The Manitoba Provincial Politics Discussion

[Wolf13]

The whole thing sounds manslaughtery to me, but I'm no lawyer.

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

wouldn't aboriginal jurors have assessed the evidence the same way? so that is what politicians are questioning and appropriately so imo.

Theoretically, but maybe the defense didn't think so. I don't want to sound insensitive, but if it's their job to defend, I'm not surprised by this... not saying it's right either.

The other question worth asking is if the victim was white, as Stanley in all likelihood would have behaved similarly (or maybe not?), would the outcome have been the same?

Originally Posted by Tacheguy

it is about optics in a racially sensitive situation. perhaps no one should be disqualified on the basis of skin colour?

Theoretically, absolutely. But I'm guessing any defense lawyer in this position would get chewed up by their boss by inviting uncertainty into the jury. Not justifying it, but their job is to win (within the law).

Originally Posted by drew

To me this requiring a certain racial make-up of a jury is just a little bit concerning.

The argument that is currently being made to suggest more indigenous jurors should have been present in the Stanley trial would seem to suggest that he wouldn't have "got away with it". But that assumes that simply being indigenous juror means that you will "support your own", regardless of the evidence. Maybe I am reading this all wrong, but it all leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Would the Boushie family have been more supportive of the outcome if one or two of the jurors were Indigenous? I seriously doubt it.

This right here.

I do find it very uncomfortable that this uproar is essentially suggesting that white people cannot be objective about this concern. Or that the family demanded their bench be stacked?

Suggesting a diverse race/gender/etc makeup of the jury be mandatory literally means none of us have the capacity to be objective and that outcomes can be pre-determined by those factors... which is a racist/sexist/etc-ist assumption in itself.

[rrskylar]

This is rich, Kinew wanting Selinger to resign for the treatment of women by an NDP MLA (Struthers) under his watch, pot meet kettle!

[dmacc]

It's Budget day!!! Is everyone ready? I'm expecting to see the deficit for this budget to be between 450 and 500 million. Is that too optimistic?

[bomberjet]

Pallister said we'd love, love, love the budget.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

I read somewhere this morning that there will be 4 or 5 cents a litre carbon tax added to gasoline taxes.

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by OTA in Winnipeg

I read somewhere this morning that there will be 4 or 5 cents a litre carbon tax added to gasoline taxes.

Oh great, more misguided policy!

[dmacc]

Well, Manitoba didn't have a choice over implementing a Carbon Tax.

[Winnipegger]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Oh great, more misguided policy!

Hardly. A pigouvian tax on gasoline to partly offset the negative externalities of climate change is far from misguided. The demand for gas is relatively inelastic, so consumers will suck it up and pay anyways. It might reduce some consumption on the margin, but on the whole it will provide an extra source of revenue to fund initiatives that try to minimize the negative impact of climate change we're all going to feel in 100 years or so.

Of course more tax is never a fun thing, but paying for future damages is only fair.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

The demand for gas is relatively inelastic, so consumers will suck it up and pay anyways.

This. For all the griping, there probably won't be a lot of changed behaviour.

The fact that you still have lots of people driving big vehicles and commuting vast distances tells you that gasoline is a long way from being too expensive as yet.

[cheswick]

Carbon taxes:
Gas - 5.23 cents/litre.
Diesel - 6.71 cents/litre.
Natural gas - 4.74 cents/cubic metre.
Propane - 3.87 cents/litre.


Cut in highway spending by $152-million to $350,000 from $502,000 last year.\

Below inflation increases to education and health. 5 new schools being built (one of which I believe is at the corner of templeton and pipeline because amber trails school which is 3 blocks away and which was open only 3 years ago is already over capacity and they're bussing kids who live a min away to other schools).

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by dmacc

It's Budget day!!! Is everyone ready? I'm expecting to see the deficit for this budget to be between 450 and 500 million. Is that too optimistic?

I was a little optimistic but they haven't taken cannabis revenue into account. That could put them within range by the end of the 18/19 fiscal year. Overall I'm pretty happy. Would have liked an increase in infrastructure spending though.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Carbon taxes:
Gas - 5.23 cents/litre.
Diesel - 6.71 cents/litre.
Natural gas - 4.74 cents/cubic metre.
Propane - 3.87 cents/litre.


Cut in highway spending by $152-million to $350,000 from $502,000 last year.\

Below inflation increases to education and health. 5 new schools being built (one of which I believe is at the corner of templeton and pipeline because amber trails school which is 3 blocks away and which was open only 3 years ago is already over capacity and they're bussing kids who live a min away to other schools).

The government can't increase spending at the rate of inflation if they hope to lower the deficit.

[esquire]

^ They can if transfers exceed the rate of inflation.

[dmacc]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ They can if transfers exceed the rate of inflation.

Last year the government told the WRHA that they needed to find $83 million (3%ish) in savings, while they increased WRHA spending. In effect, finding $83 million in savings but then reinvesting it back is essentially the same as increasing spending by that amount. If the rate of inflation is 2% then they actually increased spending above the rate of inflation.

[Wolf13]

Originally Posted by Winnipegger

Hardly. A pigouvian tax on gasoline to partly offset the negative externalities of climate change is far from misguided. The demand for gas is relatively inelastic, so consumers will suck it up and pay anyways. It might reduce some consumption on the margin, but on the whole it will provide an extra source of revenue to fund initiatives that try to minimize the negative impact of climate change we're all going to feel in 100 years or so.

Of course more tax is never a fun thing, but paying for future damages is only fair.

Had to google Pigouvian.

I see where you're coming from, but still disagree. It's very easy to hide behind virtue signalling to tax people more than they should be taxed. You're correct, it wouldn't change my consumption of gas much, but that doesn't mean it's something they should do.

We're a blip on the global climate change radar, and manitoba drivers are not the problem. We are, however, gullible. Maybe Alberta is on the radar, but Notley and Trudeau are still doing everything they can to prevent that province from succeeding so they're already addressed. The Chinas, Indias, Brazils of this world. That's who needs attention.

[djforsberg]

Originally Posted by Wolf13

Had to google Pigouvian.

I see where you're coming from, but still disagree. It's very easy to hide behind virtue signalling to tax people more than they should be taxed. You're correct, it wouldn't change my consumption of gas much, but that doesn't mean it's something they should do.

We're a blip on the global climate change radar, and manitoba drivers are not the problem. We are, however, gullible. Maybe Alberta is on the radar, but Notley and Trudeau are still doing everything they can to prevent that province from succeeding so they're already addressed. The Chinas, Indias, Brazils of this world. That's who needs attention.

Why should they do anything about climate change if we don't? Don't you see the paradox in this type of thinking? Canada should lead and set examples, not follow and play to the lowest common denominator. To what Winnipegger said, communities around the world are already feeling the negative effects of climate change. It's only going to get worse.

[DowntownBooster]

Originally Posted by djforsberg

Why should they do anything about climate change if we don't? Don't you see the paradox in this type of thinking? Canada should lead and set examples, not follow and play to the lowest common denominator. To what Winnipegger said, communities around the world are already feeling the negative effects of climate change. It's only going to get worse.

Doesn't Canada's emissions output represent only 1.6 per cent of the global total? I'm not saying we shouldn't do our part to cut down but I don't believe countries like China and India will make any significant cuts, therefore, our efforts in Canada will not make much of a difference on a global level.

[headhorse]

also, China is doing more than any other country when it comes to renewables and lowering it's pollution... it's the already industrially developed countries that need to make changes.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by DowntownBooster

Doesn't Canada's emissions output represent only 1.6 per cent of the global total? I'm not saying we shouldn't do our part to cut down but I don't believe countries like China and India will make any significant cuts, therefore, our efforts in Canada will not make much of a difference on a global level.

Considering Canada's population is only 0.5% of the global total, per person, Canada is over contributing.

[WildCake]

Originally Posted by cheswick

Considering Canada's population is only 0.5% of the global total, per person, Canada is over contributing.

To add to this point, here is the emissions per capita estimate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ons_per_capita

There are two lists, one based off 2009 emissions. Either way, Canada is in the top 20 and Brazil, China, and India are in the 50 range or lower.