I'm just going to post the websites linking to the three major parties and their policies pages. I'd like to see all sides cut down and critique them, just for giggles and shats (since technically we still have a spring election set....for now)


NDP

http://action.web.ca/home/ndpnpd/en_issues...8b2e66a43f0c2d0

Liberal

http://www.liberal.ca/policy_e.aspx

Conservative

http://www.conservative.ca/english/documents/policy.pdf

it's a pdf as you can see, so beware!


*discuss!*

~Commie

"An Agenda for Women's Equality"

Oh? How are they unequal currently? Anyone feel discriminated against lately?

"A Strong CBC for all Canadians"

When was the last time anyone watched the CBC other than HNIC? The "for all Canadians" would become the tricky part with the CBC's troubling bias.

"Privatization of Health Care"

In the "Facts" section of this one it says that private hospitals provide poorer services. Well if we had private and public, and the private ones sucked, where would everyone go? That's the profit motive. Foreign to some lefties.

"Fixing Federalism - A Better Unity
National Emergency: 200,000 Homeless, 2.2 Million on the Brink
Immigration is Vital to Canada's Future
Building Safer Communities
An Urban Plan: A Commitment to Liveable Cities"

All issues for the provinces, not the feds.

"NDP on Kyoto"
"The Protocol is binding once it has been ratified by 55 percent of the signatories representing 55 percent of developed countries' carbon dioxide emissions in 1990."

But undeveloped countries produce many times more emissions and are exempt.

"A Stronger Canada - Defence Policy"

They're for better conditions for the troops but no mention of weapons with which these guys would fight. Or "peacekeep"

Well that's the NDP. Stay tuned for the Liberals.

-Dunefish

Well I was going to do the same to the Liberals but it's all vauge promises and bland platitudes recycled from the Red Book.

And we all know how well the Liberals stuck to that.

The GST and ethics counsellor spring to mind.

And once again no mention of defence spending increases. They just say they're going to give them the gear they need to ensure peace. Aww, isn't that nice. We're going to ensure peace. Cute.

-Dunefish

1. As for discrimination, women's wages are still consistently lower than those of men. Is it becuase men are better than women, or is it because of systemic discrimination?

It's one of the other.

2. I'm not convinced that private hospitals provide poorer services. But, I do believe they provide them at a far more expensive rate. The idea of "competition" driving down prices goes out the window with health care. We all need to be healthy. We all need to live. As such, private enterprise can charge exhorbitant rates in areas such as health care, and we'll pay it, becuase our lives depend on it.

Health care is something you can't live without, leading to higher prices. As such, private dispensation of health care would be far less affordable. It is also the very profit motive which drives rates up in such industries where natural competition cannot exist.

This is why areas such as health care and many utilities are expressly taken out of the realm of the free market - the positive principles of the free market often do not work in the "natural monopolies" categories.

I'm all for free enterprise in most areas - the market tends to work in most aspects of the economy, delivering efficent and inexpensive services. However, some areas, such as health care, by necessity must be more regulated, as the market fails to regulate the industry in a socially useful or practical manner. Put another way, the competitive forces of the market are overpowered by the nature of the medical field, and the premium humans, by necessity, have to put on health.

3. Immigration is most certainly a Federal matter, not a provincial one, same with Criminal law. This is clearly stated in the Canada Act, 1867 (formerly known as the British North America Act, 1867).

I don't think that private healthcare is such a bad idea. Of course I'm completely biased because my mom works at a private medical lab (they do blood tests and such).

Back when the NDP were in power in Ontario, they tried to shut down all privately owned healthcare facilities, but obviously they failed. Why? because when studies were done (at least when it comes to medical labs) it was proven that they provided better, and quicker, service at 1/3 the cost.

As long as the government still controls how much the privately owned and operated healthcare facilities charge, (which is what they do now), I don't think it'd be that bad.

Oops, I goofed.

I didn't see that immigration one in there and I didn't realize that "Building Safer Communities" meant the criminal code. Damn those euphemisms. But it's about attacking root causes, all of which are provincal domain anyway.

And I love this: "Canada has the second highest incarceration rate in the industrialized world. Yet crime rates in Canada have been dropping consistently for the past 8 years."

Well duh, beacuse we're putting the people who commit crimes in prison.

If you're talking average, like: "In 1997, women earned on average 62 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Women working full-time earned 72 cents for every dollar a man earned." It's because women tend to be in lower ranking jobs that, accordingly, pay less. My mom works as a sectretary at the U of L, she makes less than her boss but the same as the other secretary (male) who sits one desk over. That's just how it is.

Show me where a woman is paid less for doing the exact same job and I'll show you a case for the courts, not a job for Parliment. Parliment has done all they can to have equality for women, the rest is up to the courts and the employers.

-Dunefish

Dunefish- statistics Canada:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor01a.htm (that's for ALL earners)

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/labor01b.htm

that is for FULL TIME earners.

clearly there is a HUGE gap. over the last several years both sides have seen increases, but in general women still on average earn less, and the gap itself hasn't really changed.

OTHER links:
http://www.socialjustice.org/inequality.php

http://www.swc-cfc.gc.ca/pubs/egei1997back...grounder_e.html

all that looks like proof to me.

Okay, I'll do my treasured New Democrats firs, then the Liberals, then the Conservatives


NDP:

Aboriginals:

"Respecting Aboriginal Treaty Rights"

I agree completely with the NDP on this. The aboriginals of Canada have been neglected...all we do is throw money at them and hope they'll solve their own problems. However, I'd like to see more communication between the Government (provincial and federal) and aboriginals to see what THEY want, and work out more effective uses of that 8 billion dollars.

"Equality for Persons with Disabilities"

I had a neighbor that was born with a spine defect and is in a wheelchair. He goes to my college, but has had a lot of problems finding work. I mean, a lot of problems. There isn't much employment oppurtunity for young disabled citizens, and as a consequence they are unable to get the education they need to get into better jobs (they aren't stupid. many of the physically disabled people are quite smart, but find it extremely difficult to pay the bills and go to school)

it's a waste to let these people fall through the cracks, and it must be addressed.

"Gay and Lesbian Rights are Human Rights"

"NDP Resolution on Same Sex Marriage


WHEREAS the majority of the Canadian public supports full, unqualified equality for same-sex relationships including same-sex marriage; and,


WHEREAS current NDP policy states that "an NDP government would amend the Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation and that such amendment will clearly recognize that the relationships of lesbian and gay partners are equal and equivalent to the relationships of heterosexual spouses"; and,


WHEREAS it is widely believed that this policy does not explicitly recognize same-sex marriages; and,


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP fully supports same-sex marriage, as well as equality, full access and mutual respect for all Canadians; and,


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an NDP federal government would, within its first mandate, introduce legislation, without a free vote, to make same-sex marriage legal; and,


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an NDP federal government would, within its first mandate, remove any distinctions, without free votes, in terms of any rights or benefits between all forms of marriage, including same-sex marriage; and,


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should the issue come before the House, members of the NDP caucus shall vote in favour of same-sex marriage and in favour of removing discrimination.
"

agreed. no questions asked on this one.

Make Your Vote Count:

New Democrats are committed to making government more accountable. We are fighting for parliamentary and electoral reforms to introduce a measure of proportional representation into the Canadian electoral process, abolish the Senate, and make sure the funding of party leadership campaigns is subject to full disclosure. We also believe that the House of Commons, not just the Prime Minister, has the authority to ratify international agreements and decisions to send military personnel abroad.


I don't think anybody would question this. we need a better system.

An Agenda for Women's Equality

-yup, we need to address it, esp. in cases of occupational crowding, and lesser wages for the same level of work.


Linking Canadians from Coast to Coast to Coast:

"Air Canada is now the monopoly carrier on 80 per cent of domestic routes, and passengers have no protection against arbitrary price increases."

what? advocating competitive airlines? not the NDP! NEVER! =)


A Strong CBC for all Canadians:

Dunefish, you may only watch HNIC, but there is a lot of really good CBC programming. Fridays you have RCAF, This Hour has 22 Minutes, The New Red Green Show. On Newsworld there is Hemispheres, which has a Canadian broadcaster and an Australian broadcaster doing Dual news reoprting. it's a great way to watch international news and domestic news from both hemishperes. There is also Rough Cuts, which plays some very good DOcumentaries which you would never see on Private corporation stations.

"Nine out of 10 Canadians say it's important to have a federally-funded public broadcaster. "

I guess Dunefish is one of those ten that don't agree. (not bashing you, just pointing that out)

Preserving Our Cultural Identity into the 21st Centur:

this is extrememly important, being that we are beside the biggest economic and cultural power in modern history...that, and their intrusive mindset makes it equally hard for smaller nations to develop a balance between the two.

"First Nations Deserve First-Class Health Care
Fighting for Better Health Care
Privatization of Health Care
Homecare: Help for Families
Fighting to Lower Prescription Drug Prices
"

(I'll start commenting on things in blocks. this is getting too long)

as we know, there is a big debate about healthcare...I realize Dunefish, that we both have very different perspectives on this. I believe that we need to invest NOW, because then we won't be scrambling to deal with a huge retiring population needing healthcare services and other necessary services. This will actaully in the long run LOWER our overall costs. By investing in ourselves while we still have plenty of working people is key to our public system's survival. The costs will hurt, but it is a necessary sacrifice.

and, as for the Private sector...ultimately, it will aslo cost them immensely, and in order to ake a profit, they will raise their own prices to compensate. ultimately, would we not be feeling the pain either way? The NDP appear to address this a lot more clearly than the other parties.

"Training: Meeting the Challenge of a New Economy
Ending Liberal Attacks on the Unemployed
Secure, Quality Jobs - Our First Economic Priority "

Given the shift towards an almost completely service based economy, people need the flexibility to get the training to get good jobs. the middle class has been slowly, but surely, filtering into ither the upper economic group or the lower...almost all of those losses are to the lower bracket. There SHOULD be, for those that can, get retraining , esp. if jobs become targets of outsorcing.

"Fixing Federalism - A Better Unity
National Emergency: 200,000 Homeless, 2.2 Million on the Brink
Immigration is Vital to Canada's Future
Building Safer Communities
An Urban Plan: A Commitment to Liveable Cities "

fixing federalism- cooperation, not competitiion. all levels of gov't, regardless of teh ideology of the party inpower, should be working towards the cooperative well being of the people, through communicatio nand compromise.
Homelessness can easily be addressed. if every level of gov't devotes about 1% of their budget to building affordable transition housing, meany people could afford to live, get a job, and inject fresh capital into the economy (jobs mean spending. spending means capital. capital means increased spending power)

I also believe that, if you eliminate some of the worst conditions in a society, there is less need for non-violent crime. you won't need to rob a 7-11 if you have at least a liveable job.

"The NDP on Education:High Tuition and Student Debt are Not Inevitable
Game Plan Needed to Tackle Student Debt "

"New Democrats choose lower tuition, interest-free student loans and a ban on private, for-profit universities. Affordable education and public research in the public interest are part of a better Canada.
"

I don't agree to banning a type of university per se, but, other than that, I agree with the NDP on tuition, being a college student myself, even my college takes a dent out of my pocket every year. I'm just lucky enough to be able to make enough to not go int odebt, but many of my fellow students don't have that smae luck, and will come out of studies with well over 20000 dollars in high interest debt while tuition increases by no less tha n5% per year as a minimum. MINIMUM.

"A Bottom-Up Approach to Community Economic Development
Secure, Quality Jobs - Our First Economic Priority
Fighting for Targeted Tax Fairness
Fighting for Fair Trade "

1) FAIR trade. as in, we shoudl be looking at our own interests first, since we are a much smaller economic centre than that of the U.S., and

2) we should be working bottom up...we should be etting unemployed people jobs, and jobs that allow them to at least LIVE. (Wal Mart is a scourge upon humanity)



""Greening" Canada's Economy
Time for National Leadership
NDP on Kyoto "

the only thing I DON'T agree with is Kyoto. we should delevop a more progressive "step" program that wil allow formore easy economic transition to wards a Kyoto model...by making step by step progress, our economies won't crash or people won't panic, and alberta can adjust so it doesn't bomb out.

"Beyond Borders
A Stronger Canada - Defence Policy
Building a Stronger Canada in a Stronger World
Fighting for Fair Trade
Immigration is Vital to Canada's Future "

the military is getting shitkicked. plain and simple. we need to fund them better, but not so muc h that we are wasting money on costly projects. rather, focus on peacekeeping missions as we always have, but ensure they have working equipment for all environments.

"The Best Investment is an Early Child Care Plan
Child Neglect in a Rich Nation "

this goes back to the self investment issue. I agree with early self investment completely.

"Time to Support Our Family Farms
A Strong Vital East Coast Fishery
NDP Fights to Save Drinking Water, Stop Exports"

fisheries ARE in trouble no question, and something must be done


overall grade: A-

it's almost completely on track with my own beliefs, and for the most part they do have a fairly clear direction in which they want to go. will it cost us money? yes, but it's gonna cost us money eventually anyways, so if we get it over with NOW, in 20 years we'll be a lot better off.

(liberals in next post!)

Liberals; well, the Liberals are ruling, let's take a look at their current policies.


Aboriginal Canadians: A new era of partnerships

we'd liek to believe this, we really would. in general it's a good moderate policy of integration, but not a whoel lot has been done to address the issues. just a lot of committies that really haven't helped.

"Building a 21st Century Economy"

Debt reduction has its high points, but at the expense of essential services it's not really (long term) worth it. I agree that some debt reduction is necessary, but not tothe extent that other services that we ads a society have pledged to support go down the tubes for it.

"To help our Canadian Forces in this task, we will ensure that they have the necessary personnel and equipment, including investments in key capital equipment such as new armoured vehicles and the replacement of the Sea King helicopters." funny, the military only THIS NEW FISCAL EAR will recieve new funding (1 billion).

Caring for our Children: Our future depends on it

"This plan recognizes that our children are truly our most precious resource. "

there is nothing in their policy section about bringing in some form of support for child care centres, or for any new investment to encourage day care centres in office buldings so that working mothers cna keep their children nearby, while working offiec jobs AND being able to acess their children in times of emergency.

" Creating Opportunity for Disabled Canadians: Fairness for All"

there just hasn't been a whole lot of this happening. it's a promise, but no real initiatives have been set to deal with this.

Democratic Reform: Changing the Way Things Work in Ottawa

"Canadians must have confidence in their government. Establishing an independent ethics commissioner who reports directly to the House of Commons and an Ethics Officer for the Senate will ensure government accountability. We will also launch an ongoing process of expenditure review overseen by a parliamentary committee to make certain programs are doing what they were intended to do so that every tax dollar is invested with care to achieve results for Canadians. The expenditure review will create a cycle of continuous management improvement and the pursuit of excellence in the public service.
"

it means nothing. no real reforms. pathetic.

"Great Places to Live: A New Deal for communities"

if they actaulyl commit o anything here in any real capacity, it wil lbe a good thing.

"Lifelong Learning: The Key to Success in the 21st Century"

this doesn't address sudent debt...it only says MORE people can GET debt. WOW! more indebt students! good stuff eh!

"Partnership For A Healthy Canada: On Guard to Ensure Canadians’ Well-Being"

they promise investment, so this is a good point. at least they address the need for self investment, so that scores brownie points in my books.


"Regional Development: Better quality of life for the future"

dealing with regional development....err, they don't realyl say anything specific, so it's REALLY tough to say what they'd actually DO

"Science and Technology: Ensuring Success For Canadian Innovation"

they wantto increase technological innovation. could be a wste, but it could be productive. it is a big isk venture given the needs of many of the other departments.

"Sustainable Development: For our Future Generations"

this policy is both good and bad. good, because they are commiting to toxic cleanup, and bad because a lot of the per-person reduction is completely voluntary, so you know that only a fraction of people will actually commit to it.

Overall Score: B-
some good points, and some terrible points.

Conservatives next

Conservatives:


MEASURE RESULTS:

annual reports from each department.


sounds reasonable.

SOCIAL AUDIT

determining how well social services and government are working. It's a given for anyone right now.

AUDITOR GENERAL

authorizing an overview of all government actiosn and documents.

FISCAL:

Big tax breaks across the board for almost everybody.

DEBT REDUCTION:


they want significant debt reduction fast, including a manditory annual reduction that will be legislated. Will also promote R&D investment, and a "predictable" monetary policy.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

expansion of NAFTA to access more trade markets, reduced tariffs, reduction of inter-provincial trade barriers.

CRTC

audit of CRTC and its relevance

ENVIRONMENTAL

some legislation to smooth out legislation for environmental protetion, compensation for people that must surrender land to protect endangered species.

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

Health Care

basically, they wantto give control of healthcare to the provinces, and to promote innovations in Health Care

Employment Insurance

promoting reasonable income protection through EI

Retirement Savings
continue on course as usual, with some possible spending to support the system for the long run

Aboriginal Affairs

promotion of self government within the constitutional context, in which they hope dependancy will be reduced.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Dangerous Offenders

uhhh....what?

Sex Offender Registry

given. should be necessary anyways.

Sentencing

truth in sentencing...as in, tougher laws? concurrency eliminated? it's not too clear.

Young Offenders

pretty much advocating manditory adult trials for 14 year olds and up for the worst of crimes.

Firearms Registry

replacing the registry with a cost effective control system, and stronger sentences related to gun violence. well, the first point IS a given. no one likes the registry, the second...well, I'm not really sure how that will help, or what they'd do

MULTICULTURALISM

they wantto axe the funding to it. they feel it's run its course, despite our opened immigration policies.

HERITAGE

same thing as Liberals. preservation, nothing new

AGRICULTURE

safety net to protect against uncontrollable circumstances that may affect farmers.

Canadian Wheat Board

getting rid of the monopoly on prices.

Supply Management

providing farmers with a guarantee to foreign markets

FISHERIES

summary: more protection, research and developement for the industry. a lto of Decentralization here.

IMMIGRATION

better refugee program, and mroe interaction to determine the credentials and their validitiy from foreigners...well, the system already sucks for people coming in outside of european nations, so letting them keep ven more jobs away from those of balkan and ME states could be worse. a lot worse.

NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY

more money and stuff. no one's argueing with this.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

more international involvement from the sounds of it.


DEMOCRATIC REFORM

read it. they stole a lot of that from the NDP and reform party. I do agree with it for the most part.

Summary: at least they are more specific than the Liberals, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. al ot of what they suggest is LESSS taxes, but MORE spending in some areas. taht means that a lot of areas would get cut, hacked and slashed pretty baadly so that we can all get another 100 dollars a month. oh yeah, that's...money I realy don't need that badly.


some of the policies seem to be a given, and aren't really worth argueing with, ut the methods ARE. The suggestion is that they may slash wht THEY feel is not needed, even if smany other people do feel it so. Their democratic reforms are good. I like them. both the NDP and the Conservatives are on the same page on this one.

OVERALL Grade: B

I don't agree with a lot of their standpoints, BUT, they get extra bonus points for clarity, and their democratic reforms.

or they'd probably only get a C+

This still doesn't take into account the fact that women tend to be in lower ranking jobs! Show me two people who do the same job for different amounts and I'll agree!

Even at Safeway, where I work, there are dozens of cashiers who make less on average than the clerks, because they just stand there and ring things in while we do all the physical labour that needs to be done. We have female clerks and they make the same as the male clerks as does the lone male cashier make the same as the female cashiers.

The fact that the cashiers make less than the clerks has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the job they're doing.

-Dunefish

So what is your explanation for the difference in jobs between teh genders? Are you suggesting that women are inferior to men? Or is their systemic discrimination? Or do women just choose to accept jobs that pay less?

Which is it?

Bingo.

Most do. Nurses are paid less than doctors, secretaries less than the people they work for, teachers earn less than pretty much everyone.

I'm not saying women are inferior, just that they're paid for the job they do. If they choose to do a job that pays less then that's the way it is.

And I'm not saying the above professions are the exclusive domain of women or that these are the only jobs women can/should do. The fact is they have a much higher proportion of women than men.

-Dunefish

The question is do women choose such jobs, or are they systemically slotted into these jobs at a higher proportion than men? Their are arguments for both positions. I can't help but notice that the women of Canada have chosen to avoid this topic altogether...

:)

you are suggesting Dunefish, that they WANT those jobs. Do you have any proof that they simply aren't crowded into them by the established proffessional hierarchy?

or, that they are raised to not argue, and are exploited because of their upbringing?


I suggest that it does have a lot to do with society's view of WHAT women do in the work place.


in unionized employment, there is a greater tendancy towards equitable income, with only a small difference when compared to those same non unionized environments

:When assessing the impact of unionization, the study reveals that non-unionized environments create a wider gender gap – women make only 72% of men’s incomes in such environments. :

you have to read this thoroughly. it suggests that in the same general environment that women DO earn less. This does account for similar education, otherwise they wouldn't be at the same level for the comparison.

Safeway is unionized. And we're all equal.

I know for a fact that Melissa, of this board, wants to be a teacher. Her mom and sister are both nurses. They all chose to do these jobs. Are you implying that Melissa isn't smart enough to decide what she wants and is just becoming a teacher because society forced her into it?

When I was at the U of L the majority of the people in my bio class were women. And the majority of them wanted to be doctors. The statistics will begin to reflect changes in attitude once the generation flips over. Now that we live in a much more equal society than our mothers and grandmothers, it will take a while until the demographics show that no one is "forced" to be "just" a nurse or teacher.

-Dunefish

I think you misunderstood. I never said that they don't have the choice, however I feel that society, esp. in proffessional workforces, is stil lVERY much patriarchial.


70% of my college IS female, and about 50/50 of all universities of male and female. almost completely equal in numbers. that is not in question. However, I know that, esp. in Edmonton, a lot of those women with Business degrees in particular would rather work in bars and lounges, because their starting wage is much higher. (I don't HAVE th source, becaues it was an article in The Vue a few months ago) It was noted that, while a Male would start at an avg. income of 45-50 thousand, many of these females with degrees were never offered anything more than 35000 for the same position.

And, there is a lot of evidence of CROWDING in many proffessions, including Nursing, and k-6 teaching, etc, and that is a concern for sociologist,s because all signs pointto it being a problem when a group is crowded in such a way.


The income gap in females to males is quite small in unionized environments, but that does not mean it does not exist in other, more varied occupations (IT jobs for example)

the stats show it Dunefish, it's there. You don't have to personally see it to have it exist.

What stats? Where? Show me the stats.

did you read anything I posted, or just made assumptions?


(btw nice avatar. can't wait till San andreas comes out ofr PC. will be spoogirific)

Not to stick my nose into a discussion that I can't really provide valid evidence for, but I am a girl, so I guess that somewhat qualifies me.

I think both sides of the arguement have valid reasoning.

To address the idea of women being forced into certain careers;
-If you take into account that many of the stereotypical careers FOR WOMEN have elements of maternal care (ie. teacher, nursing), you could pose an arguement that it is somewhat biological (based on hormones).
-Some stereotypically male careers require characteristics not inherent in the biology of women. For example, the role of a firefighter (though I know there have been female firefighters). The fact is, women are not built the same as men. Men are stronger, and for jobs which require strength, woman will always be at a disadvantage. It's not that women CANNOT do it, it's just that it is more difficult for a woman to be successful at handling a job like that.

I am not a feminist. I do think that we live in a patriarchal society, but it isn't fair for women to blame men for their lack of success. I think more than anything, that we live in a society where individuals would rather put the blame on someone else, and for women, the idea of feminism and inequality has always been an easy scapegoat.

-Melissa

I read it all, dammit.

You can make tons of money at the bar no matter what your education. That's why those jobs are hard to get.

I don't believe that there's a 10-15 thousand dollar gap in starting wages. In today's litigation-happy society someone would have sued them and rightfully won. I think that the data was flawed.

Anyway, how would the goverment ensure that this didn't happen? I'll grant you, for the sake of argument, that women are systematically paid less in certain places. How would an NDP government fix this? And how much will it cost? And how much will our already high taxes need to increase to cover it and all the other socialist programs the spend-happy NDP would want to implement?

-Dunefish

(Thx on the avatar. For those who missed it it was the logo for the new Grand Theft Auto game.)

Just needed to point out that the Right no longer can point fingers at the Left for being "spend happy". When a Republican Administration racks up a record 521 Billion Dollar DEFICIT, and a Conservative Government also runs a Deficit in Ontario (what was it, 7 Billion?) while the two NDP Governments in Canada have each balanced the books the last four years, the Right can no longer smugly point to the Left as a bunch of irrational spendthrifts.

Oddly, in the last decade, the Left appear to have had more success in balancing the books than the Right has.

Getting back to your point, if the barriers are systemic, the only way you can solve them is by identifying barriers and removing them. One huge barrier was pregnancy. Pregnancy leave laws were implemented long ago, allowing a 17 week leave of absence (unpaid) and the ability to return to your job after that leave. That is an example of removing a barrier. Is there a cost to this? Most certainly. Is it an unreasonable cost? I guess that is up to everyone's own cost-benefit analysys.

I'm sure there are other systemic barriers in place right now. It is up to identifying them and dealing with them through legislative change. I don't have the answers, but I personally don't foresee such initiatives as typically costly. Passing a law that tweaks the status-quo to achieve better equality, in my view, won't be all that expensive.

I'm not talking about social engineering here, just small, sensible changes and adjustments that levels the playing field for all.

I agree with the earlier argument that we should stop throwing money at the natives of Canada. There should be strict oversight of the taxpayer money they recieve because if not the Canadian taxpayers are just financing the self-destruction of the native peoples. There should be more effort put forth to ween the natives into the public at large, with certain exceptional rights being retained by the natives, because the status quo just creates a number of third world countries within the borders of this country. We need to take all reasonable measures to make sure that the education, employment and health care needs of this country's native populations are met. The claim that if native people are 'absorbed' into the Canadian public they will lose their cultural identity is pure garbage, anyone who has been to one of Canada's large cities would very plainly see that immigrant communities seem to have no problem keeping their cultural identities healthy and intact.

I found that edmonton article I was talking about. it has first hand experience from women with degrees.


read it Dunefish, it is very alarming

could any government fix it properly?
no, I never said that the NDP had a better chance in terms of legislation than a conservative gov't, but, a government can put pressure on businesses to provide equitable wages, or to instill better laws that make wages more transparent, so that people could do more against companies that do discriminate.

Conservative governments are more pro-business. pro business governments do not address these issues because they feel they should stay out of the market.

The NDP always ends up creating a mass of red tape that makes running a business very difficult. In BC they worked very hard for public acceptance of a very vague bill that would somehow provide income equality between males and females. How the bill was to be successful was never really specified and in the end the whole hubris died down, probably because the very idea was not very sound. Trying to legislate equal wages between groups in a market economy is very difficult, very expensive, and very wrong from a financial and ethical standpoint. How exactly do we know that women get paid less than men because of social prejudices? Could it not be because of women's tendencies to opt for part-time work instead of full time work that leads people to believe that women are paid less than men? In the end, there really is no justification for implementing a plan that would substantially change the workplace when there could in fact be an equilibrium between male and female incomes and when the plan would be unworkable.

I beg to differ. Are you saying that if, for example, Aboriginals were making less than other groups for doing the exact same work, that it would be ethically wrong to legislate that this wage inequality end?

I'm somewhat shocked that someone would defend the free market to such an extent. Even Stephen Harper wouldn't go that far. Not even close.

Secondly, there is a key fact you are also ignoring in your little diatribe:

Canada is not a market economy. It is a mixed economy. Canada, like virtually every other nation on earth, recognizes that the market system has some unwanted outcomes that are not beneficial to society. Legislation has been passed to prevent such unwanted outcomes. (Minimum wages would be a good basic example of that).

As such, your very premise of Canada being a market economy is flawed.

There is nothing wrong in regulating the market, and there is nothing wrong with passing laws that attempt to recognize the equality of persons who do the same work, and to reduce barriers to allow a level playing field between groups in the job market.

This is a society based on equality of opportunity, where people succeed and fail on their own merits. It is essential that in the Canadian Mixed Economy, barriers to equality of opportunity and equal treatment be removed.

In my view, it would be unethical to sit idly by, and let "the market" overrule the fundamental premise of equality.

True, Canada is a mixed economy, as almost all economies in the world are, however, we have moved much more to a laissez faire model in the last decade, what with the advent of NAFTA and globalization.

Your example of a minimum wage was quixotic in my opinion as there are advocates of abolishing a minimum wage and letting the market decide base wages, while at the same time allowing more people to be employed at that new base wage.

Also, your example of aboriginal people vis the non-aboriginal population is very curious since Canadian government policy has been to assimilate native people into mainstream society. The methods of assimilation however, has been extreme government intervention into the lives of native people, thus styming attempts at assimilation - an example of when the method is contradictory to the desired result.

I beg to differ with your assumption that equality is what all Canadians require; our particular rights culture suggests otherwise. Canada is quite different from the United States because of our legislation that protects the rights of particular groups such as French Canadian language rights, Aboriginal land claim rights, and a plethora of minority rights. To say that all Canadians should and must be equal in the treatment they are given by society is very questionable.

1. NAFTA and GATT are about Liberating trade between nations and not necessarily about reducing intervention in purely domestic aspects of a national economy.

2. With respect to the hypothetical point about aboriginals, you are refusing to answer the question. If the market said it was ok to discriminate on the basis of race, would you think it unethical to create a law to modify the market to change this injustice? Please answer the question.

3. Equality is what Canadians want. I can assure you of this. Maybe you live in an isolated part of Vancouver where such values are alien, but by and large, I can assure you that Canadians by and large want equality under the law and equality of opportunity - in essence, a classless society.

French Language Rights, as you call them, creates equality of opportunity for the large minority who speak French as a first language. Those who are born speaking Canada's other official language are therefore not punished for speaking the other language.

Canada's policy of multi-culturalism is also another aspect of this yearning for equality of opportunity, whereby all cultures are accepted. You will not be punished in Canada for having a different religion, skin colour, or ethnic background

Aboriginal rights are outside of this discourse - those rights are rights granted in negotiations between soverign nations as they relate to Canada's annexation of aboriginal lands.

Curious you would bring the US into this. The US is an example where equality of opportunity is not very well protected. The US is far more "laissez faire" than Canada, and is more likely to allow inherent injustices to exist that eliminate equality of opportunity. Lack of universal access to healthcare is a prime example of this.

Perhaps you are comfortable of your view of Canada as one of classes ruling one another. I would suggest that most Canadians would prefer my view of a classless society where people are given equal opportunities, equivalent treatment, and are allowed to rise and fall in society base on their merits and not based on their class.

4. As an aside, the minimum wage theory you speak of was debunked in the 1990's. An absence of minimum wage does not necessarily create full employment. There is no "clearing wage" whereby full employment is guaranteed. Further, even if did allow the masses to work for 35 cents an hour, it is doubtful that this would have any positive impacts on society whatsoever. This would only create a class of "working poor" living in perpetual squalor, creating ever more costly social problems. Think Winnipeg in 1919, and you will have pretty much recreated yoru Capitalist paradise where minimum wages lack.

First, regarding your hypothetical scenario where aboriginal people are discriminated against in the workforce; if such a scenario existed, it would be because of social prejudices, not because the market dictated it. If there are employers who discriminate against certain races because of their racial prejudice, it is not the fault of the economy, rather it is the fault of that particular individual.

Your vision of a classless society with absolute equality is farfetched to say the least. Canada's current social security system is supported by high taxes on the wealthy and the most productive. In many areas of the country, one who makes over $100 000 ends up paying more than 50% of their income to various levels of government whereas those who make under $10 000 are virtually untaxed. A flat tax of x% on everyone's income would be much more conducive to a truly equal society.

You also mentioned Winnepeg in 1919 yet failed to mention that the Canadian government supported industrialist's efforts to keep wages artificially low during the First World War. That is a horrid example of government intervention's effects on the common person, and a reason for a less meddlesome government in an economy.

Also, I would ask that you resist from making assumptions upon my views and to where I live, I do not live in "an isolated part of Vancouver" where people support a society with classes living off one another. I would like to remind you that we are debating the merits of each other's ideas, and our perceived socio-economic status' is not up for debate.

1. I'll address your last comment first. To quote Britney Spears, "Oops, I did it again". Since I sense that this is rapidly degenerating into something far more personal that I intended, I'd just like to put New Canamerica (and anyone else for that matter) at ease. When I made the reference to Vancouver, it was not a shot at anyone's socio-economic status, but a reference to my ignorance of what that average person in Vancouver thinks.

I'd like to further state that I would like to thank NC for indulging me in this debate, and for challenging my assumptions about Canada in this thread. I have no hard feelings against anyone in this thread - I'm just a guy who enjoys a good debate.

2. WIth respect to your view on the hypothetical "aboriginal" scnenario, you say it wouldn't be "the market's fault" but the fault of humans. By stating this, you have touched upon my basic point. The market is controlled by people. What the market determines is the general supply and demand that it's users exert upon it.

Therefore, it is my belief that in my scenario that if the outcome of the market, caused by social prejudices, are undesirable, then we must tweak the outcome of the market by legislating the undesirable behaviour that has given rise to the undesirable market result.

In other words, there would have to be legislation to rid society of blatant discriminatory wage setting practices, and thereby change the outcome of the market wage.

I see nothing wrong with my analysis.

To put it in more neutral "Nation States" terms:

If Bigtopians tend to own the means of production, and it is generally accepted by all wage setters that liliputians simply are to earn less than bigtopians for doing the same work, then the market wage for bigtopians and liliputians will be different. The actors in the market have made it that way. I see nothing wrong with passing legislation modifying those behaviours in order to allow the market to react differently and force a different, more equitable wage structure.

3. You have incorrectly stated my position for "absolute equality". If that was my position, I'd suggest we all make the same amount of money. My position is one of "equality of opportunity" and "equitable treatment".

As such, I can both openly support my notion of equality of opportunity and a "progressive" tax structure. (I put the word progressive in quotations, out of resepct for the many people do not agree that this tax structure is in fact progressive).

Neoclassical economic theory states that the more disposable income you have, the more likely it is to "leak out" of the economy. That is why there are different tax brackets. The first $7,000 or so (rough estimate) of income is tax free, then the first tax bracket kicks in from $7,000 to $30,000 or so, then a second bracket for income earned from $30,000 to $45,000 (I'm guessing here) followed by the highest tax bracket for all income earned beyond $45,000.

On the first income you make, that money stays in the economy by buying necessities like food, lodging and clothing. It is immediately spent, cycled into the economy, which in turn spurs growth.

As you make more money, it is more likely that your wages might "leak" outside the economy. It is spent on luxury items, like perhaps a vacation to another jurisdiction, or caught up in investments. Such money is either spent out of the jurisdiction, or is saved up, and therefore not recycled into the economy.

In order to force this extra disposable income to be redistributed back into the economy, it is spent on government run programs, such as Public Schooling, Universal Health Coverage, and the like.

By having this "progressive" system of income taxation, money that would otherwise leak out of the economy is recycled back into it by the government, and spent on areas which create the conditions of equality of opportunity - schooling for everyone, universal access to healthcare, etc.

By adopting a progressive taxation scheme, equality of opportunity is supported, and monies are funnelled into the Canadian economy, whereby they might otherwise have escaped it.

4. With respect to your example of Canada's Federal government conspiring with industrialists to keep wages low, this does not state that government intervention in the market is necessarily bad. You have provided an example of a situation where government intervention may have been bad. However, this does not mean that intervention is *always* bad. All it shows us is that governments have to choose to make the right kinds of interventions in the economy.

"Therefore, it is my belief that in my scenario that if the outcome of the market, caused by social prejudices, are undesirable, then we must tweak the outcome of the market by legislating the undesirable behaviour that has given rise to the undesirable market result."

From your quote, would I be unfair to say that you advocate social engineering? As your (and my) underlying premise is that people direct the market, then you are supporting the change of people by legislative means, from your most recent post. I might be too libertarian, but for some reason, this version of government that intervenes to change its citizen's opinions is quite eerie.

To go back to the main topic we were arguing, legislation for income equality between men and women, one could reasonably believe that the majority of Canada's society would like to see people doing the same work, with the same amount of effort and results receive the same pay. As we BOTH agree that people direct the market's direction, I do not see why legislation is required for this issue. We both agree that prevailing social attitudes direct the economy, then wouldn't it follow that the prevailing belief that men and women should be paid the same then lead the market to give equitable wages on its OWN?

I also believe that you have forgotten another excellent mechanism of the free market economy (or mixed economy): consumer attitudes.
If it were publically known that ABC Corporation paid its women far less vis its men for the same level of work, I honestly doubt the public would idly stand by and continue buying ABC Corporation's products. Just as the public's backlash against Nike's sweatshop labour forced much of the apparil industry to change its labour policies, any business that engaged in unfair practices would soon see a consumer-led backlash. This is one of the main reasons why the government does not need to be involved in issues such as this, as my previous example of Winnipeg in 1919 demonstrated, government intervention in the economy is not always favourable nor equitable, nor required!

Finally, regarding your defence of the progressive taxation system. Your argument that money should be spent within the nation, and through the conduit of education, health care, and social security programs seems to be outdated. Yes, education, health care and other social security net programs are excellent, but society does not finance them to keep money within the nation. If we wished to retain society's earnings within the country we would impose strict protective tarrifs on foreign goods and impose harsh currency controls. However, as Canada is a supporter of free trade, your belief that a progressive taxation system is maintained to retain money within the nation is unfounded. Furthermore, a truly just and equitable society would support the introduction of a flat tax on income instead of this current, unfair system.

1. If "supporting change by legislative means" is social engineering, then I'm a social engineer. However, I'd suggest that the vast majority of people would simply call this ensuring basic human rights and respect for your fellow human, not social engineering.

Of course, taking your extreme view, I'd suggest that imposing criminal sanctions against speeding, for instance, would also be called "social engineering", in that it is forcing persons to act in a manner they wouldn't otherwise act. This would be using legislation to change the way people act.

To take the point further, in some instance, some people might want to murder other people. We have laws against that too. Does advocating legislation to respect life of others make one a social engineer? Does creating a criminal sanction to change someone's opinion as to whether they should kill their fellow human being cause our current government to be a bunch of social engineers? Based on your statement, the answer would be yes.

Using such a loaded term as "social engineering" for what I see as innocuous aims is somewhat extreme. But then again, that seems to fit with the general ambit of your views that the Market System should be completely free from interference. While I could tag a label on that belief system that is equally outrageous to the social engineer label, I'll refrain from doing so.

2. Change might be required because not all people affect the market in the same way. The market is manipulated by all of us, but certain forces exert more control than others. Therefore, persons owning the means of production affect the market more than the consumer. In a situation where perfect competition exists, no manipulation would be required, as all actors would have equal power. However, in today's economy, with oligopolies and large, Multi-National Corporations with large market shares dotting the economic landscape, your model of perfect competition has no application.

I never agreed that prevailing social attitudes direct the economy. The economy is directed by those who own the means of production in our economy dotted with large corporate entities who, through market power, dictate to the consumer more than the consumer dictates to them.

More imporantly, the market leads to unintended outcomes. For instance, women can become pregnant. In a free market, it would make sense to simply fire a woman who becomes pregnant, as she can become less productive (morning sickness, complications, then time off to give birth).

In any market situation, it may make sense to replace the pregnant woman with someone else. Most of society might disagree with such a treatment. However, being driven purely by profit and efficiencies, the owners of the means of production would quite logically choose, en masse, to act in a manner that is different than the wishes of society and simply fire women who get pregnant.

However, being as what you term as a "social engineer", or what I term as someone who believes in ensuring that all persons have equal opportunity to perform their jobs and succeed in their careers despite gender differentiation, I would favour laws to restrict that practice.

You, on the other hand, would not, as you believe that the market is king.

This is simply an illustration of the different values that you and I have. I value human dignity and equality of opportunity, you value order through market regulation. I value the human element, you value the systemic element.

My main "Bigtopian - liliputian" example is similar to this. If the Bigtopians exert greater influence on the market through ownershp of the means of production, and they conspire to pay the liliputians less money, I would be very unapologetic in creating a law to manipulate the market's unwanted and unfair outcome.

3. I agree that government intervention is not always favourable or required. In many areas, the market works fine on its own. However, sometimes it doesn't. Despite being one of the most regulated industries in Canada, the mining industry suffered a huge blackeye after the Westray disaster in 1992.

If it were not for government intervention, there would be no workers compensation, there would be no workplace health and safety standards, there would be no minimum employmnet standards. Those rights were extracted by voters and workers, and not freely given by industry. If industry felt like giving them these rights and benefits, they would have done so freely. They failed to do so on their own, and the prevailing attitudes of the consumer failed to change those practices until legislation forced them to. Darn those social engineers, giving workers basic rights, like a lunch break, an eight hour day, and safe working conditions.

This makes sense though. Why would an industry want the expense of safety standards, minimum wages, overtime laws, 5 day work weeks? They cut into profit. If a worker dies, so what? THere is always a pool of unemployed labour ready to jump in. And if those workers worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, business would be a lot more productive, and more production means more money in the pockets of the owners at the end of the day.

4. I disagree with your final point. Progressive taxation is a purely domestic issue, while Free Trade, tarrifs and currency controls are of more international scope. As such, it is not inconsistent to support progressive taxation and reduced barriers to international trade.

Secondly, as stated earlier, progressive taxation is in place to prevent leakage of money from the domestic economy (forcing moneys back into the economy rather than sitting in investments, thereby spurring growth in the short term) and for creating the preconditions for equality of opportunity, as I stated earlier.

Lastly, there is nothing unjust about progressive taxation in my view. All citizens are treated equally, regardless of religion, culture, race or gender. If you make a certain threshold of money, you are taxed at a higher rate. This is so due to changes in spending attitudes when you have higher disposable income, as I stated in a previous post. I see it as an economically sound policy which takes into account fairly standard neoclassical economic views and retargets and redistributes a portion of the wealth to create the necessary preconditions of equality of opportunity, which I think Canadians by and large support.

5. I feel that this is going in circles. Am I alone in this thought? It seems we have a fundamentally different view of what the role of government should be. Your view appears to be that there shouldn't be much of a government at all, that the market can govern people by itself, whereas I believe a government should intervene to prevent unwanted and unjust outcomes created by the market, and to set in place the necessary preconditions for a true meritocracy in Canada.

I'm beginning to question whether we will be able to come to any concensus at all here...

New Canamerica appears to be what I'd call a Libertarian. I don't mean this as an insult, simply as an observation.

you believe in a free market, despite ignoring what that free market did to the working class of Europe during the Industrial revolution (we can thank them for Socialism).

a completely free market is a volitaile, exploitive model taht allows a small few coroparte elite to manipulate the consumer. Many beleive that the market caters to the consumer- this is not true if the wealth is significantly centred aroun da very small minority, because whoever controls the capital, controls the market. Hence, government regulated redistribution of wealth through taxes, minimum wage laws, government mandated pension plans and other similar programs counteract the negativity of capitalism without infringing upon the ability of capitalism to collect profit.

The only difference is that profit IS reduced, but never so much as to stop the producers from producing. That is where balance must be achieved, but ultimately a responsible government must weigh in social justice and basic human equality over that of teh market's will.

Which is why Canamerica, such nations as the U.S. can be too vulnerable to the sinister motives of those economic elites. All they want, or care about, is profit. The environment, our health and well being are second to taht selfish drive for a few more cents per minute in profit.

That is why even countries liek the U.S. do have a few safeguard mechanisms, because even they, the nation taht was built around the market and hands off gov't, can'tgive absolute free reign to the market. Because the market will not work for the betterment of the people, it will work for the betterment of a few.

I firmly beleive this, and have found this trend in any country that has a predominantly private market economy (even in Canada, where les than 5% of the population own approx. 45% of the wealth)