vyelkin posted:

Every McMansion with a "for sale" sign in front is a monument to the victims of capitalism.

vyelkin posted:

The CN Tower
The ROM with its big spiky addition
The University of Toronto
The walls of Quebec City
Montreal's skyline with Mount Royal in the background
Confederation Bridge so the Maritimes feel involved
And so that the West also feels included, we'll have one that's this image:

cowofwar posted:

When do we get a Victims of socialism monument?

vyelkin posted:

And so that the West also feels included, we'll have one that's this image:

infernal machines posted:

I want a victims of ideology monument.

namaste faggots posted:

How about the human rights museum in Winnipeg

Finally the aspers can be Important.

infernal machines posted:

I want a victims of ideology monument.

quote:

One in seven Canadians currently live in poverty, but Liberal and Conservative MPs voted together Tuesday night to defeat Bill C-245 which called for the creation of a "national poverty reduction strategy in Canada."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, 156 Liberal MPs plus every Conservative MP in the House of Commons voted against the bill – although five Liberal MPs broke ranks and voted in favour of the private member's bill sponsored by NDP MP Brigitte Sansoucy.

The bill had called for "the development and implementation of a national strategy to reduce poverty in Canada and the appointment of an independent poverty reduction commissioner."

While the proposed legislation noted that Parliament had unanimously voted 25 years earlier to end child poverty and that "structural circumstances" drive poverty in Indigenous communities, the other thing is Trudeau's 2015 mandate letter to the Minister of Employment and Social Development explicitly called for "the development of a Canadian Poverty Reduction Strategy."

Liberals say they're already at work opening "a dialogue on the subject of poverty reduction in Canada," pointing to a "backgrounder" tabled in October offering a series of factoids and general statistics on poverty in Canada.

But the opposition says the Liberal government is already "more than a year into their mandate" and "have yet to take any action on providing a poverty strategy for Canada" – not to mention vague about their plans moving forward.

C-245 had been endorsed by dozens of anti-poverty groups, charities and religious organizations across the country.

https://www.pressprogress.ca/trudeau_liberals_join_conservatives_to_vote_down_anti_poverty_bill

vyelkin posted:

It's a statue of Zizek sitting in a dumpster

vyelkin posted:

Now that's #realchange!

quote:

5 (1) The strategy is designed to reduce, and indeed eliminate, poverty and promote social inclusion through coherent and complementary measures, including:
(a) measures necessary to prevent people from falling into poverty, reduce the incidence, depth and duration of poverty and improve the situation of all people currently living in poverty, including those living in deep poverty or poverty of long duration and those who have multiple needs;
(b) measures to provide income security and access to housing;
(c) measures to promote the involvement of Canadians in developing and implementing poverty reduction solutions;
(d) measures to create acceptable tools to measure poverty in Canada;
(e) specific short-, medium- and long-term targets to eliminate poverty;
(f) measures to be taken by the Government of Canada to address the causes and consequences of poverty and social exclusion, and the departments responsible for their implementation;
(g) the terms and schedule for the implementation of the measures;
(h) the federal departments, other bodies or interested persons that are to be involved in the implementation of the strategy; and
(i) the obligation to conduct an ongoing analysis of all policies and programs — including future legislation — that may have an impact on the income and well-being of Canadians, to ensure that they contribute to poverty elimination goals.

quote:

12 The Government of Quebec may choose to opt out of the application of any program providing public funds to the provinces to take measures to eliminate poverty and is to receive a monetary contribution equivalent to the amount it would have received through the program.

vyelkin posted:

It's a statue of Zizek making GBS threads in a dumpster

Helsing posted:

I don't want to come off as unduly negative about this bill ...

brucio posted:

Seize the means of production from the capitalists, redistribute the wealth. There's your strategy, NDP.

sitchensis posted:

Well it's better than the Liberals who are at work "opening a dialogue on the subject of poverty reduction in Canada" by drafting the equivalent of a first year undergrad poli-sci paper.

quote:

Pablo Rodriguez Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-245. It has a lot going for it, but it certainly deserves to be debated and discussed. Bill C-245 is about developing a national poverty reduction strategy in Canada. It was introduced by our colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and I congratulate her on this initiative.

The purpose of the bill is to encourage everyone to participate in poverty reduction. The bill talks about promoting inclusion as a way to fight poverty in Canada, which is certainly a worthy objective. Once again, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her tremendous work in preparing this bill. I would add that the excellent work she has done is in line with our government's agenda to reduce poverty in Canada. I have to add the fact that Bill C-245 is perfectly consistent with our government's direction on this issue.

We share the same vision, the vision of an inclusive society in which everyone can fully participate. However, the bill would provide for the appointment of an independent poverty reduction commissioner and also the establishment of a national council on poverty elimination and social inclusion. The bill would also amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Let us be clear, the government is determined to fight poverty and the Liberals agree with the intent of Bill C-245. However, as my colleague knows, we cannot support it at this time. This position is not adversarial, but rather based on logic and common sense.

The reality is that we are not supporting Bill C-245 because some of its initiatives have already been or are about to be implemented. In other words, the work has already started. We sincerely believe that the government's initiatives were specifically designed to achieve the same objectives as those of Bill C-245.

I do not have enough time to list all current and future initiatives, but I will talk about some of the most important ones. To begin with, there is the study of poverty reduction strategies undertaken by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The committee will criss-cross the country to hold in-depth consultations with key stakeholders and the general public.

It is absolutely vital that we wait for the committee's report and listen to what it has to say before making any important decisions, such as appointing an independent poverty reduction commissioner.

Our government made an absolutely fundamental promise to Canadians. We promised that our decisions about policies and programs would be based on facts and consultations. Today, we must keep our word, just as we have in the past and will in the future. It is as simple as that.

I mentioned the study of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. In fact, that study was part of something much bigger. I am referring to the very broad mandate of my colleague, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. He was entrusted with this mandate by the Prime Minister of Canada, who asked him to lead the development of a Canadian poverty reduction strategy that includes very specific targets as well as performance indicators that will tell us whether we are achieving the stated goals.

The minister recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. He tabled a discussion paper on poverty in Canada entitled “Towards a Poverty Reduction Strategy”. That document was designed to open a dialogue on the subject of poverty reduction in Canada.

This is a valuable tool that will help the committee to carry out its work. It will also help us, as a government, to develop our strategy. As a result, it would be premature to make any decisions about a specific approach, such as the one proposed in Bill C-245, until the discussions and analyses are complete. That does not mean that Bill C-245 does not deserve our attention and respect, quite the contrary.

As I said earlier, the member did an excellent job on this bill, which contains many good suggestions, such as the consultations with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, indigenous communities, and many other stakeholders and partners. What we are saying is that we should consult people and listen to what they have to say before making a decision. In other words, all in good time. There is a time for everything.

It is also important to point out that last spring the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development began discussions to develop a Canadian poverty reduction strategy. He initiated this important conversation with his provincial and territorial counterparts as well as with many stakeholders in various regions of the country.

In September, our government launched the tackling poverty together project. As part of this project, the government will conduct case studies in six communities in order to obtain a regional perspective and a better understanding of poverty in communities in Canada. It will also allow us to hear directly from Canadians living in poverty and receive recommendations from organizations that deliver poverty reduction programs. The tackling poverty together project will also be a valuable tool for developing our strategy.

My point is that our partners expect a real collaborative effort from us. They expect to be consulted. In fact, they demand it, and rightly so, and that is what we are doing. Therefore, supporting Bill C-245 and its initiatives would go against the approach we promised to adopt, namely to hold consultations.

As I said at the outset, our government made a solemn promise to Canadians. We promised to do things differently, to work together, and to consult Canadians, and we intend to keep our word. I would remind the House that we are already working on budget 2017, which will also include many commitments. We made commitments in 2016, and there will be more in 2017. We are also implementing our plan for a stronger middle class.

In closing, I would like to say that we can see right away that Bill C-245 is positive because it shows that the fight against poverty is something that every party and every member in this House cares about. It also shows that, despite our different political affiliations, we can share the same vision. When we share the same vision, we can join forces and work together to achieve that vision. In this particular case, it is the vision of an inclusive society in which everyone can fully participate. It is the vision of a country in which inclusion leads the fight against poverty, and this is already quite an accomplishment.

quote:

Bob Zimmer Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the member who brought this private member's bill forward. I sit on the human resources committee with him, and as we have heard on the floor of the House tonight, we are working on a poverty-reduction strategy as we speak.

We all want to eliminate poverty, if possible. That is something we can all agree on. We are certainly concerned about families that are affected by poverty and cannot put food on the table or heat their homes. We have heard a lot of heartbreaking stories about poverty in Canada. However, I am concerned that this bill will create another level of bureaucracy instead of dealing with the issues of poverty.

As Conservatives, we had a good record to this effect. In 2004, poverty was at a record low, at 8.8%, which was dramatically down from 11.4% in 2004. What really affects Jane and Joe Taxpayer is lower taxes, because we are able to leave more money in their pockets and they can afford more at home. It is a Conservative principle that we like to leave more in taxpayers' pockets.

Some interesting testimony has come before us at committee. One that dramatically affected the committee, on all sides, was the testimony given by Mark Wafer. I do not know if the chamber has heard his story, but he has several Tim Hortons stores. One thing he has done that has really set the bar high for a lot of establishments is hire disabled persons at wages equal to those of the everyday people who work for him. There is no disparity between the disabled versus non-disabled people in his workplace. It is a great story. There have been hundreds employed, hundreds who essentially were taken out of poverty. They were sitting at home with no place to work and no place to go, and he gave them jobs. I asked him the number one way a person can get out of poverty. His answer was that the number one way to get a person out of poverty is a paycheque.

It seems like a very simple concept that a paycheque would help someone out of poverty, but that is as simple as it gets. It is more than just a paycheque. It is a way of life. It is hope, and it is a future. He gave an example of a person he hired who had a disability who had not had an opportunity before. After getting a job at Tim Hortons, he went on to work for a major accounting firm in Canada. We look at solutions like that as real solutions to poverty, not just another bureaucracy.

A Conservative principle that needs to be understood is that Conservatives care about people in poverty. The analogy I use is the old one we all know: Give a person a fish and you feed that person for a day; teach a person to fish and you feed that person for a lifetime. My concern is that this particular bill will establish a bureaucracy that attempts to study how to give a person a fish.

We want to look at real solutions to get people out of poverty. Mark Wafer is an example of someone who creates real change for people in poverty.

What concerns me about the different political parties' views on the way to get people out of poverty is that it is about larger bureaucracies and money through programs to help people out of poverty. What we on this side of the aisle are concerned about are Jane and Joe Taxpayer, regular people who are possibly watching tonight who are just home after a hard day's work. I was a former carpenter. Maybe Joe is a carpenter who is sitting at home trying to have a meal with his family, maybe Kraft Dinner again. It is the end of the month. Maybe they are stuck and that is all they have to eat, or maybe they have nothing at all. We are asking that same family to now pay for another program that will cost millions of dollars and will add more of a burden.

If we are talking about taxes, again the contrast is between the Conservatives reducing taxes as the true way for poor people to change and get out of poverty, and the reverse, which can also happen.

What I am going to refer to is more of a burden to Jane and Joe Taxpayer, but we seem to talk around it in this place. Indeed, I have not heard it mentioned tonight that much, and here I mean the carbon tax.

The government talks a good game. It talks about wanting to see people come out of poverty. I absolutely believe that the NDP as well as the Liberals want people to get out of poverty, but when we continually ask people to pay more, we know that people who are already close to poverty or in poverty will be disproportionately affected by these taxes, and the lower the income the greater the effect. If we put in place a carbon tax, the person who is at or below the poverty line would be much more dramatically impacted than someone who is not.

Taking a simple look at the carbon tax, guestimates have been made of its impact: $1,000 on individuals and $2,600 and upward on families. Of course, we have not factored in the inflationary effects on food prices, and the extra cost of clothing and absolutely everything. I think a fulsome conversation about carbon reduction has to consider taxation and the reverse effects of pushing people into poverty.

It is always assumed that Jane and Joe Taxpayer can always bear more. The effective tax rates of individuals is 50% in some cases. For some people, half of their paycheques are going to tax, whether provincial, municipal, or federal taxes. Now we will be asking them to pay some more for another governmental program.

We Conservatives want to see poverty eliminated in Canada if at all possible, but we also want to acknowledge the things that work.

Another witness who came to the human resource committee this week was a man named Kory Wood. He is from a little town about two hours away from my hometown in Chetwynd, B.C. He was a young guy who grew up in poverty. He did not even see himself as growing up in poverty, but just in a difficult situation. He now runs a energy company called Kikanaw that has a yearly balance sheet of $10 million.

This guy says he is not in it for the money, but to make a difference. He is a guy who gives people hope, gives people jobs, but he also sees himself and a lot of those employees he is hiring, and without having a program to tell Kory what to do, he is helping people out of poverty by establishing a business.

He is an aboriginal person, but he does not want to be known for just that. He wants to be known as a businessman, but he gives people, especially in aboriginal communities close to his own, a way out of poverty. He gives them hope for the future.

I used to teach some of these kids in high school. When people do not have job and all they can see in the future is high unemployment, with no opportunities in sight, poverty becomes a destiny rather than something that is optional. Kory gives a person like that a way out of these circumstances, much more along the lines of a Conservative real-life approach, a real way out of poverty.

To summarize, bureaucracies are fine and bills like this are fine and sound great. They establish things that sound great to people, but I am concerned about poor people being really affected by this, and I see it as a limited thing. Just having another policy will have very limited success.

However, I am really concerned about Jane and Joe Taxpayer who bear the burden of one more governmental programs, one more tax that pushes them closer and closer to poverty.

Although I acknowledge the hon. member's best intentions in putting the bill forward, and I think we all agree that we want to see people come out of poverty, we just do not think this is the right direction. We want to see actions that really take effect and really do provide a pathway out of poverty.

PT6A posted:

I want PET to be featured on a bill so all Wildrose-types can have fatal aneurysms all at once.

Liberals.txt posted:

As I said earlier, the member did an excellent job on this bill, which contains many good suggestions, such as the consultations with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments, indigenous communities, and many other stakeholders and partners. What we are saying is that we should consult people and listen to what they have to say before making a decision. In other words, all in good time. There is a time for everything.

vyelkin posted:

The CN Tower
The ROM with its big spiky addition
The University of Toronto
The walls of Quebec City
Montreal's skyline with Mount Royal in the background
Confederation Bridge so the Maritimes feel involved
And so that the West also feels included, we'll have one that's this image:

vyelkin posted:

The CN Tower
The ROM with its big spiky addition
The University of Toronto
The walls of Quebec City
Montreal's skyline with Mount Royal in the background
Confederation Bridge so the Maritimes feel involved

sitchensis posted:

vyelkin posted:

The ROM with its big spiky addition

flakeloaf posted:

EvilJoven posted:

It's basically building cancer in the form of out of control aluminum siding.

sitchensis posted:

I mean, jesus, there's a winning PR move for the NDP right goddamn there. Open a site called 'MyPoverty.ca' and craft a bunch of obviously tongue-in-cheek questions for a dumb survey.

Kafka Esq. posted:

I wish Trudeau would stop doing websites and make PR move

quote:

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/12/08/trudeau-government-says-non-citizens-should-have-say-in-electoral-reform/

Trudeau government says non-citizens should have say in electoral reform

Opposition motion tries to change Mydemocracy.ca questions