a 10+% increase.  Then what?  Hydro declares bankruptcy?

20 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

What the NDP did to this province is criminal.  If Riley really doesnt want to mince words, I wish he'd name those names.  And the opposition NDP will have the gall to blame this disaster on the current government, you watch. 

I find it hard to believe the Utilities Board would allow a 10+% increase.  Then what?  Hydro declares bankruptcy?

I think its all a political game on this point.  the government will force Hydro down this path, with all the budget and job cuts, have all the bad press while they mull over the 10% hikes, so they can make sure they blame it all on the NDP, and everyone understands what happened at Hydro before they step in with some kind of money injection.