# The Prime Minister and the PMO - 2019



## Fishbone Jones (12 Feb 2019)

https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-the-cost-of-living-under-trudeau



> Last week Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in hot water for the latest in a string of odd remarks.
> 
> This time around, it was the PM’s strange claims about low-income Canadians and taxes that sparked a round of furor.
> 
> ...


 More at link



It's pretty plain why Butts, allegedly, scripts all of the answers for the House.  :rofl:

Can Trudeau really be that far out of touch?


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

As many feathers as his statement ruffled, he was pretty much correct. Once all the various tax credits, refunds, benefits payments etc balance out, the claim that low income Canadians don't pay taxes (netted out) is accurate (caveat being that there are always exceptions to the rule- but we don't need to get hung up on exceptionality). The Fraser Institute - hardly a friend of the Liberals - did the analysis on it and found that actually the claim could be fairly extended through roughly the bottom 40% of income earners in Canada, not merely the 20% low income quintile that Trudeau could reasonably have been interpreted as referring to. The article below does a pretty good job of explaining it.

https://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/trudeau-is-right-40-of-canadians-dont-pay-income-taxes-which-means-someone-else-is-picking-up-the-bill

The Conservatives crapped on him for this, but frankly they don't have a leg to stand on because they're wrong. It's a conveniently *partisan* stand for them to take, but for it to work they have to simplify it beyond what is actually reality. You cannot meaningfully examine a single tax (e.g., federal income tax) in a frictionless vacuum. For any policy to make sense it needs to be looked at in the context of the others things it interfaces with... And in the realm of income tax, that's quite a lot.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Feb 2019)

I don't mean to go off track, but that sounds suspiciously like "Mexico will pay for the wall in lost business.

When people speak of 'taxes', I think in most cases, it's their yearly income tax that they refer to. People don't normally talk about the tax on tax we pay. Just real rough figures - You have $100, the government takes 45% of the top for income tax. You have $55 left. When you go for gas, it's $1/ ltr, even though 20% is tax on tax and say 15% various taxes on goods and services. You don't have $55 for yourself, you've got maybe $25-30. The government takes substantially more in taxes than just income tax. All put together, many people are paying well above 50% of their earned money on tax.

Everyone pays taxes. Rich and poor. Unavoidable and all encompassing.

When trudeau said the "low-income families don’t benefit from tax breaks because they don’t pay taxes", he was flat out lying.

Do they get breaks to offset things? Sure, but not all and not all to the same degree. We are talking taxes, not benefits and loopholes.


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

Did you actually read it?


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Wow, that didn't take you long to start attacking.



That was not an attack. I simply asked if you read it. If you did not read it and were just answering based off my reply I wasn't going to bother getting into it. If you did read it and still felt it was being presented dishonestly - that the PM was still 'lying' about it - that would be worth some discussion. My interest in this thread is your take on the fundamental claim the PM made, which I believe analysis has shown is pretty much true, and which you seem to dispute. I linked a reference to analysis by people far more knowledgeable and credible on finance than you or I in hopes of a better informed discussion on our point of disagreement. It's reasonable to want to know if that degree of effort was worthwhile or not.


----------



## QV (12 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Did you actually read it?



That seemed pretty snarky to me.


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> That seemed pretty snarky to me.



I'll wear 'snarky', sure. But it was still a fair question given what's in his reply versus the analysis contained in what I linked.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Feb 2019)

They spoke fairly directly to income tax, in the article, and even at one point said, more or less, other taxes don't really count in their explanation. Besides, I'm sure their examples were picked to bolster their argument. I'm not running numbers on all scenarios

Everyone pays taxes. A tax benefit to lower gas taxes would help everyone, including low income. So saying they don't benefit from tax breaks is false. Taxes are taxes to me. Income, gas, GST. All taxes.

I won't get into benefits and returns because like the scenarios in the article, they detract from what the PM actually said.

To say low income earners don't pay tax is a lie.

I understand, taken in the context of income tax only, he may have a point. However, he never specified that and that is not what he said.

Inferring he only meant income tax is weighted against those that think he meant all taxes.

“We see proof that the Conservatives simply don’t understand that low-income families don’t benefit from tax breaks because they don’t pay taxes,” Trudeau said in Question Period last Tuesday.

Going strictly on what the PM stated, his statement is, demonstrably, false.


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> They spoke fairly directly to income tax, in the article, and even at one point said, more or less, other taxes don't really count in their explanation. Besides, I'm sure their examples were picked to bolster their argument. I'm not running numbers on all scenarios
> 
> Everyone pays taxes. A tax benefit to lower gas taxes would help everyone, including low income. So saying they don't benefit from tax breaks is false. Taxes are taxes to me. Income, gas, GST. All taxes.
> 
> ...



He said 'taxes', plural- we're agreed on that. He was not talking about income taxes alone, nor does the Fraser Institute analysis limit itself to that.

A quick read of the Hansard entry for that particular series of questions is informative. Pollievre was basically trying to generate a sound byte about taxes. He and PMJT went back and forth a bit about what each party respectively did. PMJT accurately pointed out that the CPC leaned towards tax breaks that favoured larger corporate entities through corporate tax cuts, and Canadians with more money- stuff like introducing and then doubling the TFSA, Home Renovation Tax Credits, stuff like that. Trudeau was then talking about tax measures the LPC has taken such as the workers benefit (refundable tax deduction) and child benefits that are of more tangible use to reducing taxes for lower income Canadians. He then uttered the line that drew so much ire and after the Speaker settled things down, went on to say " non-refundable tax breaks do not benefit low-income families. That is why we changed the Conservatives' way of sending tax breaks to millionaire families and instead giving the money directly to families that needed it."

So, that properly contextualizes what was actually said, and I'd invite you to check the transcript if in doubt. Looking at what he was actually saying in context of the debate and in the totality of what he was saying - not just what came out before he was cut off - he is pretty much correct. But again, that's not me saying it, I'm comfortable deferring to the analysts at the Fraser Institute, who ironically agree with what he's saying in order to twist it back around and stick a bit of a political knife at Liberal fiscal policy that they see as unfairly burdening higher income earners.

Contentious? Sure. Verifiable? Yes, as demonstrated. A lie? Certainly not.

I remain unimpressed by this government and recent events are bringing my vote increasingly close to locked down for the CPC... But this is not one I'll give him grief for.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Feb 2019)

>low-income families don’t benefit from tax breaks because they don’t pay taxes

If they are paying income taxes, they benefit from income tax breaks which affect them.  Whether or not they are receiving credits, grants, etc from another source doesn't negate the fact that a tax cut in isolation is still a benefit.


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >low-income families don’t benefit from tax breaks because they don’t pay taxes
> 
> If they are paying income taxes, they benefit from income tax breaks which affect them.  Whether or not they are receiving credits, grants, etc from another source doesn't negate the fact that a tax cut in isolation is still a benefit.



So, again, read the analysis about how all of this stuff interacts and nets out. There are various things that effectively offset and claw back. It can only be accurately said to benefit them if there is a net change in circumstances.If they are already receiving quite a bit more money from the government than they pay into it (which is true for around 40% of Canadians), then a tax break on one thing that just ends up offset by another doesn't do anything for them. I think that net amount of money to or from the government from all taxes, credits, and benefits is a fair and reasonable way to measure this.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2019)

Interestingly, the President of the Treasury Board (through her personal account) just tweeted out support to the outgoing AG / VAC minister.  https://twitter.com/janephilpott/status/1095472745175891969 

If the cabinet is fracturing, well, this could be a fascinating week in Canadian politics.


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interestingly, the President of the Treasury Board (through her personal account) just tweeted out support to the outgoing AG / VAC minister.  https://twitter.com/janephilpott/status/1095472745175891969
> 
> If the cabinet is fracturing, well, this could be a fascinating week in Canadian politics.



Yeah, just saw that. Gutsy move on her part. Good on her.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Feb 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interestingly, the President of the Treasury Board (through her personal account) just tweeted out support to the outgoing AG / VAC minister.  https://twitter.com/janephilpott/status/1095472745175891969
> 
> If the cabinet is fracturing, well, this could be a fascinating week in Canadian politics.



President of the Treasury Board.... That would be the lady who replaced Scott Brison following his January decision to spend time with his family and intervene in VAdm Norman's court case.  The same court case where 





> The allegation of Privy Council Office intervention prompted the Ontario Court of Justice judge presiding over the Norman case on Monday to question the independence of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. “So much for the independence of the PPSC,” Justice Heather Perkins-McVey interjected.


 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-vice-admiral-mark-normans-lawyer-says-crown-should-not-talk-strategy/

And the case where it is discovered that Generals no longer carry Field Note Pads  

And the case where 



> At the time Zita Astravas was the crisis manager in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman arguably was the crisis, or one of them anyway.
> 
> Yet Astravas, who testified Thursday at a pre-trial hearing in Norman’s breach of trust case, struggled to remember the names of her own staff or her interactions with two other key members in Trudeau’s office, principal secretary Gerald Butts and chief of staff Katie Telford.
> 
> ...



https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-norman-defence-says-attempt-to-obstruct-justice-within-dnd-now-in-play

And yet  





> Throughout her years at Queen’s Park, Astravas worked alongside a number of other senior Trudeau staffers, including PMO chief of staff Katie Telford and principal secretary Gerald Butts.



https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/02/08/top-100-zita-astravas-trouble-shooter/95534

Telford and Butts appear to be much over-rated.  Ms Astravas can't remember meeting with people with whom she worked and socialized in Wynne's office for two years.   General Vance can't remember why he would have had supper with them the day he relieved VAdm Norman. 

Shrinking Violets, the pair of them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Feb 2019)

>So, again, read the analysis about how all of this stuff interacts and nets out. There are various things that effectively offset and claw back.

So, again, read the part where I specified "in isolation", in which I meant "not subject to interactions with something else".  People not subject to applicable clawbacks (etc) benefit from tax cuts.  An income tax cut (obviously) can take many forms, some of which involve no changes to reported or taxable income.


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >So, again, read the analysis about how all of this stuff interacts and nets out. There are various things that effectively offset and claw back.
> 
> So, again, read the part where I specified "in isolation", in which I meant "not subject to interactions with something else".  People not subject to applicable clawbacks (etc) benefit from tax cuts.  An income tax cut (obviously) can take many forms, some of which involve no changes to reported or taxable income.



As soon as you say “in isolation”, it becomes a hypothetical divorced from reality, and no longer relevant to what the PM actually said or the context he said it in. You can move the goalposts if you wish, but I don’t have to chase them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Feb 2019)

It's not hypothetical.  Trudeau maybe meant to say "some" tax breaks do not benefit low-income earners, but that is not what he said.


----------



## brihard (13 Feb 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It's not hypothetical.  Trudeau maybe meant to say "some" tax breaks do not benefit low-income earners, but that is not what he said.



He specifically said non-refundable tax breaks, it’s right there in the transcript as published in Hansard, and which I linked up thread.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Feb 2019)

Hansard, Trudeau: "Mr. Speaker, for 10 years the member opposite and the Conservative government, under Mr. Harper, kept giving tax breaks and benefits to the wealthiest Canadians in the hope that would lead to growth and opportunity for all Canadians."

A broad reference.  It invites us to consider exactly what tax breaks and benefits the Conservatives implemented (or prompted, in the case of the lowering of the bottom rate in 2005) which were primarily aimed at individuals.  The 2006 election was preceded by a Conservative promise (going from memory here) to lower the bottom rate from 16% to 15.5% and then 15% in successive years; the Liberals immediately (prior to the election, in late 2005) lowered it to 15% and then claimed the Conservatives were going to increase taxes.  The Conservatives lowered the GST in two steps (7% to 6%, and then 6% to 5%).  Some minor non-refundable income tax credits (eg. child fitness, Canada employment amount, transit passes) were added.  The basic exemption amount was increased significantly in 2007 ($8839 to $9600 - large relative to customary increases).  The lowering of the bottom rate, the GST cuts, and the basic exemption increase are all examples of breaks that benefit low-income Canadians; and each one of them dwarfs the value of the "boutique" cuts (some of which - Canada employment amount, transit passes - are worthwhile and accessible to low-income earners).  The value of the GST cut to low-income earners was, by PBOs reckoning (see here, Macleans article from 2014), overshadowed only by the value of the WITB.

Hansard, Trudeau: "Yet again, Mr. Speaker, we see proof that the Conservatives simply do not understand that low-income families do not benefit from tax breaks because they do not pay taxes."

Another broad reference, including the first "do not pay taxes" quotation.  Importantly, it asserts simply that low-income families "do not pay taxes".  This is true only for those which have no taxable income, whose refundable GST credit exceeds the value of their liability in a given year, and pay no other taxes.

Hansard, Trudeau: "Mr. Speaker, non-refundable tax breaks do not benefit low-income families."

Finally, a specific reference to non-refundable tax credits.  But, as already mentioned above, there are non-refundable credits which benefit low-income earners.  The basic exemption, for example, is essentially a way of setting a "0% bracket".

I can guess what was in Trudeau's mind: he was thinking of things like the "children's fitness" and "children's arts" credits - you have to be able to spend the money (and have a net taxable income) to claim them.  But they always were, and are, utterly trivial weighed alongside everything else.  His final waffling qualification is essentially ridiculous.

As for "That is why we changed the Conservatives' way of sending tax breaks to millionaire families and instead giving the money directly to families that needed it." - what tax breaks were aimed at millionaire families?


----------



## brihard (13 Feb 2019)

TFSA comes to mind, and is a big one for those in a position to make use of it. Not many low income families for $5k and then $10k a year in disposable income to throw into tax sheltered investments. I recognize the tax savings come on investment returns, but compounded over years TFSA is massive and shifts a potentially tremendous amount of tax burden off the modestly wealthy.

In any case I am interpreting his statement the same way the Fraser Institute does- not whether someone pays into a particular tax regardless of receiving money back elsewhere, but whether an individual (or family) is a _net_ contributor to or recipient of government payments. This strikes me as the only reasonable way to understand what he was saying, and as demonstrated, it’s true. When you receive more money back than you contribute, how can you meaningfully say you are ‘paying taxes’? 

And of course, all of this is further in the context not of meaningful debate, but rather the absolute circus that is question period...


----------



## FSTO (13 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> TFSA comes to mind, and is a big one for those in a position to make use of it. Not many low income families for $5k and then $10k a year in disposable income to throw into tax sheltered investments. I recognize the tax savings come on investment returns, but compounded over years TFSA is massive and shifts a potentially tremendous amount of tax burden off the modestly wealthy.
> 
> In any case I am interpreting his statement the same way the Fraser Institute does- not whether someone pays into a particular tax regardless of receiving money back elsewhere, but whether an individual (or family) is a _net_ contributor to or recipient of government payments. This strikes me as the only reasonable way to understand what he was saying, and as demonstrated, it’s true. When you receive more money back than you contribute, how can you meaningfully say you are ‘paying taxes’?
> 
> And of course, all of this is further in the context not of meaningful debate, but rather the absolute circus that is question period...



On the subject of TFSA, the Libs and NDP were being disingenuous in their criticism of this service because there is no minimum contribution amount. They made it sound you could only contribute the maximum amount, where in reality you can put in what you can afford and it's a very good saving plan.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2019)

yes we use TFSA all the time and they are great, we were an 1 income family till 2 years ago, yet through careful money management were able to use those CPC tax breaks to improve our position. As for taxes in general, the feds are only in control of a portion of it. 

there is also a parking tax which is almost 30%

_There's 8.5 cents per litre in two separate motor fuel taxes and 7.78 cents per litre in the carbon tax. In the Vancouver area, there's an additional tax of 17 cents per litre that goes to TransLink. In the Victoria area there's a 5.5 cent tax for public transit — and then there's the tax the federal government collects._
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> TFSA comes to mind, and is a big one for those in a position to make use of it. Not many low income families for $5k and then $10k a year in disposable income to throw into tax sheltered investments. I recognize the tax savings come on investment returns, but compounded over years TFSA is massive and shifts a potentially tremendous amount of tax burden off the modestly wealthy.



Those evil TFSAs. How dare the CPC encourage people to save on their own for their retirement instead of only contributing to the government approved CPP!


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Feb 2019)

TFSA isn't a tax aimed at millionaire families*.  It's certainly accessible to middle class families.

>When you receive more money back than you contribute, how can you meaningfully say you are ‘paying taxes’?

Because the taxes you paid are still a net loss to you.  The basic equation is "private income + public income - taxes = net income".  Or if you prefer, "income - taxes = net income".  The government deciding to provide benefits doesn't erase taxes, any more than you earning income erases taxes.  It's fallacious reasoning to conclude that receipt of benefits (or any other particular category of income) == not paying taxes.


----------



## brihard (13 Feb 2019)

Not sure why you guys think I’m crapping on TFSAs. I’m a fan- primarily because I’m in exactly the income range best able to use them. It suits me personally very nicely indeed. I brought it up in the context of a Conservative financial policy that provides considerable tax relief and which does little to nothing for low income families. Because again, all I’m talking about here is the rational analysis of what was actually said in the context of what was actually being talked about when that particular sound byte was generated. And, again, I’m referring to the quote qualified analysis provided by others who really know their stuff. Trudeau has said and done a lot of stupid stuff, but this particular thing - though a politically unfortunate sound byte - wasn’t what the CPC has gleefully tried to present it as.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Feb 2019)

That's because the CPC tax plan isn't designed to give "relief" to low income families (who already pay less in total tax dollars and less in marginal tax rates than anyone else). The goal is to incentives for businesses to hire more workers, with higher pay rates due to lower corporate and payroll tax rates. Cutting the taxes of the sub $40K per year family income folks does nothing, getting them a $20K raise or more opportunities for better jobs is altogether way better for the economy.

You don't increase GDP by taxing the middle class more. You increase it by pushing up wages and decreasing the amount of people in the lowest tax bracket because they're going to spend all that money on houses, cars, items for their kids, etc.


----------



## brihard (13 Feb 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's because the CPC tax plan isn't designed to give "relief" to low income families (who already pay less in total tax dollars and less in marginal tax rates than anyone else). The goal is to incentives for businesses to hire more workers, with higher pay rates due to lower corporate and payroll tax rates. Cutting the taxes of the sub $40K per year family income folks does nothing, getting them a $20K raise or more opportunities for better jobs is altogether way better for the economy.
> 
> You don't increase GDP by taxing the middle class more. You increase it by pushing up wages and decreasing the amount of people in the lowest tax bracket because they're going to spend all that money on houses, cars, items for their kids, etc.



Absolutely- I agree almost fully, and I'm good with that. I'm not debating the merits of the respective tax plans, I'm just discussing the CPC's painfully shrill reaction to a soundbyte that, in proper context, was found by qualified analysis to be pretty accurate. But really this whole thing has done a nice job of highlighting how petty and largely pointless Question Period has been allowed to become...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Absolutely- I agree almost fully, and I'm good with that. I'm not debating the merits of the respective tax plans, I'm just discussing the CPC's painfully shrill reaction to a soundbyte that, in proper context, was found by qualified analysis to be pretty accurate. But really this whole thing has done a nice job of highlighting how petty and largely pointless Question Period has been allowed to become...



And it became pointless right after the election, when it became obvious, that the grit caucus wasn't going to answer any questions properly or even address the issues being questioned. Their vain, amateur attempts at conjuring the responses of the Velvet Fog have failed them miserably. It is the grits that have made a mockery of the House with their evasiveness.

But that's likely Harper's fault. 8)


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> But really this whole thing has done a nice job of highlighting how petty and largely pointless Question Period has been allowed to become...



We need this guy as the Speaker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4v7wddN-Wg Better video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X5F7jhQZd8


----------



## brihard (13 Feb 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> And it became pointless right after the election, when it became obvious, that the grit caucus wasn't going to answer any questions properly or even address the issues being questioned. Their vain, amateur attempts at conjuring the responses of the Velvet Fog have failed them miserably. It is the grits that have made a mockery of the House with their evasiveness.
> 
> But that's likely Harper's fault. 8)



Question Period has been a farce since long before this government. That's hardly unique to the Liberals. It was just as much of a joke under the CPC and will be again if they get re-elected.

Nothing about QP puts any onus on anyone to make constructive use of the time... The entire endeavour seems to be about attempting to get exactly this sort of 'gotcha' sound byte out of the other guys. Sure as hell nothing meaningful towards legislation or policy is happening in there- by anyone.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Feb 2019)

OK, so we're talking about two different things or seeing things in two different contexts.  I'm looking at the issues in the context of Trudeau's long-standing theme of "millionaire families", by which I assume he means those capable of very conspicuous consumption (executive-style homes, luxury autos, high-end liquor and entertainments, etc), because "millionaire" in 2019 isn't the same as "millionaire" in 1979 if all we mean is "net worth".

If the TFSA discussion wasn't a response to my somewhat rhetorical challenge to identify a tax break aimed at millionaire families, then I understand what you meant differently.

Trudeau's responses were a pretty stereotypical sequence - start with the big lie/misrepresentation (about breaks for millionaire families) that is meant to be the sound bite people will remember (critical of Conservatives, of course), then walk it back to a very limited factual claim (specific reference to non-refundable credits, which he could have walked back one step further with a direct reference to the fitness/arts credits, given a chance) which the "fact-checkers" can leverage to report the claim as "mostly/wholly true", which is then (unfortunately) misreported/conflated with the original claim to give it verisimilitude.  It's a popular technique.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Feb 2019)

>the grit caucus wasn't going to answer any questions properly

Neither did the Conservatives.  I was never satisfied with their QP behaviour.  As I noted in previous post, QP is primarily used as an opportunity to get sound bites out.  An incurious or partisan person isn't going to make it very clear when "informing" others that point X was basically bull, and point Y was factually correct.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Feb 2019)

Gerald Butts Resigns PMO position

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-s-principal-secretary-gerald-butts-resigns-1.4301856#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=mHavDaI



> OTTAWA -- Gerald Butts, Justin Trudeau's principal secretary and long-time friend, has resigned amid allegations that the Prime Minister's Office interfered to prevent a criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
> 
> In a statement, Butts unequivocally denies the accusation that he or anyone else in the office improperly pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to help the Montreal engineering giant avoid a criminal case on corruption and bribery charges related to government contracts in Libya.
> 
> ...



Good riddance. However, I don't think we've seen the last of him. He'll likely still have a great deal of influence. This looks like a move to position him from scrutiny while he continues his policies. Or maybe he'll jump on board with Dalton Gore-McGuinty.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Feb 2019)

Like a loyal samurai falling in his sword.


----------



## Remius (18 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Like a loyal samurai falling in his sword.



Romans fell on their swords.  Samurai sliced their stomachs open from left to right.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Feb 2019)

Pending: A real he said, she said. Who would you believe when testifying under oath?


----------



## Remius (18 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Pending: A real he said, she said. Who would you believe when testifying under oath?



I'll take what's in the box Monty.


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Feb 2019)

Three sides to every story.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Pending: A real he said, she said. Who would you believe when testifying under oath?



I'd say that's a given. Between these two, JWR has always seemed a straight shooter and I don't know her that well. Butts however, has all those years killing Ontario and lying about it to bolster his profile.
A proven record, if you will, against speculation.


----------



## Remius (18 Feb 2019)

Anybody else starting to think that Robert Fife has some sort of superpower to take down governments?


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Feb 2019)

Butts is possibly just getting ahead of a JWR statement to be delivered to the public very shortly.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/129826/post-1562379/topicseen.html#new   Are these the ‘answers’ of a Prime Minister who’s done nothing wrong? 


JWR may be the only person in the Liberal Gov't, including NDHQ, who took notes during/post meetings. ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Feb 2019)

I'm waiting for the PM to stand up and start answering his own questions, instead of what Butts dictates to him. Given his gaffes from written instructions, it should be pretty comical watching him try handle things with his own brain, off the cuff. Mind, Telford is still around and Butts has been taking her heat. Now the scope gets trained on her, directly, for a change.

There's little doubt in my mind, Butts will still have the strings, unofficially or not.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Feb 2019)

I wonder to which country he will be named ambassador.


----------



## Remius (18 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I wonder to which country he will be named ambassador.



Narnia.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Feb 2019)

Pending: Gerald Butts to be named as Canada's new Ambassador to China. ;D

Is that far enough away to make testifying difficult? There is a vacancy for this post.

This is all Scott Brison's fault for resigning.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Feb 2019)

Let send him to Cuba, so the aliens can fry his brain as well.


----------



## Remius (18 Feb 2019)

Venezuela?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Feb 2019)

Butts operates with NVGs. Public light to him is like sunlight to a vampire. He'll continue operating behind the scenes, just not in an official capacity as the PMs secretary. This gives him free reign to play with the election. This guy is not going to go quietly into the good night.


 Just idle speculation.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I wonder to which country he will be named ambassador.


Afghanistan I hope.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Anybody else starting to think that Robert Fife has some sort of superpower to take down governments?


Not bad for a member of what some consider the fake news, bought by Liberal bribe money MSM 



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Pending: Gerald Butts to be named as Canada's new Ambassador to China.


Interesting tidbit -- any links for that?  I'm not seeing it yet @ the "usual suspect" sites.  Thx!

For what little it's worth, and if you're a tea leaf reader, GB's letter of resignation is attached (source).


----------



## Monsoon (18 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Pending: Gerald Butts to be named as Canada's new Ambassador to China. ;D


Close, but I suspect perhaps something more like: https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/06/27/prime-minister-announces-new-ambassador-climate-change


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Romans fell on their swords.  Samurai sliced their stomachs open from left to right.


Exactly. So why would a samurai fall on their sword? Clearly things aren't what they seem  


My guess is the truth is coming out shortly and he's distancing himself. I wonder if he will take the somber 'I made a mistake this is all on me I brought discredit' route , or,  some kind of 'I have a mental ilness/problem I'm seeking help' victim line.


----------



## Remius (19 Feb 2019)

One of the pundits yesterday surmised that it would unshackle him and allow him to say more than if he stayed on as principle secretary.  Basically allowing him to better defend himself once JWR says what she has to say.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Feb 2019)

Or...… PMJT's ratings slide points to not being re-elected;  Butts, being free to defend his 'unfairly sullied reputation,' can come back to Ottawa unscathed to continue running the Liberal party from behind the curtains.

        :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Feb 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Or...… PMJT's ratings slide points to not being re-elected;  Butts, being free to defend his 'unfairly sullied reputation,' can come back to Ottawa unscathed to continue running the Liberal party from behind the curtains.
> 
> :Tin-Foil-Hat:



I think both Butts and even PMJT might be finished in the Liberal Party. This next week will the tale as the internal polls start to hit home and Liberal MPs/party bigwigs begin a game of _sauve qui peut_.

My assessment is that Butts made no friends amongst the sitting Liberal members of Parliament and therefore, has no allies. This directly calls into question the judgement and wisdom of the PM. It all depends now on what JWR has to say, when she speaks.


----------



## Lumber (19 Feb 2019)

The laymen have no damn what the "senior parliamentary secretary" is or does, let alone who Gerald Butts is. Only those actually interested in politics will actually give two whiffs about Gerald Butts. 

Quebec will appreciate the PM trying to do a solid for Quebec, and continue to vote LPC.

The maritimes will kowtow, and vote LPC.

Ontario will be split. Some will care enough about this "scandal" to switch to voting CPC. Some will care about the scandal, but not enough to switch their votes. Finally, another, probably larger group, will not care at all and continue to vote LPC.

The prairies will continue to vote CPC.

BC may see a loss for the LPC, but likely it will go to the NDP. 

So, some sliding for the LPC, possibly even a minority government if the NDP make enough gains in BC and the CPC make more gains than expected in Ontario, but overall the PM stays the PM.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Feb 2019)

Reading comments to articles from multiple media sources, it appears Butts is friendless.

Question Period should be interesting today on CPAC. Trudeau should show up today, but you never know if he will have hastily arranged meeting at some high school or college. If Trudeau does turn up, his replies (not answers)will be scripted, if he replies at all.

Got a feeling that JWR has by now been advised by her lawyer what she can state publicly, the Liberals know whats coming , and Butts resigned to get ahead of her presser which I expect to be very shortly.

Butts will probably still be around, unless there is a RCMP investigation, paid by the LPC. 

Who is going to pay for his severance/moving costs? Amt? Remember his costs to move to Ottawa, some of which he had to pay back.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/butts-telford-moving-expenses-1.3774979


----------



## Remius (19 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> The laymen have no damn what the "senior parliamentary secretary" is or does, let alone who Gerald Butts is. Only those actually interested in politics will actually give two whiffs about Gerald Butts.
> 
> Quebec will appreciate the PM trying to do a solid for Quebec, and continue to vote LPC.
> 
> ...



Possibly.  But how did that work out for Stephen Harper when they managed the whole Duffy affair and his COS allegedly making a pay off?  most Canadians had no idea what the PM's COS did or who he was really.  But that scandal dogged them up until the election.

Canadians don't need to know who Gerald Butts is or what his job was.  They just need to be convinced that sunny ways was a lie and doing politics differently for PMJT is the same way as doing politics for Stephen Harper.  They just need to know that something bad was done and that JT isn't the knight in shining armour he pretends to be.  Three key resignations in a month with more to come I bet and a trial no one really cared about (Adm Normand now seemingly way more important in the grand context that will coincide with the election.  

I'm a centrist Lumber.  My vote can go either way and the Liberals are giving me every reason to lean away from them.  And I'm not the only one.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Feb 2019)

Another possibility is that people who were activated in the last election decide "Oh, screw it! Where's my beer?"

They then join the increasing number of the disengaged and leave politics to the partisans.  And develop an attitude seen in a number of "mature" societies of letting the politicians make whatever laws they like and cheerfully ignoring them.

It just doesn't matter.

And by the way, on JWR, I think that the best thing JWR can do is continue to say nothing if she wants to bring the greatest harm to Trudeau.  The longer she stays quiet, and the more speculation there is, the worse it is for Trudeau and Telford.  Before long Trudeau will be begging her to speak - if only to give him a solid target to punch.


----------



## TCM621 (19 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> They just need to be convinced that sunny ways was a lie and doing politics differently for PMJT is the same way as doing politics for Stephen Harper.



Or more accurately, it was the exact same Liberal Party BS that got Harper elected in the first place. Harper's government only really strayed into scandal towards the end and it was pretty tame stuff really. Duffy is a pretty good comparison because, although he acted unethically, Duffy never really broke any rules and/or laws.  By having his COS pay, whether directed, hinted or on his own accord, Harper didn't break any rules either. However, it was handled poorly which was the real problem. If they had come out and said straight up said Wright had loaned Duffy the money, it would have gone away quickly. The same for the Liberals, if they had just said, "We asked her if there was anything she could do, she said no." Problem would have gone away in a week.

However, this is multiple ethics scandals/violations all poorly handled in less than 1 mandate. Almost all of Trudeau's issue have pointed to either naivety/stupidity/or complete disregard for rules. With a couple exceptions, most of Harper's issues were policies people disagreed with, typical "hidden agenda" BS or people with terrible personalities like Julian Fantino.


----------



## Lumber (19 Feb 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> However, this is multiple ethics scandals/violations all poorly handled in less than 1 mandate. Almost all of Trudeau's issue have pointed to either naivety/stupidity/or complete disregard for rules. With a couple exceptions, most of Harper's issues were policies people disagreed with, typical "hidden agenda" BS or people with terrible personalities like Julian Fantino.



While I still don't think this is Sponsorship Scandal level, I do think it is more apt to compare the SNC-Lavalin debauchery to the Sponsorship Scandal than to the Duffy affair. 

Harper and the CPC got voted out because of their policies and personalities, not because of any one particular scandal. 

I actually kind of liked Harper, and I'm rather enjoying some of his current work, but I was really starting to get uncomfortable with having the CPC in power. Now if only Pierre Poilievre would go away....


----------



## Jed (19 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> The laymen have no damn what the "senior parliamentary secretary" is or does, let alone who Gerald Butts is. Only those actually interested in politics will actually give two whiffs about Gerald Butts.
> 
> Quebec will appreciate the PM trying to do a solid for Quebec, and continue to vote LPC.
> 
> ...




And the Quebec / Ontario Elitist mafia will rise above the people and Western Canada will say , what the hay, business as usual? I don't think so.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Mar 2019)

Of course he does. Believe victims, except when he's the aggressor. 

*PMO denies Trudeau was hostile to Liberal MP *

OTTAWA - A spokesman for the prime minister's office says Justin Trudeau* had "emotional" conversations with Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes, but denies her claims the encounters were "hostile" or that Trudeau yelled at her.*

*Caesar-Chavannes told the Globe and Mail in an interview Trudeau was angry *when she told him on Feb. 12 of her plans to announce she was not reoffering in the October federal election.

She* alleges he yelled at her in that conversation and that she responded by shouting back at him, and says the prime minister later apologized. 
*
Caesar-Chavannes also detailed another encounter with Trudeau in the House of Commons a week later in which* she describes him as acting hostile toward her.*

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/pmo-denies-trudeau-was-hostile-to-liberal-mp/ar-BBUzxmY


This calls for an apology to the...

*Spins wheel*

Secwepemc tribe!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2019)

No apology.

She just experienced things differently.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Mar 2019)

Could our Dear PM Sunny Ways be a narcissist? 😉


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Mar 2019)

The PM doesn’t get to decide how an MP interpreted his response to her.  

Rule #1 in Commumications:  it is the communicator’s responsibility to ensure the communicatee receives the message, tone and content as intended.  

His inability to properly convey his message, including his tone, is not her shortcoming—it is his.  Full stop.

G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The PM doesn’t get to decide how an MP interpreted his response to her.
> 
> Rule #1 in Commumications:  it is the communicator’s responsibility to ensure the communicatee receives the message, tone and content as intended.
> 
> ...



Please excuse my sarcasm. I thought the whistle emoji would have sufficed.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Please excuse my sarcasm. I thought the whistle emoji would have sufficed.



I was agreeing/reinforcing the thought.   

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Haggis (10 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> No apology.


In fact, the article quoted stated he later apologized.  It's all good.  Can we move on, now.  Nothing to see here, Mr. Norman. Move along.  Ms Wilson-Raybould, Ms Philpott, quit loitering.  Nothing to see....follow the Sunny Way, please.


----------



## Jed (11 Mar 2019)

So the National Post has published an articled reporting that an international body is investigating SNC-Lavalin for bribery now. Great. Too bad Canada’s RCMP is so incapable of doing the job. What is the deal here anyway? Are they in the tank for the PM and the Liberal majority party or what?


----------



## QV (11 Mar 2019)

> An international body announced Monday it is monitoring allegations that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his office attempted to politically interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, which *if true could put Canada in violation of a multilateral anti-bribery agreement.*
> 
> The 36-country Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, which includes the United States, the United Kingdom, France and others said Monday it would “closely monitor” investigations into the SNC-Lavalin affair by the House of Commons justice committee and the federal ethics commissioner.
> 
> “The OECD Working Group on Bribery is encouraged by these processes, and notes that the Canadian authorities stress that they are transparent and independent,” a statement reads. “The Working Group recognizes Canada’s willingness to keep it fully informed of developments in the proceedings, including at its next meeting in June 2019.”



https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/oecd-announces-it-is-monitoring-snc-lavalin-scandal-raising-prospect-canada-has-violated-international-anti-bribery-agreement

I wonder, was this all worth it for the LPC?


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Mar 2019)

I don't believe we know if the RCMP is investigating the topic (political interference) here or not. The RCMP is investigating SNC for other matters. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snc-lavalin-still-under-investigation-from-rcmp-in-quebec-1.5016315

Lavalin's legal troubles aren't limited to charges from federal authorities, as the RCMP is working with prosecutors in Quebec in an investigation into a bridge renovation project.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2019)

Slightly off topic. Every time I see a picture of the SNC lobby, it's being secured by RCMP. Even federal buildings use Commissionaires. What is so important that SNC pays for RCMP security? I'm sure it's allowed, if they pay full price. It just seems to be a waste of Canadian's resources.

If we can send RCMP out as rent-a-cops and string them along the border, 24/7, as escorts for illegal aliens, do we really require all that we have?

What other priorities and investigations are being hampered by renting out our police.

Is it normal to do something like this? I know our municipal guys do it, but they are on overtime and not on regular duty. I wonder if it's the same here.


----------



## Remius (11 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic. Every time I see a picture of the SNC lobby, it's being secured by RCMP. Even federal buildings use Commissionaires. What is so important that SNC pays for RCMP security? I'm sure it's allowed, if they pay full price. It just seems to be a waste of Canadian's resources.
> 
> If we can send RCMP out as rent-a-cops and string them along the border, 24/7, as escorts for illegal aliens, do we really require all that we have?
> 
> ...



If you are referring to these photos:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/snc-lavalin-hit-with-1-65-billion-class-action-lawsuit-1.807441

That is when they were raided by the RCMP.  Notice the private security at the back on the right. 

No it is not normal for the RCMP to be rent a cops for organisations like this. And certainly not in Montreal where the city police are more likely than not to do paid duty gigs for things like concerts, hockey games and the occasional Costco traffic duty on saturdays. 

The RCMP have guidelines on when they can get Extra Duty Pay.  What you are seeing in those pics is not one of them unless those officers worked over lunch, were brought in from somewhere else or worked beyond their normal schedule.  There are other times as well where EDP would be approved but rest assured that RCMP officers are not acting as commissionaires for SNC.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2019)

Cheers.


----------



## brihard (11 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic. Every time I see a picture of the SNC lobby, it's being secured by RCMP. Even federal buildings use Commissionaires. What is so important that SNC pays for RCMP security? I'm sure it's allowed, if they pay full price. It just seems to be a waste of Canadian's resources.



The photos you're referring to of uniformed RCMP in the SNC office lobby are in fact uniformed members there as scene security to assist in the execution of search warrants. Quite the opposite to being hired by SNC Lavalin to guard their offices. When a search warrant is executed of a corporate complex it would not be at all unusual to have uniformed personnel on scene to control movement in and out and to prevent interference with or obstruction of the search. If it's RCMP, it's because it's an RCMP investigation. If it were a warrant by Montreal Police or Surete du Quebec, you would see their people there in uniform instead. I'm sure SNC would rather they not be there in such situations, but that's not their call to make. Rent-a-cop security versus executing a search warrant is admittedly a pretty subtle nuance, but I'd be happy to be of further help in understanding if any confusion remains.

And of course with that assumption cleared up for you, I'm sure you can sleep more easily on the rest of it.

(Edit to add: I posted this before Remius beefed up his reply with added detail; not my intention to double-tap a point already made)


----------



## Remius (11 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Cheers.



Edited my response for more detail. Thanks FJ.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2019)

If SNC doesn't like it I'm sure they could always make some calls to the PMO to try and make the matter go away  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The photos you're referring to of uniformed RCMP in the SNC office lobby are in fact uniformed members there as scene security to assist in the execution of search warrants. Quite the opposite to being hired by SNC Lavalin to guard their offices. When a search warrant is executed of a corporate complex it would not be at all unusual to have uniformed personnel on scene to control movement in and out and to prevent interference with or obstruction of the search. If it's RCMP, it's because it's an RCMP investigation. If it were a warrant by Montreal Police or Surete du Quebec, you would see their people there in uniform instead. I'm sure SNC would rather they not be there in such situations, but that's not their call to make. Rent-a-cop security versus executing a search warrant is admittedly a pretty subtle nuance, but I'd be happy to be of further help in understanding if any confusion remains.
> 
> And of course with that assumption cleared up for you, I'm sure you can sleep more easily on the rest of it.
> 
> (Edit to add: I posted this before Remius beefed up his reply with added detail; not my intention to double-tap a point already made)


Remius' explanation was perfect. Factual without condescension. Thanx.


----------



## 211RadOp (11 Mar 2019)

*PMO denies 'hostility' in Trudeau's interactions with Liberal MP*

CBC News · Posted: Mar 09, 2019 12:34 PM ET | Last Updated: March 9

The Prime Minister's Office says there was "absolutely no hostility" from Justin Trudeau towards Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes, despite allegations she's made against him. 

The Whitby, Ont., MP says she was met with anger and hostility from the prime minister after she informed him she would not be seeking re-election in October. 

Caesar-Chavannes made the announcement last weekend, but informed Trudeau weeks earlier on Feb. 12. 

It was around that time the negative encounters happened, the MP first told the Globe and Mail. 

Because of Jody Wilson-Raybould's fresh resignation from cabinet, she told the Globe that Trudeau had asked her to wait for her own announcement and that he was worried about the optics of having two women of colour leave at the same time.

"He was yelling. He was yelling that I didn't appreciate him, that he'd given me so much," Caesar-Chavannes told that newspaper.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-celina-caesar-chavannes-hostility-1.5050129


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2019)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> *PMO denies 'hostility' in Trudeau's interactions with Liberal MP*
> 
> CBC News · Posted: Mar 09, 2019 12:34 PM ET | Last Updated: March 9
> 
> ...








> * Trudeau says zero tolerance on misconduct toward women applies to him as well*
> 
> 
> In CBC Radio interview, PM says recent high-profile cases * aren't about compliments taken the wrong way*
> ...




Sadly I think the comment about him being able to get away with murder among his loyal base is true. I'm sure they would accuse the victim of being a climate-denier, Russian provocateur, oil industry supporter blah blah.


----------



## Remius (11 Mar 2019)

I would not classify getting upset and "yelling" as misconduct towards women.  Looks like he was maybe having a tantrum over her leaving. 

If yelling and getting upset is misconduct the CAF is in real trouble...


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Mar 2019)

But mistreatment is in the eye of the mistreated, our government and universities everywhere tell us so.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I would not classify getting upset and "yelling" as misconduct towards women.  Looks like he was maybe having a tantrum over her leaving.
> 
> If yelling and getting upset is misconduct the CAF is in real trouble...



We both know the CAF is different than a civilian work place. Try going up to a woman at your civilian job and shouting at her to get her heels together then proceed to give her a blast of shit for some minor thing and see what happens. Guarantee if you're not fired you'll be nailed with harassment.  I doubt that's the extent that Trudeau pulled but yelling at someone and being hostile towards them (the victims words) in a civilian work place can very much create a hostile work environment and I would guess fall under workplace harassment- especially if there is a history or culture of it.


----------



## Remius (11 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We both know the CAF is different than a civilian work place. Try going up to a woman at your civilian job and shouting at her to get her heels together then proceed to give her a blast of crap for some minor thing and see what happens. Guarantee if you're not fired you'll be nailed with harassment.  I doubt that's the extent that Trudeau pulled but yelling at someone and being hostile towards them (the victims words) in a civilian work place can very much create a hostile work environment and I would guess fall under workplace harassment- especially if there is a history or culture of it.



Sure but the link you provided was about sexual assault and harassment.  Not even close to what that MP has indicated.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sure but the link you provided was about sexual assault and harassment.  Not even close to what that MP has indicated.



True I probably could have emphasized the context I intended more. It's an example of how Trudeau tries to paint himself like this White knight above reproach.

He states it's not "about compliments taken the wrong way" but that's his whole defense every time he's called out on something isn't it? The woman in question just took things the wrong way. 

Unlike the last accusations these aren't sexual in nature but the manner he doesn't hold himself to the standard he tries to apply for others remains the same.

As far as harassment goes, it wasn't sexual but getting fired for not doing what you're told after being badgered with meetings and phone calls to try and make you change your mind might fit the bill.


----------



## Remius (11 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> True I probably could have emphasized the context I intended more. It's an example of how Trudeau tries to paint himself like this White knight above reproach.
> 
> He states it's not "about compliments taken the wrong way" but that's his whole defense every time he's called out on something isn't it? The woman in question just took things the wrong way.
> 
> ...



No argument from me about hypocrisy from the PM.


----------



## brihard (11 Mar 2019)

At quick glance I can't find any policy applicable to MPs that would govern harassment between each other. As employers of their staffs, they are now covered by policy and fall under the Canada Labour Code (a recent change), but interactions between MPs doesn't, so far as I can tell, fall under any specific policy or code of practice that I could easily find. I only spent a few minutes on this, so if someone finds something I'm definitely curious.

Of course, Parliamentarians are subject to having to get picked for their jobs again every four years, so as a control measure there is at least that.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Mar 2019)

In my less-jaded days, I would have expressed my hope that those who represent us would reasonably be expected to behave in a civil manner...and those in the highest offices, a ‘Stately’ manner...

G2G


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Mar 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> In my less-jaded days, I would have expressed my hope that those who represent us would reasonably be expected to behave in a civil manner...and those in the highest offices, a ‘Stately’ manner...
> 
> G2G



That's why The Duke would have been a great president, he would always act in a Stately Wayne Manner.  I know, I know, trolling, another warning, but so worth it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2019)

The Prime Minister has a massive problem with basic truth and what he thinks people's interpretation of it is.

Whether he flat out denies the truth or uses one of his non committal "she experienced it differently' type quotes, or doesn't fulfill his promises, it's still a lie.

He might as well just be quiet, he is not believable. I dont even believe him when he says 'good morning' before he delivers his next pile of pooh.

Useless and totally ignorable is his current status. Hes not leading. He's so far down the rabbit hole of damage control, hes consumed with it

Perhaps, if he'd known his stories would gain international investigative status, he wouldn't have been so forward. 

If they let this play out in the open, by an indepedent committee, no holds barred, I'd accept whatever way it went. 
However, if things go south on him and laws have been broken, I don't think we should settle for less than jail time.

His Laurentien Elite mentors have been strangely quiet. Are the elders going to let him wear this alone and try salvage things as outsiders after the blood is washed away?

"To be frank, politics is about wanting power, getting it, exercising it, and keeping it." ~ Jean Chretien

That's just me though. A bunch of random thoughts. I can't even get angry about their shenanigans any more. I'm getting numb to the atrocious state that our political system is in.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Mar 2019)

I don't worry about it at all. This is the way things have been for as long as I can remember, doesn't really matter who the PM is, what brand of political party and what the scandal or success is. The country just chugs along from one thing to another, apparent disaster always right around the corner and then blissfully nothing happens, or if something happens no one cares.  The main lesson is that the only people you can count on are yourself and your family.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I don't worry about it at all. This is the way things have been for as long as I can remember, doesn't really matter who the PM is, what brand of political party and what the scandal or success is. The country just chugs along from one thing to another, apparent disaster always right around the corner and then blissfully nothing happens, or if something happens no one cares.  The main lesson is that the only people you can count on are yourself and your family.



And that, I believe, is the great secret that politicians don't want the public to know, and that they don't tell themselves: they don't matter nearly as much as they wish they did and think they do. People go on about their lives even when the politicians screw up as badly as they are in Venezuela.


----------



## mariomike (12 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I don't worry about it at all.



My standard for them is ( I believe ) a pretty low bar. Tell the truth. Obey the law. Keep the peace. 

If they don't, there are elections every few years.



			
				Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> This is the way things have been for as long as I can remember, doesn't really matter who the PM is, what brand of political party and what the scandal or success is.



As far as party politics are concerned, I figure there's no Liberal or Conservative way to fix a sewer.


----------



## TimneyTime (22 Mar 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Those evil TFSAs. How dare the CPC encourage people to save on their own for their retirement instead of only contributing to the government approved CPP!



There's a cap on how much you can put into your TFSA.  It's $63,500 for this year, and it has been increasing.  You also have to be a Canadian Citizen for all the years you put into the TFSA.

The biggest advantage for TFSA is retail investors... meaning small time investors.  It helps them stay sheltered from the insane capital gains taxes in Canada.

This actually means that it's better for the little guy than the extremely rich, because the extremely rich aren't really going to benefit much from $63,500 in non taxable income.  Not that it isn't significant, and easier for them to fill out the maximums every year, but overall, as a percent of how much someone who makes $75k a year, and a percent of someone who makes $500,000 a year... that's where the real benefit is for retail investors, and the middle class.  I'd argue that it's better for the middle class guy trying to make money on the side, than it is for the extremely wealthy.


----------

