|
Brannock posted:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/pan-am-games-within-24-billion-budget-ontario-government-says/article27128619/ How much of the spend was on infrastructure we can perhaps reuse instead of security or garbage collection costs? Don't bother answering because the number is super low and depressing. Next up the cost of the UP express (half a billion+) which can't even break even on operating costs. quote:By June 19, 2015, the Union Pearson Express was averaging about 3,250 riders a day, or 12 percent capacity.[45] Metrolinx has projected that a year after opening, the service will attract 5,000 riders a day — about 1 million customers. By 2020, Metrolinx expects 2.46 million rides will bring it up to full operating cost recovery.[46]
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
$2.4 billion directly spent on infrastructure and transit would have brought in far more than $175 million dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
G&M posted:Liberals back Keystone XL pipeline, Stephane Dion says
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
Arabian Jesus posted:
Where is your Canadian Jesus now, Liberals?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Oh that's cute, he thinks Alberta still has a tar sands industry 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Where is your Canadian Jesus now, Liberals? [/quote] A G&M writer used the term "tar sands"? What strange times we live in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
Slightly Toasted posted:I'm pretty sick of this argument and I'm pretty sure you don't want me to answer that question so I googled sexy trudeau pics and these were the first three Not as hot as Sarah Hoffman. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
Brannock posted:$2.4 billion directly spent on infrastructure and transit would have brought in far more than $175 million dollars. As if you're applying logic to OLP financial decisions, good luck with the brain aneurysm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
colonel_korn posted:Too bad he didn't have those second thoughts before he forced the head of StatsCan to resign rather than peddle incredibly obvious lies on his behalf. lmao well at least we got a cabinet that truly represents Canada, wage gap and all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:06
|
|
|
Disappointing, but not surprising as it was no secret they supported the pipeline. From September: Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau talks pipelines actionplan.gc.ca 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
colonel_korn posted:Too bad he didn't have those second thoughts before he forced the head of StatsCan to resign rather than peddle incredibly obvious lies on his behalf. At least pay is based on merit amirite (i don't get this. They chose to make a big deal of the gender equality. How do you not anticipate media looking a bit deeper than the first photo shoot... see also committee appointments)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:13
|
|
|
These are minister of state positions because they fall beneath other ministries as a sub-portfolio. It's not like they made a choice to have those 5 positions pay less, parliamentary procedure calls for them to get about 20,000 less. Not area any of those positions new creations. Reading the article it sounds like they might just change the procedures? Still this seems pretty weak as an attack. Mulcair's minister for sport wouldn't have been paid any more than Trudeau's. E: Coyne's complaint about men dominating committees is a lot more cogent than this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:These are minister of state positions because they fall beneath other ministries as a sub-portfolio. It's not like they made a choice to have those 5 positions pay less, parliamentary procedure calls for them to get about 20,000 less. Not area any of those positions new creations. Reading the article it sounds like they might just change the procedures? The issue being that the minister of state positions all went to women. e: They made the choice to have those positions fall under the other ministries. Jordan7hm fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Were those women the best people for the job?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:29
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Were those women the best people for the job? I don't know, what's their BMI?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:The issue being that the minister of state positions all went to women. No they didn't, minister of sport and minister for the status of women have always been ministers of state. The only times the person occupying them isn't a minister of state is when the minister heading the department gets the sub-agency as well. These subagencies don't exist outside of the larger ministry. They are also traditional positions for new ministers to get, with them getting bigger portfolios during subsequent cabinet reshuffles. A few more major departments heads could have been women, especially since long time mps like Joyce Murray got snubbed, but these positions and all the procedure surrounding them are decades old. The Liberals didn't just decide to make them ministers of state instead of full ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Ah yes the government that created, separated, merged, and eliminated ministerial positions HAD to keep the minister for state positions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:A few more major departments heads could have been women, especially since long time mps like Joyce Murray got snubbed, but these positions and all the procedure surrounding them are decades old. The Liberals didn't just decide to make them ministers of state instead of full ones. They did decide to make all the ministers of state in their cabinet women though, which tells you something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
while certain parts of the gender parity cabinet are not ideal, we have a women, aboriginal chief as Justice Minister. I don't think you can convincingly claim the government is using token positions to only technically satisfy their pledge, or that it was actively motivated by a desire to delegate the lower-level portfolios to women certainly something worth pointing out so you can keep on the government to try and balance out the ministers of state between the two genders, but cmon, the pay gap is less than 10%, this isn't the damning secret that reveals Trudeau's secret sexism most likely just the general biases in society we've discussed earlier still having an effect, but Trudeau is obviously trying to work against them rather than embrace them. Perfect enemy of the good etc. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:while certain parts of the gender parity cabinet are not ideal, we have a women, aboriginal chief as Justice Minister. No, but it is an excellent example of how even when you're intentionally and openly trying to get good optics and be equitable by appointing equal numbers of women, overall women still end up in more subordinate and less senior positions than men. One of the traditional big four positions went to a woman, and five out of five of the subordinate positions went to women. It may not say a lot, but it does say something. It's like saying you appointed half of your company's board of directors to be women, and then it turns out that half the board are subordinate roles that don't get to vote on board decisions, and oh would you look at that coincidentally it turns out those are the roles women ended up filling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
It's not secret sexism, it's a lack of attention to detail. That liberal official comment kind of reinforces this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:No, but it is an excellent example of how even when you're intentionally and openly trying to get good optics and be equitable by appointing equal numbers of women, overall women still end up in more subordinate and less senior positions than men. One of the traditional big four positions went to a woman, and five out of five of the subordinate positions went to women. It may not say a lot, but it does say something. yup, that the bias in society continue to exert influence and that we need to keep working against them, and hopefully it will be something looked into for subsequent cabinets. I just can't really see this as a huge scandal though, you can't reverse systemic marginalization overnight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:yup, that the bias in society continue to exert influence and that we need to keep working against them, and hopefully it will be something looked into for subsequent cabinets. I just can't really see this as a huge scandal though, you can't reverse systemic marginalization overnight. No, but you can reverse marginalization within your own sphere of control. Which the Liberals chose not to do. The only reason it's even worth talking about is because they made a show of gender parity being important to them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
*Half of cabinet is women* MISOGYNY MISOGYNY THESE WOMEN DON'T ALL OCCUPY THE MOST INFLUENTIAL OF CABINET POSITIONS. Holy loving poo poo turn it off for a bit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Ah yes the government that created, separated, merged, and eliminated ministerial positions HAD to keep the minister for state positions. Note that the Orders-in-Council in question still refer to the various positions that were altered by their old names. This is because those names, along with their status as a state or full ministry, and the associated pay rates, are specified in legislation. Parliament is not currently sitting. Presumably any law that needs to be changed to match the government's commitments will be amended when it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:*Half of cabinet is women* MISOGYNY MISOGYNY THESE WOMEN DON'T ALL OCCUPY THE MOST INFLUENTIAL OF CABINET POSITIONS. They have a point. Most of the positions filled by JT were no different then the 13 positions the Harper Govt filled in terms of seniority. While G&M played this up, JT really is not that impressive or progressive when you look at who and sex was appointed. The core inner counsel is about as white/male as his dad's in the 1970's which should make the average D&D progressive frothing mad JT broke his first (of many) campaign promises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:*Half of cabinet is women* MISOGYNY MISOGYNY THESE WOMEN DON'T ALL OCCUPY THE MOST INFLUENTIAL OF CABINET POSITIONS. I get what you're driving at but let's be honest- you could rephrase this line of reasoning to sound pretty appalling. Take for example: quote:*gay sex is no longer illegal* HOMOPHOBIA HOMOPHOBIA THESE GAY PEOPLE STILL CAN'T GET MARRY. If your goal is full equal representation and equality, half measures don't cut it; and no amount of inequality, no matter how small, is justified.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Oh that's cute, he thinks Alberta still has a tar sands industry It's droll that everyone thinks California Tar Pits are the same as the Athabasca Oil Sands. Justin won't be back in Calgary until at least 2035.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:They have a point. Most of the positions filled by JT were no different then the 13 positions the Harper Govt filled in terms of seniority. While G&M played this up, JT really is not that impressive or progressive when you look at who and sex was appointed. The core inner counsel is about as white/male as his dad's in the 1970's which should make the average D&D progressive frothing mad JT broke his first (of many) campaign promises. What did he break? He said half his cabinet would be women, half his cabinet are women. He didn't say anything about pay equity or influence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:They have a point. Most of the positions filled by JT were no different then the 13 positions the Harper Govt filled in terms of seniority. While G&M played this up, JT really is not that impressive or progressive when you look at who and sex was appointed. The core inner counsel is about as white/male as his dad's in the 1970's which should make the average D&D progressive frothing mad JT broke his first (of many) campaign promises. Yes, the core inner council, of which the influence post of Justice and Defense are both held by white guys. ....That being said, this is a relatively coherent post from you. I guess the results that broke so many CPC brains fixed yours?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Note that the Orders-in-Council in question still refer to the various positions that were altered by their old names. This is because those names, along with their status as a state or full ministry, and the associated pay rates, are specified in legislation. Thanks Dallan. Did not know that, obviously. It explains the comment from the Liberal guy. Poor show by the reporter to not provide that context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
WHEN IS HE LEGALIZING GAY wEED
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
It appears that they will Full ministers as soon as treasury board fixes it
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Sarah Hoffman: big fan of food, not so keen on ethics (though, being fair, this was the ANDP's fault, she just bore the brunt of the attack in parliament) http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/braid-from-attack-to-apology-in-a-split-second-the-ndp-fundraising-uproar Regarding the Minister of State distinction, my Twitter feed seems to think it's the Liberal's intent to remove this distinction but that it requires an act of parliament to do so. So let's wait a while and see if we actually need to have a freak out or not. Edit: apparently not even an act of parliament!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
You guys realize that todays junior cabinet ministers are tomorrows senior cabinet ministers, right? Edit: Didn't see the latest news... now do we get to complain that new ministers with minimal responsibilities are getting paid as much as the more important ministers? *muh taxes* EngineerJoe fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Good news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Coyne's comment about men dominating committees is still a good one though. Committees look like they'll be much more important under this cabinet so that is a way that women will have less influence. E: Here's that piece
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
How about the fact that 100% of the cabinet are Liberals?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Nice to see some straight-up 2-dimensional chess from the PM.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
eXXon posted:How about the fact that 100% of the cabinet are Liberals? Scamdal!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2015 16:13
|
|
