HawthorneVillager.com

I have to admit I am leaning in their direction a bit, but I have two major concerns.

1) Getting rid of the senate. The whole reason that Harper wants it gone is because, according to their policy, it shouldn't be up to an unelected body to interfere with the elected members... except he's such a control freak, and his unelected buddies have such control over the members of his party, that without a senate there would be no controls on him whatsoever. An elected senate would have the same problem... "oh, you want to run as a conservative senator. Great, you get the paycheck, we tell you how to vote, or you won't be a conservative anymore".

2) His push for copyright legislation where DRM trumps all. I have no problem with what is and isn't an offense in his draft that doesn't relate to DRM, but having DRM able to eliminate every right the consumer has with no onus whatsoever on the manufacturers (such as Sony providing defective rootkit DRM and their fix making things worse, or stores like Wal-Mart selling DRM music and then just deciding to turn off their servers so your music stops working the next time you reformat/upgrade) is a dealbreaker for me, since it is soooo easy to change the legislation to allow the appropriate exemptions.

With those two things in his platform, I just wouldn't want to see Harper with a majority, but I'd be fine with him having another minority.

That would be bad!!

I think 70% of Canada don't even knows we have a senate or what the senate actually does!

In short explination... The senate works on the bills that pass. Works them into a law that is a) worded correctly and b) is fair according to the law.

They don't shout, and scream at each other... they work it out....

_________________
Pain is Temporary Pride is forever

I don’t think the plan is to allow the PM to whip the senate like they do MP’s. A senate would likely be more independent, although would typically vote party lines. The elected senate isn’t happening anyways, it requires constitutional reform to be done correctly, and that isn’t going to happen. Typically governments do this sort of thing after a second majority mandate. If it ever does happen, it will be great for voters – you could vote in opposing parties during mid-term elections to keep the house under control. I’m assuming that is when we would vote them in.

The DRM legislation sucks, but then so does the Green Shift plan. At least I can ignore the DRM laws. 

I hate the idea that people have that they cant find jobs.. There are numerous jobs in Canada.. just look out west.

While I hear you on targetted tax breaks, Z, and agree with you in general, I think this one is ok because it's a stepping stone.

Previously we had people able to split retirement income by contributing to spousal RRSP's. A budget or two back they let pension income be split as well. Now they're letting income for families with a caregiver split income. I honestly believe that as they can afford to phase it in they are aiming for eventually either having a family tax return, or letting families split all income, but the price tag on that was too huge to do at once.

I also think the tax system can be a reasonable tool to improve society and promote fairness. Childhood obesity is a serious problem, and structured activities do help, and likewise on the flip side, we know smoking is bad and costs our medical system a lot, so adding a tax to cover those costs is much better than banning it outright. Even the wooden arrows that you are talking about has some reasonable basis... from what I understand they were classified in one way (I think as a weapon) instead of another (as a toy), and was then paying higher taxes which were much greater than the cost. Yes, it costs the taxpayers lost revenue, but it was revenue they really shouldn't have had in the first place.

I do, however, agree that unless it is of something with a societal benefit there isn't a good reason for it. Giving a tax break or special spending to a specific sports club, for example, would be terrible... at that point, reduce the income tax for everyone!