What is happing to canadian democracy?

Post Reply New Topic

What is going to happen when they have the next election and an even worse voter turn out continues the trend of political despondancy of people in our country. When nobody votes for nothing parties that basically tow the line that the american government wants, and are swindling all of their corruption money away anyways, what will become of us? And what does that say of us that we live in "free" world where we can choose our government but we elect to be completely disinterested.

My own feeling of our government is that they havn't ever done anything for me or my family, liberal or conservative. Sure I use roads and was born in a hospital but I think that my 40% taxes I pay should have been able to cover me for that.

The place that i live has been completely over run with wealthy immigrants that don't work. They came here because there are investment opportunities that can supplement their lifestyle and afford the most lavish real estate in the area while there is little for low income housing and I can't find work in my field so I will probably have to move.

Basically, what government means to me is a self serving gang that forces themselves on me and takes bribe money from people that want to live here so they can exploit our economy and health care.

The 20 something generation has never looked so disjointed with politics, and its because nothing ever happens that they can relate to.

This is the culmination of 30 years of neoliberalism, of "There is No Alternative". It's become more clear that the real decisions are made outside the democratic process. Take free trade. In the early '80s Very Important People decided that there ought to be Free Trade with the US. The Trudeau government took it seriously and Brian Mulroney in opposition thundered against it, saying that it would undermine Canadian sovereignty. He takes power in September 1984 and all of a sudden says he's for free trade and sings "When Irish Eyes are Smiling" with Ronald Reagan in 1985 on St. Patrick's Day. By 1988 the Liberals under John Turner staked out a position against free trade and the anti-free trade parties won by far the most votes but our system was such that this didn't matter. So Free Trade was passed and NAFTA was going to be passed in 1993 and the Liberals could have stopped this and said they'd do that but they changed their minds once in power. So it didn't really matter who people voted for, these decisions are not Canadians' to make.

The Great Canadian Slump of the 1990s, the lost decade, was a very important step in this process. It was an engineered transfer of resources to the rich and had several stages. The first was the Zero Inflation policy carried out during a period of tax rises and spending cuts - an age of austerity under Mulroney. The high interest rates designed to create unemployment to choke off inflation caused the federal deficit to increase dramatically and this was used to justify further cuts. Attempts by Ontario to stop the deliberately-engineered recession were attacked by the media and transfer payments to the provinces were slashed to control the out of control deficits made so by the zero inflation policy. The media blamed Trudeau-era programmes for the deficit, claimed that deficits were out of control, said that more austerity and more cuts were required. The deficit hysteria reached fever pitch just as Mulroney was leaving and a new Liberal government seemed imminent. Canada was compared with Argentina, the rich and powerful and think tanks didn't miss a chance to bash Canada and fawn over the USA.

When the Liberals were elected with their interventionist Red Book they were ordered to get into line with the austerity agenda. Chretien put Paul Martin, a rightist, in charge of finance as a clear signal. The major cuts took place starting in 1995 because of more pressure from the think tanks, from the rich, many who called up Moody's screaming at them to reduce Canada's credit rating. These traitors were never punished for their acts of treason. The media and rich enjoyed comparing Canada to Mexico, predicting an imminent currency collapse.

Martin falsely tied interest rates to the deficit (the discredited crowding out theory)... the economy was mired in a "jobless recovery" and high unemployment was seen as the norm. The media blamed left wing policies for the high unemployment, the usual argument that Canadians should take pay cuts to be "competitive"... not the real cause which was the zero inflation policy. The Canadian people were trained to expect less from government, to expect high unemployment, to expect their country to be bashed by their leaders, to "sacrifice"... Unsurprisingly, the YES nearly took the Quebec referendum later in 1995...

During this long slump, there was eventual signs of life in the very late '90s hitched to US growth. Chretien showed intervention the PC way with his "team Canada" trade missions with premiers and he infamously was asked about drugs crossing the border, he said "It's good for trade!".

That's a pretty dismal picture that you are painting.

I see two factors contributing to lower voter turnouts: disinterest and complacency. Certainly a dissatisfaction with our current institutions is a real contributor to disinterest (e.g. "voting isn't a real choice.") But similarly, life is pretty good for most Canadians.



If you are paying 40% of your gross in income taxes then you are earning very substantial money, indeed.

Let's consider a person resident in BC, earning $75,000 per year. The marginal, aggregate tax rate for that person is about 18%. (I can do the math if you want). Even if you choose to include UI premiums, you are only looking at another 1%.

HST represents 12% of discretionary spending after food, medical and shelter. If we assume that shelter is 30% of after tax income, and food represents another 5% (35% after tax = 25.2% of gross), then HST reprents a tax of 12% on about 56% of income, or roughly another 7%.

Total tax hit from federal and provincial governments for income and consumption taxes: 25%. Even if you add in excise taxes on gasoline, alcohol and tobacco, and property taxes, you would be hard pressed to bring that marginal amount much over 30% unless you live in a phenomenally expensive property. (My property tax hit represents about 3% of our gross household income, and we own a house in the Lower Mainland of BC). Medicare premiums are charged in BC, so that represents, perhaps, another 1%.

In order to pay 40% of your money in taxes in BC, you need to be earning something in the vicinity of $140,000

So what have you got to show for your taxes? Well certainly roads, K-12 education, subsidised post-secondary education, and public safety are all part of that. But you also have government to thank for the fact that we did not have a single bank collapse during the last financial crisis.

Your political choices during an election can have far-reaching and important consequences in a wide range of areas.



We should be so lucky. The vast majority of new Canadians work. The number of immigrants who can actually afford not to work (other than elderly parents who are supported by their children) is very low. The inflation of prices in real estate in Canadian cities has far more to do with growth in middle class demand than it does with the high end of the market.



Far be it from me to challenge your perception--after all, that is the opinion that you have arrived at through your own observation and reasoning.

But from my perspective the real issue in your post is getting lost in collateral issues. "Bribe money," and exploitation of our economy and health care systems by immigrants are red herrings that have very little to do with the day to day reality of politics and government, in my experience.

The real issue is how to demonstrate to citizens that it is important to be informed, and to make an informed decision on election day.

Dismal? What was the oficial voter turn out last election? I can't recall the stats but it was pathetic and embarassing. I would classify myself as a conservative socialist, and despite having incredible distaste for the liberal party I have actually voted for them just so that my riding might have a seat on the winning side.

My dad, who I consider a radical used to talk about western seperatism, I recently encoutered ontarianites who were talking about the same thing...funny that they had come to alberta for work. Why would ontario want the west to seperate? That is hilarious to me.

This post gets a little off topic I agree, but like you say this is what I have observed in my little corner of the world and if it seems a little unhinged it is probably because im talking about calgary area. Not exactly your typical canadian communities.

I did pay close to 40% on income tax making about 96k, which is outrageously high. The lifestyle sacrifices I made for that kind of money were unreal. Right now i'm down on my luck and have only wealthy imigrants to turn my misguided angst towards, it has nothing to do with them obviously but you might understand if you grew up in a place like this and now can't walk outside without hearing some smarmy british comment about this or that being better in england

... and even outside the ol' USA.

Correct. And in fact it is one of the conditions of immigration that new Canadians must contribute to the income tax base for a number of years. For this reason a 66 year old may not immigrate to Canada unless it is a matter of family reunification(and maybe not even then) or are bringing a business with them. To put it to a fine point: even retired millionaires need not apply. They may visit for up to six months a year however.

Refugees are another matter entirely.

Pardon me for intruding slightly. I am but a United Statesean and I notice that some of you Canadian chaps are bitching and moaning about the discontents of Democracy. You guys have a democracy. You are seeing the consequences of a governmental order where the politicians have opened the treasury to the hoi poloi and are taking their little cut for the good service. Welcome to Democracy! Get used to it.

We have had this in the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. It has not yet killed us off.

ruveyn

I watched the documentary David vs. Monsanto recently. I REALLY hope that gets straightened out.

I think you betray part of the problem in your post. Too many Canadians have an, "incredible distaste" for one or other of the major parties. Rather than making an affirmative choice ("This is the party that I want in power"), they make a negative one ("Anybody but them!"). Because voting is perceived to be an expression of distaste, frustration or anger, it is not a practice that makes people feel good about participating.

We need to start demanding better. I don't want to read another con-bot post on theglobeandmail.com talking about LIE-berals, and I dont want to read another lib-bot posting about the CONs. The negativity of partisanship in this country is the real issue.

I am a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal, but despite my preference for the Opposition party, I will readily concede that the sky has not fallen. I will support or oppose the Government on a policy-by-policy basis. A bit more of this approach from the electorate, and perhaps we might consign the partisan bots to the sidelines.



I think that the short answer is that the West (really just Alberta) and Québec suck up almost all of the political oxygen. Ontario pays most of the bills, but gets little real power to show for it. But truth be told, nobody gets a raw deal from Confederation in this country.



Granted, my experience is in Vancouver, but I am not so sure that Calgary is so very different. Certainly the politics are more libertarian and rightist--but within the Canadian framework, it's really just variations on a theme.



I don't buy it. http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Tax/Ta ... rsonal-Tax

The combined rate for income of $96,000 in Alberta is 26% (prior to any tax credits other than Basic Personal exemption). Even the marginal rate in your highest bracket is only 36%. You need to fire your accountant.

i have incredible apathy about our government. i used to be quite politically active (extremely liberal), but once i lived on a first nations reserve my political side got squashed. there was such a feeling of total isolation from decisions, like a sense that we were forgotten out there. i've been back in a city for 2 years, and still i'm trying to resurrect the feeling of caring about politics.

sorry, kinda off-topic. just wanted to come over and say hi to the fellow canucks.

Not so much off topic, nmore like a bullseye....


oh and ya I was wondering why there were so many middle aged british women working at dairy queen here....pfffft

How different would Canada be if they had a USA-style 'Triple E' Senate and a lower house that was periodically reapportioned to reflect changes in population (like with the USA's House of representatives)?

Mike

A triple-e senate is a non-starter in Quebec. Quebec has historically had at least 25% of the population (they have a bit less now) but they are but one province. Quebec strongly believes in the two founding nations concept for Canada, not that it is a "province comme toutes les autres" but the fools in the west demand this status for Quebec even though when Confederation happened the West was run by the Hudson Bay Company and was parcelled up between Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories and remained the Northwest Territories for many years after that.

In fact, one reason why the Sovereignty-Association idea is popular in Quebec with a lot of people who are effectively federalists is because this they think will force a redefinition of Canada in terms of two founding nations. Two sovereign nations united under one authority...

From a US perspective the case of the South might help explain things. The South was not one but many states, about half for a long time. However, as they were moving west there was the issue of whether the new states would be slave states or free states - the slave states would effectively be in the southern camp and it would maintain its influence. In Canada this played out more in the form of a French presence in the West that was stamped out particularly in Manitoba when French was banned from the schools. That and the hanging of Louis Riel guaranteed that Quebec never voted Conservative for decades and was solidly Liberal - not unlike the South going Democrat for over 100 years. Naturally I will not claim slavery and the French language are morally equivalent though the yahoos out west probably think so!

Arent you full of insults and name calling, among other things.

Quebec has 23% of the population while the west has 30%. We'll have your brioche and eat it before long.

You'll have earned it with that attitude. Bigots like you think its just and proper that there should be two classes of citizens in a country. Hell no.

Democ-reaction topic

For some time I have worried about US style politics influence in Canada. I distrust voting for a candidate based on personality, and cut and dried issues. In my own city elections are coming up October 25 and I still have no idea how I am going to vote. there are so many candidates that the choice is very confusing.

Fuzzy was a bit brash, I think, in calling you a "bigot" but I still don't agree with your "two founding nations - therefore Quebec should get more representation" mantra. First, the founding nations of Canada were multiple if you count numerous First Nations who were cheated out of land due to various legalese tricks (as a Quebec resident I'm sure you know of the good ol' Oka Crisis?). Were Canada to fight numerous US-style "Indian Wars" confederation would have been stalled or nonexistent.

Secondly, while one of the numerous founding nations of Canada was French Candiens I don't see why recognition of that needs to be given in the form of more Senatorial seats for a particular Province. Surely their are Acadians in the Maritimes and Francophones in Saint Boniface (Winnipeg, MB) or Donnie Doon (Edmonton, Alberta) equally deserving of recognition for their roles in founding.

Of course, I admit that your post seems to be more a description of attitudes than a policy prescription, if this interpretation is correct then Fuzzy was being really brash.